jwsr-v7n2


225

Broadening and Deepening: Systemic Expansion, 
Incorporation and the Zone of Ignorance

Jon D. Carlson

Jon D. Carlson
Department of Political Science
Arizona State University
Box 872001
Tempe, AZ 85287-3902
jdc@asu.edu
http://www.asu.edu/clas/polisci/

journal of world-systems research, vii, 2, fall 2001, 225–263
http://jwsr.ucr.edu
issn 1076-156x 
© 2001 Jon D. Carlson

I. INTRODUCTION

I intend to address a critical element of world-systems theory, and in doing so illuminate some larger concerns with international relations theory in 
general.1 Specifi cally, I will be examining the concept of the “external arena” and 
its relation to the international system as an expanding whole. Th e goal is to 
re-think the incorporation of new regions (‘states’ and peoples) into the world-
system in order to understand world-system processes more completely. Th is 
should be taken as a positive critique of both Wallerstein’s analysis of incorpora-
tion (European, state-centric, ‘inside-out’) and Hall’s analysis of incorporation 
(external, indigenous peoples, ‘outside in’). 

In turn, my position is embedded in a larger critique of international rela-
tions theory in political science. I argue that world-systems theory is better posi-
tioned to address important issues (e.g. globalization, democratization) than are 
traditional realist, neorealist, or institutionalist approaches. Simply put, if social 
scientists are to understand and predict anything to do with these ‘emerging’ 
trends, a globalist paradigm must be adopted. At the broadest level, this research 

1. While the three volumes of Wallerstein’s Th e Modern World-System (1974, 1979, 
1989) provide the foundation for this theoretical concern, a considerable body of work has 
blossomed around various facets of the world-systems approach.  Accordingly, I will review 
some of these briefl y, and pay more attention to those areas touching more closely on my 
research agenda [e.g. Th omas Hall’s (1986, 1987, 1989, 1999b, 2000b) work on frontiers].

http://www.asu.edu/clas/polisci/
mailto:jdc@asu.edu
http://jwsr.ucr.edu


Jon D. Carlson226 Broadening and Deepening 227

is intended as a call for a paradigm shift away from traditional power issues of 
international politics toward a more interdisciplinary approach to understanding 
politics. How is incorporation related to this broad theme? Because incorpora-
tion, and the structuring of frontiers and boundaries, refl ects the very essence of 
what is politics. 

In essence, I am exploring the broad question: “What drives the expansion 
of the global state system?” Th e status of being ‘internal’ or ‘external’ to the inter-
national system provides a source of debate within the literature, as does the way 
in which this status is represented. Th is prompts a narrower question: “What is 
the nature of incorporation into the system?”2 Th is narrower question is fueled 
by the argument that if I am to understand the broader question, I must get a 
‘close-up’ view of the actual process of the system expanding. By gaining a clear 
understanding of this fundamental process, I will be more able to broadly cri-
tique existing theory purporting to explain the expansion of the modern global 
system.

I am using a world-systems approach to examine and explain the process of 
incorporation into the system. Th is world-systems explanatory outlook should 
be contrasted to other systemic-level explanations of expansion (e.g. Waltzian 
neorealism, Bull’s international society). In doing so, I will also be positioned to 
critique realist explanations of expansion (e.g. Snyder’s ‘Myths of Empire’). By 
using a world-systems approach to understanding the expansion of the interna-
tional system, I will diff erentiate my research in several ways from four primary 
problems that plague much of traditional international political research: state-
centrism, the treatment of politics as autonomous, a temporal scope of analysis 
limited to the recent past, and a tendency toward Eurocentrism (Denemark 
1999). It is my argument that an explicitly world-systems approach will provide a 
much more nuanced and insightful explanation of how European-style political struc-
tures either emerge from or are inserted into peripheral regions than is currently pro-
vided by traditional international relations literature. 

II. AN OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY 
DEVELOPMENT

In international relations theory there is an ever-present ebb and fl ow of 
ideas, which results in a shifting swell in the prevailing tide of current theory. A 

prime example is provided by tracing the evolution of theory from political real-
ism, to a neorealist ‘refi nement,’ through a realist backlash, and fi nally to a cry for 
alternative considerations characterized by the agent-structure debate.

Th e realist concern with concepts of “power” and “interests” lent credence 
to criticisms that these ideas were too “woolly” to use eff ectively in the pursuit 
of “science.” Indeed, even Morganthau (1978:11, emphasis added) posits “the kind 
of interest determining political action in a particular period of history depends 
upon the political and cultural context within which foreign policy is formulated.” 
Political realism was in turn “refi ned” with a more “structural” approach to inter-
national politics provided by Waltz (1979). Th ough neorealism (or ‘structural 
realism’) has been roundly debated and criticized as a theory,3 neorealism and 
world-systems are recognized as primary infl uences in the academic discourse on 
international relations (Wendt 1987). 

