Running head: FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY 1

FAQ: World Systems Theory

Haley Whitelaw

Royal Roads University

INDS 500: Dr. Wendy Schissel

26 March 2016

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

Question 1: Immanuel Wallerstein's world systems theory (WST) is built on the

assumption that the system is held together by exploitation, resulting in polarizing

the nations of the earth. The world is divided into three main zones: core, periphery,

and semi-periphery. Can you elaborate on how this hierarchy can be understood in

terms of the strength or weakness of each nation's political unit, including cultural

integration, as I made the assumption then that those nations who are stronger and

have more cultural integration in their societies will form the core while those

nations weaker to less integration move towards the periphery? Could it also be

assumed that the blending of cultures makes a nation stronger? 

There is no consensus on the rationale for the division of the world-system, but

Wallerstein does describe a structuring mechanism that is more definitional than

theoretical, and political rather than economic. When describing the initial polarization

that leads up to the current world-economy, Wallerstein states that advantage is

cumulative and a point could be reached where strength creates more strength: "crucial to

the ability of a nation to take advantage of any edge created in the marketplace, and to

begin an upward spiral from strength to strength, was the nature of its internal class

structure" (Simpson, 1990, p.74). If the class structure allowed the development of a

strong state, then the state could act on the behalf of its dominant economic groups in the

world market to reinforce the nation's advantage. Therefore the creation of strong state

machinery coupled with a national culture enabled core nations to protect the disparities

that had arisen in the world-system. They were able to do this either through diplomacy,

war, or subversion. Weakness from peripheral states stems not only from a lack of

resources but also an inability to unite internal interests (Wallerstein, 1982). Babones

2

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

(2015) suggests that "individuals participate in 'core-type' or 'peripheral-type' activities

because of the systemic positions of the countries in which they live, not the other way

around" (p.8).

You ask if it can be assumed that the blending of cultures makes a nation

stronger; from a world-systems socio-political viewpoint, state strength is described in

terms of having greater control over internal fragmentation. Nations that integrate

women, ethnic/racial/religious minorities, indigenous population, persons of non-

heterosexual sexual orientations, as well as those concerned with ecological or peace

issues, as prime actors on an equal level with the historical subjects assert themselves

more effectively than more fragmented nations (Wallerstein, 2011).

Question 2: Looking at the map of the core, semi-periphery and periphery nations

of the world, and the premise that nations developed as they did because of their

position in this world system ... how can two nations that both experienced

colonization by European powers (say, Canada, and Nigeria) have such

dramatically different places in the economic importance of the world? Does world

systems theory address why the end results of broadly similar colonial experiences

might be so different?

In my response to Question 1 I elaborated that the core-periphery hierarchy can be

understood in terms of a nation's political unit which either has strong or weak state

machinery; the core of the world-system is characterized by 'strong' nation-states that

exhibit relatively low levels of control of the market (a core country such as Canada may

have high taxes, strong government regulation, and large state-owned enterprises, but

3

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

political control of the market sphere is at arm's length). A periphery country such as

Nigeria is characterized by its 'weakness' in that it has potentially low levels of cultural

integration and is not sufficiently powerful to effectively meddle in the market (Babones,

2015).

The political basis of the world-systems categorization of nations has implications

on their economic status, however, it is important to remember that WST looks outside of

each nation's internal politics and focuses on the exploitative properties of the

relationships between the nations of each category. Although both Canada and Nigeria

experienced colonization, a distinguishing feature of incorporation of a periphery into the

world-system is not the importance of that periphery to the division of labour of the core

but the impact on the periphery of events in the core: "Africa is a periphery of Europe not

because Europe needs Africa to feed itself but because relatively minor changes in

European policies (e.g. the rules for granting of offset credits in the European carbon

market) can have outsized impacts on African countries. Europe does not consider

African needs in settling its internal affairs, but Europe's internal affairs can profoundly

impact African economics, politics, and culture. Africa is no less incorporated for its lack

of influence on Europe" (Babones, 2015, p.10).

