A Paper on World Systems Approach

By Virgil B. Vallecera

I. Introduction

Peter Taylor in his book, Political Geography, explains that present-day problems and issues of the current structure are only considered in light of past processes and systems that are integrated via trial and error of the historical system. The emerging structure of the world demands a wider participation that should not only limit itself to state actors; hence, the rise of the role of multinational corporations come into shape in the unfolding of the world-economy brought about by the development of an emerging social structure called globalization

The global issues have gone a long history. The question on how far back one should trace global concerns is not a trivial one; it is patterned to theories on the nature of the modern world, wherein the analysis should not be country-by-country but in a broader temporal perspective as advanced by Immanuel Wallerstein’s World-Systems Approach. This contends that both substantive and theoretical additions to the original ideas and criticisms from a range of alternative perspectives are considered for the useful ordering and understanding of political geography.

II. Objectives

The aims of this paper are to know the major tenets of World-Systems Theory, in general; and the spatial structure of core, semi periphery, and periphery of the world-economy, in particular.

III. Contents

World-Systems Analysis

The World-Systems Analysis is about how to conceptualize social change. Wallerstein forewarns that a conceptualization of change country-by-country or in a multiple society assumption is not advisable. Instead, it should deal with changes in a global scope or in a single society assumption.

The single society assumption follows that the many ‘societies’ or countries become parts of a larger whole. Hence, a particular social change in one of these countries can only be fully understood within the wider context that is the world-systems. Simply put the predominant wisdom that the whole is still greater than the sum of its parts. Trying to explain a specific social change by zeroing in on a country alone will only produce a very partial view of the processes that are unfolding.

However, Wallerstein attempts to combine two challenges in analyzing global issues and problems. First is the school of materialist history which contends that political actions are one small part in the unfolding history of ordinary people (Braudel). Second is the neo-Marxist view that different economic processes operate in different parts of the world; hence, the mortal competition between countries that are in the development stage or in the development of underdevelopment stage.

Therefore, World-Systems approach attempts to mend critical elements of materialist history with neo-Marxist development studies, as well as other features to develop a comprehensive systemic historical social science.

Historical systems are the baseline ‘societies’ of Wallerstein’s use of a single society assumption in conceptualizing social change. It is systemic since it consists of interlocking parts that constitute a single whole. It is historical as it is created and developed over a period of time and then reach decline.

Every historical system is unique as they are classified according to the mode of production. However, Wallerstein’s view of the mode of production is broader than the orthodox Marxist. Wallerstein argues that the mode of production is the organization of the material basis of a society since he included decisions concerning the quantities of goods to be produced, their consumption and/or accumulation along with the resulting distribution of goods.

There are three modes of production anchored with the type of system of change.

a. A mini-system is an entity based on reciprocal-lineage mode of production, wherein production is by hunting, gathering or rudimentary agriculture; exchange is between producers; and main organizational principle is age and gender.

b. World-empire is an entity based upon the redistributive-tributary mode of production, wherein production is by generating surplus beyond the needs; large appropriation of surplus goes to the administrators who form military-bureaucratic ruling class, which causes a large-scale material inequality.

c. World-economy is based on capitalist mode of production: Profitability. The basic drive of the system is to accumulate surplus as capital. Economically-inclined countries tend to control the least countries.

Further, historical systems have four types of changes. First is transition or the internal process of transformation where one system evolves into another. Second is the incorporation of the external process of transformation where world-empires expand by conquering and incorporating former mini-systems that give tribute to conquerors. Third is discontinuity which occurs when a system breaks down and a new one constitutes to its place. Last is continuity which occurs within systems where ‘timeless’ traditional cultures change either linear or cyclic.

Although there have been innumerable historical systems in the past, Wallerstein recognizes one system in existence today—world-economy. The basic elements of the world-economy are single world market, multiple state system, and three-tiered structure.

The presence of world-economy has eliminated all other systems; hence, the single society assumption tool necessary in the study of contemporary social change.

