Research for Social Justice: Some North-

South Convergences
Orlando Fals-Borda
Professor Emeritus, National University of Colombia

Contents
Preface
Research for Social Justice: Some North-South Convergences -- Plenary Address at
the Southern Sociological Society Meeting
Endnotes
References

Preface:
John Gaventa, Department of Sociology, University of Tennessee-Knoxville and
Program Co-Chair, Southern Sociological Society, 1995. 

Orlando Fals Borda is widely recognized as one of the leading theorists and
practitioners of Participatory Action Research in Latin America. Almost twenty years
ago, at a conference in Yugoslavia, I had the opportunity to hear Professor Fals
Borda speak. It was an important point in my work, for the first time providing a
framework from which to build my fledgling attempts to conduct a new kind of
participatory action research at the Highlander Center in Tennessee. 

Following that meeting, and several other opportunities to hear Fals Borda in
international settings, I hoped for an opportunity to help to bring his work to the
United States, where it has largely been unrecognized. The 1995 meeting of the
Southern Sociological Society, which I co-chaired with Ben Judkins, and which had
as its theme "Sociology and the Pursuit of Social Justice" provided that opportunity. 

The following address was delivered by Dr. Fals Borda at a Plenary session of the
Southern Sociological Society on Teaching and Research for Social Change. The
address was both moving and inspirational for several reasons. Dr. Fals-Borda
received his PhD in sociology in the U.S. South (University of Florida, 1955) and had
attended a Southern Sociological Society meeting while a graduate student. Yet,
though he has been widely recognized for his work in Latin America and in the
International Sociological Association, this was the first time that he had returned to
the United States to present to a major sociology gathering. His cutting-edge
Participatory Action Research (PAR) in Colombia had been shunned by North
American sociologists. His alliances with peasants movements in Colombia had
caused the U.S. State Department to refuse him entry visas as well. As he points out,
after forty years of being away the event symbolically represented a kind of
"homecoming," and a "convergence" of experiences in two "Souths" - the Southern
U.S., a poor region located in the in the Northern hemisphere and "the South"
meaning the poorer countries of the world located primarily in the Southern
hemisphere. 

Orlando Fals Borda is currently Professor Emeritus of the University of Colombia,

where he was also Dean of the Faculty of Sociology for many years. He recently
stepped down as a member of the Colombian National Constituent Assembly. He was
the founder of the Foundation of Participatory Research in Bogota in 1970 and
organized the first Latin American meeting on PAR, some 20 years ago. He has
served as President of the Research Committee on Social Practice of the International
Sociological Association and President of the Latin American Council for Adult
Education. 

As part of the same trip, Orlando Fals-Borda visited the Highlander Center in
Tennessee and helped to inaugurate the Community Partnership Center at the
University of Tennessee, a new Center founded to link research to the needs of low-
income communities. I am pleased that the editors have asked to include this address
as part of this volume.

back to contents

Research for Social Justice: Some North-South

Convergences
Plenary Address at the Southern Sociological Society Meeting,
Atlanta, April 8, 1995
Orlando Fals-Borda
Professor Emeritus, National University of Colombia

I feel happy to be here with you today, with so many dear colleagues. But even more
happy because this event is a sort of homecoming for me. As a former student of
Lowry Nelson in Minnesota and of T. Lynn Smith in Florida, I thought at first that I
could keep up with you. But I could not. For a long time I was left orphaned by
American universities. In fact, this is the first sociological conference I have attended
in the United States since I received my Ph.D. degree in Gainesville (Florida) in 1955.
Rather, I went to World Congresses. Thus, it has taken 40 years for me to return to the
U.S. sociological meetings, for reasons too long to explain, but which are now easier
to understand: in a word, as is to be expected, during these decades American
sociologists changed, and so did I. 

Two important global elements have made it possible for us to meet again at last this
week: one is the present overall concern for social justice; and the other, the role that
social scientists can play to help achieve it for this country, for the southern states, and
for the rest of the world. 

