World System Theory - Essay Example

Immanuel Wallerstein developed the world system theory back in the early 1970s in his quest to understand the development of the modern world and its capitalistic nature. Ritzer & Stepinsky (2013 p.312-314), world systems theory categorizes the modern world into a three-level hierarchy: core, peripheral, and semi-peripheral. These categories have been brought up due to the current world economic nature. Core countries have capitalistic economies and are known to be exploitive in nature. They tend to exploit peripheral countries for labor and raw materials among other resources. They also have the technical expertise to get things done according to their specifications. On the other hand, semi- peripheral countries share characteristics with both core and peripheral countries.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Peripheral countries have undeveloped structures and industries, and on most occasions, they depend on core countries for their resources such as capital and technical knowledge. According to Onuf, (2012 p.65), the worlds capitalistic nature was propelled by the traditional feud system. The feud system was in existence in the early 1500s. When the system had reached its optimum level, and it started to decline due to the establishment of long-distance trade, nations started separating themselves and categorizing themselves into mini systems and empires. Other factors that led to the development of capitalist nations were the stagnation of agricultural production in most regions leading to decreased productivity and economic crisis. This led to increased level of dependency among the peasants as well as an increase in epidemics around the world.

Robinson (2004 p.177), further goes ahead to state that, the core countries tend to benefit from peripheral countries. They exploit their resources and citizens with the aim of benefiting themselves. It is through this exploitation that countries end up being superpowers while the low-status countries suffer in poverty. Most of the core countries end up determining the worlds economic structure. They bear too much influence on other nations in such a way that, a fall in their economic structure means a fall in the worlds economy. Citing from the world system theory, most countries do not have authority in controlling their economies. However, they are integrated into the global economy which, controls their business, and economical structure at large (Elwell, 2013 44-49). It is for this reason that we find that, in the current world, some nations do not prosper despite them being rich in resources, good climate among other factors.

Wallerstein (2011 p.215), Western Europe nations bear much allegiance to the capitalistic economic structure. It is through their modes of labor control that the structure gained more prominence and it was adopted by other continents. Europe is said to have adopted capitalism to ensure they sustained a robust economic growth even after the feud system became extinct with time. However, it is possible to note that, unlike the feud system, capitalism was also dominated by different political systems of different countries. This is because of different forms of governments, which, also have a bearing on their economic structure.

Currently, the worlds economic system is highly determined by the labor conditions and the relationships that these countries bear to each other. Core nations gain a handful of benefits when it comes to their interactions with periphery nations. Mitrovic (2007 p. 112), states that core nations gain a huge market for exports from the peripheral nations. They also gain cheap labor and adequate access to raw materials since most of the peripheral nations do not have the machines and technology to convert their raw materials to finished goods Besides this; they also gain a large sum of profits for their capital investments. Nations in the northwestern Europe such as Holland and England are said to have been the first core regions.

Core nations came into existence due to their strong centralized government and mercenary armies. With increased control of their goods and extensive technology, they were able to take control of the larger part of international commerce (Wallerstein, 2005 p.17). With time, the middle-class population came to own the international markets leaving the peasants to provide labor in their farms and industries.

Core nations are characterized to have a capitalist economy. They have strong centralized governments that control all activities in their economy. Besides this, most of the institutions established have extensive bureaucracies that limit any form of uncontrolled business or illegal production of goods (Mitrovic, 2007 p. 91). This helps to increase the number of turnover of goods manufactured making the, earn high profits. They also have a high record of exports and extensive form of technology and expertise. In addition to this, they have specialized services whereby, production is extensive and of high quality. The tax base to these nations is sufficient thus providing efficient national goods to its citizens. It is due to the above characters that these nations end up having a strong dominance and control to the peripheral nations.

On the other hand, Wallerstein (2004), states that the peripheral regions were characterized as to being submissive and oppressed by the core nations. They lacked central governments to control their trade and commerce activities leading to major downfalls in trade and the economy at large. For them to gain profits, they ended up depending on core countries for capital and resources. Peripheral regions end up exporting their materials to the core regions at a less cost and later import them as finished goods for a higher value. This ends up reaping them off most of their income since most of their capital is spent on debts and purchasing of finished goods to sustain them.

The Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America are said to be the earliest peripheral regions in the world. Peripheral regions are characterized to have least industrial progress as well as poor economic diversification (Mishra 2014). They mainly concentrate on a few sectors of the economy such as farming which on most occasions does not bear weight to the economy of a country. Industries in these regions have poor bureaucracies since they are dominated by the core nations. The populations of most of these nations are highly dependable, and only a few are educated and living above the basic standards of living. Peripheral regions have unequal income distribution among their populations make it hard for people to invest in the business and other projects.

On the other hand of the two extremes are the semi-peripheral nations. They are termed to be semi-peripherals since they strive to keep themselves away from being peripherals and strive to join the core nations. Most of these nations are still going through major development and with time, they tend to improve their economic performance. These regions are thought to bear a pretty much dominance over their economic system but have not managed to dominate the international trade. Good examples of peripherals are Portugal, Spain, Southern France and Southern Germany. It is argued that semi-peripherals regions are exploited by core nations, but they also reciprocate the same to the peripherals nations (Onuf, 2012). Economically, semi-peripheral nations import more of their products from the core nations and later export them to the peripheral nations.

Besides the above systems developed, fourth forms of economic systems notably noted by Wallerstein are the external areas (Pieterse, 2013). These nations do not fall within the above-named regions. They managed to form their structure of economic dominance and are not under exploitation of any nation. A good example of this is Russia. Russia is categorized as being a superpower on its own.

Critiques

The world system theory has faced several comments on relating to its development. Worsley (2005 p.25) argued that the theory and analysis mainly focus on the international trade and market but assumes other factors that affect production. Scholars also analyze that; the theory bears a significant resemblance to the dependency theory and Marxist theory that mainly focuses on capitalism, a concept puts little emphasis in social structure systems of nations. Besides this, Mishra, (2014) states that the theory puts too much emphasis on the core nations, which makes the theory extensively, detailed regarding economy but not on the culture of the nations and the populations that occupy it as well. Besides this, the theory puts concentrates on the fact that, trade is asymmetrical, meaning that, core countries do not have to possess their raw materials, but can as well source them from the peripheral nations. While most of the economist argues that foreign investment is important for peripheral countries, the theory outweighs this concept in an argument that, core countries gain their profits and other benefits from the peripheral nations. Therefore, they do not need to invest in the peripheral nations.

Conclusion

It is argued that the world system theory is a world system without a system theory. The world system theory puts much emphasis on the economic structure of the world. The capitalistic nations are said to dominate over other nations, which are peripheral and semi-peripheral. Peripheral nations on the other hand greatly depend on the core and semi-peripheral for industrialization. Therefore, it possible to conclude that, the world is controlled by a sub-section of nations. Their opinion and structure largely determine how the world's trade and industry will take the course.

Reference

Elwell, F. L. 2013. Sociocultural systems: Principles of structure and change. Athabasca University Press.

Mishra, R., 2014. World System Theory: Understanding the Capitalist Design. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(3).

Mitrovic, L., 2007. Immanuel Wallerstein's Contribution to Mondology and the Critical Theory of Global World System Transition. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS-Series Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History, (01), pp.91-104.

Onuf, N.G., 2012. World of our making: rules and rule in social theory and international relations. Routledge.

Pieterse, J.N., 2013. The Development of Development Theory Towards Critical Globalism. Institute of Social Studies.

Ritzer, G.& Stepinsky, J. 2013. Sociological Theory (9th Edition). Mc Graw Hill: NewYork ( Chapter 8, (p306-314)

Robinson, W.I., 2004. A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and state in a transnational world. JHU Press.

Worsley, P., 2005. One World or Three: A Critique of the World System of Immanuel Wallerstein. Socialist Register, 17(17).

Wallerstein, I. 2011. The modern world-system I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century, with a new prolog (Vol. 1). Univ of California Press.

Wallerstein, I., 2005. The Actor and World-Systems Analysis Comments on Blau and Wieviorka. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 34(1), pp.9-10.Wallerstein, I.M., 2004. World-systems analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press.