US is Not the World's Hub

US is Not the World''s Hub

by Joseph S. Nye
March 4, 2002
Reprinted from the Christian Science Monitor

CAMBRIDGE, MASS. - Some see globalism as a network with an American
hub and spokes reaching out to the rest of the world. There is some truth
in this picture, as the United States is central to four forms of
globalization: economic (the United States has the largest capital
market), military (it is the only country with global reach), social (it is the
heart of pop culture), and environmental (the United States is the biggest
polluter, and its political support is necessary for effective action on
environmental issues).

Yet, as I explain in my book "The Paradox of American Power: Why the
World''s Only Superpower Can''t Go It Alone," there are at least four
reasons why it would be a mistake to envisage contemporary networks of
globalism simply as the hub and spokes of an American empire that
creates dependency for smaller countries. First, the architecture of
networks of interdependence varies according to the different dimensions
of globalization. The hub-and-spokes metaphor fits military globalism most
closely, but even in the military area, most states are more concerned
about threats from neighbors than from the United States. For instance, a
US presence is welcome in most of East Asia as a balance to rising
Chinese power.

At the same time, in economic networks, a hub-and-spokes image is
inaccurate, as Europe and Japan provide significant alternative nodes for
trade. Environmental concerns - the future of endangered species in
Africa, for example - are also less centered on the United States. And
where the US is viewed as a major ecological threat, as in the production
of carbon dioxide, there is often resistance to US policies.

Second, the hub-and-spokes image may be misleading in that it fails to
account for two-way vulnerability. Even militarily, the ability of the United
States to strike any place in the world does not make it invulnerable, as
Americans learned at high cost on Sept. 11. And while the US has the
largest economy, it is sensitive to the spread of contagions in global
capital markets, as Americans discovered in the 1997 financial crises. In
the social dimension, the US may export more popular culture than any
other country, but it also imports ideas and immigrants from other
countries. The United States is environmentally sensitive to actions
abroad that it cannot control. Even if the US took costly measures to
reduce emissions of carbon dioxide at home, it would still be vulnerable to
climate change induced by coal-fired power plants in China.

A third problem with the simple hub-and-spokes dependency image is that
it fails to identify other important connections and nodes in global
networks. New York City is important in the flows of capital to emerging
markets but so are London, Frankfurt, and Tokyo. In social and political
globalization, Paris is more important to Gabon than Washington; Moscow
is still more important in Central Asia.

Finally, the hub-and-spokes model may fail to take into account changes
that are occurring in the architecture of global networks. Network
theorists argue that central players gain power most when there are
structural holes - gaps in communications - between other participants.
The growth of the Internet provides inexpensive alternative connections
that fill the gaps, making the hub less powerful. It is true, for now, that
Americans are central to the Internet. But projections suggest that by
2003, there will be 60 million more Internet users abroad than in the
United States - a gap that will grow as Internet access spreads. As
American dominance of the Internet declines, more capital, entrepreneurs,
and advertisers will be attracted to other markets.

The United States has been described as bestriding the world like a
colossus. Looking more closely, we see that US dominance varies across
realms and that many relationships of interdependence go both ways.
Large states such as the US have more freedom than do small states, but
they are rarely exempt from the effects of globalization. And states are
not alone. For better and worse, technology is putting capabilities
within the reach of individuals that in the past were solely in the hands of
government.

The United States promotes and benefits from globalization. But over the
longer term, we can expect globalization itself to spread technological and
economic capabilities and thus reduce the extent of US dominance.

Joseph S. Nye is dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University. This piece is adapted from an article appearing in the
March/April issue of Foreign Policy magazine.

Copyright 2002 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.