Q3(c) · UPSC Civil Services Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks · 2 min read

← Q3 Q4 →

Critically examine the decline of the United States of America as a hegemon and its implications for the changing international political order

Topic: Changing International Political Order. Syllabus: Changing International Political Order: Rise of super powers; strategic and ideological Bipolarity, arms race and Cold War; Nuclear threat; Non-aligned movement; Collapse of the Soviet Union; Unipolarity and American hegemony; relevance of non-alignment in the contemporary world. Same official PYQ from year-wise 2021 and Changing International Political Order.

Revision summary

Hegemony meant public goods, the dollar, and allied consent, as Kindleberger and Ikenberry framed it. Wars, 2008, and China’s rise mark relative decline. Keohane asked whether regimes can outlast hegemony. Implications are dual-order rivalry, thinner public goods, and hedging by middle powers. The United States remains first in several capabilities; decline is not disappearance.

Model answer

Introduction

American hegemony after 1945 combined military reach, the dollar, alliances, and a claim to liberal order. Decline is relative: others rose, wars drained prestige, and consent thinned. Implications are a messier hierarchy, not a neat Chinese succession.

Body

What hegemony was

  • Charles Kindleberger treated a hegemon as the provider of public goods: open markets, liquidity, and last-resort stability.
  • John Ikenberry described a liberal hegemonic order that bound the United States by rules its allies accepted.
  • Robert Keohane’s After Hegemony already asked whether regimes could outlive the peak of US preponderance.

Signs of decline

  • Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan damaged the military-political aura.
  • 2008 exposed financial fragility. China’s manufacturing and Belt and Road offered another centre.
  • Allies hedged. The unipolar moment of the 1990s did not freeze.
  • Domestic polarisation reduced the reliability of US commitments.

Implications

  • Waltzian polarity moves toward bipolar US–China competition inside a still crowded rest.
  • Institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO) face gridlock and rival banks and trade clubs.
  • Middle powers, including India, gain bargaining room and also face pressure to choose.
  • Public goods — sea lanes, climate, pandemic response — risk under-provision if Kindleberger’s logic holds.
  • Nuclear and alliance umbrellas become more questioned, which can spur proliferation or minilateral insurance such as the Quad.

Limits of the decline thesis

  • The United States still leads in many military and innovation indexes. Decline is not collapse.

Flow diagram

flowchart TD
  H[US hegemony] --> D[Relative decline]
  D --> CH[China rise]
  D --> I[Institutional gridlock]
  D --> MP[Middle-power bargains]
  CH --> O[Messier order]
  I --> O
  MP --> O

Conclusion

American hegemony has receded from its post-1945 and post-1991 peaks. Implications are contested order, US–China rivalry, and more room and risk for States such as India. Keohane’s question remains: can rules survive a weaker hegemon, or does Waltzian balancing take over?

Quick related

Students also ask

PYQ trend

When UPSC asked this

Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.

  1. 2023 · Q3(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks

    "During the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement tried to become a Third force in World Politics, but failed because it was too large and unwieldy." Discuss

    View answer →

  2. 2023 · Q3(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks

    Account for the rise of European Union as a highly influential regional organisation

    View answer →

  3. 2023 · Q4(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks

    Discuss the various constraints on American hegemony today. Which of these are likely to become more prominent in the future?

    View answer →

  4. 2023 · Q6(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks

    Arms trade, economic ties and congruent geo-political interests are no longer the three pillars of India - Russia relationship in the emerging strategic context. Comment

    View answer →

  5. 2022 · Q3(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks

    Critically examine the rise of People's Republic of China (PRC) as a great power and its implications on Asian Political order

    View answer →

  6. 2022 · Q5(d) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

    Explain the significance of Basic Exchange and Co-operation Agreement (BECA) for Indo-US strategic relations.

    View answer →

  7. 2021 · Q4(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks

    Explain India's relations with the European Union in the context of Brexit

    View answer →

  8. 2021 · Q7(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks

    Examine the evolution of India's role in the global nuclear order

    View answer →

More from this paper

Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

Discuss the political economy approach to the comparative analysis of politics.

Comparative Politics

Political economy joins the study of power with the study of wealth. Marx and Wallerstein locate States in production and in a hierarchical world-economy. Almond’s functions describe roles; they do not explain ownership and dependence. Alavi’s overdeveloped State is a comparative PE thesis about post-colonial bureaucracy. The method compares markets, classes, and external ties, not only constitutions.

Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

"Political parties and pressure groups are sine qua non of democracy." Comment.

Politics of Representation and Participation

Schumpeterian democracy is a party contest for the vote. Almond split aggregation to parties and articulation to groups. Dahl’s polyarchy needs organised opposition, which parties supply. Groups carry specialised claims between elections. Mere organisation is not democracy; pluralism and contest are.

Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks

"Marxist approach to the study of international relations has lost its relevance in the post-cold war era." Comment.

Approaches to the Study of International Relations

The USSR’s fall discredited State socialism, not every Marxist question. Waltzian polarity does not explain core–periphery production. Wallerstein and Cox remain usable after 1991. WTO, finance, and a capitalist China keep class and hierarchy on the agenda. Relevance is critique of order, not a second Soviet Union.

Toppers' copies

Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.