Re: "rise of china" and wst

Good questions to ponder. 

But let me first quote Wallerstein: "World-systems analysis... is not a theory 
but a protest against neglected issues and deceptive epitemologies." Central to 
his epistemological critique is his call to "unthink" the 19th.c. foundations 
of the social sciences = the nation-state as the unit of analysis.

Having said that, I wonder how useful it is to bet on the next hegemonic 
nation-state, or even the next dragon, or tiger...

Among the Binghamton crowd Giovanni Arrighi (now ex-Binghamton) appears to be 
the one most impressed by an East Asian claim to hegemony. Although he never 
really says that. Nevertheless, Arrighi does make the claim that, such a 
trajectory would in fact be the begining of the end of the modern world-system 
as we know it. Something that Hutchinson implies in his comments too. Ravi 
Palat has a strong critique of it.

Krishnendu Ray
>>> Richard N Hutchinson <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU> 02/28/01 09:55PM >>>
I posed some questions, not because I thought there were simple answers to
them but because I think there are not, and because I think discussing
them might shed some light on the nature, and perhaps limitations, of WST
as currently formulated.

So, some interesting responses so far, but I encourage others to join.  
There hasn't yet been, and won't be, a last word on this question.

(In particular, it would be excellent if someone (AGF?) could summarize
Gunder's recent work and its implications for this question.)

RH