Structure, Agency, and Context:

The Contributions of Geography to

World-Systems Analysis

Colin Flint, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Fred M. Shelley, Southwest

Texas State University

The interaction of geography and world-systems theory has created two groups of
work. The first body of work uses world-systems theory as its theoretical framework with
minor levels of critique or change. The second body of work attempts to inform world-
systems theory by explicitly including a geographical perspective. Human geographers
attracted to world-systems theory provide a perspective that highlights the role of agency
in what is widely perceived to be a rigid structuralist approach. Key geographical concepts
of region and place are viewed as social constructs created within an overarching context
of structural imperatives. By conceptualizing places, states, and the macroregions of core,
semiperiphery, and periphery as geographical scales, the role of agency in creating and
maintaining the important structures and institutions of the capitalist world-economy,
such as hegemony, is illustrated. The geographer’s interest in the creation of geographical
scales results in analysis of the dynamism of the contemporary world-system.

Introduction

In recent years, geographers have examined the development of world-sys-

tems theory with considerable interest. Its explicit focus on social change over
time and across space renders the world-system perspective inherently appealing
to the geographer’s focus on characteristics of, differences among, and interaction
between places. Geographers have learned much from applying world-systems
theory in their research. At the same time, the explicitly spatial perspective char-
acteristic of geography has resulted in substantial contributions to world-systems
literature itself.
A creative recursive interaction between world-systems theory and geogra-
phy has resulted in two related bodies of world-systems-oriented geography. The
first group of work uses world-systems theory as its theoretical framework with
minor levels of critique or change. The second attempts to inform world-systems
theory by explicitly including a geographical perspective into world-systems the-
ory. In this article, we examine both lines of inquiry in order to illustrate the value
and relevance of an explicitly geographical perspective to the analysis of the

Sociulugical Inquiry, Vol. 66, No. 4, November 1996. 496508

01996 by the University of Texas Press, P.O. Box 7819. Austin. TX 78713-7819
 GEOGRAPHY AND WORLD-SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 497

global economy, past and present. For purposes of this article, the term world-
systems theory will be used to refer to the body of work generated or inspired by
Immanuel Wallerstein and other scholars at the Fernand Braudel Center.

Geography and World-Systems Theory

Wallerstein’s ( 1979) conceptualization of the structure of the capitalist
world-economy was appealing to political geographers because of the implicit
geographical pattern of the three-tier hierarchy of core, periphery, and semiperi-
phery. This implicit spatialization within world-system theory was seen as an
opportunity for geographers (Taylor 198la). Taylor’s (198 1b) definition of three
scales of analysis in political geography engaged world-systems analysis and
geography. Taylor’s usage of world-systems theory provided a theoretical basis
for the development of the hierarchy of spatial scales that had long been used by
geographers. In addition, Taylor (1982) showed that this hierarchy of scales was
important in understanding the relative autonomy of the state by viewing state
actions within the overarching structure defined by the capitalist world-economy.
The importance of looking at states as institutions in the world-economy
rather than separate societies has been a theme throughout Taylor’s work (1987,
1991b, 1993b, 1994b, 1995, 1996b). World-systems theory is a vehicle that allows
geographers to look at spatial differentiation in state forms and functions, and the
geopolitical and geoeconomic interaction of states within a global framework,
without reverting to the tradition of state-centric analysis. This attack on the dom-
inant social science vision of states as societies has taken two paths: a critique of
developmentalism (Taylor 1987) and a reinterpretation of geopolitics.
The critique of the developmentalist approach is based upon the underlying
assumption of mainstream social science: Societal change operates at the scale of
the state (Taylor 1987). In contrast, world-systems theory argues that states are
political units within the dominant scale of a single capitalist world-economy.
Because of the structural constraints of the core-periphery relationship, peripheral
countries are unable to follow paths of development based upon the past experi-
ences of core countries. States are not separate societies that can simply follow
guidelines laid down by core countries to allow for “development.” Instead, states
are interrelated units of a wider society, the capitalist world-economy. From the
world-systems perspective, models depicting the development of transport net-
works are not seen as processes operating solely within states (Taylor 1987).
Instead, core-periphery relationships are seen as the underlying logic of invest-
ment in the periphery. For example, transport networks in many former European
colonies in Asia and Africa continue to be oriented to port cities that were estab-
lished as administrative, financial, and trade centers by the European colonial
powers.
498 COLIN FLINT AND FRED M. SHELLEY

