| EVOLUTION OF THE MODERN WORLD
The modern world system is a capitalist world system (WSYS), which has developed along two lines: a system of political/economic relations between societies (nation-states) a system of relations within each particular society - modern social institutions This section is about the WSYS between nations. The next section will examine modern institutions. There are two �symbiotic� parts of the WSYS structure - (1) the world economy (2) the interstate system. THE WORLD ECONOMY consists of three basic �zones� - the core, semi-periphery, & periphery. CORE (�developed�) nations are industrialized, modernized, prosperous, and dominant. SEMI-PERIPHERY (�developing�) nations are moving toward the core by industrializing, modernizing, etc. PERIPHERY (�under-developed�) nations are areas exploited for natural resources and cheap labor. External Arenas are areas of the world that are outside the world economy (e.g., China, Cuba, Vietnam). In the world economy, the CORE nations intensely exploit both the SP and P nations while the SP nations exploit the P nations, usually to a lesser extent. There are intense rivalries among the CORE nations (this is where most major wars have come from), and mobility in the system (SP to CORE, P to SP, etc.) is very limited. There are three long-term dynamic processes in the world economy. 1. The world economy has continually expanded over the last 500 years and now is nearly 100% global. 2. Gradual global deepening over the last 500 years has extended the main forms of capitalist culture into many SP and P institutions, and this is an increasingly global-wide process. The key aspects of global deepening are: commodification, mechanization, the contract model, proletarianization, polarization. 3. There are two cyclical dynamics -- Kondratieff Waves and Hegemony cycles. Kondratieff Waves - 50 year cycles involving a boom cycle that crests after about 25 years, followed by a bust cycle that bottoms out after about 25 years, then a boom cycle starts again. Hegemony cycles - three �hegemons� (sort of a modern version of empires) have risen and fallen over the last 400 years - Holland in the 1600s, England in the 1800s, US in the 1900s. THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM is dominated by CORE nations who both collude and compete, jointly trying to extend capitalism ("open markets") while competing for dominance. Over the last 500 years, boom-and-bust cycles, wars, and hegemons have come and gone while the interstate system has continuously expanded. FOUR STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF WSYS 1450 - 1640 WSYS began to emerge from the collapse of feudalism in several areas of Europe. 1640 - 1760 Consolidation of the WSYS as expanding trade networks tied nations together. 1760 - WWI Massive global expansion of the WSYS mainly through colonization. WWI - cont. Global deepening of the WSYS through forced "modernization"). DEVELOPMENT AND UNDERDEVELOPMENT IN THE wsys (the most important issue of our time and probably of the future) Capitalist deepening is spreading the Core culture of consumption while economic underdevelopment continues to make the means unavailable to SP and P countries ("want but can't have"). The rich countries are getting richer and aspirations are increasing rapidly in the poorest countries. This is a result of �market� forces � the less constrained the market, the more inequality (winners and losers). -------------------------------------------------- PCGDP ratios � richest to poorest countries (Sanderson p. 203) 1750 2 to 1 1860 5 to 1 1913 10 to 1 1950 18 to 1 1977 29 to 1 2002 40+ to 1 (CIA World Factbook, 2002) --------------------------------------------------- Modernization Theory � �One path� from traditional to modern � all countries will follow sooner or later � Focuses on non-material culture � ignores material/economic (anti-Marxist) � Their deficiencies, they need to change customs, attitudes, etc. � Rich countries can and will help them change (strangely, this never seems to work!) � Reality � this is a �blaming the victim� approach Dependency Theory � Marxist, originated outside the Core, rejects Modernization Theory � Specific dominance/exploitation creates and maintains under-development Core countries dominate/exploit weaker �trading partners� Direct exploitation + elite complicity (�puppet governments�) �Structural distortion� � e.g., one-crop economies Weak market position in global market (e.g., coffee/sugar in S and C America) Dependent development � e.g. partial uneven development like Mexico World System Theory � Similar to Dependency Theory but �structural� rather than specific � Position in WSYS determined early, few opportunities for change � Several different strategies when opportunities do arise American Marxist Theories (1970s) � Szymanski and Warren � key is time period of their studies � 1970s � Post WW2 Core reconstruction shared some wealth downward for a while � Also, decline of postwar US hegemony in the 1970s was encouraging � If these trends had continued S&W might have been right � But re-asserting of market forces (globalization) led to return to old trends Evaluating the Theories � Modernization theory still dominant in most of the Core countries, but nowhere else - we�re the good guys and try to help, their problems are their own fault. � The balance of historical factors and dependency in causing under-development is still being debated and is still inconclusive (to what extent is it structural, to what extent specific?) � The basic issue is short term benefit vs. long term dependency from Core investment Sanderson � �Soft Dependency Theory� WSYS is capitalist (market driven) and has developed �unevenly� � once positioned in the system it is hard for a country to �break out� but there are occasional opportunities for some countries to partially break out Some development continues in most countries but it continues to be uneven and the poor countries will never catch up � resources stress reinforces this (global resources cannot support broad development) So the poor countries are structurally (historically) disadvantaged and dependency and global ecology reinforces the disadvantages |