Systems Theory World Systems Theories

¶ … Systems Theory

World Systems Theories -- the evolution of the theory and its application to today's international environment

World-system theory is a sociological approach to international economic and political relations that seeks to explain the world dynamics of the capitalist economy as a total system. (Vela, 2001, p.1) Thus world-system theory evolved as a relatively recent response to global capitalism, although it is historically grounded. Specifically, it attempted to provide an analysis integrating Marxism into international relations theory. For world-systems theorists as for Marx, although both theoretical methods are associated with history and with interpretive sociology, "there is an objective world which can be quantitatively understood, but it is, no matter for how long it has existed, a product of history." (Vela, 2001, p.1) "Since that world-system has maintained some of its main features over several centuries, globalization does not constitute a new phenomenon," according to world systems theory, thus the current economic and global reality of inequality is not new. Rather persons merely perceive it to be so, because it seems new to their eyes and historical epoch. ("Globalization Theories," The Globalization Website, 2001)

The theory was first advanced during the 1960s and 70s in the wake of decolonialization of the formerly European-dominated lands of Africa and Latin America. The theorist primarily associated with the idea is Immanuel Wallerstein who wrote the classic The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Critical to Wallerstein's rubric was the idea that by understanding the development of capitalism in modern Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries, one could understand the function of capitalism in the colonial and post-colonial world economy. (Halsall, 1997)

Wallerstein's analysis of the development of world economic systems was structured upon the theorist's notion of what he called core and peripheral states, both of which comprise approximately 10-15% of the world's expanse. (Sobocinski, 2002, p.14) After Western Europe had essentially 'maxed out' all available land space during the feudal era, the dominant Western kingdoms began to look outward, to the geographic expansion of uncharted territories, as they developed different modes of labor control to maximize worker effectiveness at home, and created relatively strong state machineries. These bureaucracies enabled them to expand their outreach into other territories for enrichment.

Although, "the capitalist world economy, as envisioned by Wallerstein, is a dynamic system which changes over time," Wallerstein believed that certain basic features had remained unchanged since its original, modern, post-feudal conception. (Halsall, 1997) "The new capitalist world system was based on an international division of labor that determined relationships between different regions as well as the types of labor conditions within each region." (Halsall, 1997) Four different categories of states existed, that of core, semi-periphery, periphery, and external, states, "categories [that] describe [d] each region's relative position within the world economy as well as certain internal political and economic characteristics." (Halsall, 1997)

Core states were the primary beneficiaries of the new economic system. During the first period of the evolution of this multifaceted hierarchy of states, "much of northwestern Europe (England, France, Holland) developed as the first core region," because of these states' strong central governments, extensive bureaucracies, and large and powerful armies. (Halsall, 1997) Their level of armament enabled these states to obtain control over international commerce. Today, the parallels with these original core states are rather obvious -- that of the United States most predominantly, Japan, the United Kingdom, and other powerful modern industrialized nations such as the European Community. While it is true that having a large standing army is not a feature of Japan, and the European Community is an economic conglomerate rather than a nation state, Wallerstien's theory is still quite applicable. Features of his systems theory may change, and military might may be relatively less important than economic infrastructures in the modern world, but the division of the world's states into a kind of international feudal hierarchy remains constant.

On the other end of the scale lay the peripheral zones. These areas lacked strong central governments or were controlled by other states, exported raw materials to the core, and relied on coercive labor practices." (Halsall, 1997) At the time of the original generation of a world system of inequality, these peripheral states were Eastern European states such as Poland, with relatively strong-armed leader, few raw materials, and little control over their neighbors. Today, states with little international clout, such as the developing world, would be the most obvious parallels, particularly resource-poor areas in Africa, which are plagued by drought and famine, and led by unstable central governments prone to fighting.

Between the two extremes lie the semi-peripheries. These areas represented either core regions in decline or peripheries attempting to improve their relative position in the world economic system." (Halsall, 1997) Notions of semi-peripheral states, unlike the rather obviously identified core and subject peripheral states might be more ambiguous. One might classify Saudi Arabia as such a semi-peripheral state, however, given that it is too rich in natural resources to be truly peripheral, yet it is far too much of an international pariah because of its theocratic nature of rule. Other semi-peripheral, or developing nations such as China and India, which must cope with fundamental structural problems of diplomatic legitimacy or poverty, yet still have labor markets and natural resources that are desirable to the world powers. These states seem to be able to profit from the largess of the core nations as well as be exploited by the core nations.

There are also areas that are entirely marginal that maintain their own economic systems and, for the most part, managed to remain outside the modern world economy.

In the age of globalization, these states may seem to lie few and far between, although one could characterize such odd states as Vatican City, Monaco, Switzerland, and other areas that are functional in their own way, wealthy or at least self-sufficient, but do not play integral roles in the arena of world political development like the nations of the core. According to Mike Sobocinski: "The percentage of persons in the semi-periphery, periphery, and external areas" has shifted to the point that "there are really no longer any external areas'" in Wallenstein's sense, especially since "China has become semi-peripheral. (Sobocinski, 2002, p.14)

In Wallerstien's world systems schema, what is most important to remember is that there are winners and losers in the age of international, colonial (or post-colonial) capitalism. When one examines the dynamics of this system, "the core regions of northwestern Europe clearly benefited the most from this arrangement" during the historical era chronicled by Wallerstein, just as America, continues to benefit from today's international environment. (Halsall, 1997) "Through extremely high profits gained from international trade and from an exchange of manufactured goods for raw materials from the periphery (and, to a lesser extent, from the semi-peripheries), the core enriched itself at the expense of the peripheral economies," much as the core does today, using developing nations to provide a cheap source of labor, or using outsourced labor in the semi-peripheral nations as sources of profit. (Halsall, 1997)