I think it is also interesting to note that Wallerstein's sociological interest was

initially politics, and his main scholarly pursuit in graduate school in the 1950s was a

study of contemporary social change in Africa. In the 1960s these contemporary issues

included that of post independence difficulties, and he performed fieldwork on the

movement for African unity at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria (among other African

universities). Wallerstein experimented with comparative analysis but never published his

4

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

work because of his dissatisfaction with the methodology, and this is what turned him

towards world-systems analysis (Wallerstein, 2002). "His work as an Africanist in the

period of decolonization convinced him that in order to make sense of what was

happening before his eyes, he could not continue to look only at Africa" (Palumbo-Liu et

al., 2011, p. 2). In the 1980s, challenges to his work arose from what he describes as "the

broad current [of] cultural studies" (within which he includes postmodernism and 'post-

other things'). Their criticism was that WST had far too many disprovable hypotheses,

and was committing the fatal sin of ignoring culture (Wallerstein, 2002).

Question 3: Why does the unit of analysis have to be the world rather than a tribe,

class or nation?  Is there any research as to why that is?  Is WST theory scalable; is

it possible for it to be applied on a smaller scale?

As for the ‘world scale’ analysis; in the first volume of his trilogy, The Modern

World System (1974), Wallerstein says that he chose the world as the appropriate unit

because it was only at this scale that he could ‘see’ the system. The Marxist influence on

his work would suggest the belief that the truth is always the whole. Throughout his

writings, Wallerstein makes the case that the modern world-system is a capitalist world-

economy, that capitalism can only exist within the framework of a world-economy, and

that a world-economy can only operate on capitalist principles (Wallerstein, 2002).

Palumbo-Liu et al. (2011) mention Wallerstein’s analogy of WST with astronomy – the

physical laws determining the orbits of the planets around the sun. He was using formal

coherence as criteria, and hints at a hierarchical social content (sun and planets, core and

periphery). This coherence is crucial to the assumption that the world forms a system and

5

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

that the historical framework of the system explains all major events within it by asking

what it is about the system that produces phenomena (Auschwitz, Gulags, ethnic

purification for example) and allows them to flourish in ways that hadn’t occurred before.

The article Immanuel Wallerstein and the problem of the world: System, scale,

culture argues that it makes sense to think of Wallerstein’s choice for the world scale unit

of analysis as existential: “… as a judgment summing up the state of the world at a given

time and shaping the analytic perspective that seemed best suited to deal with it. This is

not to say that the inclination of the world scale was merely personal or innocently

spontaneous” (Palumbo-Liu et al., 2011, p. 3). They state that any alternative

methodology, any smaller unit of analysis that tried to displace it without coming to

terms in some equally visceral way with global inequality would risk looking trivial.

If world systems theory was ‘scalable’ it would go against Wallerstein’s stance

against disciplinary specialization. The aim of WST is “to understand how the core

subjugates the periphery, and not to study the reactions of the micro-populations

habitually investigated by the anthropologists… [Wallerstein] wants to think

simultaneously on the level of the encompassing system and on the micro-level” (Eric

Wolf, as quoted by Palumbo-Liu et al., 2011, p. 8).

Question 4: A criticism of world systems theory is that it misinterprets historical

evidence; can you elaborate on the context of this criticism?

This point of criticism comes from Simpson (1990) who was writing in the

context of a critical examination of the Cook Islands and WST as a general theory of

(under)development. I think it is important to remember that Wallerstein is a critic of

6

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

specialization, and while he stresses the importance of historical factors in development,

one of the reasons WST is resilient is because of its simplicity. Yes, the WST model is

economically deterministic, and Simpson maintains that the history of the Cook Islands

since European contact contains elements that both support and undermine this. For

example, Indigenous control of shipping prior to 1901, affected by policy measures by

the New Zealand administration, followed by loss of control to European merchants by

the end of World War I would lead to the expectation that the relationship between the

Cook Islands (peripheral nation), New Zealand (semi-peripheral), and Britain (core) to be

primarily characterized by economic exploitation. Simpson makes the assertion that

annexation of the Cook Islands included other important factors such as welfare and

strategic reasons; the islands comprising the group are small, have limited resources, and

lack a significant skilled work force: "exploitation is not the only possible explanation of

the lopsided nature of the Cook Islands' economy" (Simpson, 1990).

