Semiperipheral Development and Foreign Policy

The Cases of Greece and Spain

M. Fatih Tayfur

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138722330
• eBook ISBN: 9781351758451
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This title was first published in 2003.Tayfur's theoretical approach to foreign policy analysis is original and represents an extremely valuable addition to a field which is under-theorised. It develops the World-System theory of Wallerstein and Arrighi. In applying this theory to two case studies, Tayfur offers a detailed account of the domestic and foreign policies of Greece and Spain after the Second World War. He illuminates in particular their turn from a foreign policy orientation towards the United States to a growing identification with, and eventual integration into, the European Community. This original book is pertinent to a range of contemporary debates and suitable to feature on the reading lists of every course on foreign policy analysis and international political theory. In addition, students of comparative politics, political transition and Mediterranean studies, will find this book particularly useful.

Chapter 1
World-System Analysis and the Concept of Semiperiphery

Despite their central location in IR studies, systemic-structural approaches have always occupied a marginal place in the sub-field of FPA. Perhaps this is because the subject matter of systemic-structural theories focuses and explains the structures, the processes and workings of the international system but do not specifically deal with external behaviour (foreign policy) of the individual states. However, the interaction between the system-structure and state actors is an important factor in understanding foreign policy phenomena. Thus this chapter deals with how the modern world-system analysis conceptualises and explains the international environment, as well as what kinds of framework it provides for studying foreign polices of states.

Modern World-System Approach: Economic Structure and the Conceptualisation of the World Context

Wallerstein's modern world-system analysis is the most advanced challenge to theories of modernisation that focus on the nation-state and its development. According to modernisation theory, the world consists of autonomous national societies each following a similar developmental pattern on the evolutionaiy ladder from tradition to modernity, although each started this process at different times and at different speeds. Modernisation theorists argue that eveiy state must pass through the same stages that today's advanced (Western) societies once experienced in order to reach a position of relative well-being.

The first challenge to the developmentahst view of modernisation theory came from the dependency school. Dependency theorists argued that there is no such thing as a linear developmental pattern through which eveiy society should pass in order to become an advanced society. On the contrary, they claimed that a capitalist world-economy exists, and that the present backward position of many countries is due to the disadvantageous relationship they have had with advanced countries within the capitalist world-economy, and not a question of internal structures or starting late. In other words, they focused on the theme of the development of underdevelopment, and they emphasised that the historical development of advanced societies and the underdevelopment of backward ones are two sides of the same coin. Accordingly, dependency theorists used this framework to analyse patterns of underdevelopment in Third World countries (especially in Latin America) where their primary interest lay.

Wallerstein's challenge came as a major step forward on the path opened by the dependency school. Wallerstein's modern world-system analysis is one of the most comprehensive approaches to social phenomena in the social sciences. It also establishes links between historical sociology, large-scale historical change and a complex web of international relations (Little, 1994: 12-14). In general terms, the central understanding of Wallerstein's approach is that any social phenomena can only be understood properly by examining a totality called the "social system", rather than by investigating arbitrarily constituted units of that totality. There are two kinds of totalities; "mini-systems" and "world-systems", but since the mini-systems no longer exist, the world-system is the only social system to be studied. For Wallerstein the phenomena that should be analysed in the world-system are the development and the functioning of the system itself, rather than the development of its major constituent units called nation-states (Wallerstein, 1974: 390). Accordingly, world-system analysis contends that there is something happening beyond the national societal level and hence there exists a collective reality at the world level of analysis. However, this does not include the study of international relations in the sense of multiple sovereign states interacting with each other. The world level collective reality is somewhat exogenous to nation-states; it has its own laws of motion which determine the social, economic and political phenomena in the national societies that it encompasses. The modern world-system has secular trends such as core-periphery relations, the division of labour, unequal exchange, etc., as well as the cyclical motions of expansion and stagnation and the rise and fall of hegemonic powers. While "the cycles" restore equilibrium in the system, the "secular trends" move far from equilibrium.

In a recent work, Hopkins and Wallerstein defined the structural properties of the modern world-system as "institutional domains" or "vectors" evolving since the 16^th century within which the cycles and trends and social action has occurred (Hopkins and Wallerstein, 1996: 2). In the historical evolution of the world-system, Hopkins and Wallerstein identify six such distinguishable, but not separable, domains: the interstate system, the structure of the world production, the structure of the world labour force, the patterns of the human welfare, the social cohesion of states, and the structures of knowledge. These properties can be studied in their own right, or in terms of their effects on the development of national societies. However none of these properties has developed in isolation from the others, and thus any change in any one of them directly influences the others. Indeed, they form an imperfect organic whole.

