Flint & Taylor Chapter 1
A world systems approach to political geography
Our approach to political geography is based upon a particular theory called world-systems
analysis. We find this approach useful because of its unique definition of what is meant by
‘society’, a seemingly unproblematic concept but one that deserves much closer interrogation.
World-systems analysis is about how we conceptualize social change. Instead of social change
occurring country by country, Wallerstein postulates a ‘world-system’ that is currently global in
scope. This is the modern worldsystem, also called the capitalist world-economy – Wallerstein
refers to them as two sides of the same coin and we use the terms interchangeably in this book.
a particular social change in one of these countries can be fully understood only within the wider
context that is the modern world-system.
World systems analysis, influenced by the Annales school and Braudel, emphasizes "total
history" and the study of long-term structures (la longue durée) over events and prominent
figures. This approach is key to political geography because it offers a global perspective on
structures and processes, recognizes social action as shaping change, and democratizes the
view by highlighting the importance of non-elites and everyday experiences. Political actions are
understood within larger structural contexts.
‘development of underdevelopment’ means that the poorer countries of the world are
impoverished to enable a few countries to get richer, according to the concept of Wallerstein.
Whereas Western Europe, Japan and the US may have experienced development, most of the
re - mainder of the world became relatively poorer as part of the same process of development.
Modern social science seeks to develop universal laws across time and cultures, often
assuming similarities like comparing the decline of the British and Roman Empires. Wallerstein
counters this by using the concept of historical systems, which are societies made up of
interconnected parts that evolve over time and eventually end. He acknowledges many such
systems in the past, but believes the only one currently in existence is the modern
world-system.
Although every historical system is unique, Wallerstein argues that they can be classified into
three major types of entity. Such entities are defined by their mode of production.
,A mini-system is the entity based upon the reciprocal–lineage mode of production. This is the
original mode of production based on the specialisation of tasks. Production is by hunting,
gathering or rudimentary agriculture; exchange is reciprocal between producers and the main
organizational principle is age and gender. Mini-systems are small extended families or kin
groups that are essentially local in geographical range and exist for just a few generations
before destruction or fissure. There have been countless such minisystems, but none has
survived to the present for all have been taken over and incorporated into larger world-systems.
A world-empire is the entity based upon the redistributive–tributary mode of production.
Worldempires have appeared in many political forms, but they all share the same mode of
production. This consists of a large group of agricultural producers whose technology is
advanced enough to generate a surplus of production beyond their immediate needs. This
surplus is sufficient to allow the development of specialized non-agricultural producers such as
artisans and administrators. In Wallerstein's view, world-empires are societies where surplus
production is appropriated by a military-bureaucratic ruling class, creating significant material
inequality. This redistribution occurs in both unified political structures (like the Roman Empire)
and fragmented ones (like feudal Europe). Despite political differences, these civilizations share
the same material basis and are classified as world-empires. These systems, though fewer than
mini-systems, have existed since the Neolithic Revolution.
A world-economy is the entity based upon the capitalist mode of production. The criterion for
production is profitability, and the basic drive of the system is accumulation of the surplus as
capital. There’s no overarching political structure and its based on the principle of free trade and
controlled by the market. Its principle is accumulate or perish. In this system, the efficient
prosper and destroy the less efficient by undercutting their prices in the market. This mode of
production defines a world-economy.
The modern world system came first in Europe and America.
,Types of change
Now that we have the full array of types of entity within world-systems analysis we can identify
the basic forms that social change can take. It is worth reiterating the key point, that it is these
entities that are the objects of change; they are the ‘societies’ of this historical social
perspective. Within this framework there are four fundamental types of change.
1. There are two ways systems transform: internally, where one evolves into another, or
as a transition from one type to another. For example, mini-systems became
world-empires in favorable conditions, and feudalism (a world-empire) transitioned to
capitalism (a world-economy) in Europe after 1450.
2. The second type of change, transformation, occurs through external processes like
incorporation. As world-empires expanded, they conquered and absorbed
mini-systems, reorganizing them to provide tribute. Similarly, the expanding
world-economy incorporated both mini-systems and world-empires. Over the past 500
years, this process affected populations across continents beyond Europe.
3. Discontinuities, the third type of change, happen when one system breaks down and is
replaced by a new one with the same mode of production in the same location. A classic
example is the sequence of Chinese world-empires. In between these empires, there are
anarchic periods, sometimes reverting to mini-systems, often called Dark Ages.
Another example is the gap between the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of feudal
Europe.
4. Continuities, the final type of change, occur within systems as they evolve over time.
Despite perceptions of "timeless" cultures, all systems experience either linear or cyclical
changes. World-empires follow a cyclical pattern of expansion and contraction due to
rising bureaucratic and military costs. In the world-economy, both linear growth and
cycles of growth and stagnation are common.
The expansion of the capitalist world system has virtually eliminated all other world systems.
This leads to our “one-society-assumption”. It is best illustrated by the error of
developmentalism to which orthodox social science is prone.