While world-systems theory proved an important basis for justifying long-

used theoretical constructs within geography, some concerns about the role of
space in world-systems theory were also voiced. Agnew (1982) warned against
assigning the categories of core, periphery, and semiperiphery an independent
role in explaining social phenomena. Simply put, cores or peripheries cannot act.
Rather, human activity creates core and periphery processes, which in turn create
regions within the world-economy (Taylor 1988, 1991a). It is these socially con-
structed regions that interact with each other to form and perpetuate a core-
periphery hierarchy.
The concerns voiced by Agnew (1982) regarding the hypostatization of space
within world-systems theory paralleled other critiques of world-systems analysis
that chastised the structural determinism and lack of agency in the theory (e.g.,
Skocpol 1977). Geographers have long been sensitive to concerns about agency
and structural determinism. Hence most geographers who have adopted world-
systems theory have downplayed structural imperatives in their analyses of his-
torical social change. Instead, geographers have examined the recursive interac-
tion between global structures and structures at a smaller scale. The introduction
of geographical context as an explanation for a spatial differentiation in the out-
comes of the overarching structures and mechanisms of the world-system alleviate
some of Skocpol’s (1977) concerns. Social interaction with large structures is
mediated and facilitated by place-specific institutions and circumstances.
Cross-fertilization between geography and world-systems theory is influ-
enced by geographical scale. Some geographical analysis has emphasized large-
scale analysis of social interaction between broad regions within the world-econ-
omy. Throughout the history of the world-economy, uneven development has
resulted from locational factors such as differences in resource endowments, levels
of technology, and forms of social organization. Other geographical research has
focused explicitly on places at a smaller scale. Some of this research examines
distributions within countries or other meso-scale regions, while others focus on
individual cities or communities and how these places influence, and in turn are
influenced by, the changing world-economy.
Regions in the World-Economy
Explicit recognition of locational differences in resources and forms of eco-
nomic organization has been critical to the incorporation of human agency into
world-systems theory. Recognizing that human activity within the world-economy
is influenced by locational considerations, geographers have defined and analyzed
“historical regions” (Taylor 1988; Taylor 1991a). This approach has important
implications for world-systems analysis. Regions are conceptualized expressions
of particular combinations of core and periphery processes; thus, they can be seen
as dynamic components of the unfolding world-economy.
 GEOGRAPHY AND WORLD-SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 499

