Paid the Cost to Be the Boss

One Plausible Explanation of American Behavior in International Relations

Irvin Oliver is the author of this post. The ideas presented are his own and do not imply any endorsement by the U.S. Army or the U.S. government.

“I paid the cost to be the boss.” – James Brown, “The Boss”

If you’re a fan of James Brown, you know The Boss is a track from his soundtrack for the movie, Black Caesar. While the classic song is part of a “full frontal funk assault,” it also gave us the phrase, ‘pay the cost to be the boss.’ Just like Tommy Gibbs had to pay the cost to be the boss in Harlem, the United States also has a price to pay to maintain its position in the international system. Sometimes that price can be expensive, but no less necessary. In international relations, the cost to maintain the status quo may not always be as clear as it is in cheesy movies. Reasoning behind U.S. actions may not always be clear, and this is where IR theory can be helpful to explain the why.

The discussion of whether the United States is a global hegemon continues, its actions clearly place it in a unique position relative to every other country. The Hegemonic Stability Theory may go a long way in explaining its actions on the international stage. Historical examples of the theory are debatable, but I think it generally holds up pretty well for the United States since 1944.

Questions over the recent climate change agreement between the United States and China has taken the perspective of relative gains, with China benefitting more than the United States since China has five additional years to achieve its pollution reduction targets. While this perspective isn’t wholly inaccurate, it misses the point: the United States bears the costs of international leadership to maintain stability of the international system in which it is the top country (if you believe we’re in a balance of power, unipolar system). The climate agreement with China is but the latest evidence of the United States bearing added cost to maintain stability of the international system.

Enter Hegemonic Stability Theory.

For a refresher, the theory is grounded in (economic) liberalism. It centers on the idea that a hegemon creates and maintains an open, liberal system and stabilizes it. The hegemon is the engine of the international economic system. It both bears the costs of maintaining the system while benefitting from it at the same time. The hegemon establishes the norms, rules, and procedures of the system, and it must enforce the rules.

Enforcing the rules requires both the capability and a recognized willingness to enforce rules or norms. The military power of the hegemon stand front and center. The hegemon must be the dominant military power for credibility. Right now, the United States is still fields the dominant military force in the world, and the military actions the United States has supported since 9/11 are the most obvious reminders of American willingness to employ military force in pursuit of its interests. This also applies to the exercise of economic power in pursuit of national interests, which the U.S.-led sanctions against Russia exemplify.

Speaking of leading, other states accept the hegemon’s leadership because that leadership centers on a liberal global perspective, not an imperial one. This is the situation of the United States. While far from perfect, the American exercise of its power and leadership have usually been in rational and non-imperial. U.S. actions since the Spanish-American War have borne this out. Even in cases where the United States embarked on war in the name of national interest, imperial rationale is dubious. Today, in most places where U.S. military forces are overseas, they’re there with the consent of the host country. A legal status of forces agreement delineates the scale and scope of U.S. forces when overseas.

I would also add that the hegemon also attracts other states because of its soft power, not just the economic and security benefits of a stable, liberal economic system. The United States has a long post-WW II record of attracting other countries through its culture and democratic norms, and its support for international institutions evens when those institutions work against the United States.

Free riders, countries that benefit from the system without paying into it, are a persistent drag. They may hasten the exhaustion that Hegemonic Stability Theory says leads to the downfall of the hegemon, but they are a complex problem no one has solved yet.

What Price Have We Paid? Is It Worth It?

The postwar record of the United States is one of bearing the lion’s share of costs to establish the Western liberal system and maintain the stability of that system. This includes the remaining vestiges of the Cold War, continuing to support regional security beyond the Western Hemisphere. The natural expectation is for leaders to shoulder more of the burden than all others. U.S. allies look for American leadership.

The indefinite delay of operational control of Combined U.S. and South Korean forces in Korea is a de facto admission of need for American leadership, which does incur security and economic costs for the United States. Part of the delay reflects the long-standing security obligation the United States has with South Korea, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are costs of leadership. Look at the Arab world. U.S. leadership was instrumental in removing Muammar el-Qaddafi from power in Libya, even if the situation in Libya has yet to stabilize. If nothing else, it shows the need for strategy and leadership beyond the use of military force. These are the costs that may eventually wear down the hegemon and exhaust its resources or willingness to expend them. There are two sides of this coin, however.

The United States benefits from the system it stabilizes too. Most of the Bretton Woods system has fallen away but those elements that remain benefit the United States. The fact that the U.S. Dollar is the world’s reserve currency reduces borrowing costs and allows the United States to do things that other countries simply can’t do. Global commodities are priced in U.S. dollars, which usually creates more benefits for American consumers. These are benefits both sides of the American political spectrum have treasured and made use of.

Less Partisan Than You Think

Both Democratic and Republican leaders have sought to maintain the existing liberal international system. Besides the climate agreement President Obama has agreed to, there have been numerous instances of American presidents of both parties taking steps to maintain stability and the preeminent role of the United States in the international system.

President George H.W. Bush rallied countries under U.S. leadership to counter Iraqi aggression against Kuwait before the costs were fully clear. In the end, the relative costs of the First Gulf War were low for the United States, but President Bush made the role of American leadership clear. He even went on to show American leadership in humanitarian relief when the outright benefit for the country was unclear.

President Bill Clinton expanded NATO and helped bring China into the World Trade Organization. President Clinton straddles the economic and security aspects of the theory with both of these actions. His actions are also in line with some other central aspects of liberalism: international cooperation through rules and norms, mutual security cooperation, and a focus on absolute gains.

President George W. Bush worked to prevent a deeper global economic crisis in late 2008 with a series of actions and nearly one trillion dollars to stabilize the financial markets following the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Those actions had the economic welfare of the United States at heart, but the interdependence of the global financial system was part of his calculus.

So when you look at the recent climate change agreement with China, the deployment of the U.S. military to West Africa and Europe, and the painfully slow (yet ongoing) progress towards the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it’s clear that the United States continues to show its willingness to maintain the current international system. Hegemonic Stability Theory isn’t a perfect fit to explain or predict what the United States does, but it’s clear that the United States remains willing to pay the costs to maintain its global position.