End Of American World Order Analysis

In Amitav Acharya's The End of American World Order, the author foresees the American world order being replaced by a multiplex world, in which countries and regions will all go to the same movie theater but end up watching different films. He imagines a de-centered world, with greater role for regional governance and collective management by established and powerful states. On the other hand, Chrystia Freeland argues in her book Plutocrats, that the emerging world order is that of global plutocrats, a super-rich class with growing political influence, who are using their influence to lock in privilege, and are causing long-term economic and political costs. Freeland's analysis the more persuasive of the two, because out of the two trends they
Let us jump back to that time. President Franklin D. Roosevelt envisioned a deeply institutionalized, Western-led world order in which the US had political and economic management. However, the US couldn't lead the world alone, so were created the World Bank, the IMF, the UN, global institutions which are well-established in today's political world. Since 1945, the US have been a provider of International Public Goods, military and economic security, leadership and diplomatic energy. Hence, it is difficult to see a world order that is not US-led. Acharya makes a compelling argument about emerging countries having an influence in remodelling of the liberal aspect of "liberal world order" but he admits "the emerging powers are not an adequate force by themselves to create a credible alternative". Individually, BRICS countries do not propose a credible alternative to global governance. They also lack all three forms of power (hard, soft, and smart) relative to the US. Furthermore, as a group, BRICS countries are quite different from each other and lack cohesion to collectively overthrow the AWO. Some of them have nuclear weapons, they range in political systems from democratic to authoritarian to communist, and they have competing relationships among themselves. Contrast this with the AWO created after World War II, where the old powers were defeated and/or bankrupt while the US
This supposed decline is not related to the concerns of ordinary people. There simply is not a significant political movement calling for or against a multiplex world. American world order relies on stable, established global institutions which are insulated by layers of diplomacy and competing interests. Citizens of the world have little to say in UN and IMF decisions and politics. To have influence in these institutions, you need power, you need wealth, and you need to be part of the liberal world order; these are characteristics not only of large Western-allied states, but of plutocrats themselves. The main difference being that plutocrats are people, whose short-term self-interest may undermine themselves to a much greater degree than democratic societies —from which states obtain their mandate and power— will allow their governments to undermine the modern world