Power and the Varieties of Order - Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order - page 47

where necessary—by the imperial state. In a liberal hegemonic order, order is also estab-
lished and maintained through the exercise of power by the leading state, but power is used
to create a system of rule that weaker and secondary states agree to join. The power of the
hegemonic state is also felt in the “carrot and stick” that it wields in efforts to create and
maintain the order. Thus, in at least its ideal-typical form, the hegemonic order is based on
some measure of acquiescence or consent by secondary and peripheral states. Elites in these
states “buy into” the order in some fundamental normative way. 58 That is, participation in
the order is seen by these elites as something that is desirable, given the array of choices that
they confront. Indeed, elites in key subordinate states actively seek and participate in the cre-
ation of the liberal hegemonic order. To be sure, this may be constrained consent—and there
will surely be different degrees of consent or approval that may be manifest, ranging from
grudging acquiescence to outright normative embrace. 59
The distinction between empire and liberal hegemony is often most difficult to discern
at the specific point of contact between the leading state and the elite in the subordinate
polity. Both imperial and hegemonic orders are built around hierarchically ordered networks
of elites. 60 Informal empires rely on the compliant cooperation of local elites, whose compli-
ance is at least partially based on benefits that they receive from agreeing to operate as they
do within the imperial order. Likewise, in a liberal hegemonic system, the elites in second-
ary states are crucial sources of support for the overall order. The hegemonic system operates
through the willing participation of these elites who agree to do so in part because of the be-
nefits that accrue to their states through the hegemonic provisioning of public goods but also
because of the specific benefits that flow directly to them—the elites and the wider polity—as
clients of the hegemonic state. Liberal hegemonic order is built on rules and institutions but
also on bargains that are struck bilaterally between superordinate and subordinate states. The
ways in which these bargains and the wider array of rules and institutions are constructed
shape the degree to which hierarchical orders are ultimately imperial or liberal in character.
Conclusion
International order is built on a multilayered foundation. The distribution of power provides
the setting for order building. It determines which states will dominate and which will not.
An international system in which power is decentralized among many states offers different
challenges for order building than one in which power is concentrated in the hands of one or
two states. The problem of order is different in a multipolar system than it is in a unipolar one.
At the same time, the polarity of a system refers only to the distribution of material assets
among actors. It is not a depiction of the political order that is organized on top of these dis-