These tasks are urgent and necessary, in fact vital for everybody. Therefore the
Program Committee of this Society, in my opinion, has taken a significant step for the
benefit of both the profession and the country. For this reason I want to thank
Professor John Gaventa and his colleagues. And I also want to congratulate Professor
Thomas Hood for his presidential address. It made me feel that I was sitting in a
professional milieu quite different from the one I had been used to attending during
my student days. For Professor Hood recalled the value-bound components of our
discipline and emphasized the relationship between social justice and the common
good as a derivative of American and Judeo-Christian historical traditions - traditions
in peril if we do not rise up together as concerned scientists and human beings. 

Indeed, as you certainly know, such issues were not part of university curricula in my
days, except when touched upon analytically in courses on social problems, or in
readings for the history of social thought. During those days we believed that human
improvement could be gained mainly as an orderly, systematic process of social
engineering or simply left to destiny. Our heroes were Emile Durkheim and Paul
Lazarsfeld. Fieldwork patterned on the natural sciences' distinction between subject
and object was a potent ideal, and advanced statistics was a required course. In short,
we were formed within positivist frames of reference. 

In any case, looking back upon those years, I am glad to acknowledge how lucky we
were as students: our professors gave us enough intellectual tools with which to go out
into the world and fend for ourselves. Personally, I think that I did not desert
altogether from the formal elements of study and conduct that they taught us. On the
contrary, from those formative years I tried to keep, with gratitude, what I found
compatible with subsequent tasks. It was an intellectual heritage which I kept and
built on at least, although Professors Smith and Nelson scolded me for "going astray"
whenever they heard about certain pots and dishes which I was starting to break in
Colombia, in my local efforts to understand better and to act on the real injustices
which I found in the field. 

It is significant that our professors could not quite understand what I started to do in
my country. The general framework of a sociology conceived with prophylactic
gloves, impossibly patterned after the exact, hard sciences, was then the dominant
paradigm. Perhaps this is still the case in many universities. 

In any case, for impoverished countries such as Colombia, a social engineering goal
had been presented by President Harry Truman in 1949. President Truman advocated
that we of the South follow the lead and copy the patterns of socioeconomic
development of the North. To this task many U.S. sociologists, including our
professors, paid attention and devoted part of their research efforts, which included
transmitting the implicit sociopolitical equilibrium model together with the 'trickle
down" effect. 

But as suggested before, even though I admired the United States for its tremendous
achievements, the hard, earthquake realities encountered in the South had the
inevitable effect of nibbling at and undermining the neat Parsonian structure of action
which we were taught. The need was felt instead, by many of us in the South, to look
for different kinds of explanation, not only to gain a more clear understanding of the
conflictual social processes that affected our lives but also to assist in re-channeling
collective energies toward a better course of action for justice and equity. And here
we stand today, with Participatory Action-Research (PAR) as one of those resulting
alternatives for our work in the South. 

After almost half a century of trial and error with action research and its several
branches, especially in Latin America, perhaps we can put in a few words about what
we have learned. Apart from the conviction that the positivist paradigm is not the sole
owner of truth as previously claimed, we gained experience or insight on at least four
guidelines for field research and scientific reporting within PAR, as follows:

 Do not monopolize your knowledge nor impose arrogantly your techniques but
respect and combine your skills with the knowledge of the researched or
grassroots communities, taking them as full partners and co-researchers. That
is, fill in the distance between subject and object;
 Do not trust elitist versions of history and science which respond to dominant
interests, but be receptive to counter-narratives and try to recapture them;
 Do not depend solely on your culture to interpret facts, but recover local values,
traits, beliefs, and arts for action by and with the research organizations; and
  Do not impose your own ponderous scientific style for communicating results,
but diffuse and share what you have learned together with the people, in a
manner that is wholly understandable and even literary and pleasant, for
science should not be necessarily a mystery nor a monopoly of experts and
intellectuals.

Thus what you finally have in your hands with PAR is a purposeful life-experience
and commitment combining academic knowledge with common people's wisdom and
know-how. (See bibliography for further publications on this approach.) 

