Power and the Varieties of Order - Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order - page 52

governance—to subordinate states in return for compliance. What distinguishes the various forms of hierarchy, from
colonialism to modern alliances, is the amount of sovereignty signed over to the leading state. Lake uses this insight
to explore patterns of American-led hierarchy in the security and economic realms, relying on measures such as the
presence of U.S. military bases, exchange-rate linkages, and trade dependence. Lake sees hierarchy primarily as vol-
untary transfer of sovereignty based on “contracts” between state. In contrast, this study seeks to differentiate types
of hierarchy—empire and liberal hegemony—in terms of the mix of coercion and consent that infuse superordinate
and subordinate relationships. See Lake, Hierarchy in International Relations (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
2009).
29 Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 42-43.
30 Gilpin, War and Change .
31 Gilpin, War and Change , 9.
32 A.F.K. Organski, World Politics , 2nd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1969), 354, 361.
33 Organski, World Politics , 364.
34 George Modelski, “The Long Cycle of Global Politics and the Nation-State,” Comparative Studies in Society
and History 20, no. 2 (April 1978), 214-35. See also George Modelski and William R. Thompson, Leading Sectors
and World Politics: The Coevolution of Global Economics and Politics (Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press, 1996).
35 For critiques and extensions of the theory on power transitions, see J. DiCicco and Jack Levy, “The Power
Transition Research Program: A Lakatosian Analysis,” in Colin Elman and Miriam F. Elman, eds., Progress in In-
ternational Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), 109-57; Jacek Kugler and
Douglas Lemke, eds., Parity and War: Evaluations and Extensions of the War Ledger (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1996); Woosang Kim and James Murrow, “When Do Power Shifts Lead to War?” American Journ-
al of Political Science 36, no. 4 (November 1992), 896-922; and Douglas Lemke and William Reed, “Regime Types
and Status Quo Evaluations: Power Transition Theory and The Democratic Peace,” International Interactions 22,
nos. 3-4 (1996), 143-64.
36 John Darwin describes this remarkable variety of relationships with the nineteenth British world system. “It
contained colonies of rule (including the huge 'sub-empire' of India), settlement colonies (mostly self-governing by
the late nineteenth century), protectorates, condominia (like the Sudan), mandates (after 1920), naval and military
fortresses (like Gibraltar and Malta), 'occupations' (like Egypt and Cyprus), treaty-ports and 'concessions' (Shang-
hai was the most famous), 'informal' colonies of commercial pre-eminence (like Argentina), 'spheres of interfer-
ence' (a useful term coined by Sellars and Yeatman) like Iran, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, and (not least) a
rebellious province at home. There was no agreed term for this far-flung conglomerate.” John Darwin, The Empire
Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World-System 1830-1970 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009),
1. 37 For studies of British and American hegemony, Robert Gilpin, “Economic Interdependence and National Se-
curity in Historical Perspective,” in Klaus Knorr and Frank N. Trager, eds., Economic Issues and National Security
(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1977); Robert Gilpin, U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation: The
Political Economy of Foreign Direct Investment (New York: Basic Books, 1975); Joseph Nye, Bound to Lead: The
Changing Nature of American Power (New York: Basic Books, 1991); Patrick Karl O'Brien and Armand Cleese,
eds., Two Hegemonies: Britain 1846-1914 and the United States 1941-2001 (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002); and
David Lake, “British and American Hegemony Compared: Lessons for the Current Era of Decline,” in Michael G.
Fry, ed., History, the White House, and the Kremlin: Statesmen as Historians (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1991).
38 For a historical survey of American interventions to overthrown hostile regimes, see Michael Kinzer, Over-
throw: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (New York: Times Books, 2007).
39 For general statements of liberal international theory, see Robert O. Keohane, “International Liberalism Recon-
sidered,” in John Dunn, ed., Economic Limits to Modern Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990),