Hasenclever et al. (1997: 193) points out that, in contrast to conventional approaches to international regimes which are concerned with “the sources of stability of international institutions,” the neo-Gramscian school of thought has particularly been
interested in “the possibilities of historic change in international relations involving an unravelling of existing regimes.” Despite this fact, regimes have not been the major focus of neo-Gramscian scholars. However, as Gale (1998) argues, a neo-Gramscian approach is applicable to international regimes as this school of thought appreciates the intersubjective quality of international regimes. In neo-Gramscian approaches, international regimes or institutions are taken as intersubjective entities similar to the constructivist treatment; yet, their embeddedness in the material and ideational world is particularly highlighted.
Neo-Gramscian scholars have challenged the rationalist mainstream in IPE to produce an alternative reading of world politics premised upon an intersubjective ontology and historicist epistemology. Robert Cox distinguishes the neo-Gramscian school of thought as “critical theory” in contrast to the conventional (rationalist) “problem-solving” theories (Cox 1981: 87-90). Critical theory, unlike the latter, does not take institutions and social power-relations for granted, but puts them into question by concerning itself with their origins and how and whether they might be changing (Cox 1981: 89). Historical change is understood as a reciprocal relationship between social forces and historical structures. Historical structures refer to broader historical patterns (longue durée of Fernan Braudel) within which certain regularities (gestes répétées) can be observed (Cox 1992: 149). Similar to international regimes, historical
structures are “socially constructed, i.e. they become part of the objective world by virtue of their existence in the intersubjectivity of relevant groups of people” (Cox 1992: 149). They create a “framework of action” as reflective of a particular combination of social forces (Cox 1981: 97). Neo-Gramscian research program, according to Cox, aims “to reveal the historical structures and characteristics of particular eras within which such regularities prevail. Even more importantly, this research program explains transformations from one structure to another” (Cox 1985:
53). International institutions and regimes are regarded as amalgams of inherent constellations of power (material capabilities) and consistent ideas of a particular order (Cox 1981: 99). The emergence and changes of international regimes primarily depend on the shifts in the material basis and ideational texture of historical structures and world orders. Accordingly, the rise, fall and changes of international institutions reflect the changes in the world order which are indicative of the changes in dominant material and ideational configurations. For an analysis of the world order, international regimes and historical change, neo-Gramscian scholars have introduced a particular notion of hegemony.
In contrast to the conventional use for the term, hegemony in its Gramscian use refers to the consensual reflection of supremacy in the exercise of power by ruling actors.
The neo-Gramscian application of the concept to global politics signifies a form of
order based on consent penetrated into economic, social and political domains. The Gramscian concept of hegemony helps discern certain “breaking points” between hegemonic orders (Cox 1985: 55). A hegemonic world order is distinguished from a non-hegemonic one if the consensual aspect of domination is to the fore and if there is coherence between existing power configuration (material capabilities), ideas, and institutions (Cox 1981: 99; 104). Hegemonic orders entail distinctive ideological frameworks promoted by state and non-state hegemonic actors as well as international regimes that create an ethical context for authority relations at different levels. This framework penetrates international regimes and defines their intersubjective meaning or normative context. In this context, embedded liberalism as the social purpose of the post-war economic regimes was in fact an expression of the ideological framework promoted by the U.S. hegemony. As further discussed in Chapter 3, this ideological framework recognized the legitimate role of the states to regulate the markets for the purpose of social protection and employment. On the other hand, the neoliberal order that emerged from the late 1970s on created a new ideological framework that imposed market norms and strict disciplines over the states and acknowledged expanded legitimate authority of markets and market agents vis-à-vis states. This ideological shift was reflected not only in the policies of capitalist states, but also in the intersubjective frameworks of international regimes. In this vein, a neo-Gramscian inquiry of international regimes requires an analysis of
“how governments create frameworks of intersubjective meaning” within the context of hegemonic formation (Gale 1998: 260).
Secondly, the conceptualisation of a world order as hegemonic or non-hegemonic in connection with the existence of coherence between ideas, institutions, and material capabilities is somehow incomplete. Cox acknowledges “[w]hat is missing is some theory as to how and why the fit comes about and comes apart” (Cox 1981: 105). At this point, the theory is consolidated by integrating social forces into analysis. Social forces derive from changes in economic production and they struggle for hegemony through promoting their ideas on social organization and ideological formation of the states and institutions. They engage in a long-run struggle within the civil society which Gramsci calls a “war of position.” This implicates the use of coercive tools of the states to gain the consent of subordinate actors, but more importantly it entails strategies to convince those actors. These strategies include alliance building through production and dissemination of certain policy formulas that are responsive to the needs and interests of societal actors. Producing hegemony may require the social forces to sacrifice certain short term interests. Thus, a hegemonic relationship is built through an intersubjective education process in which hegemonic groups engage in obtaining the consent of different layers of civil society on comprehensive formulas they promote. Different social forces may struggle for hegemony by developing
counter-hegemonic policy formulas. In this regard, hegemonic production is a dynamic process and is never complete. Social forces build alliances to produce hegemony with other social actors in the society. This is called an “historic bloc”: an organic and ethical coalition around the ideological framework proposed. As suggested in the following chapter embedded liberalism was a perspective produced by the historic bloc that underpinned the American hegemonic order. On the other hand, neoliberal hegemony has been promoted by a transnational historic bloc constructed by TNCs which proved to be the hegemonic social forces derived from the globalisation of production as of the 1970s.
Neoliberal hegemony was characterised by a reconfiguration of global political power inclusive of core capitalist states beyond the United States as well as the enhanced structural power of TNCs that has underpinned this reconfiguration. In fact, the neoliberal ideological framework promoted by TNCs was a reflection of this amplified structural power which has a normative dimension insofar as it purports stronger disciplines on the states. Stephen Gill’s concept of “disciplinary neoliberalism”
captures this normative dimension which justifies the agenda-setting activities of TNCs towards locking in the privatisation of public authority and market disciplines on states through new constitutionalism, i.e. constitutional and institutional measures and quasi-constitutional regional and multilateral arrangements (Gill 2000a; 2008). In
other words, neoliberal hegemony not only facilitates and justifies the enhanced authority of market forces and TNCs’ agenda-setting activities towards limiting and shaping the role of the states in economy, but also projects a long term political-juridical program towards guaranteeing enhanced rights accorded to the TNCs (Gill 2000a: 11-12; Gill 2008: 138-42). In this regard, the changes recorded in international regimes from the late 1970s on should reflect this new authority configuration in their social purpose and normative content since they are expressions of the internationalisation of political authority in a constructivist sense. Finally, it should be noted that since the early 1990s neoliberal hegemony was contested by a growing number of actors which got mobilized within and across state borders. Even though these actors did not produce an alternative ideological framework, they have challenged the legitimate authority of neoliberal institutions, ideas and TNCs.
From a neo-Gramscian perspective, TNCs’ roles on the changes in intergovernmental regimes can be understood within the context of hegemonic formation. To this aim, one needs to explore their activities towards shaping the agendas of the governments interacting within the intersubjective context of the regimes. TNCs are able to produce policy formulas and promote them to the states not only through upward lobbying but also by waging wars of position through building coalitions within and across borders with business, government and civil society actors. The penetration of their
policy formulations into the intersubjective frameworks of the regimes can be tracked by looking into the elements constituting those formulations and changes in the intersubjective and normative frameworks of the regimes.