A series of monographs published by Cambridge University Press within a

series entitled “Geography of the World-economy’’ includes several interesting
analyses of various large-scale regions throughout the world, including the United
States (Agnew 1987), Brazil (Becker and Egler 1992), the Caribbean (Richardson
1992), and Southeast Asia (Dixon 1991). Each of these studies provides detailed
analysis of the creation and role of historical regions from a world-systems per-
spective, and each addresses the integration of the region into the world-economy
and the change in social relations of production and relative importance of eco-
nomic sectors. The analysis of changes at the local and state scales that arise from
integration into the world-economy provides for an exposition of the concrete
social, economic, and political manifestations of participation in the capitalist
world-economy. Such an approach illustrates the importance of human agency in
the creation and recreation of the capitalist world-economy. The analysis of ac-
tivity within states within the constraints and opportunities of the structure and
processes of the capitalist world-economy helps to defuse the charges of structural
determinism that have been leveled at world-systems analysis (Skocpol 1977).
In addition, the discussion of the social relations of production within regions
of the world-economy offered by these regional geographies informs the debate
between proponents of world-systems theory and other branches of Marxist
thought (Brenner 1977; Harvey 1982). The discussions of how historical regions
are created during integration into the capitalist world-economy illuminate de-
bates about the importance of regional- and state-scale modes of production
within the capitalist world-economy (Brenner 1977). For example, Dixon (1991,
pp. 53-56) discusses the continuity in the form of institutions in precolonial
Thailand while illuminating the changes in their content. In the early nineteenth
century, land ownership was still formally vested in the king, but in practice
private ownership of land was developing. The dynamism of precolonial Thai
society is related to its interaction with the capitalist world-economy (Dixon
1991). This theoretically informed regional analysis illustrates the unique form
that institutions within the world-economy will take in different places, which
must be considered when discussing transitions from one mode of production to
another (Brenner 1977). The interrelationship between locally specific modes of
production through a network of trade-based commodity chains, and the spatial
differentiation inherent in such a system, is seen as integral to the operation of
the capitalist world-economy.
An alternative approach to a regionalization of the capitalist world-economy
is a quantitatively based regional geography of the world-system. Closely follow-
ing the key structural features of the world-economy, Terlouw (1992) examined
the expansion of the world-system and the existence of external areas, classified
countries as being sites of predominately core or peripheral processes, or a mix-
ture of the two, and also examined the dynamism of the system. Using measures
500 COLIN FLINT AND FRED M. SHELLEY

of trade and diplomatic interaction in order to include both political and economic
processes, Terlouw (1992) illustrated the complexity of the three-tier hierarchy
of core, semiperiphery, and periphery. In that way, Terlouw challenged the com-
mon assumption that all parts of the globe are currently incorporated into the
capitalist world-economy.
O’Loughlin and van der Wusten (1990) took a different approach. Instead
of using world-systems theory to regionalize the world, they used it to interpret
regionalizations of the world generated by alternative theoretical frameworks. For
example, they used the ideas of hegemonic competition and economic restruc-
turing from world-systems theory to explain the geopolitical imperatives under-
lying the construction of pan-regions, or very large regions dominated by major
world powers, as defined by German political geographers in the 1930s. This
analysis interprets geopolitical thought through world-systems theory to explain
the generation of these theories in order to critique them.
The regionalization of the world-economy was also the task of Johnston,
O’Loughlin, and Taylor (1 987), who used the structural core-periphery relation-
ship in the world-economy to explain broad global patterns of inequality in life
expectancy and the experience of behavioral violence. The underlying core-pe-
riphery structure of the world-economy was also used by O’Loughlin and van der
Wusten (1993) to interpret the processes behind the major wars of the twentieth
century. The concentration of interstate wars in the core countries in the first half
of the twentieth century is interpreted as a manifestation of hegemonic competi-
tion. The clustering of wars in the periphery after World War I1 is interpreted as
control and domination of the periphery by the core.
The concept of the semiperiphery was examined critically by Grant and
Lyons (1990), who examined the political economy of the Republic of Ireland
and concluded that universal measures are not suitable for the classification of
countries as being sites of core or peripheral processes. Instead, the geographical
perspective highlights the interaction of state-specific and global structures to
produce outcomes that are context-specific. In other words, the geographical ex-
pression of structures and processes operating at a variety of geographical scales
will result in spatially differentiated outcomes. That Ireland can be classified as
a semiperipheral country is the result of how structural forces interact with local
structures to produce a unique mixture of core and peripheral processes, rather
than its position along a single continuum of data.
Geographers’ long-standing interest in regional change has encouraged many
to examine in detail why a region’s mix of core and periphery processes changes
over time, as well as how local actors respond to perceptions of deteriorating
positions within the world-economy. For example, Deitrick and Beauregard
(1995) examined the declining position of Pennsylvania relative to the United
States since World War 11. Like the rest of the U.S. “Rust Belt,” contemporary
 GEOGRAPHY AND WORLD-SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 501