However, Wallerstein wants to debunk claims that the world-economy was brought about by the ‘stage models’ of development devised by modern social scientists. Instead, he advances that such is an error of developmentalism that contends that each society is an autonomous object of change moving along a same trajectory but starting at different dates and moving at different speeds. Wallerstein’s World-system approach corrects that in knowing the society and in dealing with social change, it is not about timing in a universal pathway but rather it is only part of one system and is experiencing different processes within that system, which proves the single society assumption.

Structure of the World-Economy

Neither space nor time is treated as in any sense separate from the world-economy. The time dimension is the social product of the dynamics of the world-economy while the space dimension is social product of the structure. The extent of the geographical expansion of the world-economy is considered in the spatial structure, which is proportionate to the extent of the division of labor between the productive and other tasks needed for in the system operations. Hence, distribution and trade are necessary elements of a system, where possibilities of ephemeral tendencies of little relevance beyond direct distribution and trade are eminent. Wallerstein’s criteria delimit the rest of the world as an external arena to one section of the world and vice versa. However, those economically-efficient world sections tend to get their external arena conquered destroying some trade tendencies.

Then again, existing societies remained intact but were peripheralized in the sense that their economies were reoriented to serve wider needs within the world-economy. The end result of these various incorporation procedures was the eventual elimination of the external arena (Taylor) and the demise of trade tendencies. Imperialism was on the way.

“The concept of peripherization implies that these new areas did not join the world-economy as ‘equal partners’ with existing members but that they joined on unfavorable terms,” Taylor said. The world-economy then embraced the terms core (rich parts of the world) and periphery (poor parts). However, core and periphery may also refer to processes and not directly to areas, regions, or states. Wallerstein best defines these processes as “the core exploits and the periphery is exploited.” However, for Taylor, these are not absolute definitions since processes may also adhere to the mode of production relations operating in different zones. Core processes incorporate relatively high wages, advanced technology, and a diversified production mix. While periphery processes refer to the exact opposite, low wages, rudimentary technology, and a simple production mix. Social relations are also included in the equation.

Geographically the most unique concept advanced by Wallerstein is the concept of semi-periphery as a structuring space, which separates the extremes of material well-being in the modern world-economy, core and periphery. Semi-periphery is neither any of the two other processes but an interesting mix of both: Its social relations involve exploiting periphery areas while being exploited by the core. Wallerstein adds that semi-periphery is very a crucial middle zone in the spatial dimensions of the three-tiered element of the world-economy since its role is more political than economic especially during periods of recessions, wherein there are possibilities that it transforms into a core.

V. Conclusions

Wallerstein’s World-systems Theory is a holistic concept. It rejects claims that in order to understand and conceptualize social change, one should do it country-by-country (multiple society assumption). Instead, it suggests that in conceptualizing change and understanding global problems and issues, one should look at a bigger perspective since important intermestic (international and domestic) factors might be overlooked. A single society assumption is better since it follows that the many ‘societies’ or countries become parts of a larger whole—The whole is still greater than the sum of its parts.

World-Systems approach attempts to mend critical elements of materialist history with neo-Marxist development studies to come up with historical systems that define societies in different time and space. Although Wallerstein only recognizes one such system in existence today (world-economy), there have been innumerable historical systems in the past like the mini-system and world-empire.

It is important to note that Wallerstein’s World-systems approach is apparently patterned to a capitalist society just as much as how he treats social change via materialist and historical perspectives, which are hard-core orthodox Marxist views in relation to capitalism and stages of historical development. Which proves all the more that, indeed, the modern world system is dominated by capitalists who want to exploit periphery and semi-periphery areas for their own interest both in terms of geography and politics.

Furthermore, the evidence of the North-South Axis conflict is also apparent in the spatial structure of the world-economy which also proves that such imaginary division has been institutionalized by the core, giving the core license to exploit periphery and semi-periphery processes and social relations.