In various academic, diplomatic, and business circles, the idea has been gaining traction that global leadership is shifting—from a United States that appears to be ceding ground, to a patient and resolute China preparing to occupy center stage. At first glance, this thesis seems reasonable: China's economic scale, commercial reach, and growing geopolitical assertiveness all appear to support the argument.

But it's worth pausing to reflect: are we truly witnessing a hegemonic transition akin to that between the United Kingdom and the United States in the 20th century? Or are we, instead, facing a temporary adjustment in the global balance—similar to the 1980s, when Japan seemed ready to lead but ultimately did not? History provides useful perspective.

At the time, Japan was seen as the economic model to emulate. Its sustained growth, technological innovation, and business discipline inspired both admiration and anxiety in many Western capitals. Some scholars even went so far as to proclaim that the 21st century would belong to Japan. Yet, following the initial euphoria came a market correction, a real estate bubble, prolonged stagnation, and persistent political gridlock—curbing Japan’s once formidable momentum.

China, of course, is not Japan. Its size, demographic weight, and international standing place it in an entirely different category. Still, China faces significant and complex challenges of its own. Domestically, it must contend with a rapidly aging population—a consequence of decades under the one-child policy—a cooling labor market, especially for the millions of young graduates unable to find jobs, and mounting levels of debt at the local government level and within the deeply troubled real estate sector. The model that underpinned China’s growth for nearly two decades is showing clear signs of fatigue.

Externally, the environment is becoming more difficult. Tensions with Europe have become more pronounced, and the rivalry with the United States has shifted from being primarily economic to becoming structural. The two powers are no longer merely competing for markets—they are vying for influence, for normative leadership, for the dominant political system, and for the prevailing vision of global order.

It is often overlooked that global leadership is not just about production and exports. It also entails assuming systemic responsibilities and providing, at a minimum, a degree of global stability. On this front, China has yet to fully convince many international actors. Its political and economic systems remain opaque, with little tolerance for dissent, and a narrative that still evokes skepticism in many parts of the West. China's international reach is undeniably strong in commercial terms, but its ability to inspire remains limited.

Financially, the renminbi (yuan) is far from approaching the global stature of currencies like the euro or the pound sterling—let alone supplanting the U.S. dollar. Technologically, despite remarkable progress, China still relies heavily on foreign inputs for strategic components. Institutionally, efforts to establish alternatives to the current international order—such as the Belt and Road Initiative or the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank—have yet to solidify into true cornerstones of global economic governance.

So, is this the long-predicted decline of American hegemony that experts and academics have been forecasting for over fifty years? The evidence suggests otherwise. Despite its internal challenges, the United States still possesses a robust institutional framework and continues to house world-leading universities that shape global thinking. Even the daughter of Chairman Xi Jinping studied at Harvard—not Peking University. The U.S. remains home to many of the world’s most innovative companies. Culturally, it continues to be aspirational for millions seeking to migrate. Thus, rather than a replacement, what we are witnessing appears to be a geopolitical recalibration.

For China to assume a hegemonic role, economic might alone is not sufficient. To view it as such would be simplistic—akin to the mistaken belief that Japan would become the new global leader. True superpower status requires deep relational power and, more importantly, structural power. In that regard, Beijing still has significant ground to cover.

Will the 21st century belong to China? That remains difficult to predict. The world is undergoing a period of transition filled with uncertainty and unanswered questions. Still, if we take Chairman Xi Jinping’s words at face value, his stance is both clear and unambiguous. He has stated in numerous forums, including at the United Nations, that “China will never seek hegemony, expansion, or spheres of influence.” While such assertions are often met with skepticism in the West, they are largely consistent with the historical record of China's development thus far.