Naná de Graaff

Corporate elite networks and US post-Cold War grand strategy from Clinton to Obama

This article seeks to explain both the continuity and the changes in US grand strategy since the end of the Cold War by adopting a critical political economy approach that focuses on the social origins of grand strategy-making. Systematically seeking to link agency and structure, we analyse how grand strategy-makers operate within given social contexts, which we define in terms of, on the one hand, elite networks within which these actors are embedded, and, on the other hand, the international structural context in which the US is positioned. After reviewing the grand strategies as pursued by the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, and relating them to the structural context in which they evolved, we proceed by offering a Social Network Analysis in which we compare the networks of key officials of the three administrations in terms of: (1) their corporate affiliations, and (2) their affiliations to so-called policy-planning institutions. On this basis we argue that the continuities of post-Cold War US grand strategy � which we interpret as reproducing America�s long-standing �Open Door� imperialism � can be explained in terms of the continuing dominance of the most transnationally oriented sections of US capital. Second, we show that, this continuity notwithstanding, there is significant variation in terms of the means by which this grand strategy is reproduced, and argue that we must explain these variations not only in terms of the continuously changing global context, but also as related to some significant differences in affiliation with the policy-planning network.

Varieties of US Post-Cold War Imperialism: Anatomy of a Failed Hegemonic Project and the Future of US Geopolitics:

Seeking to understand the variations of US post-Cold War imperialism, this article offers an explanation of the changes that have taken place in US geopolitical strategy since the early 2000s. Our central argument is that to make sense of these changes within underlying continuities we need to analyse the dialectical interplay between political agency -- in turn linked to specific social forces -- on the one hand, and changing structural conditions within the global political economy on the other. Adopting a neo-Gramscian approach we argue how geopolitical strategy is constructed through a network of actors whose practices are shaped by their own social positions as well as by the broader global structural context. Analysing these networks with Social Network Analysis we show how neoconservative intellectuals -- linked to dominant sections of US capital -- came to formulate a hegemonic project for the preservation of US primacy in the context of the rising contradictions of US-led neoliberal globalization. The ultimate failure of this hegemonic project, especially its failure to address the shortcomings of the still hegemonic neoliberal accumulation strategy, subsequently set the structural context in which the network around President Obama is now trying to formulate a more effective strategy.Seeking to explain the changes — within underlying continuities — that have taken place in US geopolitical strategy since the early 2000s, this article analyses the dialectical interplay between political agency — in turn linked to specific social forces — and changing structural conditions within the global political economy. Geopolitical strategy is thus seen as constructed through a network of actors whose practices are shaped by their own social positions as well as by the broader global structural context. Analysing these networks with social network analysis we show how neoconservative intellectuals — linked to dominant sections of US capital — came to formulate a hegemonic project for the preservation of US primacy in the context of the rising contradictions of US-led neoliberal globalization. The ultimate failure of this hegemonic project subsequently set the structural context in which the network around Obama is now trying to formulate a more effective strategy.

Oil elite networks in a transforming global oil market

This article analyses oil elite formation in light of the wider transformation that is taking place in the global oil order due to the rise of powers from the Global South, including Russia: in particular, the expansion and integration of the state-owned oil companies into the global oil market. This is done by analysing the networks that the directors of the world’s largest oil companies create through their affiliations with a) other corporations, b) policy planning bodies and c) with the state. The most important finding is that the increased cooperation between the Western private oil companies and the non-Western state-owned oil companies has not yet translated into increased integration between their respective elite networks. It is argued that this indicates we are witnessing a transition towards a more multi-polar global oil order that increasingly needs to take into account the rising powers of the Global South.This article analyses oil elite formation in light of the wider transformation that is taking place in the global oil order due to the rise of powers from the Global South, including Russia: in particular, the expansion and integration of the state-owned oil companies into the global oil market. This is done by analysing the networks that the directors of the world’s largest oil companies create through their affiliations with a) other corporations, b) policy planning bodies and c) with the state. The most important finding is that the increased cooperation between the Western private oil companies and the non-Western state-owned oil companies has not yet translated into increased integration between their respective elite networks. It is argued that this indicates we are witnessing a transition towards a more multi-polar global oil order that increasingly needs to take into account the rising powers of the Global South.

Beyond neoliberal imperialism? The crisis of American empire

A cursory reading of the confidential US diplomatic cables thus far released by Wikileaks appears to confirm two notions about the nature of US power in the current world order that we also find in some of the recent literature. First, that after the end of the Cold War the US has succeeded in creating a truly global empire, which it proactively seeks to maintain through the exercise of both hard and soft power in all corners of the world (on the contemporary US empire see, e.g., Johnson 2001; Bacevich 2002; Wood 2003 and Harvey 2003). Second, that in spite of these efforts, the US finds it increasingly hard to maintain the global order it has created, to actually make other states comply and effectively carry out its agenda, and to control events and shape outcomes - a fact subsequently even more dramatically illustrated by the unexpected ‘Arab Spring’.

Obama’s economic recovery strategy open markets and elite power : business as usual?

Campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, Obama’s economic recovery strategy pursued in the wake of the global financial crisis turned out to be aimed above all to restoring the confidence in financial markets and, in line with a long-standing drive to create a global Open Door for American capital, a renewed effort at opening yet more foreign markets. This article sets out to explain this continuity, in terms of a strong nexus between US policy-makers and America’s corporate elite substantially linked to US transnational capital. Our Social Network Analysis shows that the (wo)men who made Obama’s (foreign) economic strategy had close ties to the business community in general and Wall Street in particular, while many of them were previously also active in elite think tanks in which they planned for a strategy that implied a continuing commitment to neoliberal globalization.