`Hegemonic' Leadership:

Abstract

In agreement with Lake (1993) a new research programme is required to revitalize the Theory of Hegemonic Stability. However, this article disagrees that Lake's differentiation between `leadership theory' and `hegemony theory' is useful. In refining this distinction, Lake not only exaggerates the positivist foundations of the original theory, but endorses the trend towards the development of a holistic, rationalistic methodology, which discourages the development of behavioural contributions to international political leadership. This article argues that Lake's proposed research programme perpetuates at least three fundamental confusions. (1) By accepting that international leadership refers to the provision of public goods, it obfuscates the essential nature of political leadership, which is essentially an organizational skill, with a function of management, or the governance of a system. This leads to (2) the perpetuation of the belief that leadership is costly, and hence that only a single hegemonic state, or a wealthy collectivity, is able to lead. Finally (3) to emphasize structurally determined policy preferences, particularly as this relates to a state's willingness to lead, overlooks the skills, perceptions and motivations of statesmen, and their efforts in leading groups, both domestically and internationally.