Pennsylvania is characterized by an aging population, continued reliance on de-

clining manufacturing industries, and slow rates of economic and population
growth. Can states such as Pennsylvania recapture their prominence within the
world-economy? Deitrick and Beauregard (1995) analyze the response of state
and local government officials to global industrial restructuring.
Hegemony in the World-Economy
Geographical focus on the social construction of large-scale regions within
the world-economy has led to examination of the nature of hegemony in the
world-system. The study of hegemony in the capitalist world-economy from a
political geography perspective has followed two paths: how the combination of
economic and political processes explains hegemonic cycles; and how activities
within hegemonic powers have affected the world-economy as a whole.
Taylor (1990a, 1993a) has linked the rise and fall of hegemonic powers to
Kondratieff waves to illustrate the interaction of economic and political processes.
This approach allows a temporal dimension to be integrated into the geographer’s
perspective. Dramatic geopolitical events, such as the events of 1989, are seen as
the outcome of economic and political cycles and so political competition and
economic restructuring are viewed within a wider temporal perspective.
The relationship between hegemonic cycles and Kondratieff waves led Tay-
lor (1990a, 1993a) to temporalize the geopolitical structure of the capitalist world-
economy in terms of geopolitical orders and geopolitical transitions. Geopolitical
orders are defined by either periods of hegemony, or a multipolar power relation-
ship in the core, while geopolitical transitions are periods of political and eco-
nomic restructuring as one geopolitical order is replaced by another. For the most
part, relatively lengthy geopolitical orders are punctuated by abrupt transitions.
For example, a few years of transition after the end of World War I1 was followed
by the Cold War, a geopolitical order that lasted more than four decades. In
examining why the Cold War arose after the transition period following World
War I1 and why the British government in effect agreed to recognize U.S. hege-
mony over the world-economy, Taylor ( 1990a) integrated structural imperatives
with agency. By including consideration of the actions and words of British and
U.S. politicians Taylor avoided seeing the Cold War as a structurally determined
geopolitical order but includes agency of key actors within structural constraints.
The other approach to hegemony taken by political geographers has followed
Arrighi’s (1990) conceptualization of hegemons as providers of order within the
world-system. The provision of order is based upon the dissemination of a par-
ticular institutional or organizational innovation that is accepted by the other
states. Arrighi’s (1990) idea appeals to geographers because it promotes a con-
sideration of recursive interaction between actors and structures within the world-
systems framework. Hegemons are not structurally determined features of the
502 COLIN FLINT AND FRED M. SHELLEY

system but created by social action, which in turn shapes the concrete form of
the capitalist world-economy.
This recursive interaction between structures and agents has been used by
Taylor (1996a) to set the framework for his work on the role of hegemons in
shaping the capitalist world-economy. Taylor (1996a) identifies three hegemons;
the United Provinces in the seventeenth century, the United Kingdom in the nine-
teenth century, and the United States in the twentieth century. Each of these
countries promoted similar political practices that made the state a facilitator of
civil society’s needs, promoted peace within the interstate system, and dissemi-
nated ideas of freedom across the international community (Taylor 1996a). In
doing so, the hegemonic powers fundamentally altered the nature of the capitalist
world-economy by adopting innovative policies that other states emulated. These
innovations are addressed by Taylor (1996a, 1996c) as modernities.
In the case of the Dutch, modernity was defined by the rise of the bourgeoisie
and the decline of the aristocracy (see also Taylor 1994a). Nijman (1994) has
contributed to this discussion by looking at the role of innovative institutional
structures in the Dutch East India Company and their effects on the economic
rise of the Netherlands and its impact on the structure of the capitalist world-
economy. The English hegemony of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
was linked to the Industrial Revolution and the concomitant definition of indus-
trialization as modernity (Taylor 1996a). Mass production in the industrializing
United Kingdom undercut local handicraft and cottage industries throughout the
world, and in conjunction with the process of colonialism helped to reinforce the
sharpening material and technological distinctions between core and periphery.
In the twentieth century, the United States created the dichotomies of mass con-
sumption and “underdevelopment” while promoting an international agenda
based on free trade and democratization (Taylor 1996a, 1996~).
States, Institutions, and Elections
One of the hallmarks of the modern world-economy is the fundamental di-
chotomy between economic organization and political organization. A single
world-economy is divided politically among numerous political units, with sov-
ereignty over clearly delineated portions of the earth’s surface recognized by the
international community. The concept of sovereignty over territory-a concept
recognized explicitly within the capitalist world-economy since the Peace of
Westphalia in 1648-renders the very division of the earth’s surface into sovereign
territories an inherently geographical activity. Moreover, as Taylor (198 la) and
other geographers have recognized, the nation-state acts as a buffer between in-
dividuals in places and the world-economy. In other words, human agency in the
world-economy is conditioned by national identity and citizenship, which in turn
are often accidents of geography.
 GEOGRAPHY AND WORLD-SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 503