Th ese two approaches have suff ered very diff erent fates. Even defenders of 
neorealism argue that “structural realism, qua theory, must be viewed as deeply 
and perhaps fatally fl awed. Yet at the same time, qua paradigm or worldview, it 
continues to inform the community of international relations scholars” (Kapstein 
1995:751). Kapstein argues that structural realism will continue to be the “cor-
nerstone of international relations theory” until an alternative takes its place (á 
la Kuhn). But he only addresses the issues presented by realists emphasizing 
domestic sources of international relations (Bueno de Mesquita and Lalman 1992; 
Rosecrance and Stein, eds. 1993; Snyder 1991), and does not address any potential 
alternative.

Wendt (1987:344) views world-systems’ understanding of structure as a 
“progressive problem shift over neorealism.” In addition, as a research program, 
world-systems has developed a diverse network of scholars and a theoretically 
rich body of literature which continues to be refi ned. While neorealism has stag-
nated and been largely supplanted by domestic realist explanations, world-sys-
tems has continued to evolve as an active research program or paradigm.

III. WOR LDSYSTEMS AS AN ALTERNATIVE PAR ADIGM 

Much like the world-system itself, the application of the world-systems 
approach has expanded and developed to encompass many diff erent areas of 
academic concern. In fact, there are so many variations on the world-systemic 
approach, that it has long ceased to be a single “theory,” and is more accurately 

2. Understanding this dynamic is more salient once one realizes that Wallerstein’s 
‘moment’ of incorporation can occur over a period of 100 or more years, and can involve 
vast geographic regions.  A region does not just become part of the system, something—
some change—must occur. 3.  See Keohane 1986 as a consolidation of the discourse.



Jon D. Carlson228 Broadening and Deepening 229

referred to as a Lakatosian “research programme,” or a “paradigm” in the tra-
ditional Kuhnian sense. Lakatos (1970) recognizes that all great scientifi c theo-
ries are engulfed in an ‘ocean of anomalies’ from the moment of their inception. 
Instead of discarding an individual theory once it has proven inadequate, Lakatos 
places emphasis on sequences of historically related theories. In essence, “a 
research programme is the sum of the various stages through which a leading 
idea passes” (Larvor 1998:51). Th is ‘leading idea’ provides the ‘hard core’ of the 
research program, which is the set of commitments that cannot be abandoned 
without abandoning the research program altogether. Around this core, there is a 
‘protective belt’ of auxiliary hypotheses that serve to shield the core from falsifi ca-
tion. Th is belt of auxiliary hypotheses is continually changing. Th is change takes 
place in response to empirical fi ndings, but also according to a research program’s 
‘heuristic’—the set of problem-solving techniques that guide a scientist engaged 
in a particular research program. Th us, within the realm limited to international 
relations theory, a world-systems approach may quite accurately be described as 
a ‘research program.’

A. Addressing Globalization

Sklair (1991, 1999) argues that the central feature of globalization is that 
many contemporary problems cannot be adequately be studied at the level of 
nation-states, but need to be seen in terms of global processes. While he mis-
identifi es the world-systems approach as one of four (the others being a global 
culture, a global society, and a global capitalism approach), I more explicitly 
include these processes in the framework of a world systems view. Support for 
such a world-systems approach is made even more pertinent if we agree that, 
“globalization is not just a ‘current thing’ but has been going on for centuries or, 
in some views, millennia” (Hall, 2000a:6). Indeed, Chase-Dunn (1999) observes 
that intercontinental economic integration (‘economic globalization’) has been a 
long-term trend since the great chartered companies of the seventeenth century. 
Arrighi (1999:199; see also Hirst and Th ompson 1996) echoes this reevaluation 
of the notion of globalization as ‘recent’ by pointing out that “a world-encompass-
ing economy sharing close to real-time information fi rst came into existence not 
in the 1970s but the 1870s, when a system of submarine telegraph cables began to 
integrate fi nancial and other major markets across the globe in a way not funda-
mentally diff erent from today’s satellite-linked markets.”

Interestingly, some realist scholars also recognize that “Globalization is not 
new…Challenges to the authority of the state are not new…Transnational fl ows 
are not new” (Krasner 1994:13 quoted in Burch 2000:194). Instead, Krasner 
argues that these factors have always comprised the traditional Westphalian 
system. As Burch (2000:194) notes, “Krasner thus transforms the realist simile of 

states as billiard balls to states as whiffl  e balls, but most of the realist worldview 
endures.”4

 While Krasner may be correct, he misses the point. Th ese factors may have 
been part of the traditional state system, however the degree of globalization, the 
volume of transnational fl ows (especially fi nancial fl ows), and the resulting chal-
lenges to the authority of the state are new. Th eir increased relevance is seriously 
eroding the traditional realist explanation of the system, and actually serves as 
an argument for alternative explanations that hold more water than do “whiffl  e 
balls.”

