Interstate system (world-systems theory)

Last updated

The interstate system is a concept used within world-systems theory to describe the system of state relationships that arose either as a concomitant process or as a consequence of the development of the capitalist world-system over the course of the "long" 16th century. The theory of the interstate system holds that all states are defined through their relationship to other states or through participation in the world economy, and that divisions between states help to divide the world into a core, periphery and semi-periphery. [1] [2]

Contents

Concepts

Development of an interstate system

The Peace of Westphalia marked an important restructure of the interstate system, including the widespread recognition of the sovereignty of the United Provinces, the first global hegemon. Westfaelischer Friede in Muenster (Gerard Terborch 1648).jpg
The Peace of Westphalia marked an important restructure of the interstate system, including the widespread recognition of the sovereignty of the United Provinces, the first global hegemon.

Immanuel Wallerstein wrote that the development of a capitalist world-economy created all of the major institutions of the modern world, including social classes, nations, households and states. These institutions also created each other, as nations, classes, and households came to be defined by their relations to the state, and were subsequently able to shape the state. Out of this structural chaos on a sub-state level, the basic elements of a state could emerge, but states could only gain conscious recognition when other states were able to define and relate to them. [3]

To Wallerstein, there were no concrete rules about what exactly constitutes an individual state beyond this, as there were so many exceptions to various indicators of statehood. Juridical sovereignty could range from total to nil, as could the state's ability to impose decisions, project power, or control the flows of capital, commodities and labor. There were also no clear rules about which group controlled the state, as various groups located inside, outside, and across the states’ frontiers could seek to increase or decrease state power in order to better profit from a world-economy. [4]

While on the level of individual states, almost nothing remained so stable as to assist with a definition of statehood, Wallerstein claimed that the "relative power continuum of stronger and weaker states has remained relatively unchanged over 400-odd years." While hegemons came and went, the basic division of the world into core and periphery has persisted. This implied to Wallerstein that while there is no universal state system, an interstate system had developed out of the sum of state actions, which existed to reinforce certain rules and preconditions of statehood. These rules included maintaining consistent relations of production, and regulating the flow of capital, commodities and labor across borders to maintain the price structures of the global market. If weak states attempt to rewrite these rules as they prefer them, strong states will typically intervene to rectify the situation. [5]

The ideology of the interstate system is sovereign equality, and while the system generally presents a set of constraints on the power of individual states, states within the system are "neither sovereign nor equal." Not only do strong states impose their will on weak states, strong states also impose limitations upon other strong states, and tend to seek strengthened international rules, since enforcing consequences for broken rules can be highly beneficial and confer comparative advantages. [6]

Relationship to nation and class

Wallerstein notes that class conflict within the context of an interstate system tends to take the form of creating institutions to affect state decisions, and that these institutions tend to be created within the boundaries of the state, and with a specific national scope. This has the effect of adding to the definiteness of state structures, and giving a national character to class conflict. [7] [8]

Both the proletariat and bourgeoisie can find benefits and drawbacks to defining themselves as "world classes." For example, the bourgeoisie has an interest in defining itself as a world class to overcome national barriers to trade, but also has an interest in tying itself to various state machineries to gain comparative advantages and monopoly privileges. Likewise the proletariat has an interest in uniting on a world scale to better combat internationally mobile capital, however the mechanisms most readily available for improving local conditions exist in state-based organizations. The result is that both classes express consciousness at a level which does not reflect their economic role within a world-economy. For this reason, class conflict is often expressed in other social terms, such as through bourgeois or revolutionary nationalism. [9] [8]

Role in hegemonies and liberalism

While Wallerstein said that "[o]mnipotence does not exist within the interstate system," he did note that in "rare and unstable" instances, states could aspire to a hegemony over the world system. This generally requires a combined agro-industrial, commercial, and financial edge over their rivals, which has only been achieved by the Dutch Republic (1620–1672), the United Kingdom (1815–1873), and the United States (1945–1967). Such hegemonies coincide with expansions and contractions in the world-economy, which Wallerstein explained through Kondratiev waves. [10]

Once a hegemon has achieved control over the interstate system, they assume world "responsibilities" to maintain the interstate system, restricting conflicts between entrepreneurial, bureaucratic and working class strata by exercising power in a "liberal" form. This takes the form of a greater enforcement of interstate rules to maintain liberal norms, as well as the diplomatic, military, political, ideological, and cultural power of the hegemon. This delegitimizes the efforts of other state machineries to act against the hegemonic power, but is also self-defeating, in that it promotes the spread of technological expertise to other powers, and rising wages in the hegemon tends to decrease the competitiveness of its labor power. [11]

