12 April 2025, NIICE Commentary 10212
Ajith N
The World Leadership of the United States has been crowned since the post-War era. The United States of America has been a dominant player in all fields, like Military, Economic, Political and Cultural, for decades. But in recent days, questions have arisen about the world leadership of the USA, especially the rise of powers like China, which have questioned it a lot. Moreover, the shift in global alliances has raised concerns about a possible decline of American hegemony.
To understand this, the lens of George Modelski’s World Leadership Cycle is useful to know whether the leadership of the USA is in decline. G Modelski was a political science professor and as a neorealist, Modelski developed a long-cycle theory that views world leadership as a historical process characterised by the rise and fall of great powers. According to his model, global leadership explains in a cyclical pattern consisting of four distinct phases: Global War, World Power, Delegitimation, and Deconcentration. Each phase roughly spans 25–30 years, forming a century-long cycle.
Modelski’s World Leadership Cycle
Modelski's theory is based on the idea that global order is dynamic and changes through cycles of leadership by dominant powers. These dominant powers rise through major wars, combine power by establishing institutions and norms, then gradually lose legitimacy and influence, leading to a deconcentration of power.
- Global War Phase
This phase involves a major conflict in which several powers compete for dominance. The victor appears as the new global leader. In the context of the United States, World War II (1939–1945) represents the global war phase. The U.S. emerged as the unchallenged military and economic power, especially after the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII.
- World Power Phase
In this phase, the winning power establishes global leadership by constructing a liberal international order, setting up institutions, trade systems, etc. For the U.S., this was the Bretton Woods institutions era (IMF, World Bank), the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, NATO, and global capitalism. Between 1945 and the late 1960s, the U.S. enjoyed relatively overt global influence and became the architect of the liberal world order.
- Delegitimation Phase
The third phase is noticeable by the growing internal and external challenges to the hegemon’s authority. Other states begin to question its leadership, while domestic issues weaken its ability to project power. In the U.S. case, this phase began after 1968 started with the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, the 1973 oil shock, and increasing global market competition, especially from Japan and Europe. The U.S. still maintained leadership, but its legitimacy began to be questioned.
- Deconcentration Phase
The final phase is called Deconcentration and is characterised by a gradual decline in the dominant power's capacity to lead the international system. Power becomes more diffused, and alternative centres of power emerge. According to Modelski’s framework, the U.S. entered this phase in the early 2000s, as it is marked by prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2008 financial crisis, and the rise of China and other regional powers like India and Russia. The U.S. is still influential, but its leadership is increasingly contested.
Is the U.S. in the Deconcentration Phase?
Based on Modelski’s model, there is strong evidence to suggest that the United States is currently in the Deconcentration phase of its world leadership cycle. Several indicators support this view:
- Rise of Rival Powers
China’s rapid economic and military rise is the most noteworthy development that is challenging U.S. global dominance. China is not only the world’s second-largest economy but also expanding its influence through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). China’s recent unveil of the 6th gen fighter jet J-36 directly challenged the USA’s military development. Russia has also challenged U.S. influence, particularly in regions like Eastern Europe and the Middle East. The de-dollarization attempts by BRICS challenged the economic aspect along with the failure to renew the petrodollar agreement with Saudi Arabia, led to rival powers.
- Erosion of Global Trust
America’s role as a global leader has been questioned by allies and adversaries. The Iraq War, which lacked broad international support, and the 2008 financial crisis, which originated in the U.S., damaged the credibility of American leadership. More recently, the Trump administration’s revival of the “America First” policy and withdrawal from key international agreements (such as the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal) caused allies to question the reliability of U.S. commitments. The USAID cuts did more damage to the trust and its soft power diplomacy. The withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 led to the rise of Taliban and leaving the military equipment there led to more problems in the region. U.S. support for Israel, despite rising global concern over humanitarian issues in Gaza, has drawn criticism from allies in the Global South and Western Europe. The tariff and sanctions also erode the trust.
- Internal Instability
Domestically, the U.S. faces increasing polarisation, racial tensions, and distrust in democratic institutions. These internal weaknesses have limited its ability to act decisively on the global stage. Events like the January 6 Capitol riots have also impacted the global image of the U.S. as a stable democracy. The Anti-Trump protest in US cities on April 5, 2025, the 50501 group organised the largest protest since Trump began his second term, with nearly 600,000 people signing up to participate. The immigration policies are also taken into account.
- Shift to Multipolarity
The global order is gradually moving from unipolarity to multipolarity, with regional powers gaining more influence in shaping world affairs. The European Union, India, Brazil, South Africa, SCO and ASEAN countries are playing larger roles in regional and global governance. The U.S. no longer unilaterally defines the international agenda. The alliance of China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) makes more impact. The regional powers started to give voice to themselves.
Does Deconcentration Mean the End of U.S. Leadership?
It is important to note that Deconcentration does not imply an immediate or absolute end to U.S. leadership. Instead, it proposes a relative decline. The United States still possesses significant structural advantages: a powerful military, leading universities and technology companies, a dominant global hard currency (U.S. Dollar), and extensive diplomatic networks. Modelski’s theory also allows for the possibility of renewal. If the U.S. addresses its internal divisions, rebuilds trust with allies, and re-engages with global institutions, it could reassert its leadership, possibly entering a new leadership cycle after a period of rebalancing.
While this phase suggests a decline in relative influence, it does not equate to collapse or irrelevance. The U.S. still holds considerable power, but the nature of its leadership is evolving. Whether the U.S. can change from this phase into a renewed cycle of leadership or whether a new hegemon like China will rise to take its place remains one of the most important strategic questions of our time. As history shows, world leadership is never permanent but is shaped by adaptation, resilience, and the ability to respond to global transformations.
Ajith N is a Research Intern at NIICE and is currently pursuing his M.A. in International Relations at Loyola College, Chennai, India.