You may say that there is hardly anything really new in these guidelines, and I am
ready to grant it. But this is more easily said today than was the case decades ago. Yet
what I have seen during my present visit in the south of the United States or listened
to in this conference may be proof of the great distance covered towards a better
understanding of the links between theory and practice and towards making sociology
a more useful or pertinent science for the search of social justice. It is heartening when
you participate in grassroots events like the celebration to honor Ralph Rinzler as a
people's musician at the Highlander Center at New Market, Tennessee, or, hear a
critical rendition of "American the Beautiful " and recollections of American working
class and race struggles, and see puppets reinterpret the "contra" war. These are the
still fresh undercurrents of folk culture that support peoples' striving for a better life,
for corrections of injustices in the United States--especially in the south--that should
also resound in the less developed countries.1 

For these reasons it seemed natural at the Southern Sociological Society meeting to
hear authoritative comments on people's power and coalitions, and on popular
resistance to poverty and oppression; to see a powerful movie recovering the history
of a workers' strike in Atlanta during the 30's 2, and a session celebrating the activism
of sociologists in the civil rights movement of this country. We received news that the
University of Tennessee is for the first time establishing a center to link with
community affairs.3 All this appears encouraging for science and society. Such is the
sign of the times that gives us hope for the future of our discipline in the United States
and elsewhere, that there is still a good chance for an active, living, pertinent social
research. 

But again, nothing is new under the sun. Even in the United States of my student days
you could have found, in the interstices of academia, some seeds of what today we
call participatory research. Professor Hood (1995) in his presidential address cited the
contributions of Ruth Benedict (1959) on cultural relativism, Robert Bierstedt's (1964)
concept of science with humanism, and Irving Horowitz' (1993) heterodox thinking
on qualitative research and Social Forces (which is the meaningful title of the
Southern Society's professional review). A need was already felt during those critical
years of race and gender upheaval to go beyond empathy and participant observation
into full dialogue and open advocacy. Kurt Lewin (1946) was starting in Philadelphia
his pioneering action experiences. There were some unusual initiatives for the study
and defense of exploited classes, like Norman Birnbaum's action research with Afro-
American communities in Chicago, and the persistent work done by Myles Horton
(1990) among the coal miners in the Appalachian mountains which became the
Highlander Center already alluded to. 

These were portents of things that have started to come, because the wave of change
took on great speed among social scientists. As Professor Hood (1995) said, some
ivory towers came tumbling down partially and radical caucuses went up. This should
not surprise us. The Kuhnian (1970) and Feyerabend (1975, 1987) revolutions were
advancing together with Barrington Moore's (1966) indictments on democracy and
injustice in the northern advanced countries. 

Even Truman's well-meaning idea of social engineering for development had to

undergo retouching, for the sorry happenings of the Cold War and the dismal United
Nations Decades that started in 1960. Disillusionment and protest for the irresponsible
spread of capitalism in the world and the worsening of social and economic conditions
everywhere were acknowledged. In fact, many scientists and philosophers, starting
with Spengler, had already recognized that their societies suffered existential
problems. They questioned the final purpose of their knowledge and unbridled
technical accumulation with Cartesianism and instrumental manipulation of natural
and human processes. Quantum physicists discovered the infinite in the internal
structure of atomic particles , and Heisenberg (1950) proposed his principles of
indeterminacy and anthropic observation. The gate was open for Prigogine's (1984)
theory of chaos and serendipity. Alas, the natural sciences were becoming more fluid,
open and fractal, as they reinterpreted the irregularities of systems and actors, just like
the social sciences had been doing all along in spite of strenuous efforts to make
themselves exact. But this unplanned encounter appeared to be fruitful for all. 

