Advanced Human Geography—Semester B

Sample Lesson - Introduction

Lesson 7.07: Wallerstein, Dependency Theory, and States on the Edge

This depiction of Dutch colonialists invading the Gold Coast of Africa brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "going Dutch."
(Source)

Rostow and his fellow modernists figured that by offering wisdom and setting a good example, the sage and powerful modern states of the West could help even the bittiest developing nations reach their full potential…and grow up to be just like the Western states.

Except, the modernists failed to account for just a few small details. Like:

• Uh, you're cool and all Western States, but not everyone wants to grow up and be just like you.
• Speaking of "growing up"…patronizing much? Just because they're not miniature replicas of the West doesn't mean less developed states are somehow immature babies in need of a good burping. Ugh.
• And while we're at it, is it possible, Western States, that you had a bit of an unfair advantage on the whole development front? You did, after all, colonize a bunch of territories and exploit them for their labor and natural resources. Now you expect those territories to follow in your footsteps? Puh-leaze.

Okay, so maybe we're being a *bit* dramatic, but the thing is, by the late 1960s and early 1970s, lots of social scientists started to get the idea that modernization theory was less than perfect. And more than a little ethnocentric.

These economists and geographers started to doubt the so-called inevitability of modernization. What's more, they even started to doubt the so-called merits of modernization. The looked at decades of colonialist rule by the West and saw a history of inequality, exploitation, and forced dependency that left developing states stuck in an seemingly endless cycle of poverty.

And they figured: there's got to be a better way.

Sample Lesson - Reading

Reading 7.7.07a: The Core of the Matter

Development, Take II: Dependency

The main problem with modernization theory, other than the fact that it was kinda patronizing, is that after around 20 or so years of trying, a lot of experts decided it didn't really work.

In the 1970s, a new school of thought emerged and gained popularity over modernization theory. The new and improved dependency theory posited that all the industrialization in the world wasn't going to make less developed states any richer. The reason? More developed states in the Western world were actually preventing less developed states from succeeding. Even though colonialism had fallen out of fashion, post-colonial states still suffered from lingering injustices and inequalities that made it nearly impossible to move to the next stages in economic development. Even worse, the former colonizers were totally okay with this, and actually encouraged an unfair system by holding post-colonial states back.

Dependency theorists believed that the core-periphery model explained why it is that some economies succeeded and others did not. Basically, dependency theorists argued, there are two kinds of regions in the world: those that like cats, and those that like dogs.

Jk, the two kinds of regions are actually those in the "core" and those in the "periphery." The core was an exclusive club, and dependency theorists in the 1970s believed it included mostly Western states, like the United States and Canada, and almost all of Europe (sorry Russia). It also included Israel and a handful of Asian states like Japan and South Korea. The periphery, on the other hand, included basically everyone else: Africa, South America, and most of Asia.

The Center of It All

According to core-periphery theory, states at the core are the movers and shakers of the world. They've got most of the global wealth, and the flashy infrastructure to prove it. From modern transportation to high wages to fancy schmancy healthcare to luxuries like food and water, core states have it all.

Core states are industrialized and, frankly, kind of bored with industrialization. Industrialization is so yesterday; core states focus instead on the tertiary sector. Maybe at one point in time, core states worried about manufacturing their own socks, but they moved on, and today their economies are mainly services-based. Instead, they outsource most of their primary and secondary sector needs to other states. States that aren't in the exclusive "core club."

The thing about core states is that they perpetuate themselves. Turns out, core states like being in the core, and so they do what they can to stay that way. Through a process called concentration, core economies encourage capital–both human and economic–to invest in the core, reinforcing it and making it stronger, kind of like a one of those annoying drinking birds that keeps bobbing its head into your water.

The forces that drive concentration are called polarization effects, and there are four major polarization effects: capital, labor, innovation, and services. Basically, the core attracts investors, which creates attractive jobs for skilled laborers. These workers flock to the core, where there are more educational and work opportunities. And, because there are higher concentrations of educated workers, core economies also support more innovation…which again leads to new industries and even more innovation. Plus, because core economies grow faster than those in the periphery, there's a high demand for services-based jobs…and that attracts even more capital and skilled labor. All this creates a system of circular and cumulative causation that perpetuates core economies.

