The Capitalist World System by Wallerstein

 The
discussions within the Neo-Marxist research tradition have, since the 1950s,
centred around the causes of underdevelopment in the Third World. Some of the
theorists have identified these causes primarily within the framework of the
individual society, while others have emphasized the external links and
dependency relationships. 

In connection with this problematique, researchers
have taken different positions regarding the character and role of capitalism.
According to one school of thought, decades ago, capitalism had already
penetrated both the world economy and individual peripheral economies to such
an extent that this provided a solid basis for understanding the whole problem
of underdevelopment. 

According to another school of
thought, the capitalist mode of production has only permeated the centre
economies and their international relations with the periphery. The periphery
economies, on the other
hand, have been characterised by complex articulations of different modes of
production thus creating structural heterogeneity, which in itself has hindered
national economic integration and development.

Regardless
of their position in this debate, the conceptions presented in the previous
sections have used as their point of departure individual societal formation
and moved up from there to the international system. The character and the mode
of functioning of this system have been seen as determined primarily by the centre
formations and the interests of ‘their dominant social classes. 

In opposition
to this view, a competing approach instead starts with the capitalist world
system itself, and moves down to analyses of the individual societies and their
position within the system. This world system approach has been elaborated,
first and foremost, by Immanuel Wallerstein (Wallersteln, 1974, 1979, 1980),
but also to a large extent been taken over by Frank and Amin in their more
recent works during the 1980s and the early 1990s.

Wallerstein’s
theory did not originate from the classical dependency theories. In the present
context, though, it may still be appropriate to compare Wallerstein’s
considerations with the main propositions of these theories, because this will
facilitate an identification of some of his core notions and propositions.
Wellerstein operated with a significantly longer historical perspective that
the mainstream dependency theories. 

In addition, he studied not only the
structures of the world economy, but also the cyclical fluctuations, the
economic recessions, depressions, upswings and booms. One of his points in this
connection was that major fluctuations have engrafted upon both the world
economy and the international political system some specific characteristics
that have been crucial for the individual nations’ development possibilities in
the period concerned.

Wallerstein
consistently used as his starting point the basic features of the global
system. The analysis of the individual countries came second, because he
assumed that their development prospects depended more on the nature of the
global system than on their internal structures. The development prospects are
further determined by the individual country’s position in the international
economic and political system. 

In this context Wallerstein worked out a
detailed ranking of the countries as well as a grouping of them into three main
categories: centre, semi-peripheral, and peripheral. The individual country can
change its position in the global hierarchy both upwards and downwards. But the
framework for such shifts is set by the structures and the prevailing
conditions in the world system.

Summarized
in these few sentences it is hard to get a proper impression of Wallersterin’s
quite elaborate theory. Therefore, it should be added that this theory, more
thoroughly than the classical dependency theories, reflects the very
complicated and constantly changing structure in the international economy. It
is also Wallersterin’s credit that he has related the economic analysis to
investigations of the international political system and the power relations
that permeate it.

Wallerstein
has been criticized for focusing exclusively on international conditions and
their impact upon the individual countries’ development prospects. It is
correct that his domain interest lies here, but the world preconditions and
prospects for development. Wallerstein’s main point here is rather that the
further down in the hierarchy a county is, the narrower are the constraints and
barriers to its development established by the world system. Thus to understand
stagnation and underdevelopment in the very poor and dependent countries
requires particular emphasis on the global framework and conditions.

It
is interesting to note that both Frank and Amin have adjusted their original
theories by incorporating some of Wallersterin’s propositions, but without
accepting the world system as the necessary analytical starting point for all
periods in the development of capitalism. 

On the contrary, Amin has argued that
the world system approach has only recently become the most feasible analytical
framework, the main reason being that nor the economies of the centre countries
have become significantly more integrated and dependent on the global economic
system. Another reason for paying more attention to his system according to
Amin, is the transformation of the previously centrally planned economies and
their increased world market integration (Amin, 1992a, 1992b).

In
recently published works, Amin has been particularly preoccupied with what he
called the new capitalist globalization (Amin, 1992). This process is
characterised by a polarization and regionalization of the world economy around
three poles: the USA, Japan, and the European Union. It is further
characterised by a continuous

strengthening
of the semi peripheral economies such as South Korean and Taiwan — but as part
of regional networks, not as independent units. Parallel to these trends, many
peripheral societies have been subjected to a drastic differentiation process
involving relative deprivation. This has prompted Amin to talk about a Fourth
World with reference to the African countries, which have fallen further behind
in relation to most of the Asian and Latin American countries.

According
to Amin, capital accumulation in this new global system has in reality broken
down in both the periphery and what was previously known as the Second World,
and the capitalist system in its present form will not be able to resolve this
accumulation crisis. The main reason is not the dominance of the centre
countries and their national bourgeoisies, as claimed by the classical
dependency theories. 

The explanation should rather be looked for in
international financial system and the ‘wild orgy of financial speculation’,
which has undermined the foundations of national production and growth-oriented
policies and strategies — even in relatively strong, centre countries. Amin has
sought to capture these prevailing conditions in the title of his latest book, Empire
of Chaos (19922b).

While Amin may have
identified unprecedented new features in the world system, it should be noted
that he has not yet substantiated his recent propositions with empirical
studies of the same quality as those he carried out in support of his original
dependency theory.