This screencast examines World Systems Theory.  It has been created for component three of the Eduqas A Level Sociology specification

Welcome to this see-free World Sociology screencast on World Systems Theory.

World Systems Theory is a perspective associated with the work of Immanuel Wallerstein, and for our purposes, the easiest way of understanding this perspective is to see it as essentially a modified version of dependency theory.

And both of these perspectives share a basis in Marxism, in a kind of Marxist critique of global capitalism.

So let's just remind ourselves of dependency theory.

So according to dependency theory, global inequality exists because resources flow from a poor periphery of countries into a rich core of wealthy states.

And from this perspective, André Gunder Frank has argued that development and underdevelopment are the opposite faces of the same coin.

In other words, what we call development is an uneven and hierarchical process which is seeing economic power concentrated in an economic core of rich nations at the expense of the periphery of poorer countries.

Now, world systems theory is very similar to dependency theory, but it also suggests that there is a third group of countries called the semi-periphery, which is intermediate between the rich core and the periphery of poorer nations.

World Systems Theory argues that the capitalist economic system is not merely a collection of independent countries engaged in diplomatic and economic relations but must instead be understood as a single system.

And within this system the world has been carved up into 3 unequal economic zones, with the wealthier zones exploiting the poorer ones.

And world systems theory calls these zones the core, the periphery, and the semi-periphery.

And all countries in this capitalist world system fall into 1 of these 3 zones.

So core countries represent the most highly developed economies in the modern world.

And these were the first countries to develop fully-fledged capitalist economies and the core countries control world trade and are also centres of banking, finance and research.

And according to World Systems Theory, core countries make full use of the global economy and they have the power to affect any other country within the system.

In other words, core nations have a global reach.

So core countries are the ones which get the most out of capitalism.

So the core takes up all the surplus profits generated by the whole world, exploiting both periphery and semi-periphery countries.

At the other extreme within this system, we have the periphery countries, and these comprise most of the developing world.

So peripheral countries are those countries that are characterized by weak governments, under the control often of local elites who have been bought off or corrupted by the core nations, and periphery countries are poor and their economies are mainly based on what economists call primary economic activity.

And what this means is that they extract materials from the earth and have economies that are based around industries such as mining and agriculture.

Their natural resources flow into the core and to some extent the semi-periphery along with profits.

The core in turn sells finished goods back to the periphery also at a profit.

Now the semi-periphery countries occupy a space that is somewhere between the core and the periphery.

So such countries may be newly industrialising countries such as India or Brazil who aspire to core membership or they may be former members of the core whose economic development has either stalled or declined.

So semi-periphery countries tend to be industrialised but with less sophistication of technology than is found in the core, and they don't tend to have the developed banking, insurance and research industries that we find in the core either.

Now the core nations often outsource many manufacturing jobs to the semi-periphery in order to exploit their relatively low labour costs.

And although this creates employment within the semi-periphery, most of the profits of this manufacturing industry still go back to the core.

And in recent years we've also seen some low skilled service jobs such as call centres also being outsourced to the semi-periphery for similar reasons.

So world systems theory says that the semi-periphery countries are exploited by the core but in turn they also try to exploit the countries within the periphery and because they exploit as well as being exploited, they aren't fully on the same side as the periphery countries.

And therefore, as there is no unity amongst the exploited nations Within this system, it means that united action to change the system is in practice very difficult.

Now over time, it may be the case that some countries might drop out of the core, and some semi-periphery countries might experience upward mobility into the core or indeed downward mobility into the periphery.

And this is because the system is dynamic and individual states can gain or lose their status over time.

And according to this perspective the reason for this is because capitalism doesn't respect national borders.

Capital will move to wherever money is to be made, so the modern world system continually changes as capitalism searches for profit.

Now the dynamic nature of this system is illustrated in the case of Japan's remarkable ability to rise from the periphery of the global economy in the 1870s to probably second position after America by the 1980s.

And also in recent years we've seen the rapid rise of newly industrialising nations such as China and India.