B. Toward an Unidisciplinary Approach

Th e world-systems approach undermines the classical lines of division within 
social sciences, as it sets out to study the system as a dynamic whole, eschewing 
the division of the world into individual groups or organizations. As Wallerstein 
(1974:11, emphasis added) notes: 

Anthropology, economics, political science, sociology—and history—are 
divisions of the discipline anchored in a certain liberal conception of the state 
and its relation to functional and geographical sectors of the social order. 
They make a certain limited sense if the focus of one’s study is organiza-
tions. They make none at all if the focus is the social system.

Instead of a ‘multidisciplinary’ approach, the study of a social system requires 
a ‘unidisciplinary’ approach. World-systems theory adapts this unidisciplinary 
outlook and provides an interactive and dynamic paradigm for understanding 
global history and political behavior in a context that is not explicitly state-cen-
tric. Wallerstein continues to rail against the contrived segmentation of the social 
sciences, arguing that they are in fact a single, unified field (Wallerstein 1991, 
1998b, 1999). At the very least, it seems that a world-systems approach provides 
an invaluable lingua franca in a situation where academics often miss out on the 
‘cross-pollination’ of ideas due to the tendency to talk past scholars in other dis-
ciplines (and often in their own). 

While there is a recognized diffi  culty in applying world-systems theory in 
its entirety to pre-capitalist settings, it has been modifi ed for such (Pailes and 
Whitecotton 1979; Schneider 1977; Chase-Dunn and Hall 1991, 1997). Th is arena 
of research is especially fruitful for my purposes. By looking at a pre-capitalist 
system, and what happens when a pre-capitalist system and agents of a capitalist 

4.  For Lakatos, this would serve as a prime example of realists reconstructing the 
‘protective belt’ of theory in an attempt to save the ‘hard core’ of realism.



Jon D. Carlson230 Broadening and Deepening 231

or ‘modern’ world-system meet, I can gain an understanding of the pre-capitalist 
societal interactions, but also an improved understanding of social and political 
‘evolution.’ It is this interaction between groups that has appealed to researchers 
in the fi eld of sociology, as a world-systems approach appears to have ready appli-
cation to the concept of social evolution. It is not a stretch to recognize the ready 
application to the realm of international politics. Hall (1999c:5, emphasis added) 
argues:

My claim can now be restated: a fundamental unit of social evolution is the 
world-system or core-periphery system. The claim is dialectic. The system 
itself evolves, and as it evolves it transforms its constituent members. Con-
versely, changes in constituent members collectively produce change in the 
overall system. To focus solely on the constituent members (conventional 
“societies”) is to miss a good deal of the action, and to fundamentally misun-
derstand social evolution. The converse is equally valid.

The processes of the system should be manifest throughout the system, even on 
the frontiers or peripheries. By studying these systemic processes on the periph-
ery, they are more clearly perceived, as much of the ‘noise’ of the systemic core 
is absent. Thus, by understanding the frontier, we are able to understand the 
system as a dynamic whole.

IV. UNDERSTANDING SYSTEMIC EXPANSION

It is the desire to understand how the system itself evolves and expands that 
is at the heart of this work. Th eories ‘explaining’ the development of sovereign 
states and the sovereign territorial state system (STSS) provide a rich source for 
debate. Scholars argue that sovereign territorial states (STS) emerged because 
they were more ‘effi  cient’ than other political arrangements in the international 
system (Spruyt 1994, 2000), or because local elites opted for a new property 
rights “contract” (North 1981). Others take the approach that non-European poli-
ties were “quasi-states” that lacked the empirical political and economic capacity 
to emerge as fully functioning sovereign states in the international community 
( Jackson 1990), or that tribal societies “exploded from within” because they were 
unable to compete in the expanding Euro-centric system (Doyle 1986). On a sys-
temic level, it is argued that STS emerged as a manifestation of a universal inter-
national society that began among European states and was gradually extended 
to non-European states “when they measured up to criteria of admission laid 
down by the founder members” (Bull 1984:123). An alternate explanation of 
expansion argues that interest groups may appropriate strategic concepts as an 
ideology, and then use it to promote expansion and colonization for “security” 
(Snyder 1991).

However, in a critique of this revisionist wave of literature as applied to 
West Africa in the 18th and 19th centuries, Warner (1999:235, emphasis added) 
argues:

[F]irst, that the ‘quasi-states’ present in these areas prior to colonization 
were stronger and more ‘state-like, at least judged by conventional European 
standards, than is often acknowledged; second, that among their attributes 
was the ability (all-important according to this second wave of literature) to 
sustain and promote commerce; and third, that as a consequence, they did 
not collapse by virtue of their own ‘weakness’ but were deliberately destroyed 
by Western states acting at the behest of merchants and officials who sought not 
a general property rights regime capable of supporting commerce, but eco-
nomic regimes that privileged their own commerce.

