Showing papers on "Global Leadership published in 1996"
TL;DR: The United States and the Soviet Union were overwhelming (if not completely undisputed) leaders of large alliances of states, and both had the military power, material resources and expansive ideology to effectively assert their leadership within far-flung regions of the world.
Abstract: As the century comes to a close, there is reason to worry about the disappearance of American leadership. For most of the postwar era, leadership in world politics was not in short supply. The United States and the Soviet Union were overwhelming (if not completely undisputed) leaders of large alliances of states. Both had the military power, material resources, and expansive ideology to effectively assert their leadership within far-flung regions of the world. Although Soviet hegemony was brutal and coercive, American leadership was largely welcomed in Western Europe and in parts of Asia. For many observers, the political solidarity and economic prosperity in the postwar Western world would not have been as great without American leadership. The United States took the lead in opening markets, protecting allies, and promoting the stability of the noncommunist world. Because of this great accomplishment, many people worry about the waning of American global leadership and the seeming unwillingness or inability of other states to step into the role. But is American leadership really on the wane? If it is, can other states help provide leadership in various areas of world politics? And if today's major states are not able to provide the "heroic" leadership of earlier eras, are the consequences as troubling as many people believe? This article argues that American leadership, properly understood, is not as scarce as many people believe. To be sure, its overall material capabilities and power position have declined significantly since the early postwar years. But the political institutions and structures of relations that were built under American sponsorship after World War II still provide channels and routines of cooperation. America will not (and probably cannot) play the leadership role it did a generation ago, but that leadership has been reinvented in the form of a dense set of intergovernmental and transnational linkages among the major industrial countries and regions of the world. Conflicts
69 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that a better understanding of interrelationships among the economic long wave, the global leadership cycle, and armed conflict can be gained if we expand the study of interstate conflict beyond the limited domain of great power or systemic wars and treat the long wave and the leadership cycle as quasi-independent and interrelated processes, each contributing to the conflict dynamics of the interstate system.
Abstract: Several recent explanations for major-power war focus on purported cycles in global economic activity or in global political order. I shall argue that a better understanding of interrelationships among the economic long wave, the global leadership cycle, and armed conflict can be gained if we (1) expand the study of interstate conflict beyond the limited domain of great power or systemic wars and (2) treat the long wave and the leadership cycle as quasi-independent and interrelated processes, each contributing to the conflict dynamics of the interstate system. Theoretical foundations for these two recommendations are drawn from the core works in this field. A model based on this new approach is developed and tested empirically along with four formal representations of the core frameworks. Poisson regression is employed using data on interstate disputes (1816–1976) to test resulting hypotheses. Analysis shows that broadening the explanatory domains of existing frameworks is valid and that the “coevolving systems” model is measurably superior to all tested competitors. I conclude that these two global processes are best viewed as coevolving systems and that future studies of systemic conflict should take this approach.
68 citations
TL;DR: The evolutionary paradigm for global politics as discussed by the authors consists of four key propositions: the global political system is a population of policies or strategies; global politics constitutes a complex system that evolves in specifiable conditions; accounting for global political evolution is a four-phased learning process whose key operators are variation (innovation), cooperation, selection, and reinforcement; and global politics coevolves with global economics, community, and opinion.
Abstract: The evolutionary paradigm for global politics here presented consists of four key propositions: (1) The global political system is a population of policies or strategies; (2) global politics constitutes a complex system that evolves in specifiable conditions; (3) accounting for global political evolution is a four-phased learning process whose key operators are variation (innovation), cooperation, selection, and reinforcement; and (4) global politics coevolves with global economics, community, and opinion et cetera. The evolutionary paradigm sheds light on two processes in particular: the formation of institutions at the global level, and the rise and decline of world powers (the long cycle). Two propositions are central to this article: 1. The institutions of world politics evolve, that is, they undergo change subject to identifiable evolutionary processes; and 2. The rise and decline of world powers (the long cycle) is a mechanism of global political evolution. By institutions of world politics we mean constitutive and widely accepted arrangements in respect to war and peace, nation-states, alliances, and international organization, and to global leadership and international law. If we consider these arrangements in a sufficiently long perspective, say, over the span of the past millennium, we cannot but help noticing significant changes that have occurred in relation to these, that continue to affect them, and that therefore need to be understood and explained. We need a structural-historical theory of world politics. The rise and decline of world powers, which has been the lead story over the past few centuries of world politics, also needs to be understood in a wider framework. It is not the case of some eternal struggle for power but rather that of a mechanism that in the recent past has mediated major changes in world political and social organization. We need to see the long cycle not in isolation but as a feature of world institutional growth. That is why, to better understand world politics in its time dimension in particular, we require an evolutionary framework. What might be the salient features of such a paradigm?
67 citations
36 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared different competencies of business leaders who merely travel abroad with those who settle there as expatriates for a time, and concluded that executive training and promotion reward those who are futuristic with both multicultural and technological skills.
