Who can pick up the pieces? Leadership transition after hegemonic withdrawal

While the United States (US) have acted as a hegemon in promoting international institutions that underpin the Liberal International Order (LIO), they also have regularly withdrawn their support from them. Although the relationship between hegemons and international institutions is at the very heart of International Relations, the literature fails to account for why some international institutions are resilient after hegemonic withdrawal while others decay. To address this gap, this paper theoretically develops and empirically tests a theory of leadership transition after hegemonic withdrawal. I claim that if states or IO administrations are (1) willing to take the lead; (2) able to mobilize sufficient resources to sustain the institutional purpose; and (3) recognized by other member states, international institutions are resilient after hegemonic withdrawal. I probe the plausibility of my leadership hypothesis in two pairwise comparisons of cases of hegemonic withdrawal from international institutions in global climate change and global health governance. My study yields important implications for the future of the LIO.