Role in state socialist economies

World-systems theorists have used the interstate system to explain the perceived failures of the state socialist economies of the eastern bloc in abolishing commodity fetishism and other negative effects of a capitalist world-economy at the national level. This has included claims that since an interstate system is the basis of a competitive commodity economy at a system level, then no single state is capable of totally ending commodity exchange across its borders without failing to maintain state competitiveness. [12] Wallerstein believed that the fact that the eastern bloc had largely avoided disrupting the world economy was proof of the effectiveness of the interstate system in disincentivizing global class conflict. [13]

Criticism

Wallerstein's use of the interstate system to explain international relations was criticised by a number of Western Marxists and non-Marxists for what they saw as economism, or for failing to account for "the relative autonomy of the state" from economic factors, claiming that Wallerstein saw the interstate system as a mechanical consequence of capital accumulation. [12] While Wallerstein was quite clear that the interstate system followed the development of a world-economy, and state policies largely reflected internal pressures from economic actors, [14] other world-systems theorists like Christopher Chase-Dunn view the interstate system and world-economy as concomitant processes with no clear causal priority. [12] [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hegemony</span> Political, economic or military predominance of one state over other states

Hegemony is the political, economic, and military predominance of one state over other states. Hegemony can be regional or global.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International relations</span> Study of relationships between two or more states

International relations (IR) are the interactions among sovereign states. The scientific study of those interactions is also referred to as international studies, international politics, or international affairs. In a broader sense, the study of IR, in addition to multilateral relations, concerns all activities among states—such as war, diplomacy, trade, and foreign policy—as well as relations with and among other international actors, such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), international legal bodies, and multinational corporations (MNCs). There are several schools of thought within IR, of which the most prominent are realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

Social conflict theory is a Marxist-based social theory which argues that individuals and groups within society interact on the basis of conflict rather than consensus. Through various forms of conflict, groups will tend to attain differing amounts of material and non-material resources. More powerful groups will tend to use their power in order to retain power and exploit groups with less power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immanuel Wallerstein</span> American sociologist and economic historian (1930–2019)

Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein was an American sociologist and economic historian. He is perhaps best known for his development of the general approach in sociology which led to the emergence of his world-systems approach. He was a Senior Research Scholar at Yale University from 2000 until his death in 2019, and published bimonthly syndicated commentaries through Agence Global on world affairs from October 1998 to July 2019.

Dependency theory is the idea that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. A central contention of dependency theory is that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system". This theory was officially developed in the late 1960s following World War II, as scholars searched for the root issue in the lack of development in Latin America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social stratification</span> Concept in sociology

Social stratification refers to a society's categorization of its people into groups based on socioeconomic factors like wealth, income, race, education, ethnicity, gender, occupation, social status, or derived power. As such, stratification is the relative social position of persons within a social group, category, geographic region, or social unit.

Hegemonic stability theory (HST) is a theory of international relations, rooted in research from the fields of political science, economics, and history. HST indicates that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single state is the dominant world power, or hegemon. Thus, the end of hegemony diminishes the stability of the international system. As evidence for the stability of hegemony, proponents of HST frequently point to the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana, as well as the instability prior to World War I and the instability of the interwar period.

A theory of capitalism describes the essential features of capitalism and how it functions. The history of various such theories is the subject of this article.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Core countries</span> Industrialized capitalist countries

In world systems theory, the core countries are the industrialized capitalist or imperialist countries, which depend on appropriation from peripheral countries and semi-peripheral countries. Core countries control and benefit from the global market. They are usually recognized as wealthy states with a wide variety of resources and are in a favorable location compared to other states. They have strong state institutions, a powerful military and powerful global political alliances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World-systems theory</span> Approach emphasizing the world-system as the primary unit of social analysis

World-systems theory is a multidisciplinary approach to world history and social change which emphasizes the world-system as the primary unit of social analysis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samir Amin</span> Egyptian-French economist and political scientist (1931–2018)

Samir Amin was an Egyptian-French Marxian economist, political scientist and world-systems analyst. He is noted for his introduction of the term Eurocentrism in 1988 and considered a pioneer of Dependency Theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Giovanni Arrighi</span> Italian economist and sociologist (1937–2009)

Giovanni Arrighi was an Italian economist, sociologist and world-systems analyst, from 1998 a Professor of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University. His work has been translated into over fifteen languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Periphery countries</span> Less developed, poorer nations in world-systems theory

In world systems theory, the periphery countries are those that are less developed than the semi-periphery and core countries. These countries usually receive a disproportionately small share of global wealth. They have weak state institutions and are dependent on — and, according to some, exploited by — more developed countries. These countries are usually behind because of obstacles such as lack of technology, unstable government, and poor education and health systems. In some instances, the exploitation of periphery countries' agriculture, cheap labor, and natural resources aid core countries in remaining dominant. This is best described by dependency theory, which is one theory on how globalization can affect the world and the countries in it. It is, however, possible for periphery countries to rise out of their status and move into semi-periphery or core status. This can be done by doing things such as industrializing, stabilizing the government and political climate, etc.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Semi-periphery countries</span> Industrializing countries in world-systems theory

In world-systems theory, the semi-periphery countries are the industrializing, mostly capitalist countries which are positioned between the periphery and core countries. Semi-periphery countries have organizational characteristics of both core countries and periphery countries and are often geographically located between core and peripheral regions as well as between two or more competing core regions. Semi-periphery regions play a major role in mediating economic, political, and social activities that link core and peripheral areas.

