World Systems Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike former sociological theories, which presented general models of social change with particular focus at the societal level, world-systems theory (or world system perspective) explores the role and relationships between societies (and the subsequent changes produced by them). A theory primarily developed by Immanuel Wallerstein, Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi and Andre Gunder Frank in response to the many new activities in the capitalist world-economy during the mid 1970s, world-systems theory is derived from two key intellectual sources, the neo-Marxist literature on development and the French Annales School and Fernand Braudel.

In Wallerstein’s 1987 publication, World-System Analysis, he proclaims that world-systems theory is "a protest against the way in which social scientific inquiry is structured for all of us at its inception in the middle of the nineteenth century." He goes on to criticize the prevailing conception of dependency theory, and argues that the world is much too complicated to be classified as a bimodal system, a system with only cores and peripheries. It is in this light that one of the main tenets of world-systems theory appeared, the belief in the semi-periphery, which created a tri-modal system consisting of the core, semi-periphery, and periphery.

There are many ways to attribute a specific country to the core, semi-periphery, or periphery. Using an empirically-based sharp formal definition of "domination" in a two-country relationship, Piana in 2004 defined the "core" as made up of "free countries" dominating others without being dominated, the "semi-periphery" as the countries which are dominated (usually—but not necessarily—by core countries) while at the same time they dominate others (usually in the periphery)and "periphery" as the countries which are dominated. Based on 1998 data, the full list of countries in the three regions—together with a discussion of methodology—can be found here.

An article by Sobocinski (pages 14-15) points to the relevance of even the simplest indicators - per capita GDP - to identify core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral countries, and notes that, as the areas "external" to the world system have disappeared over time, so also has there been a decrease in the percentage of the world's population that exists in peripheral countries, as defined in traditional developmental terms. Sobocinski's approach favors degree of proletarianization (described in Wallerstein's "Historical Capitalism") as an indicator of a country's status rather than degree of domination (as described above). Sobocinski indicates that economic trends seem to point to semi-peripheral status for the vast majority of the world's population, and the importance of internal inequalities (and internal colonialism) within such countries as a predominant concern over the near future, to likely be followed by the emergence of international class-based conflict on a global scale (rather than merely within selected nations and regions) as (per-capita) wealth inequalities between nations continue to decrease. Note that this sort of analysis is one of convenience, due to the ease of using data at the state level, although Wallerstein has pointed out that peripheral areas are not to be confused with peripheral states. Thus, one of the modern trends would seem to be the decline in peripheral states, in favor of a reemergence of peripheral areas within states - a kind of neo-"internal colonialism."

[edit] Methodology

As a social science discipline, world-systems analysis rejects the artificial disciplinary school boundaries, arguing instead, for example, that the schools of political science, anthropology, and sociology are one in the same. Progress of nations is established as having both the possibilities of upward or downward mobility, instead of the formerly perceived unidirectional development plans noticed in other theories such as Functionalism. World-systems analysis also rejects the notion of the bimodal system, instead developing a new form of tri-modal development containing a core, semi-periphery, and periphery. In addition, world-systems analysts argue that the current state of capitalism promotes exploitation through the use of broadening and deepening, resulting in a case of underdevelopment in the periphery. Its implication suggests establishing a truly democratic world, in which all oppressed peoples should be united, and that the present system of development is unsustainable with the inevitability of collapse due at some point in the future.

[edit] Developments of World Systems Theory

Originally Wallerstein separated "World Systems", systems of interlocking nation states within a market system, with " World Empires" where a single polity dominated within a large part of the world.

Although it was considered originally that the World System was a purely modern development, work by Janet Abu Lughod extended World Systems theory to the period of Mongol domination in the 13th Century.

Janet Abu Lughod has convincingly argued that the Mongol Empire played an important role in stitching together the Chinese, Indian, Muslim and European regions in the 13th century, before the rise of the modern world system.

Andre Gunder Frank goes even further and claims that there is really only one world system which includes Asia, Europe and Africa and claims that we can trace ongoing trade in this system in the last 5000 years. The center of this system has always been in Asia. Europe only prospered when Asian economy was in its contracting phase of long-term economic cycle and Europe had access to virtually free silver and gold from the Americas. There was no European miracle, Europe simply had geographical advantage in discovery of Americas. This contracting phase is now coming to an end and the center is moving back to Asia.

Archaeologically too the idea of a World System was extended to the Late Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age, looking at the period of dominance of ancient Uruk, within the system that stretched from Egypt to the Indus.

Looking at World Systems Theory from this perspective demonstrates similarity to the concept of the Oecumene, used by cultural historians like William McNeill. Historically World Systems Theory have been very useful as an antidote to the exceptionalism of Globalisation Theorists who argue that the current system is wholly without precedent in world history.