Modern world-system analysis is basically synchronic; it investigates the structural relations among different societies within a given time period (Bergersen, 1980: 6). In this way, modern world-system analysis tries to understand the question of how nations are interrelated with each other in the world-economy. The concepts of core-periphery relations, the division of labour, unequal exchange, and so forth are the main concerns of modern world-system analysis in explaining the interconnections among nations and long-term social changes in the capitalist world-system. In Wallerstein's words, "if there is one thing which distinguishes a world-system perspective from any other, it is its insistence that the unit of analysis is a world-system defined in terms of economic processes and links, and not any units defined in terms of judicial, political, cultural, geological etc., criteria" (Hopkins, 1977 quoted in Bergersen, 1980: 8).

Nevertheless, the world-system perspective claims that economics and politics are not separate phenomena. A social system can only be understood by analysing how both power and production/wealth are organised. In this context, it looks at the political economy of the modern world-system, which focuses on the interaction and interdependence between economic and political activities. In other words, the world-system school investigates the "specific ways in which economic and political action are intertwined within the capitalist world-economy" (Chase-Dunn, 1989: 107). Accordingly, the world-system school argues that the interstate system, which is composed of unequally powerful and competing states, is the political body of the capitalist world-economy, and that the capitalist institutions of this system are central to the maintenance and reproduction of the interstate system, and vice versa (Chase-Dunn, 1989: 107). The interstate system is a creation and integral part of the modern world-system, and "above all [it] is a matrix of reciprocal recognitions of the (limited) sovereignty of each of the states, a framework that has been (more or less) enforced by the stronger on the weaker and by the strong on each other" (Hopkins and Wallerstein, 1996: 2).

One of the most important structural characteristics of world social systems is the existence of a division of labour within them. This means that different geographical areas in the system specialise In the production of different goods, and consequently each region becomes dependent upon economic exchange with others in order to supply the continuing needs of that region. However, there are two kinds of world-systems in which this economic exchange operates in different frameworks: world empires with a common political structure, and world economies without a common political structure. In the first case the economy is basically a redistributive one. This means that the whole economy is administered by a central political authority, and the economic benefits are redistributed from this centre to different regions. In other words, political structures dominate the functioning of the system. The second kind of world-system, which is known as the capitalist economic system or the modern world-system, is an historical system that came into existence in the 16^th century in north-western Europe in a series of historical, geographical and ecological accidents culminating in a world-economy in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. In this world-economy the capitalist economic structure determines the operation of the system. The world-economy is defined without a common political structure, as there are multiple political structures. Since the primary structure of this world-system is the economy, politics takes place primarily within and through state structures whose boundaries are much smaller than the economy. In the modern world-system, it is not political-military competition but interaction between states and capitalist commodity production that occupies the central place (Chase-Dunn, 1989: 111). However, a world-economy does not mean an international economy. The theory of international economics assumes that separate national economies exist and that they trade with each other under certain circumstances. The sum of all these interstate economic contacts is called the international economy. By contrast, world-economy is defined as "an ongoing extensive and relatively complete social division of labour within an integrated set of production processes which relate to each other through a market which has been instituted or created in some complex way" (Wallerstein, 1984: 13). Today we call this the capitalist world-economy, and its boundaries are far larger than any political unit. There is no single authoritative political body in the world-economy but within it there are multiple political structures known as states. Within this system, there is a single division of labour between core and peripheral zones.

The division of labour within the world-system implies that different geographical areas in the system specialise in different productive tasks. These productive specialisations may change over time, but it is always the case that different specialisations receive unequal economic rewards. Whatever the goods produced, the core zone is always specialised in relatively highly mechanised, high profit, high wage, and highly skilled labour activities, in contrast to the opposite specialisations in the periphery. In other words, in the world-capitalist economy, the division of labour and complementarity accompany inequality.

According to Wallerstein, the defining characteristic of the capitalist world-economy is production for maximum profit in the market. Production is based on the capitalist principle of maximising capital accumulation, which means reducing costs to the minimum and raising sales prices to the maximum feasible. The reduction of costs is maintained mainly by reducing the income of direct producers to a minimum and allowing the capitalist to appropriate the remaining value. In order to reduce costs, a legal system based on unequal contractual property rights becomes an essential element, and the state plays the most important role in the enforcement of these laws. On the other hand, the second principle of accumulation, the expansion of sale prices, is ensured through the creation of quasi-monopolies in the world market. In the absence of a common political structure, only quasi-monopolies can utilise state power in order to constrain potential competitors in the world market. This means the inevitable intervention of the state in the normal functioning of the market in order to create profitable conditions for some economic actors.

In the world-economy production is organised into cross-cutting networks of interlinked processes called commodity chains. This means that in the production process there are multiple product entry points. Wallerstein oversimplifies this process when he states, "there is a commodity chain that goes from cotton production to thread production, to textile production to clothing production ...[and] at each of these production points there is an input of other productive materials" (Wallerstein, 1984a: 4). On the other hand, almost all commodity chains cross national boundaries at some point. Most importantly, "at each point that there is a labourer, there is state pressure on the labourer's income.,.[and also] at each point that there is an exchange of product, there is state pressure on the price" (Wallerstein, 1984a: 4).

