Center vs. Periphery Countries: Globalization in action

World Systems Analysis, a theoretical approach/understanding of certain aspects of globalization.

World-system analysis is said to have originated in the 1970’s, coined “a new perspective on social reality”. However, our author asks us to consider that the concepts embedded in WSA have been present as a result of capitalism since the mid-eighteenth century. The text explains the ways that concepts are brought into academia in various ways, but often the same concepts are being practiced before their ‘legitimized’ or named.

Between the years 1979–1990, narratives surrounding globalization became a part of every day life. The prime minister of Great Britain passed around the narrative that globalization was here to stay, and embedded it’s ‘necessary’ nature with her slogan: TINA. TINA stands for there is no alternative. Early on, globalization was clearly stern and sacrificial in nature. Great Britain, a powerful nation declared early on that other countries would “submit”. This example frames excellently the ways that periphery & core or “center” countries often interact.

The author explains that the markets that were monopolized simply were more successful monetarily than those who functioned as free market. Thus, the countries that are core-like wealthier, meaning peripheral countries were less. Monopolies simply had more power, more money and more resources. Fernando Braudel called capitalism the “anti-market”, a key critique noted in the text.

“One of the reasons it is not a day-to-day reality is that a totally free market, were it ever to exists, would make impossible the endless accumulation of capital” (page 25).

The quote above refers to how the free market, or partially free market functions to benefit capitalism, through monopolization. The reason a “totally free” market isn’t a reality, is because that would entail a market where there is equal numbers of buyers and sellers. Monopolies are just the opposite, there is one or two large sellers, and many buyers. Meaning, the seller is largely in control of the pricing, manufacturing, etc. and has the power to manipulate those factors in ways that will benefit themselves.

In understanding core & periphery nations, it’s imperative to know how they play roles within each others success or demise. Core states can be thought of, quite simply as the consumers of goods and services. Periphery states can be understood as the producers or providers of goods & services. These examples are broad, but meant to be representative. Although the consumer might have more resources, money, power, etc. (largely due to monopolies), they are not fully monopolized or fully powerful, because they rely on the periphery state for their goods, services, and often resources (natural).

Developed around the 1950s in reference to Latin American politics, dependency theory questions why the success of a core country doesn’t equal a success to the periphery countries. We can understanding how this happens when we examine how monopolies function, under free trade- giving them just the right amount of control to maintain success while keeping the periphery countries poor, and without equal partnership within the markets. In critique of dependency theory, WSA states that it’s not the core states taking advantage of the periphery states, that it’s more complex. It has to do with the division of labor, and the location of periphery states within the division of labor in the larger global market.

• Latin American politics/theory in context WSA