-----Original Message-----
From: Adam K. Webb <akwebb@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Thursday, November 13, 1997 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: cj#728.2> I.A.Globalization as a world system
>On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Dennis R Redmond wrote:
>
>> burnt-out war-ravaged economies. I think Wallerstein talks somewhere
about
>> the "semi-periphery", which can either rise a la Japan and South Korea in
>> the global food chain, or deteriorate a la Britain and Argentina. You
>
>> My own suspicion is that, barring major political changes, the US may
well
>> lose its "core" status in the medium-term future, due to the rise of the
>> euro, more efficient East Asian coordination, and the generalized
>> neoliberal decadence of what used to be the American Empire, and become
>> a very large but declining semi-periphery. But maybe that's too
>
>> -- Dennis
>
>I may have missed something about world-systems theory, but does the
>"core" not include all countries in the same rough development level as
>the hegemonic power and at or near the centre of transnational financial
>flows? By this definition, decline as hegemon hardly means transition to
>semiperipheral status.
One can decline as a hegemon to "just" another "core" and then decline to an
SP. Certainly (or at least I think so), GB and Spain are example and the
US may be. Of course this raises the issue of the apparently differently
trajectory of the Netherlands but the answer may lie (and this is highly
speculative) in the specific nature of the respective hegemonies. Military
or "might based" hegemonies may simply be costlier and, in the long run.
more deterimental than "commerically based" hegemonies.
Carl Dassbach