Think of it like this: Western universities, for example, churn out world leaders. People with money education and power often want to live in places with top jobs, high-budget hospitals, and restaurants that'll serve artisanal toast for four dollars a slice. Western governments and non-government organizations (NGOs) decide where to send money and resources, when, and on what terms. The end result is that it's incredibly hard to become a member of the core state club, but once you're in, you're all in.

The Outskirts of Development

States on the periphery, though, don't enjoy the same benefits as core states. Even though many of them trend toward economic development, periphery states generally experience high rates of poverty and a low overall quality of life. Most periphery states have little or crumbling infrastructure, inconsistent or poor access to health care and education, and are food and water insecure.

And all this, according to dependency theorists, is largely a consequence of Western imperialism. Colonial states in the core used slave and low-wage labor to extract raw materials from the periphery. Then, they'd either take those materials back home or sell them to other core states. Then, the core states would either consume them or manufacture them, creating profits and jobs in the core. Then, they'd sell manufactured goods back to the periphery and benefit from even more profit.

Not to mention that after World War II, colonial states also had a heavy hand in setting up governments and installing leadership in non-industrialized, peripheral states. Colonialists left behind a Eurocentric legacy: from Western languages to Western education to Western government systems, the colonialists basically barged into new territories, exploited them, instituted their own policies and practices, and then abandoned ship.

Meanwhile, periphery states were left to navigate the world of global economics using Western tools that didn't necessarily jive with their ways of life or values. And they were forced to compete against their former colonizers, who had a huge leg up in the industrialization game. Talk about tough odds.

Abandon all Hope, Ye Who Industrialize?

So, does all that mean that, under dependency theory, periphery states are doomed to forever remain in the periphery? Not exactly.

Just like concentration brings resources into core economies, the process of deconcentration has the opposite effect, and shifts resources to periphery economies. And, just like polarization effects lead to concentration, spread effects lead to deconcentration.

Spread effects work like this:

• Core economies grow so big that their riches trickle down into the periphery.
• This trickle-down effect stimulates growth outside of the core.
• Businesses in the core get sick and tired of high rents and labor costs, and spread outward to the periphery.
• People in the core get a little annoyed with the core. Traffic is really bad, the air smells funny, and everyone is just so uptight. So they migrate outward, too.
• Plus, diffusion spreads technological advances outward from the core to the periphery.
• Suddenly, the periphery is the new core! Or, at least, the periphery merges into the core economy. Sort of like the earth's hot, liquid-y outer core: it's basically the same thing as the inner core, just maybe not quite as hot.

Dependency theorists believe that, through the process of concentration and deconcentration, periphery economies could eventually transform into core economies. They just needed to be absorbed, kind of like a vanishing twin.

Or, even better, periphery states could just do their own thing. Rather than join the core, they could reject it, and create their own wealth…and a new, better core.

Applications of Dependency Theory

One major way that spatial economists try to transform periphery regions core regions is through a little economic strategy called import substitution. The idea is that industrializing states shouldn't have to rely on exports from the core in order to grow their economies. Instead, they should be able to make everything they need right at home. So these states take measures to encourage production within the state, like building factories and investing in new businesses. Import substitution also involves protectionism, like imposing steep tariffs to prevent people from importing goods instead of manufacturing them at home.

Another way dependency theorists sought to foster economic development in periphery regions was through nationalization, or transferring privately-owned foreign assets to the state. In Mexico, for example, oil reserves used to be largely owned or rented by multinational corporations foreign governments (including the United States). But during the 1970s, Mexico underwent a period of reform and decided it wanted foreign interests out. In an effort to stop what it believed was ongoing exploitation by the Western hegemony, the Mexican government took control of the state's oil, and promised to use the revenue to help the people through industrial expansion, social welfare programs, and high-yield agriculture.

More than $$$

Another major goal of dependency theorists was to improve the overall quality of life for people in periphery regions. This goal differed from just bolstering the economic standing of these statesinstead, the aim was to ensure that government's were meeting the basic needs of their people. Like, that they had food and stuff.

While modernization theory posited that industrialization would create wealth that would in turn trickle down to the masses, dependency theory rejected this approach. Instead, dependency theorists argued, a better way to help people would be to, you know, actually distribute wealth to the masses. So, dependency theorists focused on bringing education, healthcare, shelter, food, and water to the poorest sectors of society.

The thinking went that if a state redistributed its wealth to the poorest echelons of society, then those people would be lifted out of poverty into the middle class. A new, strong middle class would then have the purchasing power to support the state's industrial output, produced through import substitution. And there would be much rejoicing and dancing in the street, which was probably newly-paved due to state-sponsored measures to develop transportation infrastructures.

Bringing It Home

One neat thing about dependency theory is that it can apply globally, like we've discussed so far in this reading. But it can also be applied within individual states, like to urban and rural areas. It can even be applied to neighborhoods.

Before checking out today's activity, take a look at this PBS essay about dependency theory, "Dependencia Rules." As you read, take some notes about the following:

• How does dependency theory connect with socialist economic principles, like Marxism?
• How did import substitution policies help periphery states in Latin America?
• Conversely, in what ways did protectionist policies harm periphery economies?

Sample Lesson - Reading

Reading 7.7.07b: Wallerstein's World System

One of the major movers and shakers in the dependency theory world is an American sociologist named Immanuel Wallerstein. In 1974, Wallerstein published a book, The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Riveting stuff.

Basically, Wallerstein's World System Theory looked at inequality in terms of the global economy, which he figured was a complex system supporting an economic hierarchy. This system, which was essentially capitalist, developed as early as 1450, and is responsible for putting some nations (the European ones, mostly) in positions of power with lots of resources. It's also the reason other nations are in a state of economic subordination, without many resources. And those societies in a state of subordination faced some serious obstacles in creating industries of their own.

Core-Periphery Redux

Wallerstein first used the core-periphery model to explain these economic disparities. As a quick refresher, core nations included the dominant capitalist countries. These countries were highly industrialized, technological, and urbanized. Wallerstein saw the United States as an economic powerhouse with the power to support or deny support to other economies. Thus, the U.S., as a core nation, controls every aspect of the global economy. It also exploits other nations, both on purpose and by accident.

Check out NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, as an example of how a core nation is able to leverage its power to gain the most advantageous position in the matter of global trade.

In Wallerstein's World System Theory, peripheral nations have very little industrialization. What they do have are the factories and means of production owned by core nations. Peripheral nations are often marked by unstable governments, inadequate social programs, and are economically dependent on core nations for jobs and aid. (This creates a pretty messed up cycle of core-nation responsibility for financial donation, but little stable help or permanent solutions.)

Want some examples of peripheral nations? No problem. Check the label of your jeans or sweatshirt to see where it was made. Chances are it was one of Wallerstein's "peripheral nations" like Guatemala, Bangladesh, Malaysia, or Colombia. If we were a betting Shmoop, we'd guess that the workers in these factories, which are owned or leased by global core nation companies, are probably not enjoying the same privileges and rights of American workers.

Wallerstein also defined a third category, semi-peripheral nations. These are in-between nations, not quite powerful enough to dictate international policy, but still a major source of raw material and home to an expanding middle-class and marketplace for core nations. Semi-peripheral nations are exploited by the core…but they also exploit peripheral nations. (Busted.) Mexico is an example of a semi-peripheral nation: it has a large economy, but also provides cheaper labor to the United States, and it often supplies goods to the U.S. market on U.S. terms.

And, Wallerstein noted, there were also a few external areas. Those were places that didn't really integrate with the world economy, and for the most part maintained their own systems of commerce. Wallerstein considered Russia an example of an external area, since Russia's wheat production was sufficient to supply its internal market. Even though Russia traded with other countries, mostly in Asia and Europe, its internal market was far more important than its external one. Plus, the Russian state had a lot of power, which made put it in a decent position to fight foreign influence over its political and economic systems.

Prelude to a World Economic System

So how exactly did Wallerstein's world system come to be in the first place? According to Wallerstein, it went down something like this.

Back in Middle Ages, Western Europe's economic system was feudalist. Most people were working schlubs, who toiled away in the fields all day and then gave all their proceeds to rich nobleman who owned the land. In exchange, the nobles agreed to protect the peasants from evil invaders and to let the peasants continue to use the land.

From about 1150 – 1300, this system actually worked *just* enough. Favorable environmental conditions led to crop surpluses, which meant that commerce grew. And, since all the people had enough food, the population grew, too.

But, starting in about 1300, the glory days ended, and the economic expansion of the previous 250 years slowed tremendously. Three main factors contributed to this downfall:

• The climate changed. This slowed agricultural production. It also contributed to mass epidemics that killed off lots of peasants, a.k.a., the cogs that kept the agricultural economy churning.
• Production fell, meaning that (the surviving) peasants had to work even harder to produce an ever-fattening class of nobility.
• Even! More! Growth! wasn't even possible under a feudalist society. Wallerstein believed that feudalism reached its peak and that the constraints of the system made it impossible for the economy to grow any more.

The result? An economic crisis that totally changed the world market.

New World Systems

The way Wallerstein saw it is that, once the feudalist economy reached its limits and turned into a dumpster fire of financial awful, Western Europe needed to figure out a new economic plan, stat. So, Europe turned to capitalism, which it figured would help the economy grow (as opposed to burning in aforementioned dumpster fire).

But the economy could only get so big within the confines of Europe. For capitalism to transform the European economy from a slimy pupa into a transcendent butterfly, Europe needed to expand its reach. Europe needed to go global. And for that to happen, Europe needed to up its government game, and strengthen the state.

During the feudalist era, Western Europe was governed under an empire system, which controlled the economy with a neat little combo of commercial monopolies and military force. Empires maintained control of their territory by establishing vast bureaucratic systems throughout the land…and then deploying standing armies to make sure the plebs towed the line. But, where the empire's territory ended, so did its economic reach.

Core-Periphery: A New World Order

The capitalist system that emerged from the feudalist era, though, managed to overcome the confines of the empire system. Under the new economy, labor was divided internationally through the core-periphery system.

Core regions gained the most from the new system. States like England, France, and Holland all developed strong-like-ox central governments and armies. Upper- and middle-class citizens of these states were able to engage in international trade and personally benefit from trade surpluses (yay money!).

The rural population of these states boomed, except for now peasants had to pay cash-money to stay on and farm the land. Most peasants couldn't afford to do this because, well, they were peasants. So some independent farmers stuck it out in rural areas, and agricultural productivity actually increased with new technologies. But the new system also forced large swaths of peasants into urban areas, where they provided cheap manufacturing labor.

Periphery areas, meanwhile, were generally controlled by core states and exploited for their resources and labor. One major difference between peripheral regions and core regions is that the peripheral regions were often developed by the core specifically to support the core. So, while core states developed strong internal economies, peripheral states were developed mainly to export good and labor for the benefit of the core. The Spanish and Portuguese, for example, used conquest and enslavement to export materials back to Europe.

Growth Spurts

The shift from a feudalist Western Europe to a new world economy didn't happen overnight, because, despite whatever rumors you might hear about Santa Claus, pretty much no worldwide phenomena happens overnight. (Sorry if we just ruined Santa Claus for you.)

Instead, Wallerstein posited that the modern economy developed over many centuries, in four specific stages. Take a look at this article from Fordham University, "Modern History Sourcebook: Summary of Wallerstein on World System Theory, to learn more about Wallerstein's stages of growth. As you read, take some notes about things like

• the role of bureaucratization in expanding the power of the monarch.
• why organizations like the Catholic Church found capitalism threatening.
• how the rise of capitalism intersected with the expulsion of minority groups from core states.
• whether the concept of "core" and "peripheral" states is static.
• why wages fell in some areas, but not others, and how that impacted the advance of capitalism.
• how the trans-Atlantic trade effected the merchant class.
• how the expanding European system absorbed competing systems into its sphere.
• how core regions in Western Europe shifted from agricultural to manufacturing economies.

Sample Lesson - Activity

Activity 7.07a: Dueling Theories

Picture this: You're in the middle of the multiple-choice section of the AP exam, and your mind goes blank. It's basically like a Martian came down from space, sucked out your brain, and left your shell of a body to battle the AP text on its own.

What do you do? Well, worst case scenario is you guess: A, B, C, D, or E. The odds aren't great that you'll get the right answer, but at least you've got a 20 percent shot.

(BTW, don't worry: we won't let an alien steal your brain during the AP exam. You got this.)

But on the FRQ part of the exam, you don't have a set of prewritten answers to guess from. You'll have to write something, because the CollegeBoard will give you exactly zero points for chewing on a No. 2 pencil while doodling stick ponies on your exam sheet.

What we mean to say is, it's a good idea to practice, practice, practice those FRQs, so that you won't have to deal with the whole "A Martian Stole My Brain" excuse come test day. So, today, you're going to hash out the ins and outs of an FRQ with your peers.

Check out the following question:

Historically, scholars have applied different theories to explain the economic and social development of societies around the world.

A. Identify two examples of theories that scholars have used to explain societal development.
B. Define each of the theories you identified in Part A.
C. Identify two similarities between each theory you identified in Part A.
D. Identify two differences between each theory you identified in Part A.

Step One

On exam day, you'd have roughly 25 minutes to fully answer this question. And the first thing you should do is plan and outline your answer. After all, 25 minutes won't do you much good if you spend the whole time rambling about string theory. Seriously, an outline will help you stay on track and make the most of your time.

So go ahead and do that now. Don't forget to include examples in your outline, even if the question doesn't explicitly call for them.

Once you're done, post your outlines to the Discussion Board.

Step Two

Now, read over your peers' outlines.

• What did they miss in their outlines that you noted?
• What did they mention in their outlines that you overlooked? Would you incorporate this into your FRQ response?
• If there were multiple correct answers among you and your peers, which ones read the most persuasive? Do you find you're kicking yourself and thinking, "man, I wish I'd thought of that example"?

Write it all down into a 75 – 100 word personal reflection, and post your reflection to the Discussion Board as well.

Step Three

Now that you have your and your peers' knowledge in your arsenal, go ahead and write what you think is the ideal response to the FRQ prompt. Pay attention to sentence structure, grammar, spelling, and all that good stuff. Give yourself 20 minutes to put it all together.

When you're done, post your answers to the Discussion Board.

Sample Lesson - Activity

Activity 7.07b: World Systems at Work

Coming up soon: You vs. the AP exam, mano a mano. Like we said in the last activity, MCQ portion of the exam gives you a bevy of possible answers to pick from. That's something. But on the FRQ, you'll just have the question, your No. 2 pencil, and your wits.

Fortunately, you've still got lots of time to master the material and the techniques you'll need to give the FRQ a run for its money. So, let's go ahead and do that now, with a couple more practice FRQs—this time without the peer help.

On game day, you'll have about 75 minutes to answer three FRQ questions. But, we're going to give you 45 minutes to answer two FRQs.

We recommend you break down the FRQs like this:

• five minutes to closely read the FRQs, underline important words and concepts, and make sure you have a firm grasp on what the questions are actually asking.
• ten minutes to outline your response, including any examples that illustrate your points.
• 30 minutes to actually write your answers, using complete sentences and proper grammar and spelling.

Ready for your FRQs? Cool; here are your questions.

1. Walt Whitman Rostow published his economic growth model in 1960.
   A. Define Rostow's model of economic growth.
   B. Identify the five stages of economic growth.
   C. Define each of the stages of economic growth, and offer an example of each.
   D. Analyze how Rostow's theory explains economic and social disparities throughout the world economy.
2. In 1974, Immanuel Wallerstein published The Modern World System.
   A. Define Wallerstein's world system theory.
   B. Identify the four major world regions under Wallerstein's system.
   C. Define each of the major world regions, and offer a historic example of each.
   D. Analyze how Wallerstein's theory explains economic and social disparities throughout the world economy.

When you're finished, upload your answer below.

Sample Lesson - Activity