In this changing context, social justice had another lease of life and it came to the
open more decisively, like in the present crucial meeting of the Southern Sociological
Society. This challenge, as everyone knows, was taken by concerned philosophers o f
science and by poststructuralists and postmodernists, as well as by some politicians
and statesmen. Peculiarly, the gaze of those leaders went from the navel of their
northern cultures to the neglected and troublesome realities of the South. Several
authors gained inspiration and insight by studying underdeveloped societies and
stressing the overall need for justice. Levi-Strauss (1966), for example, contributed his
admiring studies of the "savage mind", and demanded respect for the still surviving
pre-Columbian systems of knowledge. Morris Berman (1981), inspired by totemism
and African nature cults challenged the academic concepts of circuit and interaction
and proposed to "re-enchant the world" with a participatory conscience. Gregory
Bateson (1979, 1991) did the same through cybernetics and concepts of reciprocity
with nature gathered from the poor people of the earth. Foucault (1972, 1980) spoke
of "the insurrection of subjugated knowledges" thinking about the struggles of the
Amerindians who illustrated for him the relations between knowledge, political power
and social justice. 

Such concern for knowledge, power and justice and their relationships had been
growing independently likewise among intellectuals of the Third World, especially
among Participatory Research practitioners. This parallel development had an
important consequence: we finally merged. The meeting of minds and mutual support
of critical research currents from the North and the South became frequent. Dialogics,
for instance, which was introduced in Brazil with Freire (1970,1973), resonated
among social researchers and adult educators of Canada (Hall, 1977, 1978), Holland
(de Vries, 1980), United States (Gaventa 1983, 1993; Park 1993), Australia (Kemmis
1988a, 1988b), and England (Reason 1988,1994; Carr 1986). The world capitalist
system and dependency, first postulated by Senegal's Amin (1974, 1976) and Brazil's
Cardoso (today president of the republic)(1972, 1973), were taken up by Wallerstein
(1974, 1979) and Seers (1981). Max-Neef's (1982) humanist economics from Chile
found kindred spirits in Lutz (1988) and Ekins (1986), from the United States and
England respectively. Much needed critique of the development concept went hand in
hand between Colombia's Arturo Escobar (1987) and Germany's Wolfgang Sachs
(1992). 

Participatory researchers in the Third World contributed to this merger with a version
of "commitment" which combined praxis and phronesis, that is, horizontal
participation with peoples and wise judgment and prudence for the good life. In my
particular case, this sociopolitical combination was placed in the service of peasants'
and workers' struggles, which meant a clear break with the Establishment plus an
active, sometimes dangerous search for social justice there. 4 But I could not consider
myself a scientist, even less a human being, if I did not exercise the "commitment"
and felt it in my heart and in my head as a life-
experience, Erfahrung or Vivencia. This methodology became an alternative
philosophy of life for me and for many others. There is no need to make any apology
for this type of committed research. Nearly everyone knows that PAR combines
qualitative and quantitative techniques. It utilizes hermeneutics, literature, and art
according to needs. And it joins with action simultaneously. There appears to be now
some ample agreement that PAR can serve to correct prevailing practices in our
disciplines which have not been altogether satisfactory or useful for society at large. 
The results of Participatory Research are open to validation and judgment just like in
any other discipline, not only by fellow scholars and bureaucrats--who are now in a
rampage to co-opt it--but also by the opinion of the subject peoples themselves. This
validating opinion of base groups is for us the most determinant. 

Finally, participatory techniques of this type have continued to hit the First World,
now with your new tensions and plural societies, to the point of being assimilated by
governments and foundations, United Nations agencies and NGO's disillusioned with
misguided development practices. These institutions feel that they have to go along
with PAR and beyond well-meaning but ineffectual policies, like "green revolutions"
and "wars on poverty". Universities have also admitted PAR in their curricula. 

Moreover, seven world congresses have been conveyed on PAR with its sister
concepts of action-learning and process management in Yugoslavia, Nicaragua,
Canada, Australia and England. There have been many more regional events with
expressions from at least 36 strands or schools of similar types of research established
in 42 countries (collaborative, naturalistic, clinical, cooperative, rapid appraisal, etc.).
The next (eighth) PAR world congress will be in Cartagena (Colombia) in June 1997,
proposed in England to commemorate the first such meeting ever held, which was in
the same Colombian city twenty years ago. The central theme will be, "Convergence
in Knowledge, Space and Time". You are cordially invited. 