A world-system is a socioeconomic system, under systems theory, that encompasses part or all of the globe, detailing the aggregate structural result of the sum of the interactions between polities. World-systems are usually larger than single states, but do not have to be global. The Westphalian System is the preeminent world-system operating in the contemporary world, denoting the system of sovereign states and nation-states produced by the Westphalian Treaties in 1648. Several world-systems can coexist, provided that they have little or no interaction with one another. Where such interactions becomes significant, separate world-systems merge into a new, larger world-system. Through the process of globalization, the modern world has reached the state of one dominant world-system, but in human history there have been periods where separate world-systems existed simultaneously, according to Janet Abu-Lughod. The most well-known version of the world-system approach has been developed by Immanuel Wallerstein. A world-system is a crucial element of the world-system theory, a multidisciplinary, macro-scale approach to world history and social change.

The study of global communication is an interdisciplinary field focusing on global communication, or the ways that people connect, share, relate and mobilize across geographic, political, economic, social and cultural divides. Global communication implies a transfer of knowledge and ideas from centers of power to peripheries and the imposition of a new intercultural hegemony by means of the "soft power" of global news and entertainment.

International economic structures range from complete autarky to complete market openness. This structure has undergone numerous changes since the beginning of the nineteenth century. The state-power theory as put into perspective by Stephen Krasner (1976), explains that the structure of international trade is determined by the interests and power of states acting to maximize their aggregate national income, social stability, political power and economic growth. Such state interests can be achieved under free trade.

The archaeology of trade and exchange is a sub-discipline of archaeology that identifies how material goods and ideas moved across human populations. The terms “trade” and “exchange” have slightly different connotations: trade focuses on the long-distance circulation of material goods; exchange considers the transfer of persons and ideas.

Richard Lachmann was an American sociologist and specialist in comparative historical sociology who was a professor at University at Albany, SUNY.

The theory of imperialism refers to a range of theoretical approaches to understanding the expansion of capitalism into new areas, the unequal development of different countries, and economic systems that may lead to the dominance of some countries over others. These theories are considered distinct from other uses of the word imperialism which refer to the general tendency for empires throughout history to seek power and territorial expansion. The theory of imperialism is often associated with Marxist economics, but many theories were developed by non-Marxists. Most theories of imperialism, with the notable exception of ultra-imperialism, hold that imperialist exploitation leads to warfare, colonization, and international inequality.

References

  1. ↑ Wallerstein, Immanuel (December 1984). The Politics of the World-Economy: The States, the Movements and the Civilizations (Studies in Modern Capitalism) (First ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–179. ISBN   9780521277600.
  2. ↑ Chase-Dunn, C. (2001). World-Systems Theorizing. Handbook of Sociological Theory. https://irows.ucr.edu/cd/theory/wst1.htm Archived 2020-09-27 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ↑ Wallerstein. The Politics of the World-Economy. p. 29.
  4. ↑ Wallerstein. The Politics of the World-Economy. p. 30.
  5. ↑ Wallerstein. The Politics of the World-Economy. pp. 30–31.
  6. ↑ Wallerstein. The Politics of the World-Economy. pp. 33–34.
  7. ↑ Wallerstein. The Politics of the World-Economy. p. 34.
  8. 1 2 Wallerstein, Immanuel; Phillips, Peter D. (September 1985). "National and World identities and the Interstate System". Millennium. 14 (2): 159–171. doi:10.1177/030582988501400201. ISSN   0305-8298. S2CID   143591971 . Retrieved 24 August 2021.
  9. ↑ Wallerstein. The Politics of the World-Economy. pp. 34–36.
  10. ↑ Wallerstein. The Politics of the World-Economy. pp. 38–46.
  11. ↑ Wallerstein. The Politics of the World-Economy. pp. 44–45.
  12. 1 2 3 Chase-Dunn, Christopher (March 1981). "Interstate System and Capitalist World-Economy: One Logic or Two?". International Studies Quarterly. 25 (1): 19–42. doi:10.2307/2600209. JSTOR   2600209 . Retrieved 24 August 2021.
  13. ↑ Wallerstein. The Politics of the World-Economy. p. 33.
  14. ↑ Wallerstein. The Politics of the World-Economy. p. 7.
  15. ↑ Chase-Dunn, Christopher; Sokolovsky, Joan (September 1983). "Interstate Systems, World-Empires and the Capitalist World-Economy: A Response to Thompson". International Studies Quarterly. 27 (3): 357–367. doi:10.2307/2600688. JSTOR   2600688 . Retrieved 24 August 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.