While not writing from a world-systems perspective, Warner’s case studies 
(1998, 1999) make obvious the economic underpinnings of socio-culturally 
motivated political decisions, which are manifested ultimately in military con-
fl ict. Local elites did not opt for new “contracts,” nor did tribal societies disinte-
grate, nor were they ineffi  cient pseudo-states that were unable to compete with 
Europeans. Instead, in these cases it seems that the local polities were too effi  cient 
and competed too well with European trading interests. At least in this instance, 
private, economic interests, not state-level power-struggles or systemic suprana-
tional factors drive political change. Th is is in sharp contrast to the explanation 
of state formation and systemic expansion put forth by the scholars above, and 
other realist explanations like that of Snyder (1991). Krasner’s view that neoreal-
ism and neoliberalism are the “proper” ways to investigate global aff airs seems 
equally questionable (1994:17, 1999:6, in Burch, 2000:183).

Other scholars echo Warner’s criticisms. Webb (1975) contends that state 
formation is based on an interaction of commercial and military factors, and 
Chase-Dunn (1981) maintains that the interstate system is more accurately por-
trayed as the political side of capitalism, not an autonomous system. Building on 
this, Arrighi (1994) argues for the need to pay greater attention to the institu-
tions associated with the capital accumulation process, and how this is related to 
the emergence of global powers (Arrighi and Silver 1999). Th erefore, to under-
stand the system we must reject any artifi cial diff erentiation of social, economic, 
or political spheres (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1993, 1997; Wallerstein 1974, 1991, 
1998b). Some scholars, myself included, contend that we must study social inter-
actions before states insert their power structures, if we are to recognize initial 
political and social changes (Hall 1987, 1989).

While there may be a certain degree of ‘intellectual’ opposition to a world-
systems approach within the fi eld of political science because of its Marxist 



Jon D. Carlson232 Broadening and Deepening 233

roots, it is not a serious problem. First, a considerable amount of opposition to 
neo-Marxist approaches is simply a visceral reaction based on the linking of all 
Marxist theory to the ideological aspects of the Cold War. Th is is in no way a 
practical application or critique of Marxism qua theory. Rather, it is more accu-
rately what Derrida (1994:87) refers to as the “spirit of Marxism” that continues 
to “haunt” the neo-liberal hegemonic discourse.5 By stridently disavowing these 
neo-Marxist ghosts, the hegemonic discourse not only confi rms the ‘haunting,’ 
but also betrays a concern with the ‘specter of communism’ yet to come.

As a related point, the issues centrally related to the world-systems out-
look—such as global inequality—are growing in importance in the international 
political environment. It makes sense to utilize a body of theory that already 
deals with issues like polarization, instead of trying to retrofi t a diametrically 
opposite theoretical approach. Finally, simply put: in certain important respects 
Marx was right. Developed nations are shifting policy and values (e.g. Inglehart 
1997) to include what are “socially conscious” positions, albeit within a capitalist 
framework. Th is is not to say that the European model of a full-blown ‘welfare 
state’ is what the future holds. Rather, it seems that states will be increasingly 
responsible for dealing with issues produced by social inequality, but that these 
issues will be created within an internationally-responsive (as opposed to domes-
tically-responsive) market system.

Shannon (1996) also relates the relevance of the world-systems approach to 
imperialism (see also McGowan and Kordan 1981; Arrighi 1978), its roots in the 
Annales school of French historical thought à la Fernand Braudel (1977, 1981, 
1982, 1984) and the outgrowth of world systems theory from the dependency 
approach to development and politics in the periphery. In fact, it is hard to con-
sider any approach to either political economy or cyclical behavior (e.g. “long 
cycles,” cycles of war, Kondratieff  waves, cycles of hegemony) that does not have 
relevant ties to the world-systems outlook. Hall (2000a:6) notes that the dialec-
tic nature of world-systems analysis exhibits several trends with embedded con-
tinuing cycles, “somewhat akin to the wire that holds spiral notebooks together.” 
Th ese trends are ever-present themes in international relations: commodifi ca-
tion, proletarianization, state formation, increasing size of enterprises, capital 
intensifi cation, and globalization.

Understanding the incorporation process is the linchpin to understanding 
these systemic dynamics of expansion and dominance. A world-systems approach 
provides the framework for a more complete and intellectually satisfying expla-
nation of how the international system expands. A world-systems approach 
allows one to address not only traditional political aspects, but also economic 
and socio-cultural factors of systemic expansion.