These two kinds of state pressure regulate the relationship between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, as well as the relationship between the different kinds of bourgeoisie. This means that while the state ensures the appropriation of value by the bourgeoisie, it might favour some bourgeoisie more than others in this process. The crucial role played by the state leads to two kinds of politics in the capitalist world-economy: a class struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, and political struggles between different bourgeoisie. In the world-economy, various groups of bourgeoisie compete within a single world market in order to get the largest possible proportion of the world-economy's economic surplus. And since states are the most effective expression of power and political organisation of the world-economy, different bourgeoisie located in different states use their state's power in order to influence the market to their own benefit. In other words, the world bourgeoisie compete with each other and try to distort the normal functioning of the world market through state mechanisms. Accordingly the relative strength of the states becomes very important in this task.

In Wallerstein's modern world-system approach, states are classified according to two overlapping criteria. First, they are divided according to their relative strengths into strong or weak, and second, they are categorised according to their structural positions in the world-economy as core, periphery and semiperiphery. A state is defined as strong or weak in relation to its relative strength vis-a-vis other domestic centres of power, other states and external non-state forces (Wallerstein, 1984: 20). The power of a state can be measured by the amount of resources it is able to mobilise relative to the amount of resources that may be mobilised against it during a crisis period (Chase-Dunn, 1989: 113). Here, the crucial elements that determine the power of a state are two fold: the magnitude of resources, and the relative unity within and among classes (Chase-Dunn, 1989: 114). In order to gain the highest possible competitive advantage in the world market, the bourgeoisie want to increase the importance of the state's political structures, and hence its constraining power in the world market.

This drive to increase the power of states is greatest in states where core-like production is dominant. A strong state mechanism is the primary tool with which the bourgeoisie of core states can control the internal labour force and also manipulate and distort the world market in their own favour vis-avis the competing bourgeoisie of other states. Thus, strong states are greatly supported by an alliance of their economic elites with large resources, because the state supplies sufficient protection for successful capitalist accumulation (Chase-Dunn, 1989: 114). In a competitive world market, state protection becomes an important component for the profits of the economic elites. Consequently, while strong states fall into the core state category, the periphery contains the weak states. Thus the strength of states can be explained through the structural role that they play in the world-economy at any moment in time. However, the initial structural position of a state is often decided by historical accident or by the geography of a particular country. Yet once it is decided, the market forces operating in the world-economy emphasise structural differences and make them almost impossible to overcome in the short term.

Furthermore, there is a hierarchy in the structural positions of states in the world-economy, and at the top of this hierarchy are the core states. Core states are those in which production is most efficient and other economic activities are most complex. Politically, they have strong state machineries that provide them with the power to accumulate greater amounts of capital and to receive the lion's share of the surplus produced in the world-economy. At the bottom of the hierarchy are the peripheral states. In a sharp contrast to core states, production in the periphery is the least efficient, and it specialises in far less rewarded goods.

Since states play an important role in the process of capital accumulation (e.g., through providing external and internal protection and distorting the world market, etc.) economic elites wish to institutionalise their interests within state structures. However, the relative power of the states, and the nature of the demands that the capitalists make on the state are determined by the nature of the dominant economic elite within a country. Accordingly, the dominance of "industrial-commercial-financial bloc in core countries produces strong states, while export-oriented bloc in peripheral states produces weaker states" (Chase-Dunn, 1989: 240). In strong/core states where industrial-commercial interests are dominant, economic elites demand an aggressive foreign policy (commercial and military) in order to gain access to foreign markets both for raw materials and for the selling of both capital and consumption goods, and in turn they support increasing the strength of the state. On the other hand, in peripheral countries, where the dominant economic elite are producing and exporting primary products, there will be no such demands for an aggressive foreign policy because state action is not likely to increase the demand for primary goods. Thus, since there is less interest in an aggressive foreign policy, peripheral states are generally less strong than core states.

Production processes are also grouped according to geographical location into core-like and periphery-like production activities (Chase-Dunn, 1980: 191). These production processes are defined according to the degree to which they incorporate labour value, are mechanised, and are highly profitable. In other words, while core-like production employs capital-intensive techniques and utilises skilled and highly paid labour, periphery-like production employs labour intensive techniques and utilises coerced low wage labour. However, the defining characteristics of any core or peripheral products may change over time because of product cycles. For instance, while textile manufacturing was a core activity in the 19^th century, it became a peripheral activity in the 20^th century. Similarly, wheat production since the late 20^th century is a core-like production in contrast to its peripheral position in the past. This means that it is not the product itself which is core-like or peripheral, but that the nature of the production process determines core-like or periphery-like characteristics.

According to the world-system approach, both core and peripheral structural positions are the result of a relationship based on unequal exchange. The appropriation by core states of the surplus produced in the periphery is called unequal e...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• 1 World-System Analysis and the Concept of Semiperiphery
• 2 Greece: 1945-1974
• 3 Greece: 1974-2000s
• 4 Spain: 1945-1976
• 5 Spain: 1976-2000s
• 6 Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index