Power and the Varieties of Order - Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order - page 44

ministrative unit (the 'colony' or, in spatial terms, the 'periphery').” 49 In particular, imperial
states exercised rule, as Nexon and Wright note, “through local intermediaries over various
actors within the domestic sphere of constituent political communities.” 50 Weaker peoples
and societies on the periphery are dependent on and coercively tied to the imperial center.
In actual practice, imperial orders have varied widely in their institutional forms and in
their degree of hierarchical domination and control. Dominic Lieven suggests that there are
two general types of empire. One is the modern European maritime empire, which is defined
in terms of the relationship between the metropolitan center and colonial periphery. Cultural
and political domination, along with economic exploitation, are seen as inherent aspects of
empire. The other type encompasses the great military and absolutist land empires, which run
through world history from Alexander the Great to ancient Rome and China and on through
the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires to Russia and the Soviet Union. 51
The character of the interaction between the imperial state and the peripheral societies var-
ies across empires—ranging from direct to indirect rule. As Motyl notes: “Direct rule means
that representatives of the imperial center govern colonial peripheries. Indirect rule means
that native administrators under the control of the center govern the colonial peripheries.” 52
Direct—or formal—control involves rule over exclusively held colonies, annexed territories,
and other sorts of non-sovereign peripheral units. Indirect—or informal—control involves
looser arrangements of rule. These informal imperial systems can be organized around com-
mercial domination by the core but backed by local elites who profit and support these ex-
clusive ties. In other cases, informal imperial systems take the form of military protectorates,
where the imperial core provides security for a local elite in exchange for allegiance and sup-
port. What emerge in these alternative forms of imperial control are differences in the way
power is exercised and compliance is secured by the imperial state. In direct forms of rule,
force and authority are wielded by proconsuls and colonial administrators. In indirect forms
of rule, compliance is achieved through the assistance of peripheral elites and other interme-
diaries.
Empire, in these various forms, can be contrasted with liberal hegemony. Liberal hege-
mony, as the term is used here, refers to rule and regime-based order created by a leading
state. Like empire, it is a form of hierarchical order—but, in contrast, it is infused with liberal
characteristics. Weaker and secondary states are formally sovereign and the extent and mech-
anisms of domination will tend to be looser and less formal. Hegemonic order is established
and maintained by the preponderance of power by the leading state. When that power de-
clines or passes to another state, the order will eventually break apart or at least change to
reflect the interests of the newly powerful state. Hierarchical order is made stable through a
combination of benefits and sanctions that the leading state provides to weaker and secondary
states. But what is distinctive about hegemonic order is that it is a bargained order in which
the lead state provides services and frameworks of cooperation. In return, it invites participa-