V. THE WOR LDSYSTEM & INCOR POR ATION: OR IENTING 
CONCEPTS

Many scholars have extended the world-system beyond the temporal scope 
originally proposed by Wallerstein (1974). Janet Abu-Lughod (1989, 1993; see 
also Fitzpatrick 1992) argues that the modern world-system may be traced back 
to the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and is a result of the with-
drawal of the East, rather than the rise of the West. Andre Gunder Frank and 
Barry Gills (1993; see also Frank 1990, 1999; Gills and Frank 1991) push the tem-
poral boundary, echoing Abu-Lughod’s claim but proposing a 5,000-year-old 
system. Chase-Dunn and Hall one-up Frank and Gills by attempting to extend 
world-systems theory some 10,000 years into the past—to the Neolithic revolu-
tion—though they admittedly have had to “stretch some concepts considerably” 
(Hall, 1999c:7). Th e world system approach is also being used to study long-term 
social change in more ‘recent’ historical eras, though still well before the emer-
gence of Wallerstein’s ‘modern’ world-system (Denemark, et al. 2000).

While these works provide good source material for understanding pre-cap-
italist and emerging capitalist societies in the world-system, I will operate more 
explicitly within the chronological frame of Wallerstein’s world-systems work. 
Th is is not to say that the insight gained from this work on pre-capitalist set-
tings has no relevance to my work. Quite to the contrary. By using these fi nd-
ings, I will further the understanding of the initial interactions that take place 
between agents of capitalist societies and other (possibly pre-capitalist) societies 
in an eff ort to more accurately theorize the incorporation and state-formation 
processes. With this in mind, I will turn my attention to the modern world-
system as described by Wallerstein.

Wallerstein (1974:15) identifi es the “modern” world-system as arising in the 
“long sixteenth century” (ca. 1450–1620), with the emergence of a “European 
world-economy.” He describes this new social system as:

…an economic but not a political entity, unlike empires, city-states and 
nation-states. In fact, it precisely encompasses within its bounds (it is hard 
to speak of boundaries) empires, city-states, and the emerging “nation-
states.” It is a “world” system, not because it encompasses the whole world, 
but because it is larger than any juridically-defined political unit. And it is a 

5. Th is image is made more clear if we note that “the term hantise, translated here as 
‘haunting,’ also has the common sense of an obsession, a constant fear, a fi xed idea, or a 
nagging memory” (Derrida 1994: 177f ). 



Jon D. Carlson234 Broadening and Deepening 235

“world-economy” because the basic linkage between the parts of the system is 
economic, although this was reinforced by cultural links and eventually, as 
we shall see, by political arrangements and even confederal structures. 

Wallerstein later backs off  this strict characterization of the world-system 
after being criticized as being overly “economistic” (Skocpol 1977; Garst 1985). 
Yet this still provides insight into his initial conceptualization and off ers a good 
understanding of the interrelated arenas within the system: economic, cultural/
social, and political. Th ese diff erent arenas may be used to examine the potential 
incorporation of external venues. Th e most basic elements of the system are eco-
nomic linkages, which are related reciprocally to socio-cultural factors, which in 
turn are supported by political arrangements. I use this delineation to analyze the 
processes of the “peripheralization”—or more accurately the “incorporation”—of 
formerly external regions.

Other scholars have used a similar approach. Alvin Y. So (1984, 1986) dis-
cusses the incorporation of China in the nineteenth century, and separates the 
incorporation process into economic and political indices. He notes that the two 
usually occur together, but does question the characterization of an area if there 
is a certain degree of one without the other. Similarly, P. Nick Kardulias (1990) 
examines the economic and social impact that the fur trade—as one segment of 

a world-system—had on Indian cultures. I will merge these approaches and use 
all three indices. Th is is similar to the approach of Gills and Frank (1991:67), who 
based their study “like a three legged stool, on economic, political, and cultural 
analysis.” Th is will allow me to examine the diff erential and reciprocal rates of 
incorporation among the three “legs,” and to explore any broader implications 
this may hold for the consideration of the ‘external arena.’

Peregrine (1992, 1999) uses a three-pronged approach in his study of the 
social reproduction of rise and decline in prehistoric worlds. Th e model he uses 
is adapted from that of Habermas (1973) and provides a good initial conceptu-
alization of how these three indices may very easily be seen as interrelated and 
interactive. 

From this model, one is able to see how the economic system of interaction 
overlays the local political system, which then has a feedback loop through the 
sociocultural system. Peregrine then revises Habermas’s diagram to give empha-
sis to social reproduction (see Figure 2).

