"[5] Around the same time Edward Luttwak, economist and author of military-strategy books also made use of similar terms to proclaim a shift from "geopolitics" to "geo-economics" as the Cold War ended.
In relation to theories of hegemony, geopolitical economy argues that while British dominance, for a time, was inevitable given the historical priority of Britain's industrial revolution, so were challenges to it.
[17] Though it sought to emulate the sort of dominance Britain enjoyed in the nineteenth century in the twentieth, not only did the US have to lower its sights, forsaking the acquisition of a formal empire, and settling for making the dollar the world's money, geopolitical economy argues it failed to realise even this diluted ambition.
[20] Finally, geopolitical economy argues that "globalization" and "US hegemony/empire" were not theories but ideologies, discourses articulating distinct phases of the US's increasingly desperate pursuit of its formatively vain hegemonic ambition.
Globalization was the rhetoric of the Clinton administration designed to encourage flows of foreign capital into the US stock market,[21] and US hegemony/empire, a ruse for the projection of a flailing US power abroad unilaterally.