Abstract: Examines characteristics of successful organizations in the year 2000, and contributions of European leaders to the process. Compares different competencies of business leaders who merely travel abroad with those who settle there as expatriates for a time. Considers the environmental forces and other factors which require organizations to be globally transformed if they are to survive and prosper in the next century. The change demands alteration of mindsets on people in multicultural societies, on the nature of work, the worker, and the management process itself. Emphasizes the importance of international and intercultural education in leadership development. Confirms that executive training and promotion reward those who are futuristic with both multicultural and technological skills. Proposes ten key concepts of global leadership, communication, culture, and synergy.
17 citations
TL;DR: This article argued that knowledge-based communities arc started and based in the global leader and arc nurtured by the relatively open social and political structures of that leader, and further argued that such communities are linked to the exercise of global leadership in the long cycle model's phases of agenda setting and coalition building.
Abstract: This paper seeks to offer a new perspective on the linkage between global leadership and the role of epistemic communities in international relations. The issue of bilateral trade liberalization between Great Britain and its trading partners rose to prominence on the global agenda in the 1700s by the efforts of British political economists and merchants. These efforts were prompted by changes in economic relations brought about by the Industrial Revolution and its impact on the mercantile system. While this group was small in number and its interactions rudimentary by 20th Century standards, it nonetheless met the qualifications specified by many scholars. It is further argued that such communities are linked to the exercise of global leadership in the long cycle model's phases of agenda setting and coalition building. They arc started and based in the global leader, and arc nurtured by the relatively open social and political structures of that leader. Evidence supporting this argument strengthens the long cycle model's explanatorypower with regard to agenda setting, coalition creation, and the role of innovative solutions to global problems, and makes preeminence in knowledge -based communities another dimension of global leadership.
7 citations
6 citations
01 Jan 1996
TL;DR: Thomas et al. as mentioned in this paper analyze the combination of country, industry and firm-specific advantages in some industries, and how this mix of advantage changes over time, either as a result of exogenous changes in the industry or as a consequence of strategic decisions taken by some industry players.
Abstract: The speed of change in global industries has accelerated in the past twenty years. New players and new technologies have superseded long-time industry leaders. In this paper we try to explain the process why which some firms emerge as global leaders and what sort of competitive advantage they develop and sustain. We discuss under which conditions country-specific factors are more relevant than core competences explaining some companies’ international success. In particular, we try to analyze the combination of country, industry and firm-specific advantages in some industries, and how this mix of advantage changes over time, either as a result of exogenous changes in the industry –e.g. deregulation– or as a result of strategic decisions taken by some industry players. (*) This paper is included as a chapter in the book edited by Howard Thomas et alia: Strategy Renaissance and Business Transformation, John Wiley and Sons, 1995. COUNTRY, INDUSTRY AND FIRM-SPECIFIC FACTORS IN GLOBAL COMPETITION
6 citations
01 Jan 1996
TL;DR: In this paper, a brief critical overview of leadership theory and curriculum and suggests alternatives to meet the challenges of a changing global society is presented, and a theoretical discussion on democratic leadership theories on a global scale in gifted education is initiated.
Abstract: article presents a brief critical overview of leadership theory and curriculum and suggests alternatives to meet the challenges of a changing global society. Its main purposes are twofold: 1) to provide a rationale for, and propose the inclusion of paradigms and perspectives that have been absent from traditional leadership theories and programs; and 2) to initiate a theoretical discussion on democratic leadership theories on a global scale in gifted education. The author does not intend to present the ideas set forth in this article as the final version of a global leadership theory, but as a working model that is more inclusive than the models presently in use in the field.
2 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a brief critical overview of leadership theory and curriculum and suggests alternatives to meet the challenges of a changing global society is presented. But they do not present the ideas set forth in this article as the final version of a global leadership theory, but as a working model that is more inclusive than the models presently in use in the field.
Abstract: This article presents a brief critical overview of leadership theory and curriculum and suggests alternatives to meet the challenges of a changing global society. Its main purposes are twofold: 1) to provide a rationale for, and propose the inclusion of paradigms and perspectives that have been absent from traditional leadership theories and programs; and 2) to initiate a theoretical discussion on democratic leadership theories on a global scale in gifted education. The author does not intend to present the ideas set forth in this article as the final version of a global leadership theory, but as a working model that is more inclusive than the models presently in use in the field.
2 citations
TL;DR: The authors presents an updated inquiry into the relative strengths and weaknesses of the three contenders for the marathon of the world leadership, Europe, the USA and Japan, and argues that although the USA is currently leading the race, she will not win the gold medal, which will most probably go to Japan.
Abstract: Presents an updated inquiry into the relative strengths and weaknesses of the three contenders for the marathon of the world leadership, Europe, the USA and Japan. Argues that although the USA is currently leading the race, she will not win the gold medal, which will most probably go to Japan.