On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, A. Gunder Frank wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
> > i agree with Bruce in the following:
> >
> > > From: "Bruce R. McFarling" <ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
> >
> > > leveraged. Until Europe established a semi-peripheral position for itself
> > > post 1492, extracting precious metals to trade with the center, but at
> > > the same time as much as possible acting as a center with respect to the
> > > Americas, the spatial system permitted the development of lower quality
> > > substitutes for imports from the center, but by itself could not permit
> > > peripheral West Asia to leapfrog central East Asia.
> > and regard this as
> >
> > 1) spatial factor of geoeconomic centrality since Americas discovery and
> > utilization
Since in agreeing with me, a position is taken in opposition to
the one I expressed, there seems to be a failure in communication here.
By 'central place', I am referring to the usage in Economic
Geography, that is, hamlet, village, town, city, etc. Not a 'central'
position in a WS hierarchy. And my argument was that part of the
capability to emerge from peripheral to semi-peripheral standing is just
such low-level structure characteristics that may be expressed in the more
local notions like 'central place'. Second, I did not argue that the
opening to America by itself *put* West Asia in a 'central ' 'geoeconomic'
position: on the contrary, that it put West Asia into a *semi-peripheral*
position -- a step up from where it had been before, true -- and
development into a transitory center (what I referred to as
'leapfrogging') came after.
Virtually,
Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au