the new structuralism: world systems theory

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.

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 largestand then to devolve through the intermediate to the short-term and the particular
WST

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.

the new structuralism: world systems theory

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.

the new structuralism: world systems theory

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 signicance of each unit within the system is

the new structuralism: world systems theory

more concretely, in WST the contemporary world system is dened a dynamic one consisting of two, interacting subsystems, world-economy and the ______________ interstate system of nations the __________________
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 systemand the world-economyare both more than 500 years old (and counting)

the new structuralism: world systems theory

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 uidity), 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:

1 possesses spatial limits (or, at least, used to); in other words, 2 posits a complex, symbiotic division of labor among core, semiperipheral, and peripheral units: this is the essential structure of the world-system, its main and xed spatial characteristic (see following slide for an alternative depiction)

it is possible for some units to exist outside the system

world systems theory: main attributes

united s
the world is divided into a trimodal structure consisting of three zones: each zone has a specic function in the system; the structure is a xed feature of the capitalist world system one point: a single country may have a core, semiperiphery and periphery

tates

western e japan, e urope, tc. russia, s. israel, c korea, hina* most of the wor ld populat s ion

*a small portion of chinas population, for example, is part of the semiperiphery, but most is in the periphery

world systems theory: main attributes

main attributes of the capitalist world-system

3 division of labor is hierarchical and inherently exploitative: as 4 mobility for individual units within division of labor is possible:

the author puts it, a chain of subordinations, each conditioning the other

core states can move down, hegemonic power can be replaced (as the US replaced england), peripheral states can move up

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 worldsystem requires a single dominant power (the hegemon) and what happens when no such power exists

world systems theory and international relations

in realism, hegemony is the possession of overwhelming military and economic mightthis is simple, one-dimensional denition
WST

shares but also transcends this denition 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

2 3

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

world systems theory and international relations

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:
1 nascent hegemony, 1919-1945

2 hegemony at its zenith, 1945-1973 3 relative decline, 1973-1989

4 an apparent revival of hegemony since 1989

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 hegemon is not yet fully aware of its power and lacks the experience to use it the result is interstate conict (among capitalist powers), rising protectionism, and global war

world systems theory and hegemony

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 inuence consider the construction of the bretton woods system, the creation of the united nations, the unication and rebuilding of western europe, the pacication and resurrection of japan, and the unremitting war against the communist world

world systems theory and hegemony

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?

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, rst in vietnam, but later in dozens of small conicts around the world

16

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

17

response to a reporters question on the strategic importance of indochina

You have, of course, both the specic and the general when you talk about such things. First of all, you have the specic 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 rst 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 inuences () Now, with respect to the rst one, two of the items from this particular area that the world uses are tin and tungsten. They are very important.

18

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.

19

world systems theory and hegemony

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 an overall loss of condence importantly, this decline is a function of hegemony itself: taking charge of the world is a game of diminishing returns

world systems theory and hegemony

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 disappearedbut 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 theoryand an insight into its relevance for understanding and explaining international relations