World-System Theory

Author(s): Daniel Chirot and Thomas D. Hall

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 8 (1982), pp. 81-106
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2945989 .
Accessed: 03/07/2014 18:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ann.Rev. Sociol. 1982. 8:81-106
Copyright(? 1982 byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved

WORLD-SYSTEM THEORY
Daniel Chirot
Schoolof International of Washington,
Studies,University Seattle,
Washington 98195

ThomasD. Hall
Department
of Sociology,University
of Oklahoma,Norman,Oklahoma
73019

WORLD-SYSTEM THEORY
World-system theoryis a highlypoliticalapproachtotheproblemofeconomic
development in the ThirdWorld. It was createdby policy-oriented intel-
lectualsin countriesat a mediumlevel of development to accountfortheir
societies'demonstrable inabilityto catch up to the rich countries.In its
contemporary American form,world-system theoryhasbroadened intoa more
purelyacademicenterprise designedto explainthehistoricalriseoftheWest,
as well as thecontinuedpovertyof mostnon-Western societies.But it has
generallyremained theproperty ofa left,whichdemandsredistribution ofthe
world'seconomicwealthandwhichprovidestheoretical andideologicalsup-
portfora "newinternational economicorder"(Dadzie 1980;Bhagwati1977).

How It DiffersFromModernization
Theory
In American sociologyworld-system theoryevolvedas a directattackagainst
theversionofdevelopment theorythathadprevailedin the1950sand 1960s.
The older theoryhad twomainparts,one structural, and theotherpsycho-
logical,and thetwodid notnecessarily cohere.But together,theycame to
comprisewhatwas called "modernization theory."
The structural side of modernizationtheorywas a uniform evolutionary
visionof social,political,and economicdevelopment. As Portes(1976) has
explained,thesociologicalportionof thisvisionhad deep rootsin classical
theoryand consistedchieflyof a beliefin progressive,increasingdiffer-
entiationas thekeytomodernization. Parsons(1951) was itsprincipal
modern
prophet.Hoselitz(1960), Levy(1966), andWilbert Moore(Hoselitz& Moore

81
0360-0572/82/0815-$02.00

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 CHIROT & HALL

1963, Moore 1979) wereamongits mostimportant interpreters.

A similar
approachcharacterized politicalscientists
groupedintheCommittee on Com-
parativePoliticsof theSocial ScienceResearchCouncil(Almond& Verba
1963,Almond& Powell1966). Butitwas aneconomist, W. W. Rostow,who
gave modernization theoryitsmostconcreteand best-known form(1960).
The uniform evolutionary theoryof development can be summarized in
Chart1. Accordingto thistheory,all societies,once theybegintheprocess
ofmodernization, mustmovefromdevelopment stageA to B, B to C, andso
on. Of courseeven the strictest followerof uniformevolutionary theory
recognizesthattheworldchangesandthata societygoingthrough stageA at
time4 is different froma societythathas gone through stageA at time2;
however,thesimilarities betweenA2(as experienced bysocietyI) andA3(as
experienced by societyII) aremoreimportant thanthedifferences causedby
theirexperiencing stage A at different times.Followersof such theories
recognizedthattimeperiodsare not uniform.Contemporary societiesare
likelytomovefromone stageto thenextmorequicklythan,say,Englanddid
inthepast;andsomesocieties,bypurposefully acceleratingtheprocess,may
advancemorerapidlythannormal.Uniform stagesstillexist,however,and
in timeall of theworld'ssocietieswill experiencethem.
Rostow's(1960) stageswere:traditional economies,thetransition to take-
off(the adoptionof scientific methodsof technology), the take-off(rapid
capitalaccumulation and earlyindustrialization),thedriveto maturity (high
in whichthestandard
industrialization of livingof themassesremainslow),
and theage of highconsumption. By thelate 1960s,manysocial scientists
werepredicting a sixthstage,"post-industrial" society(Bell 1973).
Thesocial-psychological versionofmodernization theoryexplainedtherise
oftheWestbyclaimingthatWesterners (chieflyProtestantWesterners) were
possessedbya highneedforachievement andrationality.McClelland(1967)
andHagen (1962) werethistheory'sbestknownproponents, and thoughin
detailtheirexplanations wereby no meanssimilar,theirmainpointswere.
Bothbelievedthata contemporary society'schancesofdevelopment depended

Chart 1 SocietiesI-V, seen at times1-6, in developmental

stagesA-E

Society Times
1 2 3 4 5 6

I Traditional A2 B3 C4 DB E6
II Traditional A3 B4 C5 D6
III Traditional A4 B5 C6
IV Traditional A5 B6
V Traditional A6

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WORLD-SYSTEMTHEORY 83

on thepsychological make-upof itsmembers.Despitetheirattempts to link

thesetheorieswithWeber(1958) and Schumpeter (1934), however,social-
psychological workfailedtoincorporate theimportant structural
variablesthat
determine thedirection in whichachievement-oriented individualsare forced
bytheirsurroundings (Portes1976). Individualmotivation can hardlyexplain
whyrealestatespeculation is moreprofitable inone country, whilein another
investment in electronics factories attractsmorecapital.
A more reasonable,but not much more satisfying versionof social-
psychological modernization theorysaw "modern"menbeingproducedby
contactwithmoderninstitutions (Lerner1958, Inkeles& Smith1974). But
thishypothesis begsthequestionofwhytherearemore"modern"institutions
in, say,Japanthanin Java.
All versionsofmodernization theory weremeliorative, admitting thepossi-
bilityof acceleratedchangethrough suchdevicesas foreignaid (to provide
capitalandmodern know-how), psychologicalmanipulation tobetter motivate
individuals, reform of legal and economicnorms,or a combination of these.
Butmodernization theory tendedtorefusetheidea thatdeepstructural factors
mightpreventeconomicprogress,and moreimportant, thattheveryinter-
nationalcontextof modernization mightitselfbe an obstacle.
Thatrecognition came fromworld-system theory,whichclaimsthatthe
uniform statesofdevelopment positedbyRostow,Almond,andtheothersare
nonsensical. The existenceofstrong manufacturing powerswiththeabilityto
extendtheirmarkets andtheirpoliticalstrength throughout theworldredirects
theevolutionoffeeblersocieties.Englandmayhavegonethrough stagesA2,
A3, and so on, but Poland, forexample,wentthroughentirelydifferent,
though no less "modern"stagesonceitbecamea grainexporting periphery of
thenorthwestern Europeanmarket.Insteadofgoingthrough stagesA, B, and
C, it turnedintosomething Englandhad neverbeen-a dependency of the
capitalistworld-system. All themorewas thisthecase withLatinAmerica,
mostofAsia, andlater,Africa.Noneofthesesocietiesremained traditional,
butall wereforcedintodifferent pathsof development by Westernpowers.
Nordid Englandgo alone through thestagesof development thatled to its
industrialization:It proceededonlywiththeaid ofthesurplusitextorted from
thesocietiesit exploited.Whatis todaycalled theThirdWorldreachedits
present statebybeingsystematically underdeveloped; itdid notremainstuck
in a stagesimilarto theWest'sfeudalperiod,or somehowremainevenmore
primitive duringthecenturies in whichitwas exposedto, andcolonizedby,
Western Europe.
Theeconomist A. G. Frank,oneofthemostpolemicalandsimplistic ofthe
world-system theorists, but one of themostintellectually influential,sum-
marizedthispointofviewmostforcefully (1969). Traditionalsociety,he said,
was a myth."Thefolkcharacteristics whichwerestudiedbyRobertRedfield,

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84 CHIROT & HALL

and whichHoselitzseemsto associatewiththepatternvariablesof under-

developedsociety,do not characterize any whole societyexistingtoday."
According to Frank,McClellandcontributed no morethana suggestion that
people in poor countriesbe givena seriesof courseson how to improve
themselves. Rostow'stypology neglectedthebenefits of theWest'scolonies
to its development, and the destructiveeffectsof thatcolonizationon the
coloniesthemselves.Therefore,his stages were nothingmore thanself-
servingmythology, like therestof modernizationtheory.
It was notFrank,however,butImmanuelWallerstein whobrought world-
system theory(includingthenameitself)intothesociologicallimelightinthe
1970s(Wallerstein 1974, 1979, 1980).

Wallerstein's
MacrosociologicalTheoryofEconomicChange
Wallersteinpositshistorical stagesofdevelopment differentfromtheuniform
evolutionary constructs of modernization theorists.At one timeall societies
wereminisystems. "A minisystem is an entitythathas withinit a complete
divisionof labor,and a singleculturalframework. Such systemsare found
only in verysimpleagricultural or huntingand gathering societies.Such
minisystems no longerexistintheworld.. .anysuchsystemthatbecametied
toan empirebythepayment oftribute as 'protectioncosts'ceasedbythatfact
tobe a 'system'.. ." (1979). It followsfromthisthattheanthropologists who
havedescribed "tribal"societiesinthe19thand20thcenturies as iftheywere
minisystems misseda keyingredient. Virtuallyall suchsocieties,as Balandier
pointedout (1951; reprinted in Englishin Wallerstein 1966), existedwithin
colonies.Based on suchdescriptions, thenotionof"traditionalism" is vitiated
fromthestart.
Thentherecameworld-systems, "unit[s]witha singledivisionoflaborand
multiple culturalsystems.It followslogicallythattherecan. . .be twovari-
etiesof such world-systems, one witha commonpoliticalsystemand one
without." The former (politicallyunited)arecalled"world-empires," andthe
latter"world-economies" (1979). Until the adventof capitalism,world-
economieswereunstableand tendedtoward"disintegration or conquestby
one groupand hencetransformation intoa world-empire. Examplesof such
world-empires emergingfromworld-economies are all the so-calledgreat
civilizationsof premoderntimes, such as China, Egypt, Rome. . ." (1979).
World-empires killedtheeconomicdynamism of theirareasby usingtoo
muchof theirsurplusto maintaintheirbureaucracies. In about 1500 there
begana novel typeof world-economy, the capitalistone. "In a capitalist
world-economy, politicalenergyis usedto securemonopoly rights(oras near
to itas can be achieved).The statebecomesless thecentraleconomicenter-
prisethanthemeansof assuringcertaintermsof tradein othereconomic
transactions.In thisway,theoperationof themarket(notthefree operation