Modern social science has devised many ‘stage models’ of development, all of which involve a
linear sequence of stages through which ‘societies’ (= countries) are expected to travel. You can
interpolate how countries historically have become rich and apply this to countries further up the
timeline. The basic method is to use a historical interpretation of how rich countries became rich
as a futuristic speculation of how poor countries can become rich in their turn.
The most famous example is Rostow’s stages of economic growth, which generalize British
economic history into a ladder of five stages from ‘traditional society’ at the bottom to ‘the age of
high mass consumption’ at the top. Rostow uses this model to locate different countries on
, different rungs of his ladder. ‘Advanced’ (= rich) countries are at the top, whereas the states of
the ‘third world’ are on the lower rungs. Criticism on this way of thinking is that in times of the
british rule there was no overarching high mass consumption going on at the top. These
developmental models of social change expose the weaknesses of the multiple-society
assumption. The fact that some countries are rich and others are poor is not merely a matter of
timing along some universal pathway to affluence. Rather, rich and poor are part of one system
and they are experiencing different processes within that system: Frank’s development and
development of underdevelopment. Hence the most important fact concerning those countries
at the bottom of Rostow’s ladder today is that there are countries enjoying the advantage of
being above them at the top of the ladder. Perhaps more than anything else, world-systems
analysis is a challenge to developmentalism: the sim - plistic world of an international ladder is
superseded by the sophisticated concept of the capitalist worldeconomy.
The basic elements of a world market
The world-economy is a capitalist system where production is for exchange, not use, with
products (commodities) valued by the market. Economic competition drives producers to be
more efficient, shaping production's quantity, type, and location. This leads to uneven global
economic development, with contemporary globalization being the latest expression of the world
market.
In contrast to one economic market, there have always been a number of political states in the
world-economy. This is preventing any single state from controlling the entire system and
transforming it into a world-empire. While states can influence and distort markets within and
beyond their borders, powerful states, like the US, can impact global markets. Current debates,
such as the rhetoric of President Trump and Brexit, reflect efforts to regain control over trade
and immigration. This creates a competitive state system with varying power balances, and
current pressures are challenging the post-World War II balance of power, with increasing
scrutiny of US global commitments and rising influence from China and Russia.
Wallerstein's three-tier structure within the world-economy involves a top, middle, and bottom
tier of interaction. The ruling groups create and maintain this three-tier system to stabilize
inequalities, while those at the bottom often perceive only two tiers of conflict. Examples include
centrist political parties and the rise of the middle class between capital and labor. The middle
tier helps maintain stability, but its erosion, as seen in contemporary globalization, can lead to
instability. In geographical terms, the 'semi-periphery' represents the middle tier between the
core (wealthy) and periphery (less developed) regions.
A world systems approach to political geography
Our approach to political geography is based upon a particular theory called world-systems
analysis. We find this approach useful because of its unique definition of what is meant by
‘society’, a seemingly unproblematic concept but one that deserves much closer interrogation.
World-systems analysis is about how we conceptualize social change. Instead of social change
occurring country by country, Wallerstein postulates a ‘world-system’ that is currently global in
scope. This is the modern worldsystem, also called the capitalist world-economy – Wallerstein
refers to them as two sides of the same coin and we use the terms interchangeably in this book.
a particular social change in one of these countries can be fully understood only within the wider
context that is the modern world-system.
World systems analysis, influenced by the Annales school and Braudel, emphasizes "total
history" and the study of long-term structures (la longue durée) over events and prominent
figures. This approach is key to political geography because it offers a global perspective on
structures and processes, recognizes social action as shaping change, and democratizes the
view by highlighting the importance of non-elites and everyday experiences. Political actions are
understood within larger structural contexts.
‘development of underdevelopment’ means that the poorer countries of the world are
impoverished to enable a few countries to get richer, according to the concept of Wallerstein.
Whereas Western Europe, Japan and the US may have experienced development, most of the
re - mainder of the world became relatively poorer as part of the same process of development.
Modern social science seeks to develop universal laws across time and cultures, often
assuming similarities like comparing the decline of the British and Roman Empires. Wallerstein
counters this by using the concept of historical systems, which are societies made up of
interconnected parts that evolve over time and eventually end. He acknowledges many such
systems in the past, but believes the only one currently in existence is the modern
world-system.
Although every historical system is unique, Wallerstein argues that they can be classified into
three major types of entity. Such entities are defined by their mode of production.
,A mini-system is the entity based upon the reciprocal–lineage mode of production. This is the
original mode of production based on the specialisation of tasks. Production is by hunting,
gathering or rudimentary agriculture; exchange is reciprocal between producers and the main
organizational principle is age and gender. Mini-systems are small extended families or kin
groups that are essentially local in geographical range and exist for just a few generations
before destruction or fissure. There have been countless such minisystems, but none has
survived to the present for all have been taken over and incorporated into larger world-systems.
A world-empire is the entity based upon the redistributive–tributary mode of production.
