Following World War II, two global powers emerged: the Soviet Union and the United States. Possessing conflicting ideologies, the two dominated separate spheres of influence that engaged in proxy wars throughout the second half of the twentieth century in what was called the Cold War. However, the war suddenly ended when the Soviet Union unexpectedly collapsed. This event led many social theorists like Francis Fukuyama to question whether this was the end of government structural development. More specifically, the fall of the Soviet Union illustrated liberal democracy’s victory over other governmental forms and created a unipolar world. Consequently, this prompted questions of whether America was now the principal global power. Due to their
…show more content…
In particular, countries like those comprising BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have decided to take economic action outside of America and other Western nations’ influence. Recently, these countries made an agreement to fund a “$100 billion development bank and emergency reserve fund” (Watson, 2014, p. 1). Believing that both the World Bank and the IMF do not provide sufficient voting rights to developing nations, the nations of BRIC decided to bypass these organizations and create their own bank (p. 1). Such an action will most assuredly affect the economy of Western nations, including the United States, but the extent to which is under debate. According to some theorists, this action will devalue the US dollar, but others still claim that the United States will still have the final say with regards to the direction of capitalism (Panitch, 2014, p. 1). If the latter is true, then America’s status as hegemony will only be partly shaken. Supporting this claim is Leo Panitch’s assertion that the “continuing central role of the dollar” is not determined by IMF’s structure or “the greater size of its capitalisation relative to what the Brics bank will muster,” but rather the fact that other financial markets lack “the depth and range of the financial markets centred on Wall Street and its satellite in the City of London” (p. 2). As a result, America would remain the principal decision maker in capitalist economic
In particular, countries like those comprising BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have decided to take economic action outside of America and other Western nations’ influence. Recently, these countries made an agreement to fund a “$100 billion development bank and emergency reserve fund” (Watson, 2014, p. 1). Believing that both the World Bank and the IMF do not provide sufficient voting rights to developing nations, the nations of BRIC decided to bypass these organizations and create their own bank (p. 1). Such an action will most assuredly affect the economy of Western nations, including the United States, but the extent to which is under debate. According to some theorists, this action will devalue the US dollar, but others still claim that the United States will still have the final say with regards to the direction of capitalism (Panitch, 2014, p. 1). If the latter is true, then America’s status as hegemony will only be partly shaken. Supporting this claim is Leo Panitch’s assertion that the “continuing central role of the dollar” is not determined by IMF’s structure or “the greater size of its capitalisation relative to what the Brics bank will muster,” but rather the fact that other financial markets lack “the depth and range of the financial markets centred on Wall Street and its satellite in the City of London” (p. 2). As a result, America would remain the principal decision maker in capitalist economic