Wanting what the hegemon wants

Terry Boswell:

If the empire state can shape the geopolitical environment of other
core states in such a way that their security is threatened in ways that require
the military resources of the empire state, these other core states will want what
the empire-state wants. Or if the other core states' financial sectors' stability
is bound up with the safety of their loans to empire-state companies and individuals whose prosperity in turn hinges upon rising prices on the empire-state's securities markets, those other core states will want what the government of the empire-state wants: a priority for stability on the empire-state's financial markets. Or if other core states' capitals view their continuing expansion as dependent upon further opening of 'emerging markets' in the semi-periphery and if the most potent instrument for such opening is the empire-state‘s manipulation of the international monetary and financial regime, the other core states will want what the empire state wants.

This is exactly what is meant by hegemony. Consider the U.S. following
World War II. The rest of the core was dependent on the U.S. for their security
throughout the Cold War. Likewise, the dollar was the key to financial stability
in the world economy. This was the period of peak U.S. hegemony, which
has become unstable since the fall of the Soviet Union has ended the security
threat and the rise of the Euro now provides an alternative to the dollar. What
remains is an overpowered military that leaves the U.S. in a position of world
leadership, but the hegemony has declined.