Historically world order leadership has balanced between a Gramscian hegemonic (and legitimate) leadership based upon soft power (power of attraction) and a dominant and coercive leadership using structural or military hard power. As the discourse of the world order leadership constantly becomes challenged by counterhegemonic discourses, history shows a clear tendency that hegemonic and legitimate leadership overtime finds itself forced to use more and more coercive power in order to defend its own national security intrests in the constantly ongoing war of position.
it is important to note that in the system of global governance, the institutions that are tasked with liberalizing the global economy and increasing the role of the market are more influential that those seeking to protect society from economic failures. On the market liberalization side, the IMF and World Bank are able to use the provision of finance for influence and the WTO has its important dispute settlement mechanism.
är det skrämmande att jag också läst om det där?