Critical Review Of World Systems Theory
Introduction
Throughout decades, countries have sought to improve the standard of living among their populace through development. Reyes (2001) defines development as a social condition in which the authentic needs of a sub-national’s population are satisfied through rational and sustainable use of natural resources and systems. These utilized based on the available technology. Critical to this definition, Reyes emphasized that development assumes that specific social groups have access to basic services; education, housing, health services, and nutrition, while honouring their cultures and traditions within their social context. In seeking to achieve this state of development, specific countries have sought to use different developmental theories or framework. The objective of this paper is to critically review the World Systems Theory and its effects on the development progress of a sovereign state. Scholars in the field have attributed the World Systems Theory to Immanuel Wallerstein and his 1974 publication titled ‘The Modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century’. Wallerstein views were multidisciplinary and brought together world history and social change in analysing the structure of the world-system. Goldfrank (2000) defined the world economy as a world system integrated through the market rather than a political centre. He continued by explaining that there are two or more regions that are interdependent with respect to necessities like food, fuel, and protection; while, other sovereign nations compete for dominance in the ‘global market’.
Between the 1950s – 1970s, three theories were influencing the shape of the global economy; namely, Modernization Theory, Dependency Theory and World Systems Theory. During the time of prominence for the World System Theory, Sorinel (2010) explained that the modernization theory was under scrutiny by scholars of the day, including Wallerstein. Sorinel listed some of the main criticisms of the Modernisation theory in his article. These are outlined below.
- It ignored the effects of external sources of transnational structures in societies and focused only on the nation-state as the sole unit of analysis.
- It assumed that all countries can follow only a single path of evolutionary development using Eurocentric standards as a guide.
- It sought to replace indigenous culture by classifying them as primitive and unevolved.
In agreement with the criticisms of the modernization theory, Martínez-Vela (2001) also highlighted the contrasting views of past scholars by stating that the World Systems Theory was significantly influenced by dependency theory. In that it focused on understanding the “periphery” by reviewing core-periphery relationships. This is heavily rooted in a neo-Marxist explanation of the development processes for sovereign states.
Characteristics of the State/Government
In reviewing the literature, it is also important to bear mind that these theories were developing on the heels of decolonisation. In their critical review of Wallerstein’s theory, Ejiofor Onyishi and Valentine Amoke (2016) articulated that the world system focuses on a large borderless economic entity. They also emphasized that this ‘system’ was not based on consensual harmonious relationships, but rather through social forces that are in perpetual conflict, threatening to collapse the whole system. This fact was shared by Martínez-Vela (2001) who cited Wallerstein own definition highlighting that the system is a ‘multi-cultural territorial division of labour that produces and exchange basic goods and raw materials necessary for the everyday life. Martínez-Vela continued by noting that the most important structures of the current world-system is a power hierarchy between core and periphery. In this system, powerful, industrialised and wealthy ‘core’ societies dominate and exploit weak and poor peripheral societies. A driving force that facilitated this type of relationship in the system was the new form that capitalism was taking around the world, especially since the decade of the 1960s (Reyes, 2001). Reyes concluded that this related to the increasing flexibility of the international financial and trade systems that increased their accessibility to borrowing nations. The World System theory grouped countries into three main categories; core, semi-periphery and periphery. These terms sought to describe the country’s function in the world economy. In their critique of WST, Ejiofor Onyishi and Valentine Amoke (2016) provided a good description of each. Core nations, such as USA and Germany, possess sophisticated production processes through industrialization of their industries. Their economy is diversified and are protected by a strong central government. They seek to safeguard their nation’s wealth by protecting trade and its borders with bureaucracies and powerful militaries. At the other end of the spectrum are periphery nations, such as most African and Caribbean nations, that are dominated by simple production process in an undiversified economy. Their government structure is weak government with insufficient capital to support infrastructural development. It is noteworthy, that Robinson (2011) agrees, with Ejiofor Onyishi and Valentine Amoke, and emphasizes here that export from these nations has contributed to the wealth on core nations due to an unequal exchange of trade commodities. In the midst of the two extremes lies the semi-periphery nations, such as South Korea, Mexico, Brazil and Nigeria to name a few. Scholars agree that this categories is characterised by core states on the decline or emerging peripheral states. In these nations the government has seen the need to move towards industrialization and more diversified economies. They tend to apply protectionist policies most aggressively but are not dominant in international trade. The tendency is to export more to peripheral nations and import more from core nations.