Question 5: History is (re-)written by the victors; and in the context of world

systems theory, the economically dominant. Can you comment on WST's focus on

world history within Wallerstein's mode of analysis, and the value of the theory

from other perspectives (humanist, colonial)?

The focus on history seems to be a point of contention for this 'theory'

(Wallerstein classifies his framework as world systems analysis - however I am referring

to it as world systems theory for the sake of continuity). I don't think that the two

paradigms of colonial theory and WST would merge because Wallerstein believes his

mode of analysis is primarily a protest against the ways in which social science (and

7

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

'theorizing') is done. The key issue being; how to overcome the distinction of three social

arenas: economic, political, and sociocultural. Wallerstein (2002) called for sociologists

to move forward to the construction of a new and reunified discipline he calls "historical

social science" (p. 372).

One of my sources is a collection of essays written by a variety of humanists; and

it is noted in the introduction that "[Euro-American cultural critics] tell ourselves ... that

we have committed an ethical and political injustice in excluding so much of the rest of

the world from ... the setting up and interpreting of canons, the choice of categories we

apply which we compare cultural forms and social realities, and so on" (Palumbo-Liu et

al., 2011, p. 4). I'm sure this is why I'm drawn to world-systems theory as an

interdisciplinary topic, as disciplinary visions of planetarity compete and confuse

(anthropology, ethnic studies, etc); history must be written beyond the scale of the nation.

WST is therefore especially good for humanists to reflect on, precisely because it is

somewhat unfriendly to the humanities (Palumbo-Liu et al., 2011).

Question 6: A criticism of world systems theory is the lack of attention to agency.

How does Wallerstein view periphery regions that are actively choosing to build

greater agency by developing goods and services? Does World Systems Theory

make a value judgment about motivation?

Wallerstein emphatically maintains that the positions of core, semi-periphery and

periphery pre-date the emergence of the modern world-economy and identifies their

existence in pre-modern world-empires. Therefore, I don't believe WST pays much

attention to agency, whether in attempts for economic growth or the motivations of

8

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

peripheral regions. The large scale of WST is the reason that it works; there can't be

further categorizations within periphery, for example: the point is not to jump from one

scale (the world) to another (the inner motivations and agency of each nation) or all of the

theoretical, epistemological, and political commitments cannot be expected to line up

perfectly with each other; "the topic of scale demands that you put your ultimate

commitments in play, and leave them there" (Palumbo-Liu et al., 2011, p. 8).

The criticism that you referred to comes from a humanist perspective of positive

values (motivation, agency) and objects of knowledge (culture, subjectivity). World-

systems theory is an inspiring narrative for the social scientist but leaves nothing valuable

for the traditional humanist... it has very little deference to cultural particularity besides

its broad defining premise of unequal exchange across the international division of labour

(Palumbo-Liu et al., 2011). This slight does attest to the validity of Palumbo-Liu's

criticism (2011) that what Wallerstein offers is not a theory of global capitalism or a

system, but rather a history; and that his system is much more open to contingency than

he tends to recognize.

Question 7: I am wondering in your research, did anyone suggest how and why

change might take place? I can see the countries on the periphery would certainly

want change and to put an end to exploitation but when one of the main drivers of

our society is the economy and wealth what do you see as a force for change for

countries at the core?

World systems theory dictates that the current capitalist world economy is not

sustainable and so 'why' change might take place is because change is inevitable. The

9

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

way that I interpret 'how' is that the force for change comes from the top down (core

countries holding the power of the economy), and I will elaborate. Wallerstein writes

from a leftist perspective and in his 2008 article for Monthly Review: An Independent

Socialist Magazine, he describes the crisis facing the world system and how the current

capitalist system will not survive. Wallerstein states that the world is currently in

transition, and the outcome of the struggle is dependent on the totality of the actions of

everyone on all sides. Speculations about the successor world-system to the current

capitalist world economy range from a socialist world-government to an American

world-empire.

