427s10_wst

the new structuralism: world systems theory


“’There is order in the cosmos and if you can not [sic] apprehend it, then you make one up inside your head.’ World systems theory

(WST) is such an invention.”

WST starts at the level of the cosmos: it assumes that “all time

frames and all spatial units of analysis, whatever their size, are

important; but it argues that it is always best to begin with …

the longest and largest—and then to devolve through the

intermediate to the short-term and the particular”

more bluntly, WST begins with an “absolute insistence on locating any study with the temporal frame of long-term time and

within the spatial content of a global unit of analysis.”


temporal frame of long term time

we live in a historical system that unfolds over decades and even centuries according to a very clear logic; if

we fail to understand this, we may confuse short-term trends or events as unique or self-contained when, in

fact, they may only represent segments of a much bigger, ongoing process.


spatial content of a global unit of analysis

the basic unit of analysis in WST is not the nation-state, but the world system itself; nation-states are not

unimportant, but they are parts of much bigger system. we need to know how the system as a whole operates before we can know what the significance of each unit

within the system is


more concretely, in WST the contemporary world system is defined a dynamic one consisting of two, interacting subsystems,

the __________________ and the ______________ system of nations

the world-economy is synonymous with global capitalism

the interstate system is largely the same system that realists speak of, although it origins predate the peace of westphalia (1648); that is, the

interstate system—and the world-economy—are both more than 500 years old (and counting)

world-economy interstate


the relationship between the two subsystems of global capitalism and the political order of nation-states is a complex and volatile one: the

former is inherently transnational (seeking transborder mobility and fluidity), while the latter is inherently nationalistic as individual

nations seek to maximize their power, status, territory and security

“the eternal problem of the world-system then is to square the circle, to reconcile the contrary

tendencies of the two sub-systems”

world systems theory: main attributes

In understanding contemporary world-system, we also need to be aware of its main attributes. the author lists four:

possesses spatial limits (or, at least, used to); in other words, it is possible for some units to exist outside the system

posits a complex, symbiotic division of labor among core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral units: this is the essential structure of the world-system, its main and fixed spatial characteristic (see following slide for an alternative depiction)

1

2


the world is divided intoa trimodal structure

consisting of three zones:each zone has a specific

function in the system;the structure is a fixedfeature of the capitalist

world system

one point: a single country may have a core, semi-periphery and periphery

*a small portion of china’s population, for example, is part of the semi-

periphery, but most is in the periphery

united states

western europe,japan, etc.

russia, s. korea,israel, china*

most ofthe world’spopulation


main attributes of the capitalist world-system

division of labor is hierarchical and inherently exploitative: as the author puts it, “a chain of subordinations, each

conditioning the other”

mobility for individual units within division of labor is possible: core states can move down, hegemonic power can be

replaced (as the US replaced england), peripheral states can move up

3

4

world systems theory and international relations

the framework of world systems theory gives us a good basis for explaining the dynamics of international relations: of central

importance is the focus on the dynamic oscillation and ongoing tension between global capitalism and the interstate system

this relationship explains, for example, why the capitalist world-system requires a single dominant power (the hegemon) and

what happens when no such power exists


in realism, hegemony is the possession of overwhelming military and economic might—this is simple, one-dimensional definition

WST shares but also transcends this definition by positing that hegemony only exists if three interrelated facts obtain:

a single country must posses such broad economic supremacy that it stands to gain the most from a global free trade economy

in military terms, a hegemon must occupy a near-sovereign position over other countries; the hegemon is the global cop

a hegemon must have the will and resources to act as the manager of the global economy

1

2

3


the importance of hegemony and its relationship to international relations is easily seen: consider the dynamics of the world-system

beginning with the emergence of the united states as the hegemonic power. the author discusses four periods:

nascent hegemony, 1919-1945

hegemony at its zenith, 1945-1973

relative decline, 1973-1989

an apparent revival of hegemony since 1989

1

2

3

4

world systems theory and hegemony

the author tells us that an examination of each period, using the principles of worlds-system analysis, allows us to explain

the key dynamics in world affairs

in a period of nascent hegemony, there is instability and doubt: the budding hegemonis not yet fully aware of its power and lacks

the experience to use it

the result is interstate conflict (amongcapitalist powers), rising protectionism,

and global war


in a period of full-blown hegemony, we witness a sea change within the new hegemon: stability returns to the system, and

where there are challenges to the system, the hegemon brings to bear its full weight and influence

consider the construction of the bretton woods system, the creation of the united nations, the unification and rebuilding

of western europe, the pacification and resurrection of japan, and the unremitting “war” against the communist world


why did the united states subsidize the rebuilding of Europe?

why did the United States allow Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan to rebuild their economies through neo-mercantilist policies?

why did the United States help to underwrite the postwar Bretton Woods system?

why did the United States intervene in Korea and Vietnam?

16

world systems theory: focus on the united states

one of the best ways to understand the logic of wst

is to consider the falling dominoes scenario, which

was used to justify u.s. military intervention, first in vietnam, but later in

dozens of small conflicts around the world …

17

consider the falling statement by dwight d. eisenhower, the first articulation of the following dominoes principle

18

response to a reporter’s question on the strategic importance of indochina

“You have, of course, both the specific and the general when you talk about such things. First of all, you have the specific value of a locality in its production of materials that the world needs. Then you have the possibility that many human beings pass under a dictatorship that is inimical to the free world.

Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences (…)

Now, with respect to the first one, two of the items from this particular area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. They are very important.

19

Then with respect to more people passing under this domination, Asia, after all, has already lost some 450 million of its peoples to the Communist dictatorship, and we simply can't afford greater losses.

But when we come to the possible sequence of events, the loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following, now you begin to talk about areas that not only multiply the disadvantages that you would suffer through loss of materials, sources of materials, but now you are talking really about millions and millions and millions of people.

Finally, the geographical position achieved thereby does many things. It turns the so-called island defensive chain of Japan, Formosa, of the Philippines and to the southward; it moves in to threaten Australia and New Zealand. It takes away, in its economic aspects, that region that Japan must have as a trading area or Japan, in turn, will have only one place in the world to go -- that is, toward the Communist areas in order to live.


in a period of declining hegemony, we see a loss of domestic consensus within the hegemon; an overextension of commitments;

a deterioration in the provision of global “public goods”; and anoverall loss of confidence

importantly, this decline is a function ofhegemony itself: taking charge of the “world”

is a game of diminishing returns


in the current period (since 1989, with the collapse of the soviet union) we seem to be witnessing a revival of the hegemon, but this may

prove to be only temporary

the conditions for the resurrection of american hegemony may simply have disappeared—but without a hegemon the system itself

may eventually collapse on itself …

this short review is hardly adequate, but should give us a good taste of the utility of world systems theory—and an insight into its relevance

for understanding and explaining international relations

Documents

427s10_wst