Limitations
Similar to other development theories or framework, Wallersrein’s view came under criticism from scholars since its inception in the 1970s. Robinson in his 2011 paper captioned ‘Globalization and the sociology of Immanuel Wallerstein: A critical appraisal’ sought to summarize these views. Firstly, he criticized world-systems theory for its nation-state centrism, state-structuralist approach, and its inability to conceptualize the rise of globalization. He suggests that world-systems theory does not account for emerging transnational social forces and the relationships forged between them and global institutions serving their interests. Secondly, the production and labour processes that are central to the conceptual distinctions among core, periphery and semi-periphery nations have undergone qualitative transformations making the terminologies outdated. Thirdly, the theory is hard-pressed to find evidence to support the race for a new hegemony, in the wake of the decline in the USA in the age of globalization. Lastly, other researchers have stated that the theory does not emphasize the importance of culture in the development process of sovereign states. The remnants of WST in the 21st century
After review the literature and points put forward by different scholars on the WST, it is clear that the theory was influential in explaining the dynamics of the world in its era. As Wallerstein stated ‘the world systems sought to explain the development process of sovereign states through trade; but it failed to acknowledge the impact of colonisation on developing periphery states. This was the foundation for the unequal or inequitable trade that many scholars referred to. The result of which had core states dominating and increasing in wealth by exploiting the resources of fertile periphery states that had weak government system. The geographic reach of the capitalist word economy penetrated and altered political systems and labour conditions wherever it was welcomed. This simply resulted in core economies increasing in wealth while peripheral state economies became stagnant and standard of living continue to fall among the population. In the 21st century, amidst the prevailing development theories now in existence, it is easy to see that there are remnants of the WST. In agreement with Ejiofor Onyishi and Valentine Amoke (2016), the capitalist world envisioned by Wallerstein was a dynamic system that has changed over time, however, certain features still remain in place. These relationships have still resulted in sovereign nations being dependent on post-colonial ‘parents’ as their main export markets and foreign aid. Periphery countries are still unable to garner enough sustainable capital for investment in critical infrastructure so as to provide for their domestic needs. There is still the need to rely on core nations for financial aid that has many ‘strings’ attached. In the end and in agreement with scholars stated earlier, technology is one of the mediums that periphery countries can used to emerge themselves and their people out of the cycle. They can also seek to foster more trade relations with semi-periphery countries that may prove to be more harmonious as they search for the common goal of ‘development’.
References
- Ejiofor Onyishi, Augustine and Valentine Amoke, Chukwunonso (2016). A Critique of Immanuel Wallenstein’s World System Theory in The Modern World System.
- IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 21, Issue8, Ver. 10 Goldfrank, Walter (2000).
- Paradigm Regained? The Rules Of Wallerstein’s World-System Method. Journal of World-Systems Research. Vol. 6. N. 2 pp. 150-195
- Martínez-Vela, Carlos A. (2001). World Systems Theory. ESD. 83 – Fall Reyes, Giovanni E. (2001)
- Four Main Theories of Development: Modernization, Dependency, Word-System, and Globalization. University of Pittsburgh, USA Robinson, W. (2004).
- From State Hegemony to transnational Hegemony: A global capitalism approach. In IReifer (ed) Globalization, Hegemony and Power: Antisystemic Movement and global system, Boulder, Co: Paradigm Press. Robinson, William (2011)
- Globalization and the sociology of Immanuel Wallerstein: A critical appraisal. International Sociology 1–23 Sorinel, Cosma (2010) Immanuel Wallerstein’s World System Theory. Ovidius University of Constanta. Faculty of Economic Sciences.