WHY change will take place: a systemic crisis occurs only once in the life of a

historical system. It occurs when the mechanisms that exist to bring the system back to

some kind of equilibrium no longer function adequately, and the system can be seen to be

moving far from equilibrium, thereby becoming “chaotic” (Wallerstein, 2008).

HOW will change occur: in Wallerstein's opinion, it is only with the creation of

the World Social Forum (WSF) in 2001 that there has come into existence a structure

within which an alternative strategy may possibly be developed. The argument is that the

major national and international organizations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries

were all "vertical" in that they were hierarchical structures, with bureaucracies and

officers, with official statements of political position, and with members; they all were

political organizations dedicated to some kind of action in the political arena. As opposed

to this mode of organization, the WSF as a "horizontal" structure is constructed as an

open forum. That is, it is a structure without officers, without (or with only a skeleton)

bureaucracy, with no public proclamation of political positions, and with open and

10

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

constant debate. The WSF has become an organizational model for replication at other

levels: continental, regional, national, and local social forums, as well as so-called

thematic forums. The worldwide WSF has been continually improving to increase

transparency of how the inevitable organizational decisions are being made, and the

creation of explicit spaces for 'networks' of organizations to meet and to organize joint

activities (Wallerstein, 2008).

Wallerstein also notes that "there is no precise idea of appropriate structures for

the better world-system we want to construct. That was one of the great historic virtues of

Marx. He never claimed he could design what the 'communist' world would actually look

like in institutional terms … work in the short run is primarily defensive. It is to keep

things from getting worse. It is to preserve gains already achieved" (2008).

Question 8: World systems theory is anticipatory, and seeks to undo global

inequities. Could you provide an example of the kind of strategy for equitable

development that world systems theory would propose? 

In his essay based on a talk that Wallerstein delivered at the conference, "Global

Crisis: Rethinking Economy and Society" at the University of Chicago in 2010, he

outlines a medley of tactics that serve as strategy to mobilize support for equitable

development towards a better world-system that is relatively democratic and relatively

egalitarian.

1. Place great emphasis on serious intellectual analysis; not in a discussion merely

by intellectuals, but throughout the populations of the world. Wallerstein notes we

have never really had this in the past, and without it we cannot hope to proceed.

11

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

2. Categorically reject the goal of economic growth and replace it with the goal of

maximum decommodification- what the movements of indigenous nations in the

Americas are calling buen vivir.

Wallerstein admits that 'how' this is done is not immediately obvious, and must be

experimented widely with.

3. Create local and regional self-sufficiencies, especially in the basic elements of

life such as food and shelter. Wallerstein notes that the globalization we want is

not a single totally integrated division of labour but an 'afterglobalization' of

multiple autonomies that interconnect.

4. End the existence of foreign military bases, by anyone, anywhere, for any

reason. The United States has the widest collection of bases but as we know, it is

not the only state to have such bases. (Reduction of bases will also reduce the

amount of world resources spent on military machines, equipment, personnel, and

permit allocation of these resources for better uses).

5. Aggressive pursuit of ending the fundamental social inequalities of gender,

race, ethnicity, religion, sexualities, etc.

Wallerstein (2011) notes that we cannot expect a better world-system circa 2050

if, in the interim, any of the three pending supercalamities occurs: irrevocable climate

change, vast pandemics, and nuclear war.

In the Journal of World-Systems Research, Teivo Teivainen wrote the article,

'Towards a Democratic Theory of the World-System: Democracy, Territoriality, and

Transnationalization' (2015) from a viewpoint that assumes the need to search for

12

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

democratic alternatives to the capitalist world-system, arguing that we need to move

beyond exclusively territorialist accounts of social space and focus on the political

multidimensionality of the world-system, and the importance of imagining institutional

features of transnational futures.

Question 9: When discussing the tourism applications of the theory, you shared the

concern: Exploitation of local economy: Resort Properties owned by international

companies (Belk & Costa, 1995). This for any responsible tourism ministry within

government, would be of great concern, or so we would hope. My question is, do you

feel that the World Systems Theory has a role to play in the opening of the Cuban

Tourism Market to the United States of America and its potential “investment” in

Cuba?