The North-South brotherhood of scholars concerned with meaningful research for

social justice which I have just described is already growing. Only last month at the
University of Bath in England there was the presentation of another case of
convergence between PAR principles from the South and New York Professor Agnes
Heller's (1984) "theory of meaning". This is a symptom of renovation in our
disciplines and of the present search for alternative paradigms. Such North-South
convergence has come not too soon, for the sad condition of the world so requires it.
This meeting of the southern sociologists of the U.S. confirms it. Because the study of
society is not worth the trouble if it does not help its members to grasp the meaning of
their lives and to move to action for progress, peace and prosperity for all. PAR is
now a proven way to approach this problematic. 

If this type of committed, participatory research really helps the poor peoples (which
are the majorities of the world) to exercise their human and social rights; if it unveils
the conditions of their oppression and exploitation; if it assists in overcoming the
constraints of savage capitalism, violence, militarism, and ecological destruction; if it
endeavors to understand, tolerate and respect different genres, cultures and races, and
to heed the voice of Others, then sociology and the social sciences can be expected to
survive well and meaningfully the tensions of modernity. Above all, our disciplines
will be justified as the truly human endeavors that had originally inspired our
founding fathers, those I first learned to respect here, in the American South, in
United States universities. Thanks to you, again, for this hopeful homecoming.

back to contents

Endnotes
1
The Highlander Research and Education Center is located in New Market, TN.
Founded in 1932 by Myles Horton, Highlander is a residential adult education center
dedicated to the belief that working-class people can learn to take charge of their lives
and circumstance. For more information on Highlander see Adams, 1975; Glenn,
1988, 1993; Highlander Research and Education Center, 1989; Horton 1990. On the
weekend of April 7-9, 1995, at Highlander, the Ralph Rinzler Memorial Celebration
was held to honor and remember the life of long-time Highlander friend Ralph
Rinzler. The celebration brought together some of this country's greatest folk
entertainers to celebrate working people's culture. Ralph's personal and professional
work, as founder of the American Folklife Festival held each summer on the mall in
front of the Smithsonian Institution, was about creating a living cultural presentation
of folk and working class community-based culture. That linking of deep cultural
roots and struggle for daily survival has guided Highlander's cultural work throughout
its sixty year history. 
2
The Uprising of '34, a documentary film by George Stoney, Judith Helfand, and
Suzanne Rostock, tells the story of the General Textile Strike of 1934. A massive but
little-known strike led by hundreds of thousands of Southern cotton mill workers
during the Great Depression is the largest single-industry strike in the US, yet one of
the most silenced events in our history. The film is available from Independent
Television Service, 190 Fifth St. East, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55101-1637. Tel. 612-
225-9035. 
3
The Community Partnership Center is an interdisciplinary center established to link
research to the needs of low-income communities in a collaborative way. 
4
Orlando Fals Borda may be referring to his own experience of being jailed several
times in Colombia for his PAR with peasants.

back to contents

References
Adams, Frank with Myles Horton. 1975. Unearthing the Seeds of Fire: The Idea of
Highlander. Winston-Salem, NC: John F. Blair. 

Amin, Samir. 1974. Accumulation on a World Scale. New York: Monthly Review
Press. 

_________. 1976. Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formation of

Peripheral Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press. 

Bateson, Gregory. 1979. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: Dutton. 

_________. 1991. A Sacred Unity: Further Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York:
Michael Bessie Books. 

Benedict, Ruth. [1934] 1959. Patterns of Culture. New York: New American Library. 

Berman, Morris. 1981. The Reenchantment of the World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press. 

Bierstadt, Robert. 1964. "Sociology and General Education." Pp. 40-55 in Sociology
and Contemporary Education edited by Charles Page. New York: Random House. 

Cardoso, Fernando H. 1972. "Dependency and Development in Latin America." New

Left Review 74 (July-Aug.):83-95. 

_________. 1973. "Associated Dependent Development: Theoretical and Practical

Implications." Pp. 142-178 in Authoritarian Brazil edited by A.Stepan . Hew Haven:
Yale University Press. 

Carr, Wilfred and Stephen Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education Knolwedge
and Action Research. London: Falmer Press. 

de Vries, Jan. 1980. Science as Human Behaviour: On the Epistemology of

Participatory Research Approach. Amersfoot, Netherlands: Studiecentrum. 

