미국 예외주의의 국제정치경제: 자유주의 패권 행사의 한 역사적 유형론

Abstract

많은 국제관계학자들과 국제문제 비평자들은 1990년대 이후 미국의 대외정책을 다자주의 대 일방주의의 구도에서 또는 국지적 분쟁 개입을 둘러싼 구체적 논쟁의 견지에서 분석해왔다. 이러한 지배적 담론은 유일한 초강대국인 미국의 대외정책과 세계전략을 정확히 이해하는 데는 불충분하다. 그것은 건국 이후 미국의 대외정책을 국제주의 대 고립주의, 다자주의 대 일방주의, 너그러운 패권국 대 인색한 패권국 등의 이분법들로 단순화시켜 이해하도록 만들 수 있기 때문이다. 실제의 국제체제 운용은 패권국으로서의 미국과 상대국(들)간의 안보적, 정치경제적 상호작용을 통해 이루어지며, 그 과정의 정확한 이해는 각국의 국내정치경제, 특히 그것이 지향하는 사회적 목적에 대한 분석을 필요로 한다. 이 논문은 미국 패권행사의 한 역사적 유형론을 제시하며, 그 방법으로 국내정치경제에 관한 이념체계로서 미국 예외주의와 대외정책의 연관을 역사적으로 추적한다. 즉 미국 국내정치경제의 예외성에 대한 계측을 하나의 대외정책 기조로서의 국제주의 또는 국제적 개입주의에 대한 비교역사분석과 결합시킨다. 국내정치경제에 대한 하나의 제도화된 이념체계로서의 미국 예외주의가 특정한 국내적, 체계적 수준의 조건들 하에서 표출되는 양태에 따라 국제주의의 정책적 패턴은 달라진다.

This article provides a historical typology of liberal hegemony exercised by the United States by incorporating two different measures of the country's political economy: exceptionalism and internationalism. Exceptionalism is defined as the extent to which the U.S. domestic political economy is committed to defending its own rules, norms, and procedures that govern liberal capitalism in response to illiberal political economies of other countries. It varies from intensive to extensive, depending on whether the U.S. tries to build institutional walls that keep illiberal pressures from penetrating inwards or to impose its own standard for governing the political economy on other countries. Internationalism as the U.S. policy stance toward the rest of the world also varies from unilateral to multilateral. Mixtures of varying values of exceptionalism and internationalism lead to a more systematic analytical framework in which U.S. foreign economic policies and their security effects may be examined. Four types of liberal hegemony are derived from mixing different values on exceptionalism and internationalism, and each of them is presented with a corresponding historical case. My historical typology is constructed by looking at how social purposes of the domestic political economy have changed over time. Type I is a combination of intensive exceptionalism and unilateral internationalism, which is exemplified by U.S. policies toward European reconstruction after the end of the First World War. The U.S. pushes for its own course of action without making a serious effort to persuade other countries to adopt the American way of doing business. Type II is a combination of intensive exceptionalism and multilateral internationalism, which is exemplified by U.S. foreign economic policy during the second New Deal. The U.S. defends its own model of political economy while engaging in multilateral endeavors on vital issues. Type III is a combination of extensive exceptionalism and multilateral internationalism, which is exemplified by U.S.-led trade liberalization during the Kennedy Round. The U.S. puts pressure upon other countries to adopt the American way by making itself subject to the multilateral framework. Type IV is a combination of extensive exceptionalism and unilateral internationalism, which is exemplified by the Clinton administration's economic sanctions. The U.S. urges other countries to adopt the American model of political economy without engaging in multilateral consultation. I argue that changing types of U.S. hegemony can be partly explained by measuring the fit between the U.S. and other models of political economy in terms of social purposes. The embedded liberalism compromise was accepted during the three decades after World War II largely because the United States and their European allies shared the social purpose of accommodating working-class demands through various welfare state programs. I conclude by suggesting the need for more multilateralism on the part of the United States as long as the countries participating in the U.S.-led hegemonic regime share many traits of the American model of governing the economy and society.