I recently wrote the essay below for PEWS News trying to generate
some debate over the state of world-system theory. WSN might be a
good place for some of that debate. I look forward to hearing what
others think.
World-System Theory or Analysis
Terry Boswell
PEWS Chair
After a generation of self-conscious world-system analysis, can we
now claim to have developed a coherent set of ideas and concepts
that constitute a world-system theory? The answer is "no," says
Immanuel Wallerstein in his recent address at the 1996 ASA
Meetings. I want to use this opportunity of the "Chair's Message"
to argue for the affirmative, and hopefully generate some debate
over what is the state of world-system theory. I think we do have
a well developed world-system theory whose postulates have been
supported by a large body of empirical research.
As I understand him, Wallerstein claims that what we share as
a section, and with others in many disciplines, is a form of
analysis. World-system analysis is a set of assumptions that
begins with the claim that the capitalist world-economy is a single
integrated system that originated in the 16th century. To
understand capitalist development, including the underdevelopment
of large zones of the world, one must therefore employ a global
perspective. Global structures and processes are, by definition,
the largest possible social units, which consequently are
discernable only over the long duration of history where they set
the parameters within which states, firms and other organizations
operate. In addition, by recognizing a beginning to the system and
identifying its structures and processes, world-system analysis
implies that the system can be changed and even transformed.
How the global structures and processes operate, how and when
the system originated, which zones are underdeveloped, how does the
system change, how can the system be changed -- answers to these
and related questions are presumably what Wallerstein means by
"theory." Theories are sets of concepts and relations between
concepts from which one can logically infer explanations of events.
Wallerstein is not claiming that world-system analysis is
atheoretical (at least I hope not), as he and others routinely use
theories to explain how the system works. Rather, the implication
is that the set of theoretical explanations so far derived are "not
yet" sufficiently coherent or adequately supported by research, and
that we cannot yet organize them into a world-system theory. The
"not yet" suggests that creating such a theory is possible and is
a central purpose of analysis.
What is called here "analysis," I would call a "perspective,"
but it is also commonly called "theory" at a high level of
generality where one is concerned with philosophical
presuppositions (Stinchcombe 1968, p.48). I do not want the issues
to degenerate into a debate over terminology. Whatever one calls
it, there are clear analytical differences between how to view the
world and explanations about how the world works. Nor do I disagree
that a world-system perspective or analysis is the main thing that
we in PEWS have in common and is what distinguishes our work from
comparative and international studies.
However, I strongly disagree with the implication that we do
not yet have a coherent set of interrelated explanations supported
by empirical research that we can call world system theory (WST).
Just as we should deny the false notion that everyone in PEWS
should adopt the same theory, we should equally deny the
implication that PEWS research has failed to produce consistent
theory. For instance, over two decades of cross-national research
have produced a rather consistent set of findings that supports
dependency theories of development and inequality in the periphery.
Different types of dependency apply at times and places-- commodity
concentration, corporate penetration, debt dependence --but the
types are related and are best explained within a world-system
analysis. We also have a large body of research that supports
theories of long term cycles (K-waves, hegemony) and trends
(commodification, proletarianization, market integration, etc.) of
the capitalist world-economy. These cycles and trends are causally
related to political patterns of war, colonialism, and state
formation. They are also inter-related with dependency, affecting
the patterns and contexts in which dependency operates.
Summaries of this research and of WST can be found in books
such as Chase-Dunn's Global Formation, Modelski and Thompson's
Leading Sectors and World Powers, the texts produced by McMichael,
and by Bradshaw and Wallace for the Pine Forge Press series, and
elsewhere. In fact, summary statements of world-system theory are
now commonly found in introductory textbooks, ironically typically
citing only Wallerstein as the theory's progenitor.
If we are so widely recognized as having developed a world-
system theory, why is there a debate within over its existence?
Some of this disagreement may be due to concerns over empirical
adequacy. Theories are based on the best evidence available and
long term global data are among the most paltry (although the data
have improved remarkably over the last decade). Also, theories are
advanced through posing competing explanations, so that a vibrant
field will be highly contested, perhaps appearing to some as if the
theory had not yet found consistent empirical support. Finally,
world-system analysis often divides along ideographic and
nomothetic lines. The former focuses on the complicated contexts
and contingencies of historical events, such that only a
descriptive conceptual framework can apply, while the latter
focuses on patterns that persist despite complicated contexts and
contingencies, such that abstract casual logic is appropriate.
Given the presuppositions of methods, either side may easily fall
into prejudices that consider the other as woefully incomplete.
Here is the case that it is the prejudices that are woeful.
Rather than incomplete, I find some aspects of WST to be
overdone. While modernization theory is a many-headed hydra that we
cannot ignore, nor can we advance WST by only contesting the one
alternative. To advance the theory, we should encourage people to
disagree with it. We need to engage alternative perspectives,
beyond just modernization, and forge into new fields of inquiry.
For instance, I mentioned Modelksi and Thompson's work above even
though they do not fully share a world-system perspective, because
I have found their new evidence and alternative arguments to be
some of the best for advancing WST of K-waves, hegemony, and global
war. World polity theory of global institutionalism and world
culture is an expanding area that we should also contest, learn
from, and incorporate into our understanding of the world-system.
Feminist theory is another and both will be represented on PEWS
panels at the next ASA meetings, along with sessions on nationalist
and labor movements, and on the environment. In all, the next year
gives us a chance to expand world-system theory by contesting it
with other theories and in new areas.
References:
Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1968. Constructing Social Theories. NY:
Harcourt.
Terry Boswell
Department of Sociology
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322