Critiquing Prof Joseph Nye on the furute of American Power

CRITIQUING THE ARTICLE:  “THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN POWER: DOMINANCE AND DECLINE IN PERSPECTIVE”, BY PROFESSOR JOSEPH NYE (2010)

Tom Kaydor

9 March 2014

In his article “The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective”, Professor Joseph Nye (2010) argues that the United States (US) will not experience ‘absolute decline’ because its power is based on alliances and ‘ideological flexibility’. He further argues that ‘non-state actors’ will dominate the global stage and diffuse power as opposed to the perceived pre-eminence of China. Nye logically argues with clarity and coherence, but he is a bit dismissive of some key factors that pose plausible threat to America’s global dominance.

Regarding the merits of Nye’s argument, he admits the diminishing predominant share of US power resources, but argues that the rise of China or other powers over the US is unattainable. Additionally, he maintains that the US enjoys hard power dominance unlike economic power which is dispersed such that the role of non-state actors is increasingly taking center stage, hence the need for the US ‘to adopt a smart strategy that combines hard and soft power resources, and builds alliances to respond to the new realities’. Furthermore, Nye recounts advantages that immune the US from an ‘absolute decline’. For example, he cites the geographic position which forestalls easy invasion of US, and the country’s East Asia partnership, mainly with Japan and India, which counterbalances China’s dominance in the region. He also argues that the US sustains a high per capital income such that ‘China’s per capital, tripling that of the US, will not surpass the US’ by 2030’. Nye views America’s high technological advancement, the country’s unmatched spending on research and development, and higher education as drivers of US soft power. 

Despite the cogent analysis made by Nye, he is dismissive of some plausible factors posing serious challenge to US current global dominance. First, he acknowledges that US debt burden is ‘a long term risk that could be mitigated by good policies’, yet, he did not suggest any policy options. He ignores the implications of this risk on US hard power which should be sustained by economic growth. If the US debt burden continues to grow, military power could be constrained as the state may shift focus on economic growth thus undermining defense spending amongst others. Second, Nye acknowledges the impressive economic growth of China, but dismisses the eventual rise of that country over the US indicating that ‘the Chinese economy may exceed the size of that of the US in a few decades, but that is not the same as equality’. This assertion requires stronger justification compared to the reasons he provides. 

To improve the article, Nye could have considered US economic downturn and debt burden as one of the greatest threats to America’s hegemony.  He should have also suggested solutions to reverse the economic slowdown in the US.  Additionally, he could have provided empirical arguments against China’s rise rather than the issues of ‘governance, regional inequality and rural poverty’ that he cites as obstacles to China’s rise over the US.

To conclude, this reading is generally good for its logical argument, clarity and coherence. Despite Nye’s well-structured and logical argument, his dismissive attitude towards US economic meltdown and the probable rise of China over the US leave much to desire in a dynamic global environment of power contest.   History will show whether the United States will retain global dominance or China and or any other power will supplant the US.

Reference:

Nye, J 2010, “The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 2-12.