Introduction
The period between 1870 and 1913 has often been referred to as Mach-1, in reference to the speed of economic growth that it presented. This was a period of peace especially when its compared to what came soon after. Under the Hegemonic leadership of Great Britain, Trade and the movement of people with and within Europe grew at rates that were then unprecedented. All these gains crumbled just before the start of the Great War of 1914. For the next thirty years attempts were made to bring the world economy to its glory years without any success. At this point, nation states had retreated back to protectionism and a wave of national identity and anger of one state against another was sweeping across Europe. State debts, the just ended war, Fascism, Nazism and other various anti-International economic policies and philosophies made it difficult for cooperation amongst states. Cooperation and success was not realized until another undisputed economic power (United sates of America) rose to the occasion in the summer of 1944, to plan and re-arrange the post war economic order. If we were to follow the same naming style as the above mentioned, then this period would in turn be termed Mach-2. Once again the world united under a new Hegemonic leadership. Just as in the previous hegemon, Markets began to recover the good practices of the classical economic system were adopted and the lessons learnt in the thirty years of economic turmoil since the first world war were also in-cooperated. In this essay I will explain, compare and contrast the similarities and differences of the two hegemonic leaderships during the two periods of world economic dominance. I will focus more on analyzing and explaining the variations in the economic openness with a main focus on how the four factors/perspectives of:
• International political,
• International economic.
• Domestic Political
• Domestic economic, during the two periods in question, affected the decision making process of the times. There is a lot of similarities in the four perspectives from country to country in most cases Industry supports free trade and Agriculture supports protection.

Brief Overview of the Classical world economic order
It can be argued that the decline of the hegemonic and economic dominance of Great Britain can be directly linked to the start of the First World War and the end of the period of the decades of prosperity. At the helm of the Classical world economic order Great Britain had managed to maintain a very prosperous system, with free trade and all the supporting infrastructure of free trade, at the root of the system. Economic success brought about peace and freedoms this was arguably one of the most peaceful eras in European history.

So what is it that was done so well during this period that did not happen after the First World War we may ask? During the decades immediately preceding the First World War the world economies were more integrated and there was free movement of people and goods across borders. The economy grew more in the 75 years before the Great War than the 750 years prior. Its estimated that over 50 Million Europeans migrated to the new world with no or limited impediments, and a further 50 Million Asians also migrated during the same time frame. This free population movement brought with it exchange of knowledge between countries and regions which in turn increased trade.

To facilitate free trade and smoother population movement all monitory exchanges, at least of the well to do economies of the then world, were all pegged against gold. This was known as the gold standard. This made it easier to trade and it also provided monitory confidence since there were very little changes in the monitory value. This allowed traders to take their money from Venice or Genoa and purchase British, French or German goods without having to worry about Tariffs, bureaucracy or fluctuating exchange rates. It is said that the British sterling pound remained stable during peace times for over 200 years this provided confidence and economic security to all world economies under the British hegemonic leadership.

How did Great Britain managed to accomplish this leadership feat? How did she mange to navigate her way through obstacles and get all the international and domestic stakeholders to buy in? As mentioned above Free trade was the main ingredient of the success of this period Under it’s hegemonic leadership Great Britain lead by example, by repealing of the Corn Laws in 1846, which imposed tariffs on grain Britain had shown its willingness to open up her markets to the world as a way to encourage other nations to do the same.

It must be noted that most nations Such as German France and the United States favored some kind of protectionism due to domestic economic and domestic political interests.

The international political Atmosphere: The Napoleonic wars were over and Europe was enjoying relative peace. Britain Provided security in terms of military strength to its trading partners. Since military might was provided by a third party (Hegemonic state) most nations did not spend lots of money on military activities, which translated to more money channeled towards other economic activities encouraging growth. In France

The international economic: At this point Britain had the most industrialized nation in the world and it also controlled vast markets in the colonies the industrialist argued that by opening up the market will give other states an opportunity to sell their products on the British market and earn some money which they will use to but British Manufactures. States who were under British hegemonic leadership had a strong financial backing from the British financial system. The world’s banking system was centered in London at that time and Britain invested more than any other country in foreign markets. It’s said that more than half of British income was invested abroad. So Great Britain as the hegemonic power provided, not only the financing but also the monitory stability of the British sterling to the markets.
Since there was some kind of a centralized system under the direction and operation of Great Britain it was easy to have a smooth economic integration and free trade with Britain leading by example.

The domestic political: In Britain the anti corn –law league under the leadership of Richard Cobden, John Bright and Charles Villiers was a well-oiled pressure group that advocated for repelling the Corn Laws. They had a large following all over the country amongst the workers. Anthony Howe Refers to them as “The most impressive of nineteenth century pressure groups, Which exercised a distinct influence on the repeal of the corn laws in 1846” This group had a strong voter registration exercise that managed to change the political landscape in their favor
In German all shippers and their employees and all industrialist except those who had dealings with farmers favored free trade this would open up new markets for their products and reduce the price of food at home.
Unlike German France’s industry, which was not, as advanced as its competitors opposed free trade because they were not equipped for competition like their counterparts. So they argued that competition would kill France’s infant manufacturing sector.
The United States was the only country that had low cost agriculture and a dynamic industry. Just like France They opted to protect industry from British manufactures, at this point it was the most industrialized nation in the world. But they did not see any need to protect agriculture since it was efficient and more competitive than the other participating states.