Recognizing the role of the nation-state as a filter between individuals and

the world-economy, some geographers have undertaken fruitful analyses of insti-
tutions and institutional changes within various nations. The examination of pat-
terns of institutional behavior over time has been a valuable source of insight into
relationships between nation-states and the world-economy. Among the most
well-developed lines of inquiry based on this premise has been the reformulation
of electoral geography from a world-systems perspective. Using factor analysis
to analyze patterns of state-level popular votes in U.S. presidential elections be-
tween 1828 and 1980, Archer and Taylor (1981) demonstrated the continuing
existence of fundamental differences and tensions between the Northeast, the
South, and the West as each region interacted with the major political parties of
the United States. This research spawned a substantial series of follow-up analyses
of US. elections using data at a variety of spatial scales. This literature is reviewed
by Archer et al. (1988), Shelley and Archer (1994), and Shelley et al. (1996).
The application of factor analysis to election sequences has been undertaken
successfully in smaller areas within the United States and in other countries, and
in the explanation of past as well as present developments in the world-economy.
Analyses within the United States have shown how long-term sectional align-
ments have changed in response to the changing relations between these states
and to the global economy. Examples include analysis of the political geography
of the southern United States (Shelley and Archer 1995), of the western United
States (Webster 1989), and of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (Shelley and Archer
1989). Outside the United States, analogous studies of electoral change have shed
light on the development of the Scottish Nationalist Party (Agnew 1984; Davidson
1996) and the rise of the Nazi Party in Weimar Germany (O’Loughlin, Flint, and
Anselin 1995).
That free elections are a cornerstone of democracy has, of course, been taken
for granted within the context of twentieth-century U.S. hegemony in the core of
the world-economy. But what of newly independent former colonies outside the
core? Osei-Kwame and Taylor (1984) undertook a factor analysis study of elec-
tions in Ghana during the first quarter-century of Ghanaian independence. They
found, in contrast to the typical pattern in Western Europe and the United States,
that political parties have great difficulty in maintaining voter loyalty from one
election to the next, in large part because their peripheral status renders it difficult
for government officials to respond to public needs. Thus Osei-Kwame and Taylor
(1984) concluded that democracy in less developed countries is characterized by
a “politics of failure.” At times, the political party in power is at a disadvantage
relative to its opposition and therefore tempted to circumvent the electoral process
through legal or extralegal means. The politics of failure argument does much to
explain the relative absence of successful democracy in practice outside the core,
and its logic may prove quite interesting in the eventual analysis of whether the
504 COLIN FLINT AND FRED M. SHELLEY