However, this kind of movement from the periphery to the core is normally very difficult, and the rise of 1 group of semi-periphery nations tends to be at the cost of another group.

So the unequal structure of the world economy, based on unequal exchange, tends to remain stable and constant, even if certain nations move around within the system.

Now both dependency theory and world systems theory developed as a critique of Modernisation theory and both perspectives argue that modernisation theory is built on a faulty premise In assuming that all countries can become more like the West Modernisation theory was leaving out an important historical period called colonialism So whilst rich countries such as the UK were once undeveloped and then they got richer and became much more developed, they never went through a process where they were underdeveloped.

In fact a country like the UK experienced development because it was able to extract and exploit resources from its colonies.

And this process of exploitation of poorer countries is referred to by dependency theory and world systems theory as a process of underdevelopment.

And therefore according to these perspectives, the development of the capitalist world system has generated wealth in some regions because it's been based on exploitation or underdevelopment in poorer countries whose economic surplus was expropriated by the richer countries.

In other words, development and underdevelopment are 2 sides of the same coin.

The fact that we've got these richer countries within the world economy at the moment has only been made possible through the way in which they systematically exploited and underdeveloped a much larger group of poorer countries.

So whilst modernisation theory and neoliberalism would see the problems of developing countries as mainly being internal, to do with things like corruption, economic mismanagement and aspects of culture, both dependency theory and world systems theory place more emphasis on the external problems that poorer countries face.

In other words, the way in which they've been exploited by other countries.

So whereas modernisation theory and neoliberalism would argue that international relations, and especially more trade, is good for the developing world, both dependency theory and world systems theory argue that in the current system, these things are bad and just involve exploitation.

And that means that from this perspective, what is needed for poorer countries to develop is not more relations with the rich world but less relations.

They need to become de-linked, to use the jargon, from the global capitalist economy if they're really to achieve development.

Where both perspectives are similar though is they both see development as fundamentally an economic process.

And I think the other perspective that we've looked at during the World Sociology course, the counter-industrial theories, would be critical of seeing development purely in economic terms and would be particularly anxious about the sustainability of economic development in either perspective.


Speaker 0: Welcome to this see-free World Sociology screencast on World Systems Theory. World Systems Theory is a perspective associated with the work of Immanuel Wallerstein, and for our purposes, the easiest way of understanding this perspective is to see it as essentially a modified version of dependency theory. And both of these perspectives share a basis in Marxism, in a kind of Marxist critique of global capitalism. So let's just remind ourselves of dependency theory. So according to dependency theory, global inequality exists because resources flow from a poor periphery of countries into a rich core of wealthy states.

And from this perspective, André Gunder Frank has argued that development and underdevelopment are the opposite faces of the same coin. In other words, what we call development is an uneven and hierarchical process which is seeing economic power concentrated in an economic core of rich nations at the expense of the periphery of poorer countries. Now, world systems theory is very similar to dependency theory, but it also suggests that there is a third group of countries called the semi-periphery, which is intermediate between the rich core and the periphery of poorer nations. World Systems Theory argues that the capitalist economic system is not merely a collection of independent countries engaged in diplomatic and economic relations but must instead be understood as a single system. And within this system the world has been carved up into 3 unequal economic zones, with the wealthier zones exploiting the poorer ones.

And world systems theory calls these zones the core, the periphery, and the semi-periphery. And all countries in this capitalist world system fall into 1 of these 3 zones. So core countries represent the most highly developed economies in the modern world. And these were the first countries to develop fully-fledged capitalist economies and the core countries control world trade and are also centres of banking, finance and research. And according to World Systems Theory, core countries make full use of the global economy and they have the power to affect any other country within the system.

In other words, core nations have a global reach. So core countries are the ones which get the most out of capitalism. So the core takes up all the surplus profits generated by the whole world, exploiting both periphery and semi-periphery countries. At the other extreme within this system, we have the periphery countries, and these comprise most of the developing world. So peripheral countries are those countries that are characterized by weak governments, under the control often of local elites who have been bought off or corrupted by the core nations, and periphery countries are poor and their economies are mainly based on what economists call primary economic activity.