The domestic economic: During the corn law debates of 1846 Industrialist argued that if industry is allowed to flourish, people who my loose income due to the influx of imported corn will be assimilated into industry and manufacturing. Cost of bread will be cheaper which will in turn reduce wedges. If they allow other countries to freely sell their corn to Britain the other countries will feel the need to reciprocate and open up their markets to British manufactured goods. This also had
The British industrialist sells their manufactures to other countries that will deter those countries from develop their own industries instead they will focus on producing primary goods and depend on British manufactures to provide for their needs. This will help the empire to maintain its presence on the world stage and encourage growth of industry in Britain.

The end of an era
Britain had started its decent from hegemony decades before the start of the Great War. The decline of Britain, lead to a major change to the political and economic landscape in Europe and the world. Global economic growth slowed down nation states fragmented into competing blocs. The gains of free trade of previous decades and centuries were reversed in favor of protectionism.

When the Great War was over attempts were made by the financial elites of Europe, beginning at Versailles to restore the Holy Roman Empire and have the same economic success as they had prior to the Great War.
Denise Richards in (An illustrated history of modern Europe 1789-1984)
Says at Versailles “ …nothing was restored no holly, nor roman, nor an empire”
In short Versailles was a failure. What is it that had changed? The lack of a hegemonic leader meant disagreements and pursuit of personal and national interests instead of cooperation.

Many treaties and agreements were negotiated in the aftermath of the First World War in an attempt to revive the economic gains of the pre1914 era with very little success the main reason for the failure was mainly the lack of a single hegemonic leader amongst the nation states
The Bretton Woods
In the summer of 1944 while the war was still ragging on. The leading world economies had accepted their post WW1 failures and were all eager to correct the mistakes of Versailles and try to create a post WW2 international economic order, like the one that existed before the eve of WW1 or better. One thing that they all realized was the need for hegemonic leadership a role that Britain had occupied for centuries but could not take up the same role because of economic decline due to the burden of war and other factors at home. They went back to the old structure of hegemonic leadership this time under The United States of America who had acquired so much wealth by her limited involvement on the battlefield and her savvy and intellect in the business of war during WW1.After the war she had emerged as the undisputed hegemonic leader. Unlike post WW1 era The United States of America’s attitude had shifted and there was willingness to lead from some sections of the American political, social and civil society
The two leading economic power houses of the day started planning a way out of the failures of post 1914.This led to the meeting that became known as the Bretton woods. At Bretton woods they attempted to combine what was good from the classical economy with what they had learnt between the wars. It’s at this point where clear differences of the two hegemonic powers start to emerge. Unlike early 19th century Great Britain, the United States lead its allies without necessarily ruling them. Institutions such as the IMF and WTO where created to govern and reconstruct world financial systems from the ashes of the old classical economy. For the first time a system was created that relied on both Government Macroeconomics and free markets.
They also introduced the idea of a Social Democratic welfare state, this saw increase in governments involvement in the domestic economy. They introduced social insurance unemployment insurance not as moral acts but as economic acts that would help revive domestic economies the government would pump in money back into society and people would buy goods and increase demand and production, encouraging further economic growth.

Bretton woods international currencies were to be pegged against the US Dollar, which was in turn pegged to gold. They rejected the old gold standard as rigid and a failure and adopted the Fiat system, which gave individual governments authority and flexibility to control their currencies .It also allowed the creation of a domestic monitory policy that was inline with their national interest. If a country’s national /domestic economy is in trouble they now had the power to act accordingly to rectify the effects of the recession, they could now lower interest rates or devalue their currency in accordance to their national needs to encourage exports. Due to the rigidness of the gold standard countries could not adjust their currencies so they did not have domestic monitory policy. This helped individual countries sell the deal to their respective constituencies for approval.

Unlike Great Britain Hegemony, the United States required participating states to take responsibility of their economies after realizing that the organization of the classical economy was very minimal, effort was put into making sure that Governments had full control of their economies
International political: Bretton woods provided an answer to all the participating nations. At this time Britain had auctioned off most of her assets to fund the war, German was still under the york of reparation payments France was dealing with heavy war debts .In this case Bretton woods came as a relief to their struggling economies International economic: It was in America’s interest to help Europe bounce back from years of economic slump, The united states had subordinated domestic interests in order to help its allies ¬¬¬¬Domestic Political: The United states had seen the effects of her isolationist policy but still some republicans in congress did not want any involvement Lots of campaigning and negotiation was done on behalf of the Bretton woods legislation. Groups involved where financial institutions Business and Labor.
Domestic economic: The United States dollar was going to be paged to gold and all other currencies pegged against the American dollar This meant that the allies can manipulate their currencies to suit their domestic economic demands but America could not “Bretton wood is not only easy to understand, but it is also very important. Bretton woods stand as much for bread and wages after the war as it does for the name of a village in New Hampshire”. Bretton woods are no mystery (professor Eric Rauchway)

Conclusion
The success of these two periods in economic history both came under the leadership of a single hegemonic power who in different ways managed to integrated world economies. The British leadership was based on empire and colonies. Free trade with everyone was the basis of the their hegemonic success.
The American hegemony was also based on trade but it had to be reciprocity trade. Countries have to allow American industry to have access into their markets for them to sell in American markets,