So, how would Wallerstein react to this type of approach? Since he places 
great emphasis on the need for a ‘unidisciplinary’ approach to studying the social 
sciences, it is natural to assume that his opinion would not be favorable. Indeed, 

Figure 1 – Habermas’s Conception of Capitalist Sociopolitical Organization

'Legitimation Crisis' by Jurgen Habermas. German text:  Copyright 1973 © by Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main Introduction and English translation: 
Copyright ©1975 by Beacon Press. Reprinted by permission of Beacon Press.

Figure 2 – Perigrine’s Revision Of Habermas, Emphasizing Social Reproduction 
in a Prestige System

Adapted from 'Legitimation Crisis' by Jurgen Habermas in Peregrine (1999:46). German text:  Copyright 1973 © by Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main Introduction and 
English translation: Copyright ©1975 by Beacon Press. Reprinted by permission of Beacon Press.



Jon D. Carlson236 Broadening and Deepening 237

he is of the opinion that, “One ideological product of this system … has been 
the dubious epistemological tenet that there exist three diff erent and empirically 
separable realm of human activity—the economic, the political, and the social 
and/or cultural—that are in eff ect subsystems with autonomous logics and/or 
sets of actors and/or motivations” (1991b:38). Let me say now and for the dura-
tion of this work: I agree with this position. I do not advocate treating these 
indices as unique, compartmentalized fi elds and will strive to treat them as inter-
related and reciprocal systems of behavior founded on choices of individual 
actors. My design in dividing these indices is a heuristic tool meant to more easily 
identify particularized characteristics of the system that may otherwise be lost 
in the system writ large. By their very nature, these three categories of activity 
(economy, polity, society) are all part of a larger whole, and to understand one we 
must understand the others. 

A. Why Incorporation? The Process Driving Expansion

Why should I examine “incorporation” as a worthwhile concept in interna-
tional relations? Simply put, if I am to understand the expansion of the interna-
tional system, I must understand the process of that expansion. Examining how 
a region is incorporated, and how actors in the system absorb that region, breaks 
down the process of expansion. Accordingly, I briefl y outline some key concepts 
inherent in the idea of an expanding international system. 

1. The Role of Multiculturality
Th e concept of multiculturality implies that the economic and socio-politi-

cal linkages in question need to occur between groups that consist of culturally 
distinct societies. Th is indicates diff erences in language, religion, normative insti-
tutions, mode of governance, and various other fundamental characteristics 
of everyday life. How are these diff erences reconciled? What happens when 
these societies interact? For Wallerstein, an important structural distinction 
arises from this requirement of multicultural exchange. Like Polyani (1944), 
Wallerstein identifi es three historical modes of production: mini-systems, world-
empires, and world-economies.6 

World-empires are two or more culturally distinct groups integrated by the 
forcible accumulation of surplus (‘tribute’; thus referred to as the ‘tributary mode’ 
of accumulation) organized around a single political center.7 In contrast, world-

economies are integrated via the market rather than a single political center (thus 
referred to as the ‘capitalist mode’ of accumulation). Left out of this discussion 
are the mini-systems, which are small-scale economies, integrated through reci-
procity-based family relationships (referred to as a ‘lineage’ or ‘kinship mode’ of 
accumulation).8 Even though it may be true that “mini-systems have now been 
swallowed up by capitalist expansion” (Goldfrank 2000:166; also see for sum-
mary of these concepts), looking at how they were swallowed up should help us 
conceptualize the process of capitalist expansion.

 Th e very process of incorporation centers on the distinction between polit-
ical organizations and how they are co-opted into the system as functioning, 
European-like “states.” Wallerstein asserts that:

Incorporation into the world-economy means necessarily the insertion of 
the political structures into the interstate system. This means that the 
“states” which already exist in these areas must either transform themselves 
into “states within the interstate system” or be replaced by new political 
structures which take this form or be absorbed by other states already 
within the interstate system. (1989:170)

Incorporation refl ects the very essence of what is international politics. Several 
aspects of the incorporation process related to ‘state’ development need to be elu-
cidated.9 

While polities other than traditional European states plainly have existed—
either as empires, kingdoms, city-states, or as more traditional kin-based tribu-
tary polities—only those that are suffi  ciently similar to the European model of 
the sovereign territorial state or are transformed to this model (either internally 
or by external, usually European interests) are able to enter the system (e.g. Japan 

8. Chase-Dunn and Mann (1998) is an example of work that actually addresses 
‘mini-systems’.

9. It is evident that Wallerstein has a dualistic conception of ‘states’.  When he refers 
to “states” in general, he is plainly referring to whatever administrative polity or political 
structures are responsible for government in the external arena.  However, this general 
conception is not what is meant when he refers to “states within the system”.  Here he 
obviously means European-style states.  Th is means that empire-states and other sys-
tems of socio-economic linkages are by defi nition not part of the system until the politi-
cal arena has become “Europeanized”, or operates as a proxy for European state powers 
(e.g. colonial administration).  While not writing from a world-systems view, Spruyt 
(2000: 68-9; 1994) echoes this perspective:  “one might argue that the current script in the 
international system legitimates only sovereign territorial states as actors of that society.  
Other actors are excluded.”