I do feel that WST has a role to play. The optimistic assumption that opening the

tourism market will be a primary means for the development of Cuba obviously comes

with a number of problems including financial & social exploitation, erosion of culture,

and expansion of gaps between the haves and have-nots. There are clearly different

effects of tourism in developed (core) areas of the world versus less-developed

(periphery) areas. Belk & Costa (1995) state that the cultural effects of touristic contact

between members of quite distinct cultures (and in the case of Cuba and the U.S.; citizens

of countries with a tumultuous political relationship) must be considered. Culture and

economy are interrelated and tourism tends to affect one by affecting the other.

As Belk & Costa (1995) observe, if cultures (as tourists experience them) lose

their uniqueness, they also lose much of their touristic appeal. And if cultural differences

13

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

are stylized, the tourist receives a commodified and simplified version of otherness. I

assume the preponderance of U.S. tourists would be visiting on an all inclusive style

package, cruise, or tour, generally seen as a low contact, brief, and shallow experience

that involves a desire to experience a foreign culture safely and comfortably without

having to alter customary living patterns. What the majority of people are looking for is a

'cheap' destination to relax and unwind - and I don't blame them, who wouldn't want to

get the 'most' out of their vacation budget? The number one way that travellers can

support local communities (both economically and culturally) is by avoiding these types

of vacations. In other Caribbean destinations, the majority of hotels & resorts are owned

by companies from core countries such as Spain, and a very miniscule percentage of the

tourist dollar actually stays in the country. Cuba must be a little different as although

many properties are managed by or contracted to international companies, I believe all

real estate is state-owned.

There are many positives to look forward to because of the trade embargo being

lifted. I think of the crumbling architecture of Havana in dire need of restoration;

medications & supplies that Canada would have been happy to provide had the embargo

restrictions not affected our trade as well; access to information and communication via

satellite and internet; increased cultural understanding and exchange. But I fear the

contrast between tourist perception vs. reality, as "tourism becomes a form of

imperialism in which the tourist derives satisfaction from exercising power over the host

and service providers" (Belk & Costa, 1995, p.36). What are the expectations going to be

from tourists who will be comparing their Cuban accommodations to North American

and other Caribbean standards? How many tourists will actually have meaningful contact

14

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

with Cuban citizens and gain insight into their reality; will they even care to understand

the effect the trade embargo had? World Systems Theory has a role to play as this

framework urges more cautious, balanced, and sensitive research, responsible marketing,

and decision making in place of a headlong rush into the development of tourism.

15

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

References

Babones, S. (2015). What is world-systems analysis? Distinguishing theory from

perspective. Thesis Eleven, 127(1), 3-20. doi:10.1177/0725513615575324

Belk, R., & Costa, J. (1995). International tourism: An assessment and overview. Journal

of Macromarketing, 15(2), 33-49. doi:10.1177/027614679501500204

Cochrane, J. (2010). The sphere of tourism resilience. Tourism Recreation Research,

35(2), 173-185. doi:10.1080/02508281.2010.11081632

Palumbo-Liu, D., Robbins, B., Tanoukhi, N. (2011). Immanuel Wallerstein and the

problem of the world: System, scale, culture. Durham: Duke University Press.

Schouten, P. (2008). Theory Talk #13: Immanuel Wallerstein on World-Systems, the

Imminent End of Capitalism and Unifying Social Science. Theory Talks Forum.

Simpson, G. (1990). Wallerstein's world-systems theory and the Cook Islands: A critical

examination. Pacific Studies,14, 73-94.

Teivainen, T. (2000). Towards a democratic theory of the world-system: Democracy,

territoriality, and transnationalization. Journal of World-Systems Research, 6(3),

706-725.

Wallerstein, I. (2002). The itinerary of world-systems analysis; or, how to resist

becoming a theory. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), New Directions in

Contemporary Sociological Theory (358-376). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-System Analysis: An Introduction. Durham: Duke

University Press.

16

FAQ: WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY

Wallerstein, I. (2008). Remembering Andre Gunder Frank while thinking about the

future. Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, 60(2), 50-61.

Wallerstein, I. (2011). Structural crisis in the world system: Where do we go from here?

Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, 62 (10), 31-39.

17