Full Text of Xi Jinping keynote at the World Economic Forum
Institutionalization is an integral aspect of the Gramscian notion of hegemony because institutions (whether political-military, or socio-economic) provide the systemic legitimacy for dealing with conflicts either coercively or through peaceful means (Gramsci, 1971). The underlying structure of interstate relations intrinsically involves an enforcement potential under the control of the powerful nations. The consequence is two distinct forms of Great Power-weak state relations: coercive and consensual. In the latter sense, it is the condition whereby strong states exercise leadership over weak states by gaining their perennial consent. To a large extent the use of force is obviated to the point that the developing state submits to the prevailing power relations. Continuous submission is enhanced by the fact that the dominant states are willing to make concessions, implement policy adjustments, that from time to time help to alleviate the politico-economic burdens of the weak states. Institutions provide the legitimacy of power relations, articulate the hegemonic mission of the powerful, and appeal for the cooperation of the weak. For example, images of proper global economic relations have been institutionalized and universalized by institutions like the IMF, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Bank, among others. Similarly, institutional provision for dealing with intractable and extensive conflict situations is located within the jurisdiction of the United Nations Security Council, and more recently within regional security organizations like NATO and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Developments are underway to make regional organizations like the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the Organization of American States (OAS), and so on, more responsive to peacekeeping interventions. Thus hegemony which comprises of both coercive and consensual relations help to cement and legitimize, and internationalize the dominant moral and cultural values, and disseminate the worldview of the dominant states. The hegemonic functions of the Great Powers, with the "consent" of the weak states create functional unity in a system of diversity.
justice may change as social and economic conditions ..
The developing state shares but "unwillingly" in some developments that affect national political economies, often unwilling to reverse asymmetrical relationships with developed countries, or outrightly reject adverse policy impositions from supranational institutions. For example, the developing states of the international system attempted to reconstruct the international system in the mid 1970s New International Economic Order (NIEO) demands, but because of their weakness failed. In other words, fundamental transformation can only occur in international systems through a process by which normative change in states' relations is transmitted to the international stage by powerful states or some hegemon, be it a military, economic, political, or cultural hegemon. Because of powerful states and IFIs, for example, international systemic structures are not immutable, but rather the very structures are dependent for their modification or reproduction on the practices and changing institutions of these key actors. Fundamental change in the international system occurs when principal actors, through changes in their interests, power or practices, change the rules and norms that underlie international relations. In essence, changes in the practice of these hegemonic international actors depend on changes in the practices of their key domestic actors--individuals, power elite, and civil society in general (Gill, 1995; Ruggie, 1982). Thus profound developments in international relations can occur when beliefs and identities of key domestic entities in advanced industrial countries are altered thereby also altering the norms and rules that are constitutive of international relations, often quite independent of both domestic and international actors of weak states. For example, the end of the Cold War accelerated by changes (perestroika, glasnost) in the Soviet Union, changed the nature, scope, and intensity of violent conflict in many developing states, spawned new ones as well; and ushered in a period of democratization urged on the developing states by the powerful actors.
The near policy convergence among advanced industrial countries in this post-Cold War era, unifies socio-economic and political structures of this collective hegemony into a system of universal norms, institutions, and mechanisms which spell out general rules of national and international behavior for states and for those national actors whose activities transcend national boundaries. These are rules, which in short, further institutionalize dominant modes of sociopolitical and economic interactions.
However, the pervasive effects of core collective hegemony subvert the developing state's monopoly of legitimate and autonomous decision-making within its own territory. The rules that core states have developed, upheld, and institutionalized help to maintain and deepen the marginalization of the developing state. Because these norms and rules (both international law and less formal rules) are largely handed down to them, it means the developing states undergo a process of socialization involving both "coerced consent" and voluntary internalization. States that deliberately challenge these transnational interstate rules are viewed as a threat to world order and its juridical foundation and could be labeled pariahs, rogues, or outlaws and face politico-economic sanctions from other states and dominant non-state actors (Armstrong, 1993; Beckman, 1992).
World Justice Project - Wikipedia
There are three dimensions relevant to the analysis of socio political and economic developments at the global level that adversely affect the developing state's sovereignty. The first is the practical-conjunctural level viewed in terms of intentional human agency (Robinson, 1996; Wallerstein, 1970). At this level, it is important to draw the distinction between means (which are policies) and ends (which are interests), and to recognize the tactical nature of many disputes related to policymaking between the developing state and external actors over the most effective means of achieving ends. The second dimension is the underlying global structure in which states and groups engage with the broader world system. Analysis at this level is structural analysis. Structure shapes and conditions events and activities at the state level, often apart from intentionality. The third dimension refers to processes in international society which straddle both the practical-conjunctural and the underlying global structure. Through its interconnectedness with the two, it enables analysts to identify mechanisms that monitor functionalist teleology.
World Economic Forum | HuffPost
Economic justice, which touches the individual person as well as the social order, encompasses the moral principles which guide us in designing our economic institutions. These institutions determine how each person earns a living, enters into contracts, exchanges goods and services with others and otherwise produces an independent material foundation for his or her economic sustenance. The ultimate purpose of economic justice is to free each person to engage creatively in the unlimited work beyond economics, that of the mind and the spirit.