Re: armchair experts

Title:

Yes, these issues, as Paul Riesz refines out of Adam Starrs posting, are indeed very important and they both deserve attention.

Nevertheless, I fail to see a specific connection between these two issues and world system (or hyphenated world-systems) analysis. As a 100 percent pure armchair-theorist, I am well aware of the huge gap which usually exists between theory and practice (quite often experienced due to competing and conflicting theories, I guess). But this isn't a world system-related issue only - it applies to nearly all areas of scientific study. Just because this gap exists, it shouldn't refrain us from expanding theory in favour of practical work; on the contrary!

"Academics have decided the [sic] to neglect the realities of situtations" writes Adam Starr - what is the 'situation' then? The situation now in Cambodia? The Landrovers driven by developmentalists in Africa? The failure of modernization programmes in general in developing regions? Or is 'the situation' a system which has evolved over several centuries, even millenias according to some, which must be understood through a historical lens? World system analysis is explicitly proposing that 'the realities of situations' of today goes further back than the failed post-50-modernization programmes and the Land Rover purchases based on personal greed. Why should the alternative - world system analysis - refrain from building system theory just because its theoretical counterpart has created a reality which is highly scewed what regards income, access to resources and other various definitions of 'development'? It isn't exactly practices based on world system theory which runs developmentalism at the moment!

Theory and empirical studies, such as observations, must go hand in hand for theory to evolve in a sound manner. In 1995 I made a undergrad research journey to Malaysia to study indigenous industrial development within the electronics sector and I found several proofs of 'global trickle-down' and self-generating economic and social growth. Does this observation make this whole WSN-discussion group obsolete - "hey you guys and gals, neo-liberalism and FDI:s really work!"? No, because this single observation must of course be put in a grander context, ESPECIALLY in world system theory as it stretches so far back in time with its 'Braudelianism' (a nice read: Wallerstein 1998, "The time of space and the space of time", Pergamon).

Which makes cotton highly relevant, among many other things not found in Cambodia or Malaysia today.

- - -

Carl nordlund, PhD student

carl.nordlund@humecol.lu.se

Human Ecology Division, Lund University, Sweden

www.humecol.lu.se

> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu [mailto:wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu]För
> Paul Riesz
> Skickat: den 13 mars 2002 03:53
> Till: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
> Ämne: armchair experts
>
>
>
> Referring to a recent polemic between Adam Starr and David Smith
> I should like to make the following comments:
> Starr criticized the fact that armchair experts gave opinions on the
> Islamic
> State without having had the opportunity of personally knowing the
> conditions
> of such countries  He then recounted his experiences with "development
> experts"
> from the 1st world, who recommend useless technologies, while spending
> the
> funds intended to reduce poverty on luxury items for themselves.
>
>
> It appears to me that both observations are quite to the point and raise
> the
> important issue, that academic training and theoretic knowledge, though
> being
> extremely useful, might often not be sufficient for addressing the grave
> problems
> afflicting our societies.
>
> As to wasteful use of development funds I personally have witnessed such
>
> occurrences in several Latin American countries, where millions are
> being squandered
> without achieving their intended purpose where and studies are conducted
> from
> air-conditioned offices without the needed and often essential
> fieldwork.
>
> Smith's answer did not refute these reasonable arguments, but only made
> deprecatory observations on Starr's "undergraduate" standing, which is
> not a
> good example for the high level of this groups discussions.
>
> Regards           Paul Riesz
>
>