Ekins, Paul. 1986. The Living Economy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 

Escobar, Arturo. 1987. The Invention of Development. University of SantaCruz,

Ph.D. Thesis. 

Fals-Borda, Orlando. 1982. "Participatory Research and Rural Social Change,"

Journal of Rural Cooperation, 10(1): 25-39. _________. 1985. Knowledge and
People's Power: Lessons with Peasants in Nicaragua, Mexico, and Colombia.
NewDelhi, India: Indian Social Insititute. 

Fals-Borda, Orlando, and M.A. Rahman. 1991. Action and Knowledge: Breaking the
Monopoly with Participatory Research. New York: Apex. 

Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of

Knowledge. London: NLB. 

_________. 1987. Farewell to Reason. London: Verso. 

Foucault, Michel. 1972. Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Harper and Row. 

_________. 1980. Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books 

Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury. 

_________. 1973. Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Seabury. 

Gaventa, John. 1993. "The Powerful, the Powerless, and the Experts: Knowledge
Struggles in an Information Age," in Peter Park et al., (eds.), Voices of
Change:Participatory Research in the United States and Canada. Ontario: OISE Press. 

Gaventa, John, and Bill Horton. 1981. "A Citizens Research Project in Appalachia,
USA," Convergence 14(3):30-41. 

Glen, John. 1988. Highlander: No Ordinary School. Lexington: University Press of

Kentucky. 

_________. 1993. "Like a Flower Slowly Blooming: Highlander and the Nurturing of
an Applachian Movement." Pp. 31-56 in Fighting Back in Appalachia: Traditions of
Resistance edited by Stephen L.Fischer. Phliadelphia: Temple University Press.

Hall, Budd and Arthur Gillette. 1977. Participation Research. Toronto: International
Council for Adult Education. 

_________. 1978. Creating Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly Research Methods,

Participation and Development. Toronto: International Council for Adult Education. 

Heisenberg, Werner. 1950. The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory. New
York: Dover Publications. 

Heller, Agnes. 1984. Everyday Life. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 

Highlander Research and Education Center. 1989. Highlander Research and

Education Center: An Approach to Education Presented Through a Collection of
Writings. New Market, TN: Highlander Center. 

Hood, Thomas. 1995. "The Practical Consequences of Sociology's Pursuit of'Justice

For All.'" Social Forces. September 74(1). 

Horowitz, Irving. 1993. The Decomposition of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. 

Horton, Myles, with Judith and Herbert Kohl. 1990. The Long Haul. New York:
Doubleday. 

Kemmis, Stephen and Robin McTaggart. 1988a. The Action Research Planner, Third
Edition. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press. 

_________. 1988b. The Action Research Reader. Third Edition. Victoria, Australia:
Deakin University Press. 

Kuhn, Thomas H. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. New York:

Macmillan. 

Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Lewin, Kurt. 1946. "Action-Research and Minority Problems," Journal of Social

Issues 2:34-46. 

Lutz, Mark A., and Kenneth Lux. 1988. Humanistic Economics: The New Challenge.
New York: Bootstrap Press. 

Max-Neef, Manfred. 1982. From the Outside Looking In: Experiences in Barefoot
Economics. Uppsala: Dag Hammerskjold Foundation. 

Moore, Barrington. 1966. The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord
and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press. 

Park, Peter, Mary Brydon-Miller, Budd Hall, and Ted Jackson (eds.). 1993. Voices of
Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada. Toronto: OISE
Press. 

Prigogine, Ilya. 1984. Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. New
York: Bantam Books. 

Reason, Peter. 1994. "Three Approaches to Participative Inquiry," in Handbook of

Qualitative Research edited by Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications. 

_____________. (ed.). 1988. Human Inquiry in Action: Developments in New

Paradigm Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 

Sachs, Wolfgang. 1992. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as

Power. London: Zed Books. 

Seers, Dudley. 1981. Dependency Theory: A Reassessment. London: Frances Pinter. 

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and

the Origins ofthe European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press. 

_________. 1979. The Capitalist World Economy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press.

back to contents