current transition to democracy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
will succeed.
Places in the World-System
A third major line of inquiry within the theory of interaction between ge-
ography and world-systems involves the analysis of places. Geography has a long
tradition of cataloguing, describing, and analyzing characteristics of neighbor-
hoods, communities, cities, and other local-scale geographical units that are com-
monly called places. The infusion of world-systems concepts has revitalized ge-
ographical description of places, elevating such analyses far beyond travelogues.
Geographers analyzing places from a world-systems viewpoint emphasize inter-
action between people in places and the world-economy. It makes little sense to
try to “understand” a place without reference to how that place is influenced by
and in turn influences the world-system. At the same time, the geographer’s ex-
plicit focus on relationships between places and the world-economy has rein-
forced the importance of agency within the world-system, as detailed above.
The opportunity that world-systems analysis offers to de-emphasize the state
in social science has influenced urban geography considerably. The dominance
of the state as the scale of analysis in post-World War I1 social science resulted
in the prioritization of national urban systems (Taylor 1996b). More recently,
however, world-systems theory has been used to conceptualize cities as nodes in
global commodity chains (Knox and Taylor 1995). By focusing on the role of
cities in managing regions of the capitalist world-economy, states as units of
analysis are de-emphasized. In addition, global cities are also viewed as social
places constructed around the undertaking of those transactions (Knox and Taylor
1995).
Geographers add agency to a world-systems analysis of global cities by
including this discussion of the creation and re-creation of institutions and struc-
tures that combine to form the city as a place, a social construct. In doing so,
Taylor (1996b) has pointed out the important role of spatiality, or the unquestioned
spatial structures that organize our lives. Within the world-economy, the nation-
state is a social structure that is seldom questioned and therefore the state-centric
nature of social science defined by the spatiality is itself unchallenged. Although
much mainstream social science treats societies as bounded by state borders,
Taylor ( 1996b) argues that contemporary processes of globalization require an
analysis of a variety of processes operating at the global and local scales.
Currently, a series of books called the World Cities Series is being produced
by John Wiley and Sons. This series includes completed books about Tokyo
(Cybriwsky 1995), Mexico City (Ward 1995), and other world cities. Illustrative
of the relationships between place and the global economy in this series is
Agnew’s (1995) analysis of Rome. As Agnew points out, the “Eternal City” has
 GEOGRAPHY AND WORLD-SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 505

great mythic power within Western civilization as the seat of one of history’s great
world-empires as well as the home of the Roman Catholic Church. Agnew’s
analysis details the twentieth-century growth of Rome as affected by relationships
with other areas of Italy, with the Church, and with the world-economy as a whole.
Although the importance of world cities such as Rome in the world-economy
has encouraged many geographers to analyze these large conurbations, by no
means is the geographical perspective on place within the world-economy limited
to large urban places. Considerable interest has been shown in the analysis of
peripheral places and locations. As already indicated, for example, political ge-
ographers have shown much interest in the rise of nationalist movements in Scot-
land, Wales, Catalonia, and other peripheries in Western Europe. U.S. geographers
have long maintained interest in the political and economic geography of periph-
eries such as Appalachia (Hanna 1995), the Mississippi Delta, and the Great
Plains. Geographers throughout the world have studied places in the less devel-
oped countries by examining how local cultures, economies, and environments
have interacted with the world-economy. The specific infusion of world-systems
concepts has enabled a fresh understanding of places by emphasizing relations
between localities and the ever changing global economy.
Conclusion
Geography and world-systems theory have much to offer each other. In com-
bination, the geographer’s traditional perspective on places and spatial relation-
ships and world-systems theory’s emphasis on core-periphery relations and de-
velopment processes have contributed much to contemporary social science.
Indeed, such analysis has already contributed to, and can be expected to continue
to influence, a revitalized understanding of social science beyond the constraints
of traditional disciplinary boundaries.
Taylor (1996b) has pointed out that the spatiality that is embedded in the
operation of the world-economy has resulted in a challenge to the organization
of social science around disciplines. The reliance of the social science disciplines
upon a particular spatiality is seen as the basis of their decline. The conceptual-
ization of the state as a key social institution in the capitalist world-economy has
challenged the role of the state as the prime scale of analysis in social science
(Taylor 1982, 1987). Reciprocal and mutual relationships between states, or what
Taylor (1995) has called “inter-stateness,” are essential in defining the key ide-
ology of state sovereignty that is the underpinning of the current world-system.
Today, however, processes of globalization are seen to undermine traditional
elements of state sovereignty so that it is more accurate to view current global
developments as a move to trans-stateness (Taylor 1995). Trans-stateness implies
that the key processes and structures of the world-economy may no longer depend
upon the type of state sovereignty included in inter-stateness (Taylor 1995). This
506 COLIN FLINT AND FRED M. SHELLEY

dynamism is a symptom of fundamental changes in the capitalist world-economy,

and in fact Taylor (1995) has linked it to the demise of the capitalist world-
economy. If we are to understand and interpret changes in the world-economy
more fully and accurately, a revitalized social science oriented more explicitly to
the spatiality of trans-stateness must develop. A geographical perspective, with
its explicit focus on relationships between the global and the local, can and should
play a leading role in the reinvigoration of social science in the twenty-first cen-
tury.

REFERENCES

Agnew, J. A. 1995. Rome. Chichester. England: Wiley.

.- 1987. The United States in the World Economy: A Regional Geography. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
-. 1984. “Place and Political Behaviour: The Geography of Scottish Nationalism.” Polirical
Geogruphy Quarterly 3: 191-206.
-. 1982. “Sociologizing the Geographical Imagination: Spatial Concepts in the World-System
Perspective.” Political Geography Quarterly 1 : 159-166.
Archer, J. C., F. M. Shelley, P. J. Taylor, and E. R. White. 1988. “The Geography of U.S. Presidential
Elections.” Scientific American 259: 18-25.
Archer, J. C., and P. J. Taylor. 1981. Section and Party. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Anighi, G. 1990. “The Three Hegemonies of Historical Capitalism.” Review 13:365408.
Becker, B., and C. Egler. 1992. Brazil: A New Regional Power in the World-Economy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brenner, R. 1977. “The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism.”
New Left Review 104:25-92.
Cybriwsky, R. 1995. Tokyo. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Davidson, F. 1996. “The Fall and Rise of the Scottish Nationalist Party since 1983: Analysis of a
Regional Party.” Scottish Geographical Magazine forthcoming.
Deitrick, S., and R. A. Beauregard. 1995. “From Front-Runner to Also-Ran-The Transformation of
a Once-Dominant Industrial Region: Pennsylvania.” Pp. 52-7 1 in The Rise of fhe Rustbelt, edited
by P. Cooke. London: UCL.
Dixon, C. 1991. South East Asia in the World-Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grant, R., and D. Lyons. 1990. “The Republic of Ireland in the World-Economy: An Exploration of
Dynamics in the Semiperiphery.” Pp. 125-139 in Semiperipheral Sfares in the World-Economy,
edited by W. G. Martin. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Hanna. S. P. 1995. “Finding a Place in the World-Economy: Core-Periphery Relations, the Nation-
state and the Underdevelopment of Garrett County, Maryland.” Political Geography l4:5:45 I-
472.
Harvey, D. 1982. The Limits to Capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnston, R. J.. J. O’Loughlin, and P.J. Taylor. 1987. “The Geography of Violence and Premature
Death.” Pp. 24 1-259 in The Quest f o r Peace, edited by R. Vayrynen. London: Sage.
Knox, P. L., and P. J. Taylor. 1995. World Cities in a World-System.Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
 GEOGRAPHY AND WORLD-SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 507

Nijman, J. 1994. “The V O C and the Expansion of the World-System.” Polirical Geography 13:21I-
227.
O’Loughlin, J., C. Flint, and L. Anselin. 1995. “The Geography of the Nazi Vote: Context, Confes-
sion, and Class in the Reichstag Election of 1930.” Annals, Association of American Geogra-
phers 84:3:351-380.
O’Loughlin, J., and H. van der Wusten. 1993. “Political Geography of War and Peace.” Pp. 63-1 13
in Political Geography of the Twentieth Century, edited by P. J. Taylor. London: Belhaven.
,- 1990. “Political Geography of Panregions.” Geographical Review 80:1-19.
Osei-Kwame, P., and P. J. Taylor. 1984. “A Politics of Failure: The Political Geography of Ghanaian
Elections, 1954-1979.” Annals, Association of American Geographers 7 4 5 7 4 5 8 9 .
Richardson, B. 1992. The Caribbean in the Wider World, 1492-1492: A Regional Geography. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shelley. F. M.. and J. C. Archer. 1995. “The Volatile South: A Historical Geography of Presidential
Elections in the South.” Southeastern Geographer 35:22-36.
-. 1994. “Some Geographical Aspects of the 1992 American Presidential Election.” Political
Geography 1 3:I 37- 159.
~. 1989. “Sectionalism and Presidential Politics in America: A Twentieth Century Reinvesti-
gation of Voting Patterns in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History
20:227-255.
Shelley, F, M., J. C. Archer, F. M. Davidson, and S. D. Brunn. 1996. The Political Geography of the
United States. New York: Guilford.
Skocpol, T. 1977. “Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and Historical Critique.”
American Journal of Sociology 825: 1075-1090.
Taylor, Peter J. 1996a. The Way the Modern World Works: World Hegemony to World Impasse. New
York: Wiley
-. 1996b. “Embedded Statism and the Social Sciences: Opening up to New Spaces.” Environ-
ment and Planning 28( 1 I).
-. 1 9 9 6 ~“What’s
. Modem about the Modem World-System? Introducing Ordinary Modernity
Through World Hegemony.” Review of International Political Economy 3:26@286.
,- 1995. “Beyond Containers: Inter-nationality, Inter-stateness. Inter-temtoriality.” Progress in
Human Geography 19:l-15.
.- 1994a. “Ten Years That Shook the World: The United Provinces as the First Hegemonic
State.” Sociological Perspectives 37:2546.
-. 1994b. “The State as Container: Temtoriality in the Modern World-System.” Progress in
Human Geography 18: I5 1-62.
.- 1993a. “The Last of the Hegemons: British Impasse, American Impasse, World Impasse.”
Southeastern Geographer 33: 1-22.
.- 1993b. “States in World-Systems Analysis: Massaging a Creative Tension.” Pp. 107-124 in
Transcending the Stare-Global Divide, edited by R. Palan and B. Gills. Boulder, CO: Rienner.
.- 1991a. “A Theory and Practice of Regions: The Case of Europe.” Environment and Planning
D: Society and Space 9:183-195.
~. 1991b. “The Crisis of the Movements: The Enabling State as Quisling.” Antipode 23:214-
228.
-
, 1990a. Britain and the Cold War: 1945 as Geopolitical Transition. London: Pinter.
-. 1990b. “Britain’s Changing Role in the World-Economy.” Review 13:3348.
-. 1988. “World-Systems Analysis and Regional Geography.” Professional Geographer
40:3:259-265.
.- 1987. “The Poverty of International Comparisons: Some Methodological Lessons from
World-Systems Analysis.” Studies in Comparative International Development 22: 12-39.
508 COLIN FLINT AND FRED M. SHELLEY

-. 1982. “A Materialist Framework for Political Geography.” Transactions. Instirute of British

Geographers 7: 15-34.
-. 1981a. “Political Geography and the World Economy.” Pp. 157-172 in Political Studies
fmm Spatial Perspectives, edited by A. D.Burnett and P. J. Taylor. Chichester, England: Wiley.
-. 1981b. “Geographical Scales Within the World-Economy Approach.” Review 5:3-11.
Terlouw, C. P. 1992. The Regional Geography of the World-System: External Arena, Periphery, Sem-
iperiphery, Cure. Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies.
Wallerstein, 1. 1979. The Capitalist World-Economy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ward, P. 1995. Mexico City. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Webster. G. R. 1989. “Partisanship in American Presidential, Senatorial and Gubernatorial Elections
in Ten Western States.” Political Geography Quarterly 8: 161-179.