every participant to buy into the changes and to make the conference in Jamaica a success. As
noted above, a combination of several factors contributed to its success.
Structural Change in the International System
The first circumstance that makes regime change more likely is a change in the power
structure of the international system. In this case, there was a distinct change in the relative
monetary positions of the key members of the IMF from the end of World War II to 1970. The
U.S. continued to have unparalleled military dominance through the 1970s, but it did see a
decline in its relative economic position, due in part to the relative economic rise of Japan and
Therefore, while the U.S. continued to have the largest economy in the
world and the largest share of voting rights in the IMF, U.S. leaders had lost the political will and
economic strength to bankroll the entire Bretton woods system and, therefore, ceased to function
as an economic hegemon.
Robert Keohane lists four criteria necessary for a state to be an economic hegemon. The
state must have access to crucial raw materials, control major sources of capital, maintain a large
market for imports, and have a competitive advantage in high value added goods.
simply having these attributes is not sufficient for a state to be classified as an economic
hegemon. The state not only must be powerful enough to maintain the basic rules of the regime,
but it also must be willing to do so.
Hegemony is not merely a state of dominance; it is defined
by leadership. In the realm of international monetary policy, the rules being upheld were the
conventions of the IMF. President Nixon abdicated the United States’ leadership role when he
refused to continue the gold exchange standard. According to hegemonic stability theory (HST),
when the hegemon’s leadership falters, we would expect to see a corresponding change in the
regime that would give the challengers to the hegemon more say in the new system.
7
Convention