And what this means is that they extract materials from the earth and have economies that are based around industries such as mining and agriculture. Their natural resources flow into the core and to some extent the semi-periphery along with profits. The core in turn sells finished goods back to the periphery also at a profit. Now the semi-periphery countries occupy a space that is somewhere between the core and the periphery. So such countries may be newly industrialising countries such as India or Brazil who aspire to core membership or they may be former members of the core whose economic development has either stalled or declined.

So semi-periphery countries tend to be industrialised but with less sophistication of technology than is found in the core, and they don't tend to have the developed banking, insurance and research industries that we find in the core either. Now the core nations often outsource many manufacturing jobs to the semi-periphery in order to exploit their relatively low labour costs. And although this creates employment within the semi-periphery, most of the profits of this manufacturing industry still go back to the core. And in recent years we've also seen some low skilled service jobs such as call centres also being outsourced to the semi-periphery for similar reasons. So world systems theory says that the semi-periphery countries are exploited by the core but in turn they also try to exploit the countries within the periphery and because they exploit as well as being exploited, they aren't fully on the same side as the periphery countries.

And therefore, as there is no unity amongst the exploited nations Within this system, it means that united action to change the system is in practice very difficult. Now over time, it may be the case that some countries might drop out of the core, and some semi-periphery countries might experience upward mobility into the core or indeed downward mobility into the periphery. And this is because the system is dynamic and individual states can gain or lose their status over time. And according to this perspective the reason for this is because capitalism doesn't respect national borders. Capital will move to wherever money is to be made, so the modern world system continually changes as capitalism searches for profit.

Now the dynamic nature of this system is illustrated in the case of Japan's remarkable ability to rise from the periphery of the global economy in the 1870s to probably second position after America by the 1980s. And also in recent years we've seen the rapid rise of newly industrialising nations such as China and India. However, this kind of movement from the periphery to the core is normally very difficult, and the rise of 1 group of semi-periphery nations tends to be at the cost of another group. So the unequal structure of the world economy, based on unequal exchange, tends to remain stable and constant, even if certain nations move around within the system. Now both dependency theory and world systems theory developed as a critique of Modernisation theory and both perspectives argue that modernisation theory is built on a faulty premise In assuming that all countries can become more like the West Modernisation theory was leaving out an important historical period called colonialism So whilst rich countries such as the UK were once undeveloped and then they got richer and became much more developed, they never went through a process where they were underdeveloped.

In fact a country like the UK experienced development because it was able to extract and exploit resources from its colonies. And this process of exploitation of poorer countries is referred to by dependency theory and world systems theory as a process of underdevelopment. And therefore according to these perspectives, the development of the capitalist world system has generated wealth in some regions because it's been based on exploitation or underdevelopment in poorer countries whose economic surplus was expropriated by the richer countries. In other words, development and underdevelopment are 2 sides of the same coin. The fact that we've got these richer countries within the world economy at the moment has only been made possible through the way in which they systematically exploited and underdeveloped a much larger group of poorer countries.

So whilst modernisation theory and neoliberalism would see the problems of developing countries as mainly being internal, to do with things like corruption, economic mismanagement and aspects of culture, both dependency theory and world systems theory place more emphasis on the external problems that poorer countries face. In other words, the way in which they've been exploited by other countries. So whereas modernisation theory and neoliberalism would argue that international relations, and especially more trade, is good for the developing world, both dependency theory and world systems theory argue that in the current system, these things are bad and just involve exploitation. And that means that from this perspective, what is needed for poorer countries to develop is not more relations with the rich world but less relations. They need to become de-linked, to use the jargon, from the global capitalist economy if they're really to achieve development.

Where both perspectives are similar though is they both see development as fundamentally an economic process. And I think the other perspective that we've looked at during the World Sociology course, the counter-industrial theories, would be critical of seeing development purely in economic terms and would be particularly anxious about the sustainability of economic development in either perspective. In either respect.

See all Steve Bassett transcripts on Youtube

C3: World Systems Theory