Worldempires have appeared in many political forms, but they all share the same mode of
production. This consists of a large group of agricultural producers whose technology is
advanced enough to generate a surplus of production beyond their immediate needs. This
surplus is sufficient to allow the development of specialized non-agricultural producers such as
artisans and administrators. In Wallerstein's view, world-empires are societies where surplus
production is appropriated by a military-bureaucratic ruling class, creating significant material
inequality. This redistribution occurs in both unified political structures (like the Roman Empire)
and fragmented ones (like feudal Europe). Despite political differences, these civilizations share
the same material basis and are classified as world-empires. These systems, though fewer than
mini-systems, have existed since the Neolithic Revolution.
A world-economy is the entity based upon the capitalist mode of production. The criterion for
production is profitability, and the basic drive of the system is accumulation of the surplus as
capital. There’s no overarching political structure and its based on the principle of free trade and
controlled by the market. Its principle is accumulate or perish. In this system, the efficient
prosper and destroy the less efficient by undercutting their prices in the market. This mode of
production defines a world-economy.
The modern world system came first in Europe and America.
,Types of change
Now that we have the full array of types of entity within world-systems analysis we can identify
the basic forms that social change can take. It is worth reiterating the key point, that it is these
entities that are the objects of change; they are the ‘societies’ of this historical social
perspective. Within this framework there are four fundamental types of change.
1. There are two ways systems transform: internally, where one evolves into another, or
as a transition from one type to another. For example, mini-systems became
world-empires in favorable conditions, and feudalism (a world-empire) transitioned to
capitalism (a world-economy) in Europe after 1450.
2. The second type of change, transformation, occurs through external processes like
incorporation. As world-empires expanded, they conquered and absorbed
mini-systems, reorganizing them to provide tribute. Similarly, the expanding
world-economy incorporated both mini-systems and world-empires. Over the past 500
years, this process affected populations across continents beyond Europe.
3. Discontinuities, the third type of change, happen when one system breaks down and is
replaced by a new one with the same mode of production in the same location. A classic
example is the sequence of Chinese world-empires. In between these empires, there are
anarchic periods, sometimes reverting to mini-systems, often called Dark Ages.
Another example is the gap between the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of feudal
Europe.
4. Continuities, the final type of change, occur within systems as they evolve over time.
Despite perceptions of "timeless" cultures, all systems experience either linear or cyclical
changes. World-empires follow a cyclical pattern of expansion and contraction due to
rising bureaucratic and military costs. In the world-economy, both linear growth and
cycles of growth and stagnation are common.
The expansion of the capitalist world system has virtually eliminated all other world systems.
This leads to our “one-society-assumption”. It is best illustrated by the error of
developmentalism to which orthodox social science is prone.
Modern social science has devised many ‘stage models’ of development, all of which involve a
linear sequence of stages through which ‘societies’ (= countries) are expected to travel. You can
interpolate how countries historically have become rich and apply this to countries further up the
timeline. The basic method is to use a historical interpretation of how rich countries became rich
as a futuristic speculation of how poor countries can become rich in their turn.
The most famous example is Rostow’s stages of economic growth, which generalize British
economic history into a ladder of five stages from ‘traditional society’ at the bottom to ‘the age of
high mass consumption’ at the top. Rostow uses this model to locate different countries on
, different rungs of his ladder. ‘Advanced’ (= rich) countries are at the top, whereas the states of
the ‘third world’ are on the lower rungs. Criticism on this way of thinking is that in times of the
british rule there was no overarching high mass consumption going on at the top. These
developmental models of social change expose the weaknesses of the multiple-society
assumption. The fact that some countries are rich and others are poor is not merely a matter of
timing along some universal pathway to affluence. Rather, rich and poor are part of one system
and they are experiencing different processes within that system: Frank’s development and
development of underdevelopment. Hence the most important fact concerning those countries
at the bottom of Rostow’s ladder today is that there are countries enjoying the advantage of
being above them at the top of the ladder. Perhaps more than anything else, world-systems
analysis is a challenge to developmentalism: the sim - plistic world of an international ladder is
superseded by the sophisticated concept of the capitalist worldeconomy.
The basic elements of a world market
The world-economy is a capitalist system where production is for exchange, not use, with
products (commodities) valued by the market. Economic competition drives producers to be
more efficient, shaping production's quantity, type, and location. This leads to uneven global
economic development, with contemporary globalization being the latest expression of the world
market.
In contrast to one economic market, there have always been a number of political states in the
world-economy. This is preventing any single state from controlling the entire system and
transforming it into a world-empire. While states can influence and distort markets within and
beyond their borders, powerful states, like the US, can impact global markets. Current debates,
such as the rhetoric of President Trump and Brexit, reflect efforts to regain control over trade
and immigration. This creates a competitive state system with varying power balances, and
current pressures are challenging the post-World War II balance of power, with increasing
scrutiny of US global commitments and rising influence from China and Russia.
Wallerstein's three-tier structure within the world-economy involves a top, middle, and bottom
tier of interaction. The ruling groups create and maintain this three-tier system to stabilize
inequalities, while those at the bottom often perceive only two tiers of conflict. Examples include
centrist political parties and the rise of the middle class between capital and labor. The middle
tier helps maintain stability, but its erosion, as seen in contemporary globalization, can lead to
instability. In geographical terms, the 'semi-periphery' represents the middle tier between the
core (wealthy) and periphery (less developed) regions.
