IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esprep/343606.html

Hegemonic Competition, Alliance Networks, and Strategic Autonomy: Strategy in an Emerging Multipolar Geopolitical Order

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Yong Jin

Abstract

The international system is moving away from the relatively coherent post-Cold War order toward layered and contested multipolarity. Military power is diffusing; economic interdependence is increasingly securitized; alliance commitments are exposed to domestic bargaining; and states are embedded in overlapping security, technology, financial, and industrial networks. This paper develops a general framework for alliance choice and strategic autonomy under these conditions. A stylized model with linear preferences and linear technologies treats the United States and China as competing network centers: the sponsor chooses whether and how strongly to support its network, while smaller states compare alternative networks according to security, geography, productivity and supply-chain effects, transfers, political-assimilation costs, and indigenous capability. The model distinguishes decentralized allied defense from a network-planner benchmark and derives an alliance transfer multiplier theorem for alliance transfers. Under a frictionless one-for-one reallocation from direct U.S. military spending to an ally transfer, if the induced present-value increase in allied military effort exceeds one per unit transferred, the alliance multiplier raises U.S.-alliance military capability and, through the modeled hegemonic-power channel, U.S. welfare; allied welfare also rises under the maintained assumptions when the multiplier exceeds one. Although the local theorem holds membership fixed, entry can amplify the effect through network size, productivity, and further induced military effort. Conversely, transfer cuts near participation thresholds can trigger nonlinear alliance weakening. The formal logic is linked to a four-index comparative diagnostic applied across fourteen states. Strategic autonomy is defined not as equidistant neutrality but as the capacity to preserve meaningful choice under pressure. South Korea is retained as a brief hard-case illustration in Appendix A.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Yong Jin, 2026. "Hegemonic Competition, Alliance Networks, and Strategic Autonomy: Strategy in an Emerging Multipolar Geopolitical Order," EconStor Preprints 343606, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:343606
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/343606/1/YongKim_Hegemony.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morrow, James D., 1993. "Arms versus allies: trade-offs in the search for security," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(2), pages 207-233, April.
    2. Keith Hartley & Todd Sandler, 2001. "Economics of Alliances: The Lessons for Collective Action," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(3), pages 869-896, September.
    3. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    4. Bergstrom, Theodore C, 1989. "A Fresh Look at the Rotten Kid Theorem--and Other Household Mysteries," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1138-1159, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yukari Iwanami, 2024. "Asymmetric burden-sharing and the restraining and deterrence effects of alliances," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(5), pages 711-725, September.
    2. Johannes Urpelainen, 2011. "Domestic reform as a rationale for gradualism in international cooperation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(3), pages 400-427, July.
    3. Xuemeng Zhao & Weilun Huang, 2024. "Global Geopolitical Changes and New/Renewable Energy Game," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-27, August.
    4. Griffith, G. & Fleming, E. & Mounter, S. & Hartmann, M. & Simons, J., 2018. "Food Value Chain Coordination in Practice: European and Australian case studies of the creation of chain good innovations," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277339, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Schmück, Kilian & Schückes, Magnus & Gutmann, Tobias & Gassmann, Oliver, 2025. "Less trust, more truth: Implications and design choices for business models and platform ecosystems in the age of Web3," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    6. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    7. Marta Gancarczyk, 2010. "Model schyłku i odrodzenia klastrów," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 3, pages 1-21.
    8. María Fernanda Viecens, 2009. "Compatibility with Firm Dominance," Working Papers 2009-12, FEDEA.
    9. Shaheer, Noman Ahmed & Li, Sali, 2020. "The CAGE around cyberspace? How digital innovations internationalize in a virtual world," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1).
    10. Estelle Malavolti, 2016. "Single Till or Dual Till at airports: a Two-Sided Market Analysis," Post-Print hal-01406372, HAL.
    11. Beomjin Choi & T. S. Raghu & Ajay Vinzé & Kevin J. Dooley, 2019. "Effectiveness of standards consortia: Social network perspectives," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 405-416, April.
    12. Zemsky, Peter & Adner, Ron, 2003. "Disruptive Technologies and the Emergence of Competition," CEPR Discussion Papers 3994, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    13. Ku Liang & Yujie Hu, 2025. "Digital Economy Development, Environmental Regulation, and Green Technology Innovation in Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-31, September.
    14. repec:ere:journl:v:xxviii:y:2009:i:2:p:1-28 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Hirofumi Shimizu & Todd Sandler, 2010. "Recent peacekeeping burden sharing," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(15), pages 1479-1484.
    16. V. I. Blanutsa, 2022. "Geographic Research of the Platform Economy: Existing and Potential Approaches," Regional Research of Russia, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 133-142, June.
    17. Jin, Laiqun & Dai, Jiaying & Jiang, Weijie & Cao, Kairui, 2023. "Digital finance and misallocation of resources among firms: Evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    18. Feng Dong & Fan Wu, 2026. "Building a Sovereign Benchmark The Limits of Private Coordination," Papers 2610.19516, arXiv.org.
    19. Andreas Löschel & Dirk Rübbelke, 2014. "On the Voluntary Provision of International Public Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(322), pages 195-204, April.
    20. Debi Prasad Mohapatra & Vatsala Shreeti, 2026. "Imitation and the diffusion of innovation," BIS Working Papers 1344, Bank for International Settlements.
    21. Fixson, Sebastian K. & Park, Jin-Kyu, 2007. "The Power of Integrality: Linkages between Product Architecture, Innovation, and Industry Structure," Working papers 37154, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • F50 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - General
    • F52 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - National Security; Economic Nationalism
    • F53 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
    • H56 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - National Security and War

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:343606. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.