6. Th ere is a fourth division of labor that Wallerstein feels is on the horizon:  a 
socialist world government.  His more recent works (1991b, 1998a, 1998b, 1999) are con-
cerned with the perceived upcoming transition to this mode.

7. Eric Wolf (1982) uses these distinctions as well.



Jon D. Carlson238 Broadening and Deepening 239

2. The Role of Bulk vs. Prestige Goods
In addition to implications of political and cultural diff erentiation, the issue 

of whether or not trade goods need to be “necessities” for an area to be con-
sidered part of the system is relevant for our understanding of incorporation. 
Chase-Dunn and Hall (1993:854) note that Wallerstein “originally defi ned neces-
sities in terms of food and raw materials that are necessary for everyday life. 
Subsequently he has also included bullion and ‘protection.’ ” Lane (1979) reaf-
fi rms this need to include ‘protection rents’ as a sign of incorporation, as it is an 
important political tool responsible for considerable historic transfers of wealth. 
Structured trade between recognized polities is not enough to be considered part 
of the world-system as described by Wallerstein. Th e specifi c kind of intercon-
nectedness becomes relevant to whether or not a particular arena is internal or 
external to the system. Otherwise, Wallerstein considers “non-essential” trade to 
be “preciosities,” or exchange of prestige goods, which do not produce important 
systemic eff ects and therefore does not indicate inclusion in the world-system.12

It is apparent that some involvement and process had to occur prior to the 
‘emergence’ of any trade in bulk, but this era prior to bulk-trade is largely ignored 
in the current political science literature. Elsewhere, more attention has been 
paid to the role luxury goods play (Schneider 1977; Feinman 1999; Peregrine 
1992, 2000). Chase-Dunn and Hall (1993:855) argue “prestige-goods economies 
constitute systemic networks because the ability of local leaders to monopolize 
the supply of these goods is often an important source of stability and change 
in local power structures.” It is not unreasonable to presume that these networks 
could then have important systemic eff ects. (see Figure 3) 

While a crude conception, if this is at all accurate important social, political, 
and economic changes occur well before an area is considered “incorporated’’ into 
the world-system. 

after 1866).10 Otherwise, extant polities that already fi t this model of the “state” 
and are already part of the European world-system assimilate them. For example, 
Meyer et al. (1997) discuss ‘requirements’ of being a modern state, and describe 
the pervasive nature of these characteristics by the 20th century. Warner (1998, 
1999) off ers examples of two West African polities that were fully functioning 
and competitive with the regional agents of core powers and were actively sabo-
taged by European powers for economic advantage. One can see that this process 
of converting to ‘state-ness’ is an integral part of ‘peripheralization.’

Th is indicates that the actual process of ‘incorporation’ starts much earlier 
than previously held, since trade-induced political evolution is a necessary fi rst 
step toward full incorporation. Th erefore, it seems likely that the actual process 
of incorporation may begin with the initiation of contact between two distinct 
regions, assuming one is already part of the system. More importantly, Warner’s 
cases indicate that the primary function behind the expansion of the system is 
economic. While realists would argue that the security of a region is an important 
motive (Snyder 1991), this presupposes an initial source of cross-cultural contact 
that needs to be ‘secured,’ or that at the very least a certain amount of knowl-
edge needs to be exchanged in order to perceive a ‘threat’ to drive these larger 
security concerns.11 Th us, the initial contact must be based on other (most likely 
economic) factors. 

What is the nature of this economic contact? Do private companies acting in 
‘state-esque’ capacities of legitimated authority drive it, or is it genuinely driven 
by geo-political power interests? Regardless, this economic function ultimately 
provides the incentive for domestic European political action to support possible 
military intervention, which is then used to implement a more favorable political 
regime in the region being incorporated. Th is still neglects those areas and poli-
ties that are external to these trade linkages. How do they become relevant? 

10. Th ough for Bull’s conception of ‘international society’, Japan was not considered 
‘evolved’ or ‘civilized’ enough to join international society until around 1900. 

11. Similarly, Hall (1989) argues that a major reason for the colonization of New 
Mexico, and later recolonization after the Pueblo Revolt in 1680, was for pre-emptive 
purposes.  Th is served to protect the silver mines of Mexico and the frontier of New 
Spain.  While this could be interpreted as a security concern (especially for realists), I take 
the position that the security concern is driven by economic factors (e.g. silver mines).  
In any case, this points out the tremendous diffi  culty inherent in trying to delineate 
between political, economic, and social arenas, which is part of my argument for a world-
systems approach in the fi rst place.

Figure 3 – A Preliminary Flowchart: Arenas of Change Leading to Incorporation

Change Via: Resource Supply, 
Disease, 
“awareness,” 
Technology Diffusion

Prestige/Power
Structure
Alteration

Craft
Specialization/ 
Emphasis shift

Arena: Political ChangeEconomic ChangeSocio/Cultural Change ➞ ➞

LUXURY TRADECONTACT BULK TRADEIncorporation:

12.  I use the terms ‘bulk goods’ and ‘necessities’ interchangeably.  Similarly, ‘luxury 
goods’,  ‘preciosities,’ and ‘prestige goods’ are similarly interchangeable.



Jon D. Carlson240 Broadening and Deepening 241

While it is fairly obvious how contact between two societies can have imme-
diate socio-cultural impact (e.g. introduction of disease, transfer of new tech-
nology, new supply of precious resources, mere ‘awareness of other,’ questions 
of identity), it may not be quite so clear as to how luxury trade then impacts 
the political, and ultimately economic, arenas. To help with this, I refer back to 
Perigrine (1999:40), although Perigrine’s ‘prestige system’ is somewhat diff erent 
from a prestige-goods trading system. For him, a “ ’prestige system’ represents the 
myriad of ways in which prestige is accrued and maintained in the society. It 
includes knowledge, rituals, and symbols that convey and display status (1999: 
39). I do expect, however, that the interaction among the indices is similar in a 
strictly trade-related system. 

Th is introduces two additional points for consideration. First, can we treat 
‘knowledge’ as a luxury good? Dealing with information networks and exchange 
of knowledge is one area of world-systems theory that needs to be expanded 
upon, so this will likely prove fruitful. Second, what roles do symbols and ritu-
als associated with ‘prestige’ play in the arenas of change that result after the 
initiation of trade? Peregrine (2000) raises the question of whether or not the 
exchange of information or ritual can create systemic interdependence. Th ese are 
prime points to consider when identifying cultural and social change, and they 
should become good measures of cultural and social incorporation. 

3. Broadening the System: Gathering, Craft Specialization, and Organized 
Production

Another key orienting concept of the world-system has to do with how 
goods and wealth are accumulated. For Wallerstein, a key ‘tipping-point’ for 
whether or not a region is part of the world-system depends on the organiza-
tion of economic activity (division of labor) in a region—or “zone”—at a given 
time. Th is is at the heart of his conceptions of “external arena”, “incorporation” 
and “peripheralization.” Wallerstein (1989:129–30, emphasis added) clarifi es:

The question we are dealing with now is the nature of the process by which 
a zone which was at one point in time in the external arena of the world-
economy came to be, at a later point in time, in the periphery of that same 
world-economy. We think of this transition as a period of medium duration 
and we denominate it the period of “incorporation.” Hence, the model we 
are using involves three successive moments for a “zone”—being in the exter-
nal arena, being incorporated, and being peripheralized. None of these 
moments is static; all of them involve processes. 

Regarding the difference between incorporation and peripheralization, Waller-
stein continues:

And here we must make a distinction between the moment (however long) 
of “incorporation” and the subsequent moment of “peripheralization.” If an 
analogy may be permitted, incorporation involves “hooking” the zone in the 
orbit of the world-economy in such a way that it virtually can no longer 
escape, while peripheralization involves a continuing transformation of the 
ministructures of the area in ways that are sometimes referred to as the 
deepening of capitalist development (1989:130). 

Indeed, since this “moment” of incorporation may run well over 100 years (e.g. 
West Africa, ca. 1750–1880; pg. 189), we may more easily view incorporation 
as a period of “broadening” capitalist development. Since the drive to broaden 
and deepen the system is inherent in the functioning of capitalism, an area car-
rying on any trade-based relationship with Europe may be considered effectively 
“hooked,” as incorporation into the system is tacitly inevitable. Quite simply, 
incorporation may be viewed as the continued broadening of the world-system, 
while peripheralization is the deepening of the world-system.

Regarding modes of production, “incorporation” is taken to mean that “at 
least some signifi cant production processes in a given geographic location become 
integral to various of the commodity chains that constitute the ongoing divi-
sioning of labor of the capitalist world-economy” (Wallerstein 1989:130). Th e 
notion of ‘commodity chains’ is crucial for Wallerstein, and is meant “to describe 
the production of goods as they move from raw to cooked, slave-cultivated 
cotton becoming Manchester textiles, peasant-grown Columbian coff ee becom-
ing Detroit labor power, and so on” (Goldfrank 2000:168–9; see also Gereffi   
and Korzeniewicz 1994). A process is “integral” if “its production responds in 
some sense to the ever-changing ‘market-conditions’ of this world-economy 
(whatever the source of