KAPS, KOMLOSY Center Periphery Revisited

Research Foundation of State University of New York
Centers and Peripheries Revisited Polycentric Connections or Entangled Hierarchies?

Author(s): Klemens Kaps and Andrea Komlosy
Source: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 36, No. 3-4, CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES
REVISITED (2013), pp. 237-264
Published by: Research Foundation of State University of New York for and on behalf of
the Fernand Braudel Center
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/90000017
Accessed: 15-05-2023 16:43 +00:00
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/90000017?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Fernand Braudel Center, Research Foundation of State University of New York are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review (Fernand Braudel
Center)
This content downloaded from 95.90.246.190 on Mon, 15 May 2023 16:43:59 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Review 36.3/4 – CR
Friday, December 23, 2016 / 3:31 PM
Editor: Amy Keough
Centers and Peripheries Revisited

Polycentric Connections or Entangled Hierarchies?
Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy
T he center-periphery model has had a unique impact on guiding

global history narrative and analysis; since the 1960s, a number
of prominent studies have used this model to represent the unavoid-
able association and entanglement of world-wide hierarchies and
connections. However, the model has also been challenged, a chal-
lenge that, recently, almost forced historians to take a critical stance
for or against the concept, which was presented in terms of mutually
exclusive positions. Therefore, the question of whether the model of
centers and peripheries is (still) useful (or not) for the examination
of an international, entangled social, economic, political, and cul-
tural history is quite current. One instance of this critical perspective
was recently expressed in the call for the European Network on Eu-
ropean and Global History’s (ENIUGH) 4th annual Conference,
which was held in early September 2014 in Paris. There, the need to
move beyond the Eurocentric perspective that still dominates the
writing of (global) history in Europe and the United States was ex-
pressed. Among other ideas, the call identified the concept of centers
and peripheries as one of the factors that contributes to the repro-
duction of the Eurocentric perspective: “Under the theme ‘Encoun-
ters, Circulations and Conflicts’ the next ENIUGH congress seeks to
challenge the problematic opposition of centers and peripheries,
which is still influential in historical research. . . .” (http://www.uni-
leipzig.de/~eniugh/congress/, accessed Jan. 16, 2015.)
Adhering to the claims of a number of postcolonial authors such
as Edward Said (2003), Larry Wolff (1995), and Dipesh Chakrabarty
(2008), this approach challenges the use of this apparent dichotomy
from different perspectives. In particular, the postcolonial critique
focuses on the historiographical current with which the center-
periphery model has been, and still is, mostly associated: world-
REVIEW, XXXVI, 3/4, 2013, 237–64 237
Editor: Amy Keough
238 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy
system analysis, represented mainly by Immanuel Wallerstein

(1984a), Andre Gunder Frank (1978) and Giovanni Arrighi (1994).
In consequence, the postcolonial critique is largely concerned with
the model’s theoretical implications and their influence on the
writing of global history, rather than with the terms in themselves. In
particular, critics point to the fact that many authors who use the
center-periphery framework reproduced, in most cases unwillingly
and against their own intentions, a Eurocentric perspective precisely
by trying to critically explore Europe’s and the West’s path towards
world hegemony. This position has also been defended in the works
of Andre Gunder Frank, who claimed that the first three volumes of
Wallerstein’s Modern World-System present an appropriate framework
for European, but not for world, history (Frank 1998). The narrative
of the modern world-system clearly locates the center of gravity of
historical agency in north-western Europe, whence the capitalist
division of labor gradually spread over the whole European con-
tinent, to the Americas and, later, to Asia and Africa. However, these
doubts concerning the pertinence of the model have also been raised
with regard to Europe itself, in particular eastern Europe. Thus,
Larry Wolff focused on the first volume of Immanuel Wallerstein’s
work, in which the parameters for the framework are set out: accord-
ing to Wallerstein, during the sixteenth century the differences that
existed between the developed north-western European core and the
eastern European periphery turned what originally were mere eco-
nomic differences into structural disparities. Unequal spatial devel-
opment is thus used to explain both Western political hegemony and
the mechanisms of the international division of labor (Wallerstein
1974). Wolff, however, interprets this analytical model as a variation
on the discursive “invention” of eastern Europe as a spatial category,
which began with the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. Wolff
argues against the modern world-system narrative and supports his
criticism of the Eurocentric cultural construct by stressing the fact
that “Wallerstein’s argument is based almost exclusively on the case
of Poland” and moreover that “not all of modern Eastern Europe
participated even in the periphery of the European world economy
in the sixteenth century” (Wolfe 1995: 8).
These objections are neither new, nor unnoticed: scholars have
been debating Wallerstein’s world-system analysis since the 1970s. Ac-
cording to the world-system approach, an international system for the
Editor: Amy Keough
CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 239
division of labor integrated by commodity chains, connecting differ-

ent world regions and transcending political boundaries and cultural
barriers, has progressively absorbed different regions of the globe.
This conceptual re-framing the entangled history of capitalism is in-
herently Eurocentric, as the prime agent for devel opment is located
in the north-western European core zone. Later, other regions are
drawn into the system and, thus, into the orbit of the history of capi-
talism (Wallerstein 1989). The criteria for the incorporation of each
region have not always convinced regional specialists: Hans-Heinrich
Nolte, who specialized in Russian history, claimed that Russia has
been, however contestably, a part of the “European System of Chris-
tianity” since the Middle Ages, and contested Wallerstein’s claim that
the country’s incorporation into the system took place as late as the
eighteenth century (Nolte 1982: 25–84). Nolte also proposed a dif-
ferent use for the terms, reserving “periphery” for regions without
states, while labeling states that maintain a dependent position within
the international division of labor “semi-peripheries” (2005). His ter-
minology conflicts with the use that Wallerstein (among others)
makes of “semi-periphery,” a term which refers to states and regions
that hold an intermediate or changing position, and are in the proc-
ess of ascent or decline, within the world-system. Conversely, Hans-
Jürgen Nitz argued that Russia’s alleged integration during the eight-
eenth century was quite weak, while Siberia’s fur trade, like the West
African slave trade, must be considered essential. Both of these phe-
nomena led to devastating effects on local societies. This determined
the way the associated territories were incorporated into the interna-
tional commodity chains and the world-system mechanism of une-
qual exchange (Nitz 1993a: 16, 18).
Doubts were also expressed regarding Poland-Lithuania, alt-
hough these doubts sprang from a different premise. In the 1980s,
Polish historians initiated a debate that questioned key elements of
this “model case” of an eastern European periphery in the Early Mod-
ern Age (Kochanowicz 1997: 9). Jerzy Topolski and Piotr Wandycz,
for instance, questioned Wallerstein’s analogy between eastern Eu-
rope’s second serfdom during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
and slavery in Latin America, thus challenging the analogy that a sim-
ilar process of colonization had occurred in both regions (Topolski
2003: 184; Wandycz 1993: 59). Moreover, Dariusz Adamczyk argued
for a reinterpretation, according to which Poland-Lithuania in the
Early Modern Age was a semi-peripheral, rather than a peripheral
Editor: Amy Keough
economy. He follows Nolte’s terminology and focuses on Poland’s

structural problems, which were rooted in class relations. Adamczyk
agrees that Poland underwent a process of “peripheralization” dur-
ing the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but stresses that this pro-
cess was the result of policies pursued by the land-owning gentry.
Large landowners gave preference to consumption over investment
and maximized their rents by making full use of their prerogatives in
the serfdom system operating at the time. In addition, Poland-Lithu-
ania’s expansion into current Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania, which
had started long before Poland’s incorporation into the world-
system, also required a large amount of productive resources. Thus,
the resulting economic system, based on the export of raw materials,
especially grain, did not exclusively arise from an external demand
for cheap commodities in the world-system’s core zone in north-west-
ern Europe (Adamczyk: 2001). These criticisms were recently pushed
further by the Cracow-based sociologist Jan Sowa (2011), who elabo-
rated Maria Janion’s idea that, in the Early Modern Period, Poland
was both “a colonizing and a colonized country” (2004: 14–16).
Nevertheless, the postcolonial critique raised by Wolff with re-
gard to eastern Europe goes far beyond these considerations and
raises doubts on a methodological and theoretical level. “The identi-
fication of Eastern Europe as economic periphery involves, to a cer-
tain extent, taking the culturally constructed unity of eighteenth cen-
tury and projecting it backward to organize an earlier economic
model,” states Wolff, in order to conclude: “In fact, social and eco-
nomic factors were far from fully determining Western Europe’s as-
sociative construction of Eastern Europe” (1995: 8). Therefore, Wolff
rejects the impact of an alleged process of “peripheralization,” be it
rooted in internal or external causes, claiming instead that the evo-
lution of the Polish economy was neither shaped by interaction nor
by imbalances, but must be understood in its own particularity. Wolff
identifies world-system analysis with modernization theory and the
debate on economic backwardness, demonstrating that postcolonial
and systemic socio-economic approaches are not always compatible
(1995: 9). However, his point also illustrates the dangers of over-
simplistic readings of the center-periphery model: instead of perceiv-
ing its potential for explaining uneven development as an effect of
unequal interaction and, thus, for elaborating an entangled history
of power relations, “center” and “periphery” are regarded as simple
substitutes for key terms in the context of modernization theory—
Editor: Amy Keough
“development” and “backwardness”—terms that are intrinsically

linked to the basic dichotomy underlying colonial discourse—“civili-
zation” and “barbarism” (Chakrabarty 2008: 7–12). This postcolonial
reading, therefore, includes the idea of the “center-periphery” in the
mental map of hierarchical relations between the East and the West,
Orient and Occident, that influenced international relations and the
perception of non-European cultures from the European Enlighten-
ment onwards (Said 2003).
The same narrative that aimed to explain the process of Euro-
pean domination over the so-called “rest of the world” has, according
to this view, resulted in a perspective according to which the domi-
nated regions, the subalterns, largely lack their own voice and are
seen as objects of Western power aspirations driven by economic and
political interests. After all, does Dipesh Chakrabarty’s criticism, that
historicism and, subsequently, most of European historiography nar-
rate modernity and capitalism as phenomena that originated in Eu-
rope and spread from there all over the globe, also apply to the
center-periphery model (2008: 7)? Also, does this mean that the
project of “provincializing” Europe and the West, starting from the
“recognition that Europe’s acquisition of the adjective ‘modern’ for
itself is an integral part of the story of European imperialism within
global history,” (2008: 43) actually present an adequate premise for
writing a critical history of unequal development and its causes world-
wide?
At any rate, well before historians started to discuss Chakrabarty’s
“provincializing Europe” concept, one of the main representatives of
the dependency theory-driven center-periphery model pleaded for
this kind of “reorientation” in global history: Andre Gunder Frank’s
claim that Asia played a central role in the world economy up to the
turn of the eighteenth century has, since publication, been a referent
for the critical assessment of Eurocentrism as a persistent historio-
graphical premise (1998). Furthermore, Frank’s narrative provides
an example of how the Eurocentric perspective may be successfully
transcended: in contrast to Wallerstein, Frank assumes a single world-
wide economic system, which he traces back to antiquity in a much-
debated title “the world system 5000 years or 500?” (Frank and Gill
1993). Within this truly global economy, China, not Europe, acted as
a commercial center until 1800; in the Early Modern Age, European
producers could only rarely sell their manufactures on Asian markets
Editor: Amy Keough
and, in consequence, needed to settle their balance of payment def-

icit by exporting the precious metals extracted from the American
colonies. In addition, living standards in Asia were higher than in Eu-
rope, and craft production was much more developed; only techno-
logical innovation caused by higher population density and the sub-
sequent industrialization of Great Britain changed this balance and
contributed to the switch in geopolitical power between both conti-
nents (Frank 1998: 116, 126, 166, 171–73, 177, 202, 225–26, 286). Alt-
hough Frank’s work appears, to a large extent, to stress the role of
his “Sino-centric world-system” as a counter-model to Wallerstein’s
European-based “modern world-system,” he also points out that be-
tween 1400 and 1800 no single country or region actually enjoyed
uncontested economic hegemony on a world-wide scale, but rather
exerted a limited form of regional dominance within a polycentric
framework (1998: 333). This conclusion, in turn, does not seem to
be incompatible with Wallerstein’s claim that the European world-
system is just one among other systems on the global scale (Wallerstein
1993: 292–96; see also Komlosy 2006: 12–36). The controversy cen-
tered on whether a multi-systemic approach or rather a single-system-
assumption (which contemplates the distinction of various regional
sub-entities), offers the most suitable framework for the analysis of
global economy and its evolution. The answer relies on the assumed
logic of the systemic entity: (Feldauer and Komlosy 2003: 59–94)
Wallerstein stresses the capitalist nature of the power structure that
north-western Europe imposed, first on eastern Europe and later in
the Americas and the rest of the globe. While Wallerstein does not
deny the historical reality of Asian-European trade, he rejects the
idea that this system of commodity exchange ever turned into an “ax-
ial division of labor” before the eighteenth century. By “axial division
of labor” he means the organization of production systems within in-
terregional or international commodity chains that determined
prices and salaries, created markets, and turned profits into accumu-
lated capital (Wallerstein 1993: 293–94).
Frank prefers to drop not only the notion of “capitalism,” but also
a range of key concepts for the historical and social sciences, such as
“modernization,” “dependency,” and “development.” While this
moved him much closer to the postcolonial critique, he insisted on
the primacy of socio-economic mechanisms, and therefore discarded
linguistic and the cultural approaches. Wallerstein sketched out a
Editor: Amy Keough
poly-systemic approach, but this theoretical position is never devel-

oped, and thus he contributes to the idea that his vision is essentially
Eurocentric. The adoption of the European perspective, however,
does not mean that world-system analysis has incorporated the same
kind of Eurocentric universalism that was followed by nineteenth
century historicism. It is important to stress the differences between
the theoretical foundations of world-system analysis and those that
Wallerstein offers. Although both epistemological layers—the narra-
tive and the theoretical—are tightly interwoven, the theoretical
model could be implemented in order to write quite different ver-
sions of the history of the world-system—a version in which regional
and thematic focuses are more varied. This variety of perspectives il-
lustrates that the approach has flexibility and can respond to criti-
cism, epistemological challenges, new historiographical ideas, and
current global developments. The model originated in dependency
theory and soon developed into a systemic approach, incorporating
the concepts of internal peripheries and institutional political econ-
omies, to name but two of the model’s developments. With these
ideas on the table, the scientific community was left to take into ac-
count the above-mentioned objections while trying to explain une-
qual economic development over time and space by applying a per-
spective of entangled hierarchies.
The following pages will provide a brief overview of the evolution
of this theoretical debate between the 1970s and today. Many theo-
retical arguments were based on empirical studies. The most im-
portant features of these trends will be highlighted to point out the
potential and the limitations of the center-periphery model for ana-
lyzing spatially rooted political, economic, and social hierarchies. Fi-
nally, a proposal for a renewed center-periphery approach and the
way in which the four articles in this volume relate to this proposal
will be given.
HISTORIOGRAPHICAL TRENDS OF THE CENTER-PERIPHERY

MODEL AND WORLD-SYSTEM(S)
From Dependency Theory to World-System Analysis
The origins of world-system analysis are to be found in the discus-

sions that evolved from dependency theory, mainly in Latin America
Editor: Amy Keough
in the 1960s and 1970s. In particular, Wallerstein adopted a systemic

approach in order to globalize dependency theory and to conceptu-
alize market integration as the driving force behind the economic
development in western Europe from the late fifteenth and the early
sixteenth centuries. The boundaries of this socio-economic system
gradually expanded, first within and then later outside Europe, until
the boundaries encompassed the whole globe in the early twentieth
century (Wallerstein 1974; 1980; 1989; 2011). Drawing heavily from
Fernand Braudel’s longue durée perspective (Braudel in Lee, 2012:
241–76), both the evolution of capitalism and the expansion of its
spatial dimension were regarded as the causes of long-term uneven
development in different regions of the world.
The main functional elements of the world-system model depend
on the integration of classical Marxist notions like the constant
(“ceaseless”) accumulation of capital and class societies with a spatial
approach, which classifies states according to their position in the in-
ternational division of labor. This approach relies on a threefold hi-
erarchy: the structurally developed centers (core areas), where the
most productive and profitable economic activities may be found, in-
come levels are high, and social stability is the norm; peripheries,
conversely, are at the bottom of the scale in terms of productivity,
profit, and wealth; between them, there are semi-peripheral areas,
which are sometimes closer to the centers and at other times are
more akin to peripheries (Hopkins and Wallerstein 1979:151–200;
Arrighi and Drangel 1986: 9–74). These spatial categories at the state
level correspond to different regimes of labor control (slavery, feudal
serfdom, wage labor) as well as to the structure of commodity chains,
which are another theoretical tool that allow us to conceptualize the
spatial geography of the production processes that begin with raw
materials and end in finished products (Wallerstein and Hopkins
2000: 221–33). According to this typological view, peripheries deliver
raw materials, which are transformed into semi-finished products in
the semi-peripheries, before the centers turn them into finished con-
sumer goods. Thus, trade and commodity chains integrate the
spheres of production and labor into a system, which transcends po-
litical borders and shapes economic disparities. Moreover, political
fragmentation, alongside the prevalence of a world-encompassing
market, is an important element in creating and maintaining the he-
gemony of the core zone over peripheral areas; this is enforced by
the different legal systems as well as by diplomatic and military force
Editor: Amy Keough
(Wallerstein 1980, 1989). Other important elements of this analytical

corpus are long-term cycles and trends (Wallerstein 1984b: 559–75;
Van Dujin 1983; Arrighi 1994), which frame political developments
and economic conjunctures in the short run. Households are an-
other element which support their members who work under differ-
ent labor regimes with care and subsidies (Smith and Wallerstein
1992). Thus the dichotomy “core-periphery” is but a simplified
marker of a much more complex set of indicators, which can be used
to characterize the systemic character of global inequalities.
Therefore, Wallerstein’s approach, as well as Andre-Gunder
Frank’s idea of “development of underdevelopment,” (Frank 1967)
assumed the supremacy of structuralist systemic forces over the
claims in favor of the efficiency of national developmental policies
set out by modernization theory (Tipps 1973: 199–226). In contrast
to the rather linear, static view of socio-economic change advocated
by modernization theory, world-system theoreticians stressed the
constraints confronted by nation-states in the face of an internation-
alized economic system. Furthermore, the international political sys-
tem, characterized by political inequality and the ability of core pow-
ers to impose their views, was another impediment to the success of
national policies in (semi-)peripheral zones. In sharp contrast with
the assumptions of modernization theory, but also those of other ap-
proaches to developmental diffusion (Marxist and Liberal), world-
system analysis views the extension of the capitalist division of labor
worldwide as intrinsically related to the emergence, the aggravation,
and also the reconfiguration, of spatial differences (Komlosy 2001:
97–98).
A Modern Capitalist System? Trade, Division of Labor,

and Spatial Inequalities
Due to the division of world-system discourse between a two-

layered, narrative, and theoretical framework, the scope of the histo-
riographical debates is as wide as the background of the contributors;
this has turned center-periphery studies into a multi-disciplinary
field. On the one hand, there are historians who specialize in specific
areas and apply world-system analysis to the study of individual re-
gions and polities, for example, the Spanish colonies in Early Modern
America (Crespo 2007: 103–27), Spain (Prados de la Escosura 1984:
114), South Asia (Palat 2012: 171–200), the Habsburg (Komlosy
Editor: Amy Keough
2003; Kaps 2008: 103–22; 2013: 53–80) and the Ottoman Empire
(Islamoglu-Inan 1987: 374–83), Poland-Lithuania (Małowist 1991:
233, 242; Topolski 2003: 183–85; Adamczyk 2001), and other areas of
eastern Europe and Russia (Wandycz, 154–58; Nolte 1980: 159–97).
With their research, they offer specific parameters and develop a
more nuanced picture from the perspective of their regional exper-
tise, which may lead to the revision and refinement of the original
model.
On the other hand, economic historians, economists, sociolo-
gists, and geographers have entered the debate by addressing issues
like the operation of Early Modern markets, the character of long-
distance trade before industrialization, labor regimes or the role of
national elites in designing economic policy (O’Brien 1982: 1–18;
O’Brien 1997: 75–133; Van der Linden 2001: 423–59; Dhogson 1993:
26–41; Nitz 1993b: 62–83). Both fields of analysis have generated new
insights and have posed important, theoretically-relevant questions.
One much-debated issue, for instance, revisits the importance of
long-distance trade and, hence, the validity of Wallerstein’s central
argument: capitalist world markets determine the economic develop-
ment of single nation-states from the moment they get drawn into
the system.
This point was highlighted not only by economic historians
Patrick O’Brien (1982) and Piet Emmer (2002: 169–78), but was also
taken up by Hans-Heinrich Nolte (1980) and Marcel van der Linden
(2001: 426), who claimed that trade mattered too little to have a rel-
evant impact on production, incomes, and social forces in the Early
Modern Age. Although the argument is somewhat qualified with ref-
erence to those states and areas which were most involved in transat-
lantic trade and the triangular trade between Europe, West African,
and the Americas, it is claimed to be valid on a general level, and
within Europe, and elsewhere, as the example of Russia demon-
strates.
The debate is still open in the context of neoclassical economic
history studies, such as those published by Jeffrey Williamson and
Kevin O’Rourke, who claimed that globalization only started, with
railways, steam ships, and telegraphs, in the middle of the nineteenth
century. However, they admit that this new form of global entangle-
ment did not lead to overall convergence. While these dynamics of
integration brought about the convergence of core and semi-periph-
eral states within Europe, the result in eastern European, Asian, Latin
Editor: Amy Keough
American, and African peripheries was divergence (in the form of

deindustrialization) (O’Rourke and Williamson 1999; Williamson
2006: 26–28).
Without questioning the fact that, to a large degree, social and
economic life was purely dependent on local and regional trends far
into the nineteenth century, trade connections had a deep mutual
impact even when social and economic life exhibited a low level of
commodification. In addition, critics pointed out the limitations of
the above-mentioned argument: it is based on aggregate values at the
nation-state level and, therefore, leaves out the impact of commercial
links on conditions of high-degree regional differentiation. Exam-
ples include Great Britain’s industrialization process, which had its
origins far away from London (north-eastern England and Glasgow,
for instance), the rise of Catalonia’s textile industry and the role of
sixteenth-century Seville as the official mercantile node between the
Spanish Empire and the Spanish colonies overseas (Pieper 2004:
70–72).
Another line of criticism focused on the purely quantitative di-
mension of official aggregate trade values. Hans-Heinrich Nolte drew
attention to the indirect profits derived from the expansion of world
markets before the Industrial Revolution, which had been largely ne-
glected by economic historians such as Emmers and O’Brien. While
long-distance trade between European states or between Europe and
its maritime colonies was not the dominant economic activity, other
effects need to be taken into consideration, for example the larger
amounts of money in circulation caused by the flow of Latin Ameri-
can precious metals into Europe, which lowered interest rates and
expanded credit possibilities (Nolte 1999: 66–67). Also, the sixteenth
century “price revolution,” its multiple causes notwithstanding, could
not have followed its path without the flow of bullion between Latin
America and Europe (and further on to the Ottoman Empire and
Eastern Asia) (Pieper 2004: 72). In addition, from a labor perspec-
tive, the contribution of trade to growth and the accumulation of sur-
plus cannot be assessed on the basis of monetary data alone, as these
data do not fully reflect the work invested and the value extracted
from unpaid labor (Komlosy 2012a: 36–62; 79–80).
From the opposite perspective, which regards trade as a central
factor for spatial interaction, A. G. Frank claimed that world-systems
reached far back into antiquity (Frank and Gill 1993). Similarly,
Editor: Amy Keough
Robert Brenner has argued that the long-distance exchange of com-

modities between different spatial units was already a feature of sev-
eral ancient trade systems, for example in the Roman and Persian
empires (1983:105). Other scholars, such as Janet Abu-Lughot,
Christopher Chase-Dunn, or Philippe Beaujard, soon applied this
new research to premodern world-systems. Their application covered
a wide range of regions, including the Middle East and the Indian
Ocean (Adamczyk 2004: 107–12). While these works refrain from ex-
plicitly isolating, for the purpose of their analysis, the ideas of capi-
talism and commodity chain-driven integration, they trace back to
antiquity the impact of high-status commodity exchange (e.g., silver
and luxury objects) on the socio-political structure. At the same time,
these works make a strong case for a pluricentric approach to world-
systems by shifting the focus away from Europe. Thus, the analysis of
spatial hierarchies in ancient and medieval empires, as well as in
smaller political entities, is not incompatible with the examination of
individual state-formation and internal taxation (Abu-Lughod and
Lippman 1989; 1994; Beaujard 2012; Chase-Dunn and Anderson
2005; Chase-Dunn and Bruce 2014).
The neoclassical school in economic history has been responsible
for amplifying the temporal and spatial scope of world-systems; at the
same time, the role played by capitalism in this world-system model
has had a similar effect, refining the center-periphery framework in
the context of the debates surrounding the plausibility of Early Mod-
ern globalization.
The most compelling challenge to the idea that capitalism can be
understood as an inter-regional division of labor, pinned down by
trade and commodity chains, was put forward by Robert Brenner,
and later also by Theda Skocpol, both of whom argued from a classi-
cal Marxist perspective (Brenner 1977: 25–92; Brenner 1983: 82, 87,
93; Skocpol 1977: 1075–95). One of Brenner’s key arguments is that
world-system analysis neglects specific spatial and social contexts due
to its focus on homogeneous processes that produce heterogeneous
results: spatial disparities and unequal development. Conversely,
Brenner defines capitalism as a production system characterized by
the relation between capital and labor: in this analysis, innovation
and productivity growth are regarded as the driving forces behind
the accumulation of capital. Thus, property relations are the center-
piece to the understanding of uneven development between differ-
Editor: Amy Keough
ent regions, while the international market, at best, plays a comple-

mentary role (Brenner 1983: 82, 97, 93). Following the same line of
argument, Marian Małowist, whose writings had a significant influ-
ence on the role played by Poland in Wallerstein’s concept of the
world-system, rejected the classification of the aristocratic folwark
economy capitalist (1991: 242). This criticism was further elaborated
and summarized recently by the Warsaw-based philosopher Jan
Swianewicz (2013: 115–33). He argued that, in Wallerstein’s concept,
productive forces are conceived as a direct function of the world mar-
ket. Therefore, Wallerstein fully relied on those “voluntaristic, indi-
vidualist-mechanist assumptions” (2013: 127) suggested by Adam
Smith and liberal economics, even when ostensibly rejecting them.
All these arguments agree in their criticism of the structural func-
tionalism, and even the determinism, that has been repeatedly asso-
ciated with world-system analysis, even shared by its own advocates
(Nolte 1984: 102; Middell 1994: 9–12). However, the criticism out-
lined above seems less concerned with these issues, and rather as-
sesses the world-system approach through a lens tinted by a specific
concept of capitalism. Political economy, both in its liberal and Marx-
ist versions, had come to the conclusion that capitalism was a wage-
based model of production. As such, it already existed in a rudimen-
tary form in the Middle Ages, and it later underwent a transition into
full shape, when feudalism and the Ancien Régimes were replaced by
industrialization in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centu-
ries, which began in Great Britain. On these grounds, world-system
approaches were claimed to follow a circulationist logic, according to
which trade appears to be the prime driver behind the world-system.
Reducing global inequalities to trade and unequal exchange would,
therefore, confirm this assumption. But by focusing on the interre-
gional division of labor and commodity chains, the world-systems ap-
proach also included the productive sphere, which was divided into
different areas according to technology, labor regulation, and social
protection. Similarly, household structures were also taken into ac-
count in order to incorporate wage earners and unpaid and coerced
labor into the equation (Wallerstein and Smith (2000): 234–55;
Dunaway 2012: 97–136). In contrast to the historical linearity pro-
posed by the classical political economy, different labor regimes co-
existed simultaneously and in different combinations at any given
time: paid and unpaid, formal and informal labor was a necessary part
of the system. A change in the commodity chains and production
Editor: Amy Keough
networks and, on a more general level, a state’s position in the divi-

sion of labor also has an impact on labor organization. Thus, an econ-
omy based on formalized and socially protected wage labor may easily
shift into adopting a more informal or precarious work regime; con-
temporary Europe stands as one such example (Komlosy 2014; 2011:
127–45). The rejection of the idea of the linear evolution from un-
paid to wage labor calls into question the classical definition of capi-
talism and points to the complex relationships between spatial ine-
qualities and labor regimes. This is one example among others of
how world-system analysis could be transformed into a workable
model to explain regional disparities.
The Breakaway from Systemic Structuralism
The objections to the structuralist imperative, the definition of

capitalism, and the assumed absence of agency beyond the north-
western European core area soon led to alternative approaches that
were closer to an historical than to a sociological perspective. Among
these new approaches, we must highlight that of Hans-Heinrich
Nolte, who argued for a European system that had its origins in the
Middle Ages (and, consequently, European Christianity) and turned
into a world-system in the late fifteenth century. The four main char-
acteristics of this system are hierarchy, competition, the accumula-
tion of knowledge, and expansion. This meant shifting the focus away
from quantitative and structural approaches to social and economic
history and stressing other intellectual, social, and political variables
(Nolte 2001: 14; 1993: 33, 38, 44, 56, 69). Instead of focusing on the
profits of trade and commodity chains, Nolte argued, for example,
that with the emigration of rebellious and marginal groups from the
European centers to the peripheries, the centers could stabilize their
political and military power, while the colonies offered the new colo-
nists the possibility of social promotion, even if only at the expense
of the indigenous population (Nolte 2001). In an analogy with labor
regimes, Nolte conceived a typology of political systems according to
the position of states in the international division of labor: in Early
Modern times, core areas were characterized by the existence of na-
tional or imperial diets that soon turned into parliamentary systems,
whereas semi-peripheries were, for the most part, governed by abso-
lutist rulers (Nolte 2001; 2004: 45–67). Peripheries are, for Nolte, al-
ways areas that had lost their formal independence (1993: 67, 81).
Editor: Amy Keough
This feature was linked, most significantly, with a state’s ability to im-
prove its position within the system through the implementation of
reformist policies and the acquisition of knowledge (Nolte 1980).
The Hungarian economic historians Iván Berend and Györgi Ránki
(Berend and Ránki 1982) and the German political scientists Dieter
Senghaas (1982) and Ulrich Menzel (1988; Komlosy 2012b: 11–42)
also shared this core-periphery approach. They were interested in an-
alyzing how and under which conditions economic policies contrib-
uted to promote development in the central-eastern and Scandina-
vian peripheries between the last quarter of the nineteenth century
and the First World War.
This perspective proposed a way of solving the agency problem
noted above, by regarding processes of peripheralization as the result
of the complex interplay of social forces, political events, and eco-
nomic conditions, as Adamczyk did with Poland-Lithuania (2001).
Thus, new elements—agents, institutions, discourse, and religion—
were included into the analysis. This made the approach both more
accessible and also more applicable for historical research. This is
more or less in line with latest reformulations of the political history
of Early Modern states, which underline the polycentric character of
empires (Cardim et al. 2001). This allows the conjugation of agency
with power differentials and socio-economic constraints. The dialec-
tical interrelations between agency, both in its individual and collec-
tive dimensions, and the structural constraints underline the “real
need for a theory and history of social relations of circulation”
(Swianewicz 2013).
Following this idea, Peter Gran proposed the analysis of the net-
works which connected political, diplomatic, and business elites as a
way of explaining the unequal relations between centers and periph-
eries; this is what he calls replacing the “the rise of the West” narrative
with that of the “rise of the Rich” (Gran 2009). The transnational
connections between elites in the core and the peripheral areas re-
veal at the same time that “one of the weaknesses of capitalism on a
world scale has been its inability to redistribute surplus beyond that
which it redistributed to the ruling classes of the periphery” (2009:
184). Gran’s analysis of business and diplomatic networks shows the
multiple ways in which peripheral elites were incorporated into the
system and benefited from it, thereby reinforcing core dominance
and peripherality (1993: 35). In contrast, core areas, such as the
Netherlands and France in the age of mercantilism, managed to pool
Editor: Amy Keough
a part of the profits gained by their transnational merchant classes

with long-distance commodity exchange and build up the state, as
Philippe Norel has argued. Essentially, this crystallized into the indis-
pensable political mediation of the state: the creation of markets and
other institutions for commercial exchange, which in the core areas
resulted in a tight alliance between local traders, merchant commu-
nities engaged in long-distance trade, and political elites (Norel
2009: 231–38). These examples demonstrate how the role of collec-
tive and individual agents can be framed within the economic, social,
and political structures of a spatially hierarchical system without de-
moting them to the role of mere ancillary to the functional mecha-
nisms. As Ana Crespo Solana has repeatedly argued, there is an im-
portant overlap between this revised world-system approach and
studies on mercantile networks (2007: 106; 2012: 193, 201). However,
mercantile and economic-political agency is but one way to broaden
the center-periphery model. Another influential current, which is be-
ing proposed from the field of anthropology, attempts to achieve
“less structural determination” without “overemphasizing locality or
the need to ‘culturalize’ everything in world-systems analysis” (Forte
1998: 36–37).
Avoiding Mental Mapping through Spatial Differentiation:

Internal Peripheries
Another way to refine the center-periphery model was through

shifting the spatial dimension from nation-states to the regional level,
generally known as “internal peripheries” (Nolte: 1991). This con-
ceptual innovation, which had its origin also in the “internal coloni-
alism” paradigm (Hechter 1975), was the result of various theoretical
considerations. States are always composed of a multiplicity of re-
gions which reproduce core-periphery relations among them. This is
especially true for composite and colonial empires. First, the focus
on the regional level makes it possible to raise the question of spatial
disparities within states, and indicates the downside of Wallerstein’s
analytical transgression of political boundaries. Secondly, it recon-
ciles world-system analysis with a truly transnational approach, by
conceiving regional entanglement both within and beyond state bor-
ders, thus allowing for greater flexibility in the choice of the spatial
level of analysis which is appropriate for each specific question. And,
thirdly, the examination of the global entanglement of one or various
Editor: Amy Keough
regions facilitates the consideration of political, social, and cultural

factors, for example the role played by institutions, elites, and social
movements in the design of regional development policies; the im-
pact of religion and mentality on identity formation; the links be-
tween social strata, culture, and ethnicity; and the relationship be-
tween politics and business, among other issues (Komlosy 2011:
211–15).
The center-periphery approach was widened, and its analytical fo-
cus has gained both in complexity and clarity. The most significant
innovation in this regard concerns the macro-level analysis: “region”
is now presented as a dynamic and relational concept that contrasts
with Wallerstein’s clear-cut classification, which was developed for na-
tion-states. A region can assume multiple functions in the interre-
gional division of labor, depending on the scope and direction of its
interactions. This has been illustrated in relation to various regions
in the Habsburg Monarchy: while acting as core areas towards eastern
and south-eastern Europe, these regions behaved as peripheries vis-
à-vis western Europe (Komlosy 2003). Here, the center-periphery
model moves away from the binary-linear relationship that has
prompted so much criticism. The model is now better described as a
multi-layered, polycentric, although not polyvalent, network of spa-
tial hierarchies.
This new way of fashioning analytical units has created opportu-
nities for combining world-system analysis with other approaches, for
example economic geography. Geographer Hans-Jürgen Nitz has
claimed that Brenner’s arguments can be used to explain, from a
world-system perspective, the emergence of the second serfdom in six-
teenth- and seventeenth-century central and eastern Europe as a re-
action to the high transport costs of low-value goods, for example
wheat, the production of which also depended on ecological varia-
bles (Nitz 1993b: 62, 64, 71). This example illustrates how a global or
interregional approach can offer a precise explanation for the emer-
gence, or at least the intensification, of regional, local or even state-
wide social differentiation trends.
Editor: Amy Keough
Postcolonial Studies: Discourses, Stereotypes, and Mental Mapping

as Instruments for the Analysis of Entangled Hierarchies
All the transformations of the center-periphery model have

brought about profound changes to the original world-system analy-
sis model. In spite of their complexity and refinement, however,
these proposals to the basic theoretical framework fell short in rela-
tion to challenges concerning linguistic and cultural factors; for this
reason, the model essentially persisted in its systemic structural ap-
proach, although the approach was widened and became more dif-
ferentiated. Postcolonial studies, for example Dipesh Chakrabarty’s
recent work, Provincializing Europe, are further challenges to the cen-
ter-periphery model, but also provide a new opportunity for improve-
ment. This point takes us back to the beginning of this essay. With
the combination of older currents of anti- and postcolonial cri-
tique—e.g., Frantz Fanon (1989) and Edward Said—and ideas that
emanated from the “subaltern studies project” (Spivak 1988: 271–
313; Guha et al. 1974–89), the postcolonial approach offers a solid
criticism of Eurocentric epistemology (Boatcă and Spohn 2011). The
dichotomy “dominant/subaltern” is reminiscent of “center/periph-
ery.” Postcolonial studies argue for a culturally rooted understanding
of spatial hierarchies, which focuses on the analysis of discourses, im-
ages, stereotypes, and mental mappings. At the same time, the post-
colonial approach emphasizes the relationship between centers and
peripheries as one of entangled interaction, which deactivates the
dual scheme.
The most compelling suggestion for how to combine linguistics
and hierarchies in space and time is still to be found in Edward Said’s
Orientalism, which was first published in 1977 (Said 2003). Writing at
a time when most of the former colonies had gained their independ-
ence, Said focused on Western perceptions of the “Orient” that re-
curred on Michel Foucault’s discourse analysis. The public discourse
in western European countries like France and Great Britain gener-
ated a pejorative image of the Orient as the “other” with regard to
western Europe, including stereotypes such as “dirty,” “lazy,” “uncivi-
lized,” or “barbaric.” This discourse is based on Christian feelings of
superiority. This discourse acquired a new, apparently secular, qual-
ity with the late eighteenth-century Enlightenment and was later
reinforced by the scientific knowledge that developed in the nine-
Editor: Amy Keough
teenth century. In that way Said identified a set of discursive prac-

tices, which he conceived “as a Western style for dominating, restruc-
turing and having authority over the Orient” (Said 2003).
Said provides the basis for incorporating discourse analysis into
both political history and world-system analysis. Without referring to
Wallerstein’s works, Said analyzes the definition of a subaltern group,
which is spatially defined and fits well with the dichotomy “centers/
periphery.” However, in contrast with classic world-system analysis
and its Marxist, socio-economic, and functionalist approaches, Said
draws attention to the discursive construction of these hierarchies
and dichotomies. As has been demonstrated by several other works,
for example Maria Todorova’s study of the Balkans and Larry Wolff’s
book on the construction of eastern Europe in the political and cul-
tural discourses of eighteenth-century western European Enlighten-
ment, the mental map depicting the contraposition between the
“civilized” and the “barbaric” peoples largely coincides with the clas-
sification of centers and peripheries (Wolff 1995; Todorova 1997).
Stressing the relationship between language and institutional
power, Said suggests that the creation of the Orient preceded the
Western political, economic, and military domination over the Mid-
dle East, which led to its formal colonization in the course of the dis-
integration of the Ottoman Empire in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries; so does Wolff, when he analyzes the idea that
“orientalization” was behind Eastern Europe’s “backwardness.” Put-
ting language and discourse at the forefront of the analysis should
not be a problem for cultural scientists, but from the perspective of
social and economic history, historical change and discursive repre-
sentation follow a different pattern: socio-economic processes are of-
ten claimed to precede discursive construction.
As Wolff’s criticism of world-system analysis underlines, a discur-
sive approach could identify a way out of the “modernity trap” into
which world-system analysis has been forced by narrow structural
readings. Postcolonial philologists, like Said, and more empirically-
focused historians, like Todorova and Wolff, did not work with world-
system notions and usually rejected structuralist models. Neverthe-
less, their analyses of discursive configuration brought them to very
similar conclusions. By combining cultural studies and socio-eco-
nomic approaches, the dichotomy “center/periphery” can be ad-
dressed in a new way. The formation of core and periphery can be
Editor: Amy Keough
considered a social construction in the course of discursive prac-

tices—while also being considered the result of the unfolding of hi-
erarchical entanglements in the course of the historical process.
Hence, they may appear as inseparably intertwined, as mutually form-
ing and enforcing each other. By integrating the linguistic and cul-
tural factors into world-system analysis, one could not only transcend
the boundaries erected by modern social sciences, but also analyze
single developmental discourses and modernization projects which
respond to the position of specific spatial entities in the world-system.
Recently, Wallerstein adopted this approach in the fourth volume of
his world-system series (published in 2011). In this work, Wallerstein
integrated elements of a “geo-culture” into the world-system narrative
of the long nineteenth century, and he based his analysis on civil
rights and the imperative of equality. In this work, he analyzes the
formation of the major political ideologies—Conservatism, Liberal-
ism, and Radicalism—which were embraced by the ideology of
“centrist liberalism” in an attempt to reconcile inclusive claims for
equality with the polarizing effects of industrial capitalism and impe-
rialism. Wallerstein emphasizes the role played by racism, sexism, and
class division in legitimizing the stratification and hierarchization of
societies on a local and global scale (Wallerstein 2011: IV).
These lines of enquiry may be applied to the study of uneven de-
velopment by reinforcing the understanding of the center-periphery
approach as a model of entangled interaction(s). We shall endeavor
to describe economic development and regional disparities in the
context of spatial interaction, without endorsing the recent tendency
to regard the terms center/periphery as substitutes of earlier terms
coined by modernization theory (for example “backwardness”),
which would do nothing but reaffirm a model based on split spatial
units of analysis (such as nation-states or regions).
In conclusion, this overview of some of the currents in world-sys-
tem analysis and center-periphery-based analysis of uneven develop-
ment, demonstrates the plurality and diversity of the theoretical
frameworks and methodological tools that we may use when examin-
ing specific aspects of a complex web of entangled economies on a
global scale. Concepts such as commodity chains, labor regimes,
states, and agency among merchant communities all help explain un-
even development as the result of unequal interactions. While it is
important to stress the agency of social agents, institutions, and states,
one has to consider the variables that affect each agent’s ability to
Tuesday, January 03, 2017 / 12:36 PM
Editor: Amy Keough
influence trends, such as their unequal bargaining power. This

framework could ultimately be valid for achieving the fine balance
between reproducing Eurocentric narratives about the “periphery”
on the one hand, and ignoring spatially rooted hierarchies on the
other. The contributors to this special issue try to combine the anal-
ysis of interregional division of labor, with all its complexities, with
that of the hierarchical position of different spatial entities in an in-
teractive (economic, political, social) process.
In this context, this special issue aims to present case studies that
cover a wide chronological (from the Middle Ages to the early twenty-
first century) and spatial range (Eurasia, Latin America, China, and
Central Europe), and to address several of the theoretical concepts
outlined above. Dariusz Adamcyzk analyzes long-distance trade be-
tween the Arab world and eastern Europe (defined as European Rus-
sia, Poland, East Germany, and Scandinavia) and its relationship with
state-building in eastern Europe between the ninth and the eleventh
centuries. The Islamic world was in a position of economic suprem-
acy that resulted in the availability of silver coinage, which was then
used to buy furs and slaves from eastern Europe, whose inhabitants
were at the time regarded as “barbarians.” This center-periphery hi-
erarchy, however, overlapped with a mesh of polycentric connec-
tions: the silver coins were distributed by a multiplicity of merchants,
chieftains, and kings who operated in territories located alongside
the trade routes that connected both regions. These networks guar-
anteed not only the smooth operation of trade flows, but also con-
tributed to the formation of states in eastern Europe by accumulating
revenue and high-status goods (used by political elites as “symbolical
capital”). Silver and trade, therefore, fed the polycentric (and hierar-
chically entangled) political geography of western Eurasia.
Manuela Boatcă demonstrates that a fresh examination of labor
regimes in different peripheral regions in the Early Modern Age can
be revealing. The comparison of eastern European and American re-
gions characterized by the prevalence of different forms of coerced
labor, most notably serfdom and slavery, is the basis of her criticism
of both the classical liberal and Marxian—a linear transition from
feudalism to capitalism in connection with the expansion of wage la-
bor—and Wallersteinian narratives—labor regimes are analyzed in
relation to the position of a given spatial unit in the international
division of labor. In opposition to these perspectives, forms of labor
organization in both of these regions, which have been described as
Editor: Amy Keough
backward due to the predominance of serfdom and slavery, were in

fact characterized by a far greater degree of heterogeneity than has
been recognized. Thus, the forms of labor relations in eastern Eu-
rope between the sixteenth and the nineteenth centuries were differ-
ent from the paradigm that, since Friedrich Engels, has been labeled
“second serfdom.” Also, a wide variety of regimes (and intensity) of
coerced labor can be detected in Brazil, the Caribbean, and the
American South, in the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries.
The abolition of serfdom and slavery led to complex patterns of free
and non-free labor relations, most of which still characterize labor
regimes in the periphery today. Boatcă concludes her comparative
study by questioning Wallerstein’s analogy between slavery and serf-
dom, as two variants of the same (peripheral) labor regime. Never-
theless, despite the legal and social differences of both forms of co-
erced labor, they still are regarded as a labor regime which is
characteristic of regions with a peripheral status.
Klemens Kaps explores the complex relationship between inter-
nal spatial hierarchies and political rule, and the position of the
Habsburg’s Central European Empire in the international division of
labor at the turn of the eighteenth century. Arguing for an alternative
to Wallerstein’s classification of the Habsburg Monarchy as a declin-
ing regional power following the War of the Austrian Succession
(1740–48), as well as for the exclusive focus of traditional economic
historians on protectionist policies and the formation of internal
markets, Kaps demonstrates that the Habsburg dominions under-
went a qualitative socio-economic transformation between 1750 and
1815. Without neglecting the significance of the formation of inter-
nal markets and the part played by cameralist policies, Kaps claims
that external trade and (re)integration into international commodity
chains were an essential complement to agricultural rationalization
and proto-industrial development. Here, the role played by the poly-
centric Imperial rule is emphasized. The Viennese Court exercised
its authority over a wide range of territories, including Lombardy, the
Austrian Netherlands, and Tuscany, which were separated from the
internal Habsburg provinces both territorially and administratively,
but were also closer to the world-system core area. By comparing
Lombardy and Galicia, this article demonstrates how the combina-
tion of two different models of political economy—an internal center
and an internal periphery, an internationally well-connected region
Editor: Amy Keough
and another that was primarily and forcefully integrated into the in-
ternal division of labor—contributed to the overall shift of the posi-
tion of the Habsburg Monarchy in the world economy by spurring on
and intensifying the entangled relationships between economically
central and peripheral regions within a single, albeit fragmented, po-
litical framework. It is shown that a shift towards the core at state level
was linked with the consolidation of internal hierarchies and bro-
kered by public policies and the business networks with which these
were connected. The Habsburg example demonstrates that center
and periphery are useful analytical tools on different spatial levels
and also as chronologically dynamic categories; it is also a reminder
of the importance of accounting for relevant political, social, and
economic factors.
Andrea Komlosy analyzes China’s ambitions to move on from the
first period of the “Reform and Opening” stage, which began in 1978
and still continues. During this period, the country has continuously
offered low wage contract manufacturing for Western companies and
traders. In recent years, the government has claimed that incomes
are increasing and that the country is gaining a core position. While
technology imports allowed Chinese enterprises to raise their profile
in the commodity chains and increase productivity gains, spatial and
social polarization has become more severe. Nevertheless, the reshuf-
fling of center-periphery relations also concerns the broader south-
east Asian context and is intrinsically linked with China’s aspiration
to global political hegemony. Thus, the question is whether the fu-
ture world order will be characterized by multi-polar international
relations or whether China will eventually replace U.S. hegemony.
The Chinese example provides us with a good opportunity to re-eval-
uate core and periphery as analytical tools. It shows that the catego-
ries undergo permanent change and re-definition; that history, size,
political power, and cultural features are as decisive for economic
performance as economic ones; and that the changing positions of
one great power in the world economy do have consequences for in-
tra- and inter-state relations, rendering core and periphery rela-
tional, entangled categories.
Tuesday, January 03, 2017 / 12:36 PM
Editor: Amy Keough
REFERENCES
Abu-Lughod, Janet Lippman. 1989. Before European Hegemony. The World System A.D.
1250–1350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 1994. The World System in the Thirteenth Century: Dead-end or Precursor? Washing-
ton: American Historical Association.
Adamczyk, Dariusz. 2001. Zur Stellung Polens im modernen Weltsystem der frühen Neuzeit
(Schriftenreihe Studien zur Geschichtsforschung der Neuzeit, Band 21). Ham-
burg: Kovač.
———. 2004. “Gab es vormoderne Weltsysteme? Zur Weiterentwicklung der Welt-
systemdebatte in den 80/90er Jahren.” Zeitschrift für Weltgeschichte 5 (2) Autumn:
107–12.
Arrighi, Giovanni, 1994. The Long Twentieth Century. Money, Power and the Origins of our
Times. London and New York: Verso.
Arrighi, Giovanni and Jessica Drangel. 1986. “The Stratification of the World Econ-
omy: An Exploration of the Semiperipheral Zone.” Review 10 (1) Summer: 9–74.
Beaujard, Philippe. 2012. Les mondes de l’Océan Indien. Paris: Colin.
Berend, Iván and György Ránki. 1982. The European Periphery and Industrialization 1780–
1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boatcă, Manuela and Winifred Spohn, ed. 2011. Globale, multiple und postkoloniale Mo-
dernen. Munich: Rainer Hampp.
Braudel, Fernand. 2012. “Histoire et Sciences sociales: La longue durée.” Annales
E.S.C. (1958) 13 (4): 725–53, trans. Immanuel Wallerstein. Lee, Richard, ed. The
Longue Durée and World-System Analysis. Binghamton: SUNY Press, 241–76.
Brenner, Robert. 1977. “The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-
Smithian Marxism.” New Left Review 1 (104) July–Aug.: 25–92.
———. 1983. “Das Weltsystem: theoretische und historische Perspektiven.” Jochen
Blaschke, ed. Perspektiven des Weltsystems. Materialien zu Immanuel Wallerstein, “Das
moderne Weltsystem.” Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 80–111.
Cardim, Pedro; Tamar Herzog, José Javier Ruiz Ibáñez, and Gaetano Sabatini, ed.
2012. Polycentric Monarchies. How Did Early Modern Spain and Portugal Achieve and
Maintain a Global Hegemony? Eastbourne, Portland, and Vaughan: Sussex Univer-
sity Press.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2008. Provincializing Europe. Postcolonial Thought and Historical Dif-
ference. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher and E. N. Anderson. 2005. The Historical Evolution of World-
systems. New York: Palgrave Mac Millan.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Bruce Lerro. 2014. Social Change. Globalization from the
Stone Age to the Present. Boulder: Paradigm.
Crespo Solana, Ana. 2007. “The Iberian Peninsula in the First Global Trade: Geostrat-
egy and Mercantile Network interests (XV to XVIII centuries).” Federico Mayor
Zaragoza, ed. Global Trade before Globalization (VIII–XVIII). Madrid: Banco de
España, 103–27.
———. 2012 “Self-organizing: The Case of Merchant Cooperation in the Hispanic At-
lantic Economy (1680–1778).” Crespo Solana, Ana and David Alonso García, ed.
“Self-organizing Networks and GIS Tools. Cases of Use for the Study of Trading
Cooperation (1400–1800).” Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Infor-
mation Technology, Special issue, 191–224.
Editor: Amy Keough
Dhogson, Robert A. 1993. “The Modern World-System: A Critique of its Inner Dy-
namic.” Nitz, The Early-Modern World-System. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 26–41.
Dunaway, Wilma. 2012. “The Semiproletarian Household over the Longue Durée of the
Modern World-System.” Lee, Richard, ed. The Longue Durée and World-System
Analysis. Binghamton: SUNY Press, 97–136.
Emmer, Piet. 2002. “In Search of a System: The Atlantic Economy 1500–1800.”
Pietschmann, Horst, ed., Atlantic History. History of the Atlantic System 1580–1830.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 169–78.
Fanon, Frantz. 1989. Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press.
Feldauer, Peter and Andrea Komlosy. 2003. “Globalgeschichte 1450–1820: Von der
Expansions-zur Interaktionsgeschichte.” Hauptmeyer, Hans-Carl u.a. ed. Die Welt
querdenken. Festschrift für Hans-Heinrich Nolte zum 65. Geburtstag. Frankfurt and
Main: Peter Lang, 59–94.
Forte, Maximilian C. 1998. “Globalization and World-Systems Analysis: Towards New
Paradigms of a Geo-Historical Social Anthropology (A Research Review).” Review
21 (1): 29–99.
Frank, Andre Gunder. 1967. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical
Studies of Chile and Brazil. New York: Monthly Review Press.
———. 1978. Dependent Accumulation and Underdevelopment. London: Macmillan.
———. 1998. Re-Orient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Frank, Andre Gunder and Barry K. Gill, ed. 1993. The World System. Five Hundred Years
or Five Thousand? London and New York: Routledge.
Gran, Peter. 2009. The Rise of the Rich: A New View of Modern World History. New York:
Syracuse University Press.
Guha, Ranajit et al., ed. 1974–1989. Subaltern Studies I–XII. Delhi. Milwaukee and Lon-
don: University of Minnesota Press.
Hechter, Michael. 1975. Internal Colonialism. The Celtic Fringe in British National Develop-
ment, 1536–1966. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hopkins, Terence K. and Immanuel Wallerstein. 1979. “Grundzüge der Entwicklung
des modernen Weltsystems. Entwurf für ein Forschungsvorhaben.” Dieter
Senghaas, ed., Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen über ihren Ursprung und ihre
Entwicklungsdynamik. Frankfurt and Main: Suhrkamp, 151–200.
Islamoglu-Inan, Huri, ed. The Ottoman Empire and the World Economy. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University.
Janion, Maria. 2004. “Rozstać się z Polską?” Gazeta Wyborcza No. 232. Oct. 2/3: Gazeta
Świąteczna, 14–16.
Kaps, Klemens, 2008. “Gescheitertes Aufholen in Zentraleuropa. Der Abstieg der
Habsburgermonarchie zu einem semiperipheren Wirtschaftsraum im Spiegel
ihrer Außenhandelsstruktur 1791–1880.” Zeitschrift für Weltgeschichte 9/1, 103–22.
———. 2013. “Galizisches Elend revisited. Wirtschaftsentwicklung und überregionale
Arbeitsteilung in einer Grenzregion der Habsburgermonarchie (1772–1914).”
Zeitschrift für Weltgeschichte 14 (2) Autumn: 53–80.
Kochanowicz, Jacek. 1997. “Economic Historiography in Communist Poland.” Studia
Historiae Oeconomicae Vol. 22: 1–15.
Komlosy, Andrea. 2001. “Regionale Ungleichheiten in der Habsburgermonarchie.
Kohäsionskraft oder Explosionsgefahr für die staatliche Einheit.” Hans-Heinrich
Nolte, ed. Innere Peripherien in Ost und West. Stuttgart: Steiner, 97–111.
Editor: Amy Keough
———. 2003. Grenze und ungleiche regionale Entwicklung. Binnenmarkt und Migration in der
Habsburgermonarchie. Vienna: Promedia, 2003.
———. 2006. “Vom europäischen Weltsystem-Modell zur globalistischen Analyse.
Entwicklungen und Diskussionsanstöße des Andre Gunder Frank.” Journal für
Entwicklungspolitik XXII (1): 12–36.
———. 2011. Globalgeschichte. Methoden und Probleme. Vienna: Böhlau.
———. 2012a. “Arbeit und Werttransfer im Kapitalismus. Vielfalt der Erscheinungs-
formen und Operationalisierung.” Sozial.Geschichte Online 9/2012 zum 60.
Geburtstag von Marcel van der Linden, http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/
servlets/DocumentServlet?id=29901.
———. 2012b. “Nachholende wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. Konzepte, Beispiele und
Kriterien für Erfolg oder Scheitern.” Andrea Komlosy, ed. Nachholende Entwick-
lung. Frankfurt am Main (Zeitschrift für Weltgeschichte 13.2), 11–42.
———. 2014 Arbeit. Eine globalhistorische Perspektive 13. bis 21. Jahrhundert. Vienna: Pro-
media.
Małowist, Marian. 1991. “Podziały gospodarcze i polityczne w Europie w średniowieczu
i w dobie wczesnej nowożytności.” Przegląd Historyczny LXXXII (1): 233–44.
Menzel, Ulrich. 1988. Auswege aus der Abhängigkeit. Die entwicklungspolitische Aktualität
Europas. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Middell, Matthias. 1994. Editorial, Comparativ. Leipziger Beiträge zur Universalgeschichte
und vergleichenden Gesellschaftsforschung, 4/5: 9–12.
Nitz, Hans-Jürgen. 1993a. “General Introduction.” Hans-Jürgen Nitz, ed. The Early
Modern World-System in Geographical Perspective. Stuttgart: Steiner.
———. 1993b. “The European World-System: An Interpretation of its Eastern Conti-
nental Sector.” Hans-Jürgen Nitz, ed., The Early Modern World-System in Geographical
Perspective, 62–83.
Nolte, Hans-Heinrich. 1980. “Zur Stellung Osteuropas im internationalen System der
Frühen Neuzeit. Außenhandel und Sozialgeschichte bei der Bestimmung der Re-
gionen.” Jahrbücher zur Geschichte Osteuropas Vol. 28: 159–97.
———. 1982. “The Position of Eastern Europe in the International System in Early
Modern Times.” Review 6 (1) Summer: 25–84.
———. 1984. “Nachwort (Epilogue).” Immanuel Wallerstein, Der historische Kapitalismus.
Berlin: Verlag, 99–110.
———. 1993. Die eine Welt. Abriß der Geschichte des internationalen Systems, 2nd ed. Han-
nover: Fackelträger.
———. 1999. “Die Peripherie in der Weltgeschichte. Zu ihrer Rolle im Weltsystem in
der Frühen Neuzeit.” Novy, Andreas, Christof Parnreiter, and Karin Fischer, ed.,
Globalisierung und Peripherie. Umstrukturierungen in Lateinamerika, Afrika und Asien
(Historische Sozialkunde Vol. 14), Vienna: Sudwind, 65–73.
———. 2001. “Innere Peripherien. Das Konzept in der Forschung.” Hans-Heinrich
Nolte and Klaas Bähre, ed., Innere Peripherien in Ost und West. Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner.
———. 2004. “Radikalisierung von Macht und Gegenmacht. Staatswerdung und Rival-
itäten.” Grandner, Margarethe and Andrea Komlosy, eds. Vom Weltgeist beseelt?
Globalgeschichte 1700–1815. Wien: Promedia, 45–67.
———. 2005. Weltgeschichte. Imperien, Religionen und Systeme 15.–19. Jahrhundert.
Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.
Nolte, Hans-Heinrich, ed., 1991. Internal Peripheries in European History (Zur Kritik der
Geschichtsschreibung Bd. 6), Gottingen and Zurich: Muster-Schmidt.
Editor: Amy Keough
Norel, Philippe. 2009. L’histoire économique globale. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 231–38.
O’Brien, Patrick. 1982. “European Economic Development: The Contribution of the
Periphery.” The Economic History Review 35: 1–18.
———. 1997. “Intercontinental Trade and the Development of the Third World since
the Industrial Revolution.” Journal of World History 8 (1): 75–133.
———. 2002. “European Economic Development: The Contribution of the Periphery.”
The Economic History Review, n.s. 35 (1): 1–18.
O’Rourke, Kevin and Jeffrey Williamson. 1999. Globalization and History: The Evolution
of a Nineteenth-Century Atlantic Economy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999.
Palat, Ravi Arvind. 2012. “Nomads and Kings: State Formation in Asia over the Longue
Durée, 1250–1700.” Lee, Richard, ed., The Longue Durée and World-System Analysis.
Binghamton: SUNY Press, 171–200.
Pieper, Renate. 2004. “Der Mittelmeerraum als Mittler zwischen Orient und Okzident
im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert.” Stefan Karner, ed. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Fest-
schrift für Gerald Schöpfer zum 60. Geburtstag. Graz, 69–85.
Prados de la Escosura, Leandro, 1984. “El comercio hispano-británico en los siglos
XVIII y XIX: I. Reconstrucción.” Revista de Historia Económica, Año nº 2: 113–62.
Said, Edward W. 2003. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin.
Senghaas, Dieter. 1982. Von Europa lernen. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Betrachtungen.
Frankfurt and Main: Suhrkamp.
Smith, Joan and Immanuel Wallerstein, ed. 1992. Creating and Transforming Households:
The Constraints of the World-Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skocpol, Thea. 1977. “Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and His-
torical Critique.” American Journal of Sociology, 82: 1075–95.
Sowa, Jan. 2011. Fantomowe ciało króla. Peryferyjne zmagania z nowoczesna˛ forma˛
(Horyzonty nowoczesności 90). Krakow: Universitas.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Cary Nelson and Law-
rence Grossberg, eds. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press, 271–313.
Swianiewicz, Jan. 2013. “What is the Object of Immanuel Wallerstein’s History?” His-
toryka. Studia Metologiczne, XLIII: 115–33. http://historyka.edu.pl/fileadmin/user_
upload/news/Historyka_43_EN/Swianiewicz_01.pdf.
Tipps, Dean C., 1973. “Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies.
A Critical Perspective.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 15, 199–226.
Todorova, Marija Nikolaeva. 1997. Imagining the Balkans. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Topolski, Jerzy. 2003. Narodziny kapitalizmu w Europie XIV–XVII wieku, 3rd ed. Poznan:
Państwowe Wydawnicto Naukowe.
Van der Linden, Marcel. 2001. “Global Labor History and ‘the Modern World-System.’
Thoughts at the Twenty-First Anniversary of the Fernand Braudel Center.” Inter-
national Review of Social History, 46 (3) Dec.: 423–59.
Van Dujin, Jacob. 1983. Long Waves in Economic Life. London, Boston, and Sydney:
Routledge.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System, I: Capitalist Agriculture and the
Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York, San Fran-
cisco, and London: Academic Press.
———. 1980. The Modern World-System, II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the Euro-
pean World-Economy, 1600–1750. New York: Academic Press.
———. 1984a. Historical Capitalism. London: Verso, 1984.
Editor: Amy Keough
———. 1984b. “Long Waves as Capitalist Process.” Review 7 (4) Spring: 559–75.
———. 1989. The Modern World-System, III: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capi-
talist World-Economy, 1730–1840s. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
———. 1993. “World System versus World-Systems. A Critique.” Andre Gunder Frank
and Barry K. Gills, ed. The World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand? Lon-
don and New York: Routledge, 292–96.
———. 2011. The Modern World-System, IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789–1914.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.
Wallerstein, Immanuel and Terence K. Hopkins. 2000. “Commodity Chains in the
World-Economy Prior to 1800.” Immanuel Wallerstein, ed., The Essential
Wallerstein. New York: New Press, 221–33.
Wallerstein, Immanuel and Joan Smith, 2000. “Households as an Institution of the
World-Economy.” Immanuel Wallerstein, ed., The Essential Wallerstein. New York:
New Press, 234–52.
Wandycz, Piotr. 1993. The Price of Freedom. A History of East Central Europe from the Middle
Ages to the Present. London and New York: Routledge.
Williamson, Jeffrey. 2006. Globalization and the Poor Periphery before 1950. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Wolff, Larry. 1995. Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the
Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

KAPS, KOMLOSY Center Periphery Revisited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KAPS, KOMLOSY Center Periphery Revisited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Foundation of State University of New York

Centers and Peripheries Revisited Polycentric Connections or Entangled Hierarchies?

Centers and Peripheries Revisited

Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

T he center-periphery model has had a unique impact on guiding

REVIEW, XXXVI, 3/4, 2013, 237–64 237

238 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

system analysis, represented mainly by Immanuel Wallerstein

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 239

division of labor integrated by commodity chains, connecting differ-

240 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

economy. He follows Nolte’s terminology and focuses on Poland’s

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 241

“development” and “backwardness”—terms that are intrinsically

242 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

and, in consequence, needed to settle their balance of payment def-

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 243

poly-systemic approach, but this theoretical position is never devel-

HISTORIOGRAPHICAL TRENDS OF THE CENTER-PERIPHERY

From Dependency Theory to World-System Analysis

The origins of world-system analysis are to be found in the discus-

244 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

in the 1960s and 1970s. In particular, Wallerstein adopted a systemic

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 245

(Wallerstein 1980, 1989). Other important elements of this analytical

A Modern Capitalist System? Trade, Division of Labor,

Due to the division of world-system discourse between a two-

246 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 247

American, and African peripheries was divergence (in the form of

248 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

Robert Brenner has argued that the long-distance exchange of com-

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 249

ent regions, while the international market, at best, plays a comple-

250 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

networks and, on a more general level, a state’s position in the divi-

The Breakaway from Systemic Structuralism

The objections to the structuralist imperative, the definition of

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 251

252 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

a part of the profits gained by their transnational merchant classes

Avoiding Mental Mapping through Spatial Differentiation:

Another way to refine the center-periphery model was through

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 253

regions facilitates the consideration of political, social, and cultural

254 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

Postcolonial Studies: Discourses, Stereotypes, and Mental Mapping

All the transformations of the center-periphery model have

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 255

teenth century. In that way Said identified a set of discursive prac-

256 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

considered a social construction in the course of discursive prac-

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 257

influence trends, such as their unequal bargaining power. This

258 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

backward due to the predominance of serfdom and slavery, were in

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 259

260 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 261

262 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES REVISTED 263

264 Klemens Kaps & Andrea Komlosy

You might also like