Periphery Role in the World Systems Theory
The world systems theory, as defined by Immanuel Wallerstein in “World Systems Analysis,” is the argument that the social reality within which we live and which determines what our options are has not been the multiple national states of which we are citizens, but something larger, which we call a world-system (x),” World society models shape nation-state identities, structures, and behavior through worldwide cultural and associated processes (Meyer, Thomas, & Ramirez, p.84). The rise of human development at the global level was intensified by the aftermath of World War II and the Cold War (Meyer p. 85). This world system is composed of core, periphery, and semi-periphery countries.
Whether or not a nation is considered a core or a periphery country is directly related to the degree of profitability of the production process (Wallerstein p.28). Periphery countries supply core countries with cheap labor and resources, while core countries reap majority of the profits (Wallerstein p.28). In this way, an unequal exchange of capital from politically weak regions to politically strong regions occurs (Wallerstein p. 28).” Semi-peripheral states have a mix of core and periphery production, and are under constant pressure to prevent themselves from slipping into the periphery, while simultaneously attempting to advance towards the core status (Wallerstein p. 29). Historically, this system has caused discontent amongst many periphery countries, who feel the sting of this exploitative system.
The World Systems theory is a popular political position in Latin America due to the historical trend of exploitive capitalist practices carried out by nations with better economies, more developed social structures, and much larger middle classes (Latin America World Systems Theory par. 3). By the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, it was well documented that U.S. multinational corporations preferred to do business with repressive military dictatorships and other premodern political formations (Latin America World Systems Theory par. 4). In this way, huge profits were generated for the West, while the host nation saw very little infrastructural gains (Latin America World Systems Theory par. 4). Examples of such exploitation of periphery nations by Western based multinational corporations are well known throughout history.
The World Systems Theory is similar to the dependency theory, except that World systems theory recognizes that minimal benefits are enjoyed by countries that are low in status in the system, while wealthy countries exploit the poorer countries primarily for their own gain (World Systems theory par. 1). The concept is that the way a country is integrated into the capitalist world system will in effect determine the economic development of that country (World systems theory par .2). After the Cuban Revolution in 1959, U.S. neocolonialism in Latin America was ended, and this had a tremendous impact on the entire hemisphere where corporate capitalism reigned in the Americas (Latin America World Systems Theory par. 1). Soon after this transition, it became apparent that Western modernization meant something different in Western countries than it did in non-Western countries (Latin America World Systems Theory par. 2). There were stark inequalities between core and periphery countries in social indicators such as infant mortality, average lifespan, access to healthcare, and literacy (Latin America World Systems Theory par. 3). These social indicators are a good way to illustrate the difference between the development of a core nation and the development of a periphery nation.
Periphery countries will sometimes seek the business of a transnational corporation by lowering standards for their own citizens. Oftentimes host government will suspend labor legislation in order to attract transnational corporations and to keep foreign currency rolling in (Sklair p 68). In this way, politicians can reap the benefits of capitalist globalization in such a way that either harms or at the very least does not raise the quality of life for the nations citizens (Sklair p. 68).These transnational corporations get involved in host country politics and culture ideology through mass media and advertising (Sklair p. 64). In this way, the leaders of periphery countries are locking their own citizens into cycles of poverty and a lack of economic growth.
The relationship between core and periphery countries is important to understand about the world systems analysis theory. The capitalist core countries rely on the periphery countries for the cheap labor and natural resources that drive their market. Although this brings jobs to periphery countries, it is often at the cost of the culture and the environment of these nations, in return for unfair working conditions and low pay. Proponents of the world systems analysis would argue that a necessary part of the world systems analysis theory is the exploitation of periphery countries by core countries.
1) John W. Meyer, John boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez, “World Society and the Nation-State, in American Journal of sociology, 1997. Pp144–6, 150–1, 152–3, 157–61, 173–5.
2) Latin America World Systems Theory — The Age Of Decolonization And The Failings Of Modernization Theory. Retrieved September 08, 2016, from http://science.jrank.org/pages/11668/World-Systems-Theory-Latin-America-Age-Decolonization-Failings-Modernization-Theory.html
3) Leslie Sklair, Globalization: Capitalism and Its Alternatives, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Chapter 5.
4) Wallerstein, I. M. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Durham: Duke University Press.
5) World-Systems Theory — Boundless Open Textbook. (n.d.). Retrieved September 08, 2016, from https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/global-stratification-and-inequality-8/sociological-theories-and-global-inequality-72/world-systems-theory-429-537/