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WORLD-SYSTEMTHEORY 85

but nonetheless itsoperation) createsincentives to increasedproductivity and

all theconsequent accompaniment ofmoderneconomicdevelopment" (1974).
Thereasonsforcapitalism'ssuccesswhenotherworld-economies failedare
complex,buttwostandout.New transportation technology allowedfar-flung
markets tobe maintained, andWesternmilitary technology insuredthepower
toenforce favorable termsoftrade(Cipolla 1965). Unburdened fromthecosts
ofmaintaining unifiedempireswithintheireconomiczones,capitalists could
wax strong.The Englishand Dutchcapitalistswere able to beat back the
Hapsburg-Catholic attempt toturntheemerging world-economy intoa world-
empire,and afterthatcapitalismproceededto spreadthroughout theglobe
(Wallerstein 1974).
This world-economy developed a core with well-developedtowns,
flourishing manufacturing, technologically progressiveagriculture, skilled
and relatively well-paidlabor, and high investment. But the core needed
peripheries fromwhichto extractthesurplusthatfueledexpansion.Periph-
eriesproducedcertainkeyprimary goods whiletheirtownswithered, labor
becamecoercedin orderto keep downthecostsof production, technology
stagnated, laborremained unskilledor evenbecameless skilled,andcapital,
rather thanaccumulating, was withdrawn towardthecore.At first thediffer-
encesbetweenthecoreandtheperiphery weresmall,butbyexploiting these
differences and buyingcheap primaryproductsin returnfor dear manu-
facturing goods, northwestern Europe expandedthe gap. Uneven devel-
opment, then,is nota recentdevelopment or a mereartifact of thecapitalist
world-economy; it is one of capitalism'sbasic components (1974).
Wallerstein stressestheimportance of a thirdcategory, thesemiperiphery.
Societiesin thisgroupstandbetweenthe core and periphery in termsof
economicpower.Some mayeventually fallintotheperiphery, as did Spain
in the17thand 18thcenturies, and othersmayeventually riseintothecore,
as has modernJapan.Semiperipheries deflectthe angerand revolutionary
activityofperipheries, andtheyserveas goodplacesforcapitalist investment
whenwell-organized laborforcesin coreeconomiescause wagesto risetoo
fast.As Spaincontrolled LatinAmericaforthecorein the16thto early19th
centuries,so did Sweden,and laterPrussia,controlPolandin the 17thand
18th(1980). Brazil plays a similarrole in contemporary Latin America
(1979), andpresumably Iranwas slatedforthisrolein theMiddleEast ofthe
1980s.Wallerstein believesthatwithout semiperipheries, thecapitalist world-
systemcannotfunction.
Finally,Wallerstein turnstheMarxistnotionofclassconflict intoa question
ofinternational conflict. It is notso muchthatthecountries of thecoreare a
kindofupperclass,theperiphery anexploitedworking class,andthesemiper-
ipherya middleclass (thoughsomeof Wallerstein's worksuggestsprecisely
that).Rather,thebourgeoisieand theproletariat are world-wide classesthat

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
86 CHIROT & HALL

do not operatemerelywithinstateboundaries.The termsemiperipheral,

however,appliesonlyto states.
This impliesthatthe class and even ethnicstructures withinparticular
countries mustbe interpreted as mereadjunctsof theinternational capitalist
divisionoflabor.Theyareanalytically important primarily becausetheyhelp
to explaintheperformance of individualcountries in theinternationalgame.
Butno singlecountry, orevengroupofcountries, can escapethelogicofthis
transnational system.It follows,therefore, thatsocialistrevolution cannot
occurin a singlecountry.Socialismwill developwithina socialistworld-
system.Eventswithina singlecountry mayadvanceor retardtheadventof
socialism,butcannot,by themselves, be decisive.The SovietUnion,for
example,cannotbe trulysocialisteven thoughit has advancedthe world
further towardrevolution.But untilthattransformation has been accom-
plished,evenitsinternal structure is deformed by thefactthatit mustact in
a largercapitalist
system.It mayevenbe actingas another corepower(1979).
Wallerstein'sworkis in manywaysan extraordinary tourdeforcebecause
it bringstogether so manyhistorical periodsand information aboutso many
placesin a single,logical,andconsistent framework. Demonstrating thattrue
socialismcannotexistin the U.S.S.R. also shows thatseeming"feudal"
agrarian relationshipsin contemporary LatinAmericaarenothing ofthesort,
butyetanother partof thepervasiveworldcapitalist-system. The riseof the
Westin the 16thcentury is explainedwiththesame logic as thecontinued
poverty ofmuchoftheworldtoday.The failureoftheproletariat to revoltor
even to sustainsocialistideologiesin richWesterncountries(a persistent
problemforMarxists)is treatedwithinthesame context.The proletariat is
largelylocatedin the periphery, or at least consistsof "ethnicities" that
originate in theperiphery. So revolution willhaveto comechiefly outof the
periphery andsemiperiphery whereproletariat class interestsareclearer.The
failureof the"rich"proletariat, boughtoffby theconcentration of wealthin
the core,to carryoutitsmissionis understandable, anddoes notdestroy the
originalMarxistvision.Boththesatisfying scope of his workandhis ability
to resolvemanyofthecontradictions of Marxisttheory without givingup its
revolutionary thrusthave endearedWallerstein to manysocial scientists.
Butsignificantandoriginalas itis, Wallerstein's workis itselftheproduct
ofa longintellectual history. In one formoranother, world-system theory has
existedforwell over a century.It is important to understand thisfortwo
reasons.First,knowledgeof its antecedentsallows us to avoid needless
repetitionofmanyold debatesaboutthesubject.Second,world-system theory
is by no meansguaranteed long-term successin Americansocial science.It
maywellbe a passingphase.Butin someothercountries, ithas muchdeeper
and olderroots,and is morecentralto prevailingpoliticalideologiesand

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WORLD-SYSTEMTHEORY 87

thanin theUnitedStates,whereit is onlyknownbya small

politicalconflict
groupof professional intellectuals.

THE INTELLECTUAL ROOTS OF WORLD-SYSTEM

THEORY

Advantage
Listand theIssue of Comparative
Some of the problemsraised by world-system theoryhad alreadybeen
broachedby mercantilist in the 17thand 18thcenturies
theoreticians (Heck-
scher1955),butitwas notuntil1817thatDavid Ricardoformulated whatwas
tobecometheclassicalmodemeconomictheory offreetrade.He arguedthat
unrestricted exchangebetweentwocountries is alwaysadvantageous ifthey
producemutuallydesirablegoods at different degreesof efficiency. Por-
tuguesewineshouldbe allowedin Britain,forexample,in return forBritish
clothbecausetheEnglishproducedclothmoreefficiently thanwine,andthe
Portuguese didthereverse.Even ifthePortuguese couldproduceclothmore
cheaplythantheBritish, thefactthattheyproducedwineevenmoreefficiently
meantthatit would increasetheirtotalproductivity to specializein wine.
England,on theotherhand,shouldspecializein manufactured goodswhere
it helda comparative advantage(Samuelson1967; Robinson1973).
In 1841,inhisNationalSystem ofPoliticalEconomy,Friedrich Listargued
thatRicardowas wrongbecauseit mightbe to thelong-run advantageof an
economyto foster infant thatcouldnot,in theshortterm,compete
industries
freelywiththoseof moreadvancedeconomies.The resulting advantagesin
technological sophisticationoutweighedthe short-run losses in totaloutput
(Senghaas1977).
Thedebatehascontinued betweenthetwosideseversince.Withexpansion
andgreater Ricardo'stheoryhas remainedthemajority
sophistication, view-
pointamongWesterneconomists.FromAlfredMarshall'sThePure Theory
ofModernTradein 1879 (1930) to Paul Samuelson(1948, 1975), freetrade
has been vigorouslydefended.On the otherside, leftisteconomistshave
repeatedly attackedit, goingconsiderably further thanList,who was onlya
mildprotectionist (Robinson1960, 1973; Emmanuel1972, 1977, 1980).
We have neitherthespace northenecessaryknowledgeof economicsto
resolvethisold issue. But we can at least warnsociologiststo be cautious
beforetheyblindlyaccepteitheroftheseviewpoints. In almostall discussions
ofworld-system theory, however,the debatereappearsinoneformoranother
as if it had been resolvedagainstRicardo:Free tradebenefits theadvanced
industrial economiesbutslows development of poorereconomies.

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
88 CHIROT & HALL

Lenin,Luxemburg,
Trotsky,
and Bukharin
In 1902, J. A. Hobsonpublishedan attackagainstimperialism thatproved
important notso muchbecauseof itsinfluence on liberals(thoughat thetime
thatwas considerable)butbecauseofLenin'suse ofHobson'sideasanddata
inhis 1917workImperialism: TheHighestStageofCapitalism(1939). Lenin
arguedthatthefinalcrisisof capitalismhadbeenavoidedbecauseof imperi-
alistexploitation
ofcolonialandquasi-colonialareas.Without theextraprofits
gainedfromthesesources,therateof return on capitalistinvestment would
fall,theworkingclass in advancedcapitalistcountrieswouldbe impover-
ished,andrevolution wouldfollow.Consequently, theFirstWorldWarwas
partof a desperatestruggleforcolonialempiresby themajorpowers.
ButLenindid notdiscusstheeffects of imperialism on thepeasantsin the
colonies.This Rosa Luxemburghad done in 1913, particularly in thelast
sectionof TheAccumulation of Capital (1951). She described,amongother
cases, theresultsofthespreadof capitalismintoEgyptthrough international
loansinthe19thcentury. The Egyptian economyhadbeenrevolutionized and
had becomepartof thegreatercapitalistsystemof exchange.Railroadshad
beenbuilt,cashcropsintroduced, andthepeasantshadbeendeprivedoftheir
landandruined.The Egyptianstatehadgonebankrupt andbeenseizedbythe
British.Progresshadgainedgreatprofits forEuropeanfinance tothedetriment
oftheEgyptians. Turkey,Russia,India,China,andNorthAfricawereother
examplesof analogousdevelopments. She calledtheseregions"hinterlands"
of capitalism.
In 1930 Trotskyadded his revolutionary ironyto the emergent Marxist
consensuson "cores" and "peripheries"by commenting on the "semi-
peripheral"roleplayedby prerevolutionary Russia. He wrote:(1959)
The participationof Russia [in WorldWar I] fallssomewherebetweentheparticipation of
Franceand thatof China.Russia paid in thisway forherrightto oppressand robTurkey,
Persia,Galicia, and in generalthecountriesweakerand morebackwardthanherself.The
twofoldimperialism of an agencyfor
of theRussianbourgeoisiehad basicallythecharacter
othermightier worldpowers.. theRussianautocracyon theone hand,theRussianbour-
geoisieon the other,containedfeaturesof compradorism. . . They lived and nourished
themselvesupontheirconnections withforeignimperialism,servedit,andwithoutitssupport
could not have survived.. . . The semi-comprador Russian bourgeoisiehad world-
imperialistic
interests inthesamesensein whichan agentworking livesbythe
on percentages
interest
of his employers.

The communist who was theclosestto modernworld-system

theoretician
theorywas Bukharin.His writing
aboutimperialismis nothighlyoriginal(in
fact,hetookmuchofhisargument buthislanguage
fromHilferding),
directly
and emphasison the importanceof world-wideanalysisforeshadowed the
mainthrustof thewritings Frank,and theirallies. In 1915,
of Wallerstein,
Bukharin wrote:"The cleavagebetween'townand country,'as well as the

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WORLD-SYSTEM THEORY 89

'development of thiscleavage,' formerlyconfinedto one country only,are

nowbeingreproduced on a tremendously enlargedbasis. Viewedfromthis
standpoint,entirecountriesappearto-dayas 'towns,'namelytheindustrial
countries,whereasentireagrarianterritoriesappearto be 'country"'(1929).
OtherMarxistwriters in theearly20thcentury contributedto theconstruc-
tionof a generaltheoryof imperialism(see Hilferding1923), butthissketch
of thefourbest knownshowsthedevelopment of a kindof world-system
theorylongbeforetheSecondWorldWar.MorerecentMarxistworksinthis
area(e.g. Baran 1957) havebeenelaborations and updatesof theseclassical
positions.

FascistWorld-System
Theory
It wouldbe a mistaketo considersuch theoriesthe exclusiveproperty of
Marxists inthefirsthalfofthiscentury. A curiousandtodaylittle-known fact
is thatright-wing intellectuals
in someofthemoreadvancedpoorcountries of
thattimewerealso developingsimilartheories.Theirappealwas to nation-
alismrather thantoproletariat
internationalism,buttheiranalysiswas remark-
ablysimilarto thatof theMarxists.
In 1929MihailManoilescu,a Romanian,publishedTheTheoryofProtec-
tionand International Trade (1931), in whichhe attackedthe Ricardian
conceptof comparative advantage.Wherehad it gottenPortugal,he asked?
By the 20thcentury,Portugalhad become one of the poorestand most
backwardcountriesin Europe aftercenturiesof virtually open tradewith
England.It wouldbe better,he argued,foragricultural countriesto close
themselves offfromtheworld-capitalist market,to industrialize,andto unite
theirpopulations forthedifficultstrugglethiswouldentail.Onlyin thisway
wouldthemoreadvancedindustrial countriesbe obligedto cede theirunfair
advantages and restructure
theinternationaleconomymoreequitably.
But Manoilescu,who "impressesone as raisingstrikingly contemporary
issues. . ." (Schmitter1978), was not a man of the left.His nextinter-
nationally knownbooks wereThe Centuryof Corporatism (1934) and The
SingleParty(1938), in whichhe laid outa politicalprogram to carryouthis
economicideas. He calledforMussolini'skindof fascismto destroy narrow
classinterests anddisciplinenationsto overcomethecapitalist world-market.
Manoilescu'sworkhadwideappealin easternandsouthern Europe,andin
LatinAmerica(Schmitter 1974). His suggestionsfitthebroadtrendofpolit-
ical eventsin manyof the independent semidevelopedcountriesof these
regions.In theideologicalatmosphere of the 1930s fascism,notsocialism,
seemedto be thedynamicforceof thefuture.
In 1977 ImmanuelWallerstein wrote,"The semi-peripheral stateis pre-
ciselytheareawhere,becauseofa mixofeconomicactivities, consciousstate
activitiesmaydo mostto affectthefuture patterningofeconomicactivity. In

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90 CHIROT & HALL

the twentiethcentury,thistakes the formof bringingsocialistpartiesto

power"(1979). In the1930s,however,ittooktheformofbringing fascistand
quasi-fascist
partiesto powerin a stringof semiperipheral countries caught
betweenthetrulybackwardareasof theworldandwhatMussolinicalledthe
"bourgeois"or "plutocratic"nationsabovethem(Chirot1978). Experiments
in applyingright-wing solutionsranfromBraziland Argentina to Portugal,
Spain,Italy,Bulgaria,Romania,Hungary,Poland,Turkey,and all theway
to Japan.
Alongwitha materialworld-system thereis an ideologicalone. It seems
subjecttorapidshiftsinfashion,butoftentheterminology is all thatchanges.
Theunderlying dissatisfaction
ofintellectuals
andleadersinthesemiperiphery
and advancedperiphery is neither
new norradicallydifferent fromthatof a
halfcentury ago.

DependencyTheory
Fromthisintellectual and politicalclimateof dissatisfaction in the more
advancedcountries of LatinAmericadependency theorywas born.Because
world-system theory is in mostwaysmerelya NorthAmericanadaptation of
dependency theory,thereis littleto distinguish themfromeach otheras
theoreticalconstructs. To understand dependencytheory,and to know its
literature,
is to hold a firmgraspof its latter-day littleYankee brother.Of
course,cultural imperialism beingwhatitis, theworld-system theoristsfrom
theNortharenowbeingusedby Southern dependency theorists
to legitimize
theirideas.No moreironicillustration couldexistofcoredomination and use
ofperipheral resources.The periphery can nowreimport theproductitorigi-
nallyexported, andleave behinda surplusofcultural prestigeandstrength in
thecore.
The fatherof dependencytheoryis Raul Prebisch,an Argentinian who
headedtheUnitedNationsEconomicCommission forLatinAmerica(ECLA,
orCEPAL in Spanish)in thelate 1940sandearly1950s.Wallerstein ascribes
theterminology of core and periphery to ECLA (Kaplan 1978), thoughof
coursetheconceptsare older(and in factWernerSombartused almostthe
samewordsinthesamecontext).Prebisch'sideasoriginated withhisexperi-
encesas a technicaladvisorto Argentine governments in the1930swhilethe
country was turning froma proofof the benefitsof the Ricardo-Marshall
theory offreetradeintoa demonstration ofthevulnerability ofprimary export
economiesin timesof international economiccrisis.In 1949 Prebischpub-
lishedan ECLA report(RelativePrices ofExportsand Importsof Under-
DevelopedCountries:A Studyof PostwarTermsof Trade betweenUnder-
DevelopedandIndustrialized Nations)showingthatthetermsoftradehadrun
againstagriculturalexporting countriesfromthelate19thcentury untilthelate
1930s."On theaverage,"saidthereport, "a givenquantity ofprimary exports

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WORLD-SYSTEMTHEORY 91

wouldpay, at theend of thisperiod,foronly60 percentof thequantity of

goodswhichit couldbuyat thebeginning of theperiod"(Love 1980). This
wasbecauseofthe morerapidincreaseinproductivity ofindustrialproducers.
Comparative advantage,therefore, did notoperatein favorof theprimary
producers.
Prebischdenies havingbeen directlyinfluenced by Manoilescu;but as
JosephLove has written, "Manoilescu'sideas-in Latin Americancircles
wheretheywereknown-probablyhelpedpave theway foracceptanceof
ECLA doctrines whentheyappearedin 1949" (Love 1980). In anycase, the
Romanian'stheorieswerebeingpublishedin Argentine economicjournalsin
thelate 1930s.
ECLA's theorieshave sincebecome"dependency theory."Buttheelabo-
rationof thetheory has gonefurther thaneconomics;it has createdan entire
sociologyandpoliticaltheoryof dependent development (Cardoso& Faletto
1969;Jaguaribe etal 1968;dos Santos1972). It is important toemphasize,as
does Portes(1976), thatdependency theoryis morethana simpleanalysisof
a "quasi-colonialsituationof economicstagnationand foreigncontrolof
exportenclaves.On thecontrary, contemporary dependency studiesaddress
a situationin whichdomesticindustrialization has occurredalong within-
creasingeconomicdenationalization; inwhichsustained economicgrowth has
been accompaniedby risingsocial inequalities;and in whichrapidurban-
izationandthespreadofliteracy haveconvergedwiththeevenmoreevident
marginalization of themasses."
Pablo Gonzalez Casanova's recentarticleon Mexico (1980) is a good
exampleof this.Far frombeingbackwardand dominatedby a smallrural
oligarchy,Mexico is urbanized,industrial, and by ThirdWorldstandards,
rich.Butthegapbetweenrichandpooris increasing, thegrowing population
cannotbe absorbedintothe labor force,and the substantial middleclass
demandsmoreconsumption. Foreigncapital,alliedto a domesticelite,pre-
ventstheredistribution ofwealththatwouldextendto thepoorthebenefits of
modernization. Nor is thegovernment, tiedas it is to theinternationalfiscal
system, able to directnewinvestment andspendingwhereitwishes.Instead,
itinflates
thecurrency. Mexico's hugenewpetroleum wealthalleviatesthese
problems forthetimebeing,butitcannotprovidea long-term solution.To do
that,deepstructural reforms arenecessary.Thusforeign influence(primarily
NorthAmerican)is morenoxiousas a barrierto structural changethanas a
directlyexploitivecolonizer.The Mexican Revolutionand the subsequent
policiesof nationalizationsin the 1930sdid notgo farenough.
The problemof inflation inducedby thehelplessnessof LatinAmerican
governments to controltheirownfinances is a keypartofdependency studies
(Sunkeletal 1973).TheInternational Monetary Fundis viewedas particularly
villainousbecauseits remediesto inflation stiflegrowthandpromote repres-

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
92 CHIROT & HALL

siveregimes.NotonlyLatinAmericanshavediscoveredthis,butalso North
Americanresearchers. JohnSheehan,forexample,founda highcorrelation
betweenrepression andtheapplication efficiency
ofcapitalist criteriainLatin
America.This makes"bureaucratic-authoritarian" regimesthe favoritesof
finance(O'Donnell & Frankel1978; Sheehan1980).
international
Dependencytheoristsagree thatUS multinational subsidiarieshurtthe
long-termprospectsfordevelopment in LatinAmericaby investing less than
theywithdraw. The debtserviceof LatinAmericaneconomies(acquiredto
buythemachinery withwhichto manufacture theirown substitutes forim-
ports)takestoohigha shareofearnings.The onlysolutionis greater unityin
thefaceof thegiantof theNorth,and betterintegration of LatinAmerican
economieswitheach other(Furtado1970; Evans 1981).
An equallyimportant andrelatedproblemis theavailability oftechnology.
CelsoFurtado,a former director ofECLA, haswritten (1980) that"thecontrol
oftechnology nowconstitutes thefoundation of thestructure of international
power.. .thestruggle againstdependenceis becomingan effort to eliminate
theeffectsofthemonopolyofthisresourcebythecountries ofthecore."But
thishas notyethappened.
In otherwords,industrialization based on importsubstitution in themost
advancedLatin Americancountrieshas merelycreatednew formsof de-
pendenceandnewsociopolitical imbalances.Thesearenotthesameonesthat
characterizedtheearly,semi-colonial economies,buttheyarejustas serious
(Jaguaribeet al 1970).
Dependencytheoryhas also flourished outsideLatinAmerica.Whilewe
cannotbeginto listall of its important contributorsin Africaand Asia, one
whohas caughttheattention of NorthAmericanworld-system theorists de-
servesspecialmention: SamirAmin.Moreexplicitly radicalthanmostofthe
LatinAmericans, Amin'sempiricalexperiencehas been withthefarpoorer
countriesofAfrica(1973). Thoughhis analysisof imperialism is similar,his
demandforsocialistrevolution Capitalismis "debased"and
is moreinsistent.
"sick." Undersocialism,not only will exploitation vanish,but men will
becomemorecomplete,and (how utopian)evensocial science,likegovern-
ment,willdisappearbecauseitwill no longerbe necessary.The Cambodian
experiment ofPol Pot'sKhmerRougeis citedas a correct lessonforemulation
by Africans(1977). This kindof global eschatological revolutionary vision
(Amin1980), closerto AndreGunderFrankand to Wallerstein'spolitical
essays (Wallerstein1979) thanto the morecautiouslikes of Prebischand
Furtado,stirsthebloodof NorthAmericanandWesternEuropeanMarxists.
Thereis littlepointin arguingwhether dependency theorists are "rightor
wrong."The prevailing viewamongWesterndevelopment economists is that
theirconclusions are"overdrawn.. .andcanbe questioned onboththeoretical
andempirical grounds"(Meier1976). Evidenceshowsthatthetermsoftrade

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WORLD-SYSTEM THEORY 93

ofpoorereconomieshavenotdeteriorated continuouslyinthelastcentury, but

have fluctuatedwidely.Prebisch'sdata capturedonlya slice of reality(Ba-
iroch1977). Even an economistlike W. Arthur Lewis, sympathetic to the
cause of the ThirdWorld,believesthatthe solutionsrestmoreon purely
internal
reforms thanon alteringthenatureof worldtrade.He particularly
stressesthe need to concentrate
on agricultural development over hasty
industrialization
(Lewis 1978).
Butthewidespread aboutdependency
skepticism theory, atleastinitsmore
extremeforms,does not negateits contribution. Its introductionintothe
UnitedStateshas at leastdestroyedthenaiveoptimismaboutdevelopment
expressedby theNorthAmericanmodernization theoristsof the 1950s and
1960s.

WORLD-SYSTEM THEORY AND CONTEMPORARY

SOCIOLOGY
Wallerstein's influence inmacrosociology, historical
sociology,andthestudy
of social changehas been immense.His 1974 volumereintroduced older
theoriesand seizedtheimaginations of a new generation of sociologists.
Therewerethreereasonsforthissuccess. First,in theearly1970s mod-
ernization theoryhadbeenpolitically bytheVietnamWar,which
discredited
seemedto be an applicationof theanti-communist, anti-revolutionary eco-
nomicdevelopment principlesof WaltRostow(1960).
Second,thedomesticturmoil ofthe1960shadawakenedsociologists tothe
inequitiesand unevendevelopmentof the UnitedStates itself.Marxism
seemedto be a theoretical solution,and Wallerstein presented it in a mod-
ernizedinternational contextthattiedbothforeign anddomesticproblems into
a neatpackage.
Third,a significant minorityof youngersociologiststhirsted forconcrete
historical knowledgedeniedthemby thesterilefunctionalist positivism that
hadprevailedin the1950sand 1960s. Thathistory shouldhavebeenheldin
such low esteemby the sociologyof thatperiodwas somewhatstrange,
because manyof its greatfigures-Homans,Merton,Bendix,Eisenstadt,
Barrington Moore,and Lipset-had written majorhistorical works.Perhaps
it was thathistorywas viewedonlyas a useful"data source."Wallerstein
legitimized historicalsociologyforitsown sake, and forthisthefieldowes
hima greatdebt.
It is paradoxicalandalarming thatin thelastfewyearsWallerstein's work
has beenmisusedby somesociologists,whoonce againclaimthatdredging
through historicalinformation will allow us to proveor disprovevarious
conventional andunimaginative socialtheories.Butthisdevelopment should
notletus forgetthebreathof freshair thathis workoriginally gave us.

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
94 CHIROT & HALL

Wallerstein's
Followers
Manyof thefirstbooksthatfollowedWallerstein'stheoriesand stylewere
producedbyhisColumbiaUniversity students.Hechter(1975) showedthata
core-periphery relationcouldbe used to explainpersisting ethnictensionsin
core societies.The exploitedCelticfringeof theUnitedKingdomhad been
turned intoEngland'speriphery. Ratherthandiminishing Celticparticularism,
this fringe'sintegration into the United Kingdomhad perpetuatedand
strengthened it. By analogy,the same modelmightbe appliedto Canada,
Spain,theUnitedStates,andperhapsevenFrance.Industrialization had not,
as previouslypredicted, endedregionalism, local ethnicnationalism, orother
"status"distinctionsin favorof pureclass divisions.Chirot(1976) analyzed
a typicallyperipheralsociety,Romania,claimingthataftera longexposureto
capitalistmarketforces,it had founditselfhopelesslypoor and backward.
Moulder(1977) explainedJapan'srapiddevelopment by itsabilityto shield
itselffromeconomiccolonialism.Qing China,on theotherhand,had sup-
posedlybeenpenetrated by westerncapitalismin the 19thcentury, and had
been peripheralized so thatits developmentwas blocked. Block (1977)
explainedthe moderncapitalistbankingand financialsystemin world-
systemic terms.
Thiskindof workhas continuedand spread(see Kaplan 1978; Goldfrank
1979; Hopkins& Wallerstein1980; Rubinson 1981). Billings's 1979).
first-rate
studyof post-CivilWar NorthCarolina'sindustrialization demon-
stratestheutilityof world-system theoryin explainingdomesticAmerican
socialhistory.PeterEvans's bookon Brazil(1979) combinesa sophisticated
use of Latin Americandependencytheoryand Wallersteinian conceptsto
examinethe role of the world economyand multinational firmsin that
country's spectacularbutunevenindustrialization in the 1960sand 70s. The
politicalscientistBruce Cumings,whilenot directlya "world-system the-
orist,"has used someof thetheoryto proposea majornew interpretation of
theoriginsoftheKoreanWar(1981). Manyrecentandforthcoming bookson
a varietyof countriesand historicalsituationsincorporatesome of
Wallerstein'sideas.

Quantitative
World-System
Theory
In his own workWallerstein has been studiouslynonquantitative, but his
theoriesarenotlogicallyinconsistentwithstrictquantitative Hech-
positivism.
ter(1975) was one ofthefirstto see this.In thelate 1970sa wholeschoolof
quantitativeworld-system theoristsgrewup at Stanford.The world-system
component andthemajortheoretical impetuscamefromJohnMeyer,andthe
quantitativevigorfromHannan(see thearticlesin Meyer& Hannan1979).
Beginning witha projectto studyworldeducation,and movingto problems
ofethnicity,theycameto adoptmanyofWallerstein's ideasandto urgetheir
studentsto testthemwithcross-national quantitativedata. Rubinsonand

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WORLD-SYSTEM THEORY 95

Chase-Dunnhavebecomethebestknownof theirstudents. Thoughtheydo

notlimitthemselves cross-national
to quantitative dataanalysis,thatis where
theyhavemadetheirreputations (Rubinson1976; Chase-Dunn1975; Chase-
Dunn& Rubinson1977). Bergesenhas editeda usefulbookextending tradi-
tionalhypothesis-testing techniquesto historicalmaterials
(1980).
Such workhas gainedquickpopularity. It combinestheideologicaland
politicalpunchofMarxismwiththesafeandmarketable technologytaught to
modemsociologygraduate Becauseitis so easyto findsomeUnited
students.
Nationsdata, runit througha machine,and tackon a littleworld-system
verbiage,it is a stylethathas been abused.But it has produceda fewinter-
estingideas and testsof Wallerstein'stheoriesand thoseof his followers.
Ragin,occasionallyworkingwithDelacroix(also fromtheStanford group)
has publishedmajorarticlesin thisgenre(Ragin 1977; Delacroix& Ragin
1978). He has discussedboth thepatternof world economic development and
ethnicsurvivaland reactionin developedcountriesto show some of the
important limitations of world-system formulations.Snyder& Kick (1979)
havedeviseda wayto use blockmodellingin world-systemic studies.

CulturalAnthropology
One ofthemostfruitful areasforthedevelopment ofworld-system theory has
beencultural anthropology. There,theseideashavehelpedliberatefieldwork
fromoverlynarrowdescription by suggesting ways in whichmajorinter-
nationalcurrentshaveaffected seemingly isolatedandprimitive cultures(Dan-
ielle 1981). Schneider& Schneider'sbook about the peripheralization of
Sicily(1976) is a good exampleof this,as are manyof thearticlesin Carol
Smith'seditedvolumes(1976). Verderyis presently completing a book on
Transylvanian historythatcombinesthesystematic studyof a villagewitha
largerhistoricalstudyof the Austro-Hungarian Empireand its role in the
spreadof capitalismto centraland easternEurope (forthcoming). JohnCole
(1977) has arguedthatthe recentreexamination of Europeanpeasantsby
anthropologistshas beeninfluenced by a world-systemicperspective.
Writers on subjectsas differentas thePeruvianwool trade(Orlove1977),
theBritishRoyalBotanicalGardens(Brockway1979),andpre-contact Meso-
americantradepatterns (Pailes & Whitecotton 1979) have used Wallerstein.
Thoughthisliterature is notby sociologists,it exemplifies the artificiality
of theboundarybetweenvariousdisciplinesthatstudytheoretically related
topics.

TheFernandBraudelCenter
movedto the StateUniversity
Afterhis greatsuccess,Wallerstein of New
YorkatBinghamton toheadthenewFernandBraudelCenter.There,assisted
attheheartofan international
himself
byTerenceHopkins,he has established

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
96 CHIROT & HALL

enterpriseto developand spreadhis theories.The Centerpublishesits own

journal,Review,inwhichthelatestrelatedfindings anddebatescanbe found.
Wallerstein also editsa seriesin conjunction withtheFrenchMaison des
Sciencesde l'HommeforCambridge University Press.It has publishedbooks
ranging fromRomanianruralhistory (Stahl1980),through thehistory ofearly
colonialMexico (Frank1979), to studiesof Algeria's economyand eth-
nography duringitscolonialperiod(Bourdieu1979).
Two oftheBraudelCenter'smostinteresting projectsarethestudyoflong
cyclesin thecapitalistworld-economy and theexamination of thehistory of
Ottomanperipheralization.
The capitalisteconomyhas always been subjectto waves or cycles of
expansionand contraction, and thereasonsfortheseare imperfectly under-
stood.Thereis littlequestion,forexample,thataftertheboomof the1950s
and 1960s,mostcapitalisteconomiesentereda periodof relativestagnation
in the 1970s. This slowdownthreatens to becomea majorworldeconomic
crisisin the1980s.It has affectedsomeof theperipheral and semiperipheral
economiesevenmorestrongly thanthecore,thougha weakcoreeconomylike
Britain'shas beenbadlyhurt.Nor have communist economies,whichreen-
teredthecapitalisttradingnetworkin the 1960s, been spared.High inter-
nationaldebt,fallingagricultural production, and inflation have increased
socialtensionsin suchdifferentcountries as Poland,Romania,Nigeria,Tan-
zania,and Peru.
Kondratieff's 1926 studyof long (47-60 years)cycles in the capitalist
world-economy foundthreeperiodsof riseand fallfromthe 1780suntilthe
startofthepost-World WarI slump(Kondratieff 1979). His predictionshave
beensurprisingly accurate.The downturn thatbeganin the1920slasteduntil
thelate 1930s,and completedthecyclethathad begunwiththerisingpros-
perity ofthe1890s.Thepost-World WarII boomranfromthelate1940suntil
about1970,equallingtheaverage25 yearperiodofpreviousup cycles.Could
itbe thatthepresentdownpartof thecyclewill last intothe 1990s?
The BraudelCenter'sresearchon thisquestion(see Review,II, 4, 1979)
beginswithKondratieff, andhastriedtoextendhiswavesfurther intothepast
as wellas toprojectthemintothefuture. So far,convincing explanationsfor
thecycleshave notfullymaterialized. Conventional theorieshave concen-
tratedon thediscoveryof new techniquesforexploiting previouslyunused
resources.This causes a rapidrise in profitsforthosewho controlthenew
technologies. Therefollowsa periodof fallingreturns as thenew resource
becomesrelatively less abundantand dearerto exploit.In theseterms(of
coursewe are simplifying) thecycleafter1945 mightbe viewedas a wave
dominated by petroleum, whichhas gone frombeing an abundant,cheap
energysource,tobeingan expensiveone in the1970s.The greatmeritofthe
BraudelCenter'sapproachis to tieeconomiccyclesto cyclesofpoliticaland

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WORLD-SYSTEM THEORY 97

economichegemony by particular core powers,and to thecreationand ex-

ploitationof newperipheries in each cycle.The latestcyclehas beencharac-
terizedby Americandominanceand now declinein theworld-economy.
Whetheror not a good explanationwill be foundforthisphenomenon
remainsan openquestion.It is notevencertainthatwe are in a lasting20 or
30 yeardecline.But it is at thislevel thatworld-system theoryoffersthe
greatestpromiseforthe discoveryof new ideas, and wherea genuinely
world-wide perspective enrichesthenarrower view of conventional econo-
mistsand students of social change.
The Ottomanproject(see Review,II, 3) is morehistorically specific,butit
promisesto giveus a greater understanding of howperipheralizationoccurs.
World-system theoryhasbeenrather weakindistinguishing betweendifferent
typesofpre-industrialagrarianempires(see below). If thestudyof Ottoman
declineandtheabsorption of itsterritories
intothecapitalistworld-economy
fromthe 17thto the 19thcentury comes to fruition,thisweaknesswill be
partiallyremedied.Again, thisis an area muchstudiedby historians, but
world-system theorycan offernew ideas and integrate regionalhistory with
largertrends.
Despitethisactivityand someunquestionable successes,seriousquestions
havearisenabouttheadequacyofworld-system theory, andaboutmajorgaps
it has leftunexplored in thehistoryof social changeand economicdevel-
opment.

SOME CRITICISMS OF THE THEORY

World-system theoryhas had fewcriticsin sociology.Those who dislikeit
moreor less ignoreit,and thosewhopracticeittendto takeitsfundamental
assertionsas receivedtruths.
Minormodifications or additionsaremade,but
frontalattackson Wallersteinand his followershave so farbeen limitedto
occasionalbook reviews(e.g. Skocpol 1977; Janowitz1977; Chirot1980).
Somehistorians haveattackedparticular
applicationsofhistheories,butfew
scholarsin anyfieldhavetheencyclopedic knowledgerequiredto tacklethe
wholeintellectual systemdirectly.

ReversedCausality:Brenner'sCritique
An importantexceptionis historian
RobertBrenner.In 1976 he showedthat
theeconomicbackwardness ofeasternEurope(primarilyPoland)intheearly
modern perioddidnotarisefrom"dependence."Rather,itwas backwardness
thateventuallyproducedthe "dependent"pattern.In England,it was the
reverse.Internalagrariantransformations
made its rapideconomicdevel-
opmentpossible,and it was only thisthatallowed Englandto createits
Empire.

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98 CHIROT & HALL

In 1977 BrennerattackedWallersteindirectlyusing,amongothers,the
worksofthePole MarianMalowist,whohadbeenone ofWallerstein's main
inspirations. Brenner'sexplanations werenot new. Theyrepeatedthecon-
ventional wisdomestablishedby mosteconomichistorians who had studied
thesequestions.But by tacklingWallerstein, Frank,and theirfollowers(as
wellas Sweezy)Brennerhighlighted thekeygap in theirwork:Theyneglect
to studythereasonsfortheeconomicsuccess,thetechnological dynamism,
and the fundamental noveltyof whatwas happeningin Englandand the
Netherlands in the 16thand 17thcenturies.
In a little-noticed book reviewthatgenerallypraisedWallerstein, Lenski
(1976) had expressedhis surpriseat Wallerstein'sneglectof technology.
Brenner (1977) provedthatthiswas notan oversight, butwas insteadthekey
to Wallerstein's attemptto provethatPolandwas notmuchbehindthemost
advancedpartsofwestern Europeinthe15thcentury. PerryAnderson(1974)
had correctly concludedthatin the late middleages Poland was a vast,
underpopulated area withpredominantly poor soils, a backwardagricultural
technology, anda fragile,decayingurbannetwork beforethegraintradewith
theWestbegan.
Brenner (1977) notedthatWallerstein's erroris tiedtohisrefusaltoanalyze
theinterplay betweenclass structure and economicgrowth.It also leads to a
strangemisunderstanding aboutthepresenceorabsenceofstrongstates.Core
statesare necessarilystrong,and weak statesare peripheralaccordingto
Wallerstein. True,Polandin the 17thcenturyhad becomea weak (decen-
tralized)state,butso weretheNetherlands comparedto,say,France.Waller-
stein(1980) nevertheless continues tomaintain thattheNetherlands comprised
a strongstatewhoselong-term economicsuccesswas based on international
powerand consciousmanipulation of markets by a strongcoregovernment.
The realitywas different. The veryclass structures thatfavoredindependent
capitalistsmade it impossibleforabsolutistroyalbureaucracies to flourish.
The capitalistswerethensuccessfulin theirinternational businessbecause
theyweremoreinnovative andefficient thantheircompetitors, notbecauseof
their"strongstates."
Thiserror, theunwillingnessto analyzeinternal class dynamics in searchof
explanations forcapitalism'seconomicstrength, has consequencesforthe
analysisof late20thcentury economicproblems.Brenner(1977) showsthat
theWallerstein-Frank thesisproposesautarkic closureas thebeststrategy for
development bycontemporary Third-World countries. Butthisshifts thefocus
awayfromincreasing productivityoflabortonationalism. Itis easytosee how
this"leftist" analysisrejoinsthefascistprescriptions of Mussoliniand Man-
oilescueven if todayit appealsprimarily to a certaintypeof neo-Marxist.
(Wallerstein nowdeniesthathe favorsautarky formostperipheral and semi-
peripheral countries.Nevertheless, his workencouragesautarkicsolutions,

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WORLD-SYSTEM THEORY 99

and he greatlyadmirescountriessuch as NorthKorea thathave triedto

approachautarky.Otherworld-system and dependencytheorists, such as
SamirAmin,have retainedtheirfaithin autarkydespitethe obviouslim-
itationsof thatpolicywhereit has beentried.)
Whatever confirmationof world-systemtheory existsin short-termstatisti-
cal analysisof Third-World economiesperpetuates Wallerstein's reversalof
causality.No one deniesthatpatternsof dependency exist,or thatthereis a
greattransnationalcapitalist
market.Butwhether dependency is a causeoran
effectof backwardness makesall thedifference in whichremediesare sug-
gested.(Fordiscussionofmoreinstances ofthiserrorinworld-system theory,
see Chirot1981.)

A Comprehensive
Theory?
Despitetheclaimsofitssupporters, world-system theory is farfromcompre-
hensive.The treatment ofpre-capitalistsocietiesis skimpy[despitetheinter-
estingreviewarticleby Moseley & Wallerstein (1978)]. No one can fault
Wallerstein fornotknowingall history, buthisinsistence on thefailureofthe
classicalempirestoindustrialize becausetheirpoliticalandeconomicsystems
happenedto coincideleads to anothererrorsymptomatic of a moregeneral
explanatory gap.
Certainlong-lasting "world-economies" failedtoproducea capitalist world-
economy.The Persian Gulf, the IranianPlateau, and the easternMe-
diterraneanformed sucha "system"fortwothousand years.So didIndiafrom
thetimeof theMauryato theBritishconquest,anothertwo millenia.The
IslamicNearEast andNorthAfricafromthecollapseof centralized Abbasid
rule to the Ottomanconquestwere a veritable"world-economy" forfive
centuries.Why,then,was Europeso specialin the 15thcentury?
Subsumingall world-empires underone, inherently stagnantrubricis
grosslymisleading. ChinafromthetimeoftheHan totheMingwentthrough
periodsofrapidtechnological andeconomicgrowth (Elvin1973).To compare
thiscase withthatofEgypt,whichwas moreorless stagnant betweenthetime
ofthePyramids and theMacedonianconquest2300 yearslater,is to believe
mistakenly thatthereexisteda single"Asiaticmodeof production."
By turning statesintoa uniform
all pre-capitalist "traditional"type,world-
system theoryfindsit difficultto explainwhythereactionto capitalistpene-
trationwas so different fromplaceto place andcontinues to varyin important
waystoday.The generaltendency to lumpall precapitalist societiesintotwo
simpletypes(and "minisystems" are an even more simplistictype than
"world-empires") is perilously
close to theahistorical eurocentrism thatchar-
acterized modernization theory.It leads to thesameinability to discriminate
betweendifferent societieswithoutresorting to irrelevant and artificial
con-
structs.

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
100 CHIROT & HALL

Socialism?
Mostprominent world-system theorists sharean enthusiastic faithin socialism
as a solutionto problemscausedby capitalistexploitation. This faithaffects
theiranalysisoftheworld.Itmustbe questioned becauseitleadstomoreblind
spots.
Wallerstein (1979) excusesmanyof thefaultsof communist countries by
showingthattheyare obligedto operatein a capitalistworld-system. They
cannot,therefore, move to theirideal stateuntilworldcapitalismis over-
thrown.But is thisa usefulway to understand whatgoes on in communist
countries? It is surelyno coincidencethatworld-system practitioners have
neverproduceda seriousbook aboutcommunist societies,eventhoughthey
havewritten dozensof interesting ones abouttheeffects of peripherality and
semiperipherality in therestof theworld.
Wallerstein's own nomenclature shouldhave suggesteda betterway of
analyzing theSovietUnionthanthoseused so farby world-system theorists.
Far frombeing a core or semiperipheral society,the Soviet Union is an
old-fashioned world-empire, perhapsthelast of itskind.It does notexploit
eastern EuropeandCuba,itsubsidizestheminreturn formilitary andstrategic
advantages.Like Rome,at leastfromtheearly2ndcentury, it is runby and
fora military-bureaucratic rulingclass. Itsonlydynamicimpulsecomesfrom
heavyindustry usedforarmaments. Otherwise, likethelateRomanEmpire,
it is besetby inherent problemsof stagnation and thediscontent of subject
peoplesin itsadministrative periphery.
The emphasisin Wallerstein on futureworld-socialist revolution entirely
avoidstheissueofclassdynamics undersocialism,anditfailsto askthebasic
question:How is long-run increasing laborproductivity possibleoutsidecap-
italism? Amongtheoretical issuesfewcouldbe moreimportant orfurther from
beingsolved thanthisone. [For a first-rate studyof theseproblems,see
Hirszowicz(1980).]
World-system theory'stransposition of Marxto an international planehas
beenaccompanied by an assertionthat,on thewhole,economically periph-
eralizedpeopleare beingcontinuously immiserized. Thatis whytherewill
eventually be a worldrevolution againstthe"bourgeois"core. Wallerstein
(1979)believesthatcapitalist economicgrowth is a zero-sum game.Countries
thatdevelopdo so onlyat theexpenseof othersthatlose. Since onlya few
grow,mostdecline.The wideninggap in percapitaGNP betweenrichand
poorcountries, then,is notan anomalybuta natural resultofcapitalist growth.
Onlysocialismcan changethis.
Butis capitalisteconomicdevelopment a zero-sumgame?Kuznets(1971)
and Bairoch(1977) have shownthatit is not,and thatin thepost-Second
WorldWarperiodthegrowth rateofpoorercountries hasbeenhigherthanthe

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WORLD-SYSTEM THEORY 101

historicgrowth rateoftheold core. Morerecentdata(NewYorkTimes1979)

confirm this.The higherpercapitagrowth rateof richercountries is entirely
a functionoftherapidpopulation growthinthepoorerpartsoftheworld;and
no matterwhatone thinksaboutpopulationproblems,thisgrowthis itself
proofoftheincreasing availability
of materialgoodsand servicesthatinsure
highersurvival rates.As Morris(1979) hasshown,almostthewholeworldhas
experienced greatimprovement in themeasurable"qualityof life"in thelast
severaldecades.
Capitalismmay,indeed,failto stimulate production sufficientlyto meet
futurepopulationgrowth,and we may one day be facedwitha desperate
Malthusian crisis.Butthisis by no stretchof theimagination theresultof a
constant trendtowardabsoluteimmiserization, noris itevena certainfuture.
Blamingcapitalismand hopingfora socialistrevolution to rescuetheworld
once againobviatesstudyof whatis goingon withincountries.Whyhave
somelimitedtheirpopulationgrowthwhileothershave not?
Economichistorians areno longersurethatcapitalist colonialismitselfwas
harmful to economicgrowthin theperiphery. The outcomedependedon the
colony,the colonizers,and the periodof colonization.For example,the
effectsofplantation slaveryin theCaribbeanmayhavebeennegative(Mintz
1977)forthereasonsasserted byworld-system theory,butBritish ruleinIndia
maynothaveretarded industrialization
at all (Morriset al 1969).

TheIssue ofCulture
Forworld-system theoristsas formostotherMarxistsideasaremerelyepiphe-
nomenal.But even if culturesare ultimately producedby materialconjunc-
tions,once theyare in place theytakeon a lifeof theirown. World-system
theory'srefusalto studysuchmatters reducesitsgraspof social changeand
economicprogress.
Thatthetriumph ofa specifictypeofcapitalist inwestern
rationality Europe
in the 16thand 17thcenturiesresultedfromthe success of the bourgeois
classesin assertingtheirindependence fromchurchandking,and thatithad
furtherconsequencesin theflowering of modernscience,is partof Weber's
centraltheoryof capitalistdevelopment (Weber 1968). Merton(1970) and
othershaveshownthatthehistorical connectionbetweenincreasing religious
rationalityand thegrowthof sciencewas tight.
The capitalistcore's abilityto exploitweakperipherieswas neithera new
noran unusualphenomenon, anditmaynothavebeendecisivein sustaining
economicgrowth.Buttoleration andeventuallysupportoffreethinking intel-
lectualsforso longandon sucha largescalewasunique.Itremainsan unusual
phenomenon outsidethecapitalistcoreto thisday.
Capitalism'stoleration goes beyondsupportof intellectuals. It has been

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 CHIROT & HALL

extendedto muchof thepopulationof Westerncapitalistsocieties.Thishas

contributed to raisinglargeportionsof themassesto a highlevelof skilland
education.Ithas,overtime,withmuchdifficulty, andwithfrequent reverses,
inculcated a secular,scientificapproachto thecalculability of economicac-
tions.
The failureof world-system theory to grapplewiththesefactsis evidentin
to explainwhyeconomicdevelopment
its inability affectslargeareas with
roughly similarhistorical andcultural in similarways,regardless
traditions of
their powerorpositionintheworld-system. Thusnorthwestern Europe,which
industralizedbeforetherestoftheworld,includedEngland,followedclosely
byBelgium,northern France,western Germany, Switzerland,andtheNether-
lands. Switzerland was a weak, internationally insignificantstate;Belgium
wasnotindependent untilwellafteritsindustrialization;
andwestern Germany
was politicallysubordinated to the statethatabsorbedit. Later,industri-
alizationspreadtoScandinaviawhereinthe18thcentury therehadsupposedly
existedonlya peripheral (Denmark)and a failedsemiperipheral (Sweden)
societydestinedforthesame fateas Spain afterits failurea century earlier
(Wallerstein 1980; Bairoch1965).
These factsare no moresurprising thanthelatersuccessesof theUnited
States,Canada, and Australia,despitetheirentryintotheworld-system as
primaryexporters,and despitethe continuedperipherality (in strictde-
pendencytheoryterms)of thelattertwo. Some societieslearnedtheculture
of industrializationeasilybecausetheywereclose to it fromthestart.

CONCLUSION
World-system theoryand itsclose allydependency theoryhavemanyflaws.
Theireconomichistory sometimes has beenwrong.The nakedpoliticalbias
andrevolutionary polemicevidentin someoftheirwritings showhoweasyit
is to fallintoblinddogmatism.The attackagainstcapitalismhas notbeen
accompanied bya convincing explanation ofwhatmightreplaceit. Thereare
majorempiricaland theoretical gaps. But thiscannotdeprivethemof their
importance and realvirtues.
Studying individualsocietiesinisolationfromeachotheris bothmisleading
and dangerous.It hidesthepowerfultransnational forcesthathave been a
majorpartofall social andeconomictransformations sincethe15thcentury.
It yieldsincomplete,and oftenwrongconclusionsaboutthenatureof social
problems.Sociologyhas tendedto fallintothiskindof a trap.World-system
theory canthusbe seenas a necessary remedy.Whether ornotoneagreeswith
all ofitsconclusions,itis abundantly clearthata world-wide has
perspective
becomea minimalrequirement studyof social change.
forthe intelligent

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 WORLD-SYSTEM THEORY 103

Wallersteinandhis followershavereminded us, too,thatsucha perspective

mustnecessarily anddeal in centuries,
be historical notmerelydecades,even
forthestudyof contemporary problems.
Noneofthisis new,normustitcomewitha leftist bias. Weber'sprogram
forthe studyof sociologywas broadlycomparative and historical,and it
combinedeconomic,political,andculturalresearch.ButbecauseWeberhad
beenmorecitedthanfollowed,it was timeto bringback thatkindof vision
to theforefrontof sociology.Thatit came in theparticular formknownas
world-system theoryis theproduct andideologicalforcesinour
ofintellectual
world.Thoseofus whodisliketheseforcesarenonetheless obligedto recog-
nizethecontribution madebyworld-system theory.Thoseothersof us who,
on the contrary,are pleased by the ideologythataccompaniesthe theory
shouldequallyrecognizethatits importance is not based primarily on its
ideologicalstance.
LiteratureCited
Almond,G. A., Powell, G. B. 1966. Com- Chapel Hill NC: Univ. N. CarolinaPress.
parative Politics: A DevelopmentalAp- 284 pp.
proach. Boston:LittleBrown.348 pp. Block, F. 1977. The OriginsofInternational
Almond,G. A., Verba, S. 1963. The Civic EconomicDisorder.Berkeley/Los Angeles:
and Democracy
Culture:PoliticalAttitudes Univ. Calif. Press.282 pp.
in Five Nations.Princeton,NJ: Princeton Bourdieu,P. 1979.Algeria1960. Cambridge:
Univ. Press.562 pp. CambridgeUniv. Press. 158 pp.
Amin,S. 1973. Neo-Colonialism in WestAf- Brenner, R. 1976.Agrarian and
class structure
rica. NY: MonthlyReview.298 pp. economicdevelopment Eu-
in pre-industrial
Amin,S. 1977.Imperialism and UnequalDe- rope.Past and Present70:30-75
velopment. NY: MonthlyReview. 267 pp. Brenner, R. 1977. The originsofcapitalistde-
Amin,S. 1980. Le nouvelordre6conomique: velopment: a critiqueofneo-Smithian Marx-
quel avenir?Rev. Tiers-Monde 21:41-61 ism.New LeftRev. 104:25-92
Anderson, P. 1974.PassagesfromAntiquity to Brockway,L. H. 1979. Science and colonial
Feudalism.London:NLB. 304 pp. expansion:theroleoftheBritishRoyalBo-
Bairoch,P. 1965. Niveau de developpement tanicalGardens.Am.Ethnol.6:449-65
6conomiqueau XIXe siecle. Ann. ECS Bukharin, N. I. 1929. Imperialism and World
20:1092-1117 Economy.NY: Int.Publ. 173 pp.
Bairoch,P. 1977. TheEconomicDevelopment Cardoso, F. H., Faletto,E. 1969. Depen-
of the Third World since 1900. denciay desarrolloen AmericaLatina:En-
Berkeley/Los Angeles:Univ. Calif. Press. sayo de interpretaci6n sociol6gica.Mexico
260 pp. City:Siglo XXI. 166 pp.
Balandier,G. 1951.La situationcoloniale:ap- Chase-Dunn,C. 1975. The effectsof inter-
proche th6orique. Cah. Int. Sociol. nationaleconomic dependenceon devel-
11:47-79 opment and inequality:a cross-national
Baran,P.A. 1957. The PoliticalEconomyof study.Am. Sociol. Rev. 40:720-38
Growth.NY: MonthlyReview. 308 pp. Chase-Dunn,C., Rubinson,R. 1977. Toward
Bell, D. 1973. The ComingofPost-Industrial a structuralperspectiveon the world-
Society:A Venturein Social Forecasting. system.Pol. Soc. 7:453-76
NY: Basic Books, 507 pp. Chirot,D. 1976. Social Changein a Periph-
Bergesen, A., ed. 1980.StudiesoftheModern eralSociety:TheCreationofa BalkanCol-
World-System. NY: Academic. 281 pp. ony.NY: Academic.179 pp.
Bhagwati,J. N., ed. 1977. The New Inter- Chirot,D. 1978. A Romanianpreludeto con-
nationalEconomicOrder:TheNorth-South temporary debatesaboutdevelopment. Re-
Debate. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. 390 pp. view2:115-23
Billings,D. B. 1979.Plantersand theMaking Chirot,D. 1980. ImmanuelWallerstein. The
ofa "NewSouth":Class, Politics,and De- Modem World-Economy.Soc. Forces
velopment in NorthCarolina, 1865-1900 59:538-43

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104 CHIROT & HALL

Chirot,D. 1981. Changingfashionsin the 192-204

studyof thesocial causes of economicand Hagen,E. E. 1962. On theTheoryof Social
socialchange.In TheStateofSociology,ed. Change: How Economic GrowthBegins.
J.F. Short,pp. 259-82. BeverlyHills:Sage Homewood,IL: Dorsey.557 pp.
Cipolla, C. M. 1965. Guns, Sails and Em- Hechter,M. 1975. InternalColonialism:The
pires: TechnologicalInnovationand the Celtic Fringe in BritishNational Devel-
Early Phases of European Expansion opment,1536-1966. London:Routledge&
1400-1700. NY: Minerva.192 pp. Kegan Paul. 361 pp.
Cole, J. W. 1977. Anthropology comespart- Heckscher,E. F. 1955. Mercantilism.Lon-
way home:community studiesin Europe. don: GeorgeAllen& Unwin,423 pp. Vol.
Ann.Rev. Anthropol. 6:349-78 2. 2nd ed.
Cumings,B. 1981. TheOriginsoftheKorean Hilferding, R. 1923. Das Finanzkapital.Vi-
War:Liberationand theCreationofSepa- enna:WienerVolksbuchhandlung. 477 pp.
rate Regimes,1945-1947. Princeton,NJ: Hirszowicz,M. 1980. TheBureaucraticLevi-
Princeton Univ. Press.522 pp. athan:A Studyin theSociologyofCommu-
Dadzie, K. K. S. 1980. Economic devel- nism.NY: New YorkUniv. Press.208 pp.
opment.Sci. Am. 243:58-65 Hobson, J. A. 1902. Imperialism.A Study.
Danielle,M. 1981.Fieldwork.NY: Avon.220 NY: J. Pott.400 pp.
PP. Hopkins,T. K., Wallerstein, I., eds. 1980.
Delacroix,J., Ragin,C. 1978. Modernizing PoliticalEconomyoftheWorld-System An-
institutions,mobilization,and thirdworld nual. Vol. 3, Processes of the World-
development: a cross-national
study.Am.J. System.BeverlyHills: Sage. 320 pp.
Sociol. 84:123-50 Hoselitz,B. H. 1960. SociologicalAspectsof
Dos Santos,T. 1972.Socialismoofascismo,el Economic Growth. Glencoe, IL.: Free
nuevocaracterde la dependenciay el di- Press.250 pp.
lema latinoamericano. Buenos Aires: Hoselitz,B. H., Moore, W. E., eds. 1963.
PerfireriaSRL. 342 pp. Industrializationand Society.Paris: Mou-
Elvin,M. 1973. The Patternof theChinese ton.437 pp.
Past. Stanford:StanfordUniv. Press. 346 Inkeles,A., Smith,D. H. 1974. Becoming
PP. Modern:IndividualChange in Six Devel-
Emmanuel, A. 1972. UnequalExchange.NY: opingCountries.Cambridge,MA: Harvard
Monthly Review.453 pp. Univ. Press.437 pp.
Emmanuel,A. 1977. Gains and losses from Jaguaribe, H., Furtado,C., Di Tella, T. S.,
the internationaldivisionof labor.Review Espartaco,Sunkel,O., Cardoso,F. H., Fal-
1:87-108 etto,E. 1968. La dominacionde America
Emmanuel,A. 1980. Le "prixremunerateur", Latina. Lima: FranciscoMoncola. 211 pp.
epilogueA "l'6changeindgal".Rev. Tiers- Janowitz, M. 1977. A sociologicalperspective
Monde21:21-39 on Wallerstein.Am.J. Sociol. 82:1090-97
Evans,P. 1979.DependentDevelopment: The Kaplan,B. H., ed. 1978.PoliticalEconomyof
AllianceofMultinational, State,and Local the World-System Annual. Vol. 1, Social
Capitalin Brazil. Princeton, NJ:Princeton Change in the CapitalistWorldEconomy.
Univ. Press.362 pp. BeverlyHills: Sage. 239 pp.
Evans, P. 1981. Recentresearchon multi- Kondratieff, N. D. 1979. The long waves in
nationalcorporations. Ann. Rev. Sociol. economiclife.Review2:519-62
7:199-223 Kuznets,S. S. 1971.EconomicGrowthofNa-
Frank,A. G. 1969. LatinAmerica:Under- tions:Total Outputand ProductionStruc-
development or Revolution.NY: Monthly tures.Cambridge,MA: Belknap.363 pp.
Review:409 pp. Lenin,V. I. 1939. Imperialism: The Highest
Frank, A. G. 1979. Mexican Agriculture StageofCapitalism.NY: International Pub-
1521-1630: Transformation oftheMode of lishers.128 pp.
Production.Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. Lenski,G. 1976. ImmanuelWallerstein. The
Press.91 pp. Modem World-System. Soc. Forces 54:
Furtado,C. 1970. Obstaclesto Development 701-2
in LatinAmerica.NY: Anchor.204 pp. Lerner,D. 1958. The Passing of Traditional
Furtado,C. 1980. L'ordredconomiqueinter- Society: Modernizingthe Middle East.
national:les nouvellessourcesdu pouvoir? Glencoe,IL: FreePress.466 pp.
Rev. Tiers-Monde. 21:11-20 Levy, M. J. 1966. Modernizationand the
Goldfrank, W. L., ed. 1979. PoliticalEcon- Structure of Societies:A Settingfor Inter-
omyof the World-System Annual. Vol. 2, nationalAffairs.Princeton,NJ: Princeton
The World-System of Capitalism:Past and Univ. Press. 855 pp.
Present.BeverlyHills: Sage. 312 pp. Lewis,W. A. 1978.TheEvolutionoftheInter-
GonzalezCasanova, P. 1980. The economic nationalEconomicOrder. Princeton,NJ:
developmentof Mexico. Sci. Am. 243: Princeton Univ. Press. 81 pp.

This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Love, J. L. 1980. Rail Prebischand theori-
gins of the doctrineof unequalexchange.
Lat. Am.Res. Rev. 15:45-72
Luxemburg,R. 1951. The Accumulationof
Capital.NewHaven,CT: Yale Univ.Press.
475 pp.
Manoilescu,M. 1931. The TheoryofProtec-
tionandInternational Trade.London:P. S.
King. 262 pp.
Manoilescu, M. 1934. Le siecle du cor-
poratisme;doctrinedu corporatisme inte-
gral etpur. Paris:F. Alcan. 376 pp.
Manoilescu,M. 1938. El partidounico:insti-
tucionpoliticade los nuevosregimenes. Za-
ragoza: Bibliotecade estudiossociales.206
PP.
Marshall,A. 1930. ThePure TheoryofMod-
ern Trade. The Pure Theoryof Domestic
Values. London:London Sch. Econ. Pol.
Sci. 65 pp.
McClelland,D. C. 1967. TheAchieving Soci-
ety.NY: FreePress.512 pp.
Merton,R. K. 1970.Science,Technology and
Societyin Seventeenth CenturyEngland.
NY: H. Fertig.279 pp.
Meier,G. N. 1976. LeadingIssues in Eco-
nomicDevelopment.NY: Oxford.862 pp.
3rded.
Meyer,J.W., Hannan,M. T., eds. 1979.Na-
tionalDevelopment and theWorldSystem:
Educational, Economic and Political
Change,1950-1970. Chicago: Univ. Chi-
cago Press.334 pp.
Mintz,S. W. 1977. The so-calledworldsys-
tem: local initiativeand local response.
Dial. Anthropol. 2:253-70
Moore, W. E. 1979. WorldModernization:
The Limitsof Convergence.NY: Elsevier.
167 pp.
Morris,M. D., Matsui,T., Chandra,B., Ray-
chaudhuri. 1969.TheIndianEconomyinthe
Nineteenth Century.Delhi: Ind. Ec. Soc.
Hist.Assoc. 170 pp.
Morris,M. D. 1979.MeasuringtheCondition
oftheWorld'sPoor: ThePhysicalQualityof
LifeIndex.NY: Pergamon.173 pp.
Moseley,K. P., Wallerstein,I. 1978. Pre-
capitalistsocial structures.Ann. Rev. So-
ciol. 4:259-90
Moulder,F. V. 1977. Japan,China and the
ModernWorldEconomy:Towarda Rein-
terpretationofEast AsianDevelopment ca.
1600 to ca. 1918. Cambridge:Cambridge
Univ.255 pp.
New YorkTimes.1979. Vital statistics of the
planet.Dec. 30. Section12, p. 2
O'Donnell, G., Frankel, R. 1978. The
"StabilizationPrograms" of the Inter-
nationalMonetary Fund and TheirInternal
ImpactsDuringBureaucratic Authoritarian
Periods.Work.Pap. #14. Washington DC:
WilsonCenter.43 pp.
Orlove,B. S. 1977.Alpacas,Sheep,andMen:
This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WORLD-SYSTEMTHEORY 105
TheWoolExportEconomyandRegionalSo-
cietyofSouthern Peru. NY: Academic.270
PP.
Pailes, R. A., Whitecotton, J. W. 1979. The
GreaterSouthwestand the Mesoamerican
"World"System:An exploratory modelof
frontierrelationships.In TheFrontier:Com-
parativeStudies,ed. W. W. Savage, S. I.
Thompson, pp. 105-21. Norman, OK:
Univ. OklahomaPress.226 pp.
Parsons,T. 1951.TheSocial System.Glencoe,
IL: Free Press.575 pp.
Portes,A. 1976. On thesociologyof national
development: theoriesand issues. Am. J.
Sociol. 82:55-85
Ragin, C. 1977. Class, status,and "reactive
ethniccleavages":thesocialbases ofpoliti-
cal regionalism.Am. Sociol. Rev. 42:
438-50
Robinson,J. 1960. CollectedEconomicPa-
pers. Oxford:Basic Blackwell.Vol. 1, 236
PP.
Robinson,J. 1973. CollectedEconomicPa-
pers. Oxford:Basic Blackwell.Vol. 4, 268
PP.
Rostow,W. W. 1960. TheStagesofEconomic
Growth: A Non-CommunistManifesto.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. 179 pp.
Rubinson,R. 1976. The worldeconomyand
the distribution of incomewithinstates:a
cross-nationalstudy. Am. Sociol Rev.
41:638-59
Rubinson,R., ed. 1981. PoliticalEconomyof
theWorld-System Annual.Vol.4, Dynamics
ofWorldDevelopment. BeverlyHills:Sage.
264 pp.
Samuelson,P. A. 1948. International trade
and theequalisationof factorprices.Econ.
J. 58:163-84
Samuelson,P. A. 1967.Economics:AnIntro-
ductoryAnalysis.NY: McGrawHill. 821
pp. 7thed.
Samuelson,P. A. 1975. Tradepattern rever-
sals in time-phased Ricardiansystemsand
intemporal efficiency.J. Int. Econ.
5:309-65
Schmitter, P. C. 1974. Stillthecenturyofcor-
poratism? Rev. Pol. 36:85-131
Schmitter, P. C. 1978. Reflections on Mihail
Manoilescuand thepoliticalconsequences
of delayed-dependent development on the
peripheryof WesternEurope. In Social
Change in Romania, ed. K. Jowitt,pp.
117-39. Berkeley:Inst.Int. Stud.207 pp.
Schneider, J.,Schneider P. 1976. Cultureand
PoliticalEconomyin WesternSicily. NY:
Academic.256 pp.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The TheoryofEco-
nomicDevelopment: AnInquiryintoProfits,
Capital, Credit,Interest,and theBusiness
Cycle. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Univ.
Press.255 pp.
Senghaas,D. 1977. Friedrich Listandthenew
106 CHIROT & HALL
internationaleconomic order. Economics
(Tilbingen)15:78-93
Sheehan,J. 1980. Market-oriented economic
policies and politicalrepressionin Latin
America.Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 28:
267-91
Skocpol,T. 1977.Wallerstein's worldcapital-
ist system:a theoreticaland historicalcri-
tique.Am.J. Sociol. 82:1075-90
Smith,C. 1976. RegionalAnalysis.Vol. 1,
EconomicSystems;Vol. 2, Social Systems.
NY: Academic.370 pp., 381 pp.
Snyder,D., Kick,E. 1979. Structuralposition
in theworldsystemand economicgrowth,
1955-1970:a multiplenetworkanalysisof
transnationalinteractions.Am. J. Sociol.
84:1096-1126
Stahl,H. H. 1980. TraditionalRomanianVil-
lage Communities: The Transitionfromthe
Communalto theCapitalistMode of Pro-
ductionin theDanube Region.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniv. Press.227 pp.
Sunkel,O., Maynard,G., Seers,D., Olivera,
J. H. G. 1973. Inflaciony estructuraeco-
This content downloaded from 81.103.121.120 on Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:14:40 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
nomica.BuenosAires:Paidos. 139 pp.
Trotsky,L. 1959. The Russian Revolution.
NY: Doubleday.524 pp.
Verdery, K. 1983. Transylvanian Villagers:A
HistoricalEthnography. Berkeley/Los An-
geles: Univ. Calif. Press.In press
Wallerstein,I., ed. 1966. Social Change:The
ColonialSituation.NY: Wiley.674 pp.
Wallerstein,I. 1974. The Modern World-
System:CapitalistAgriculture and theOri-
ginsoftheEuropeanWorld-Economy in the
SixteenthCentury.NY: Academic.410 pp.
Wallerstein,I. 1979. The CapitalistWorld-
Economy. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.
Press. 305 pp.
Wallerstein,I. 1980. The Modern World-
SystemII.- Mercantilism and the Consoli-
dation of the European WorldEconomy,
1600-1750. NY: Academic.370 pp.
Weber,M. 1958. TheProtestant Ethicand the
SpiritofCapitalism.NY: CharlesScribner.
292 pp.
Weber,M. 1968. Economyand Society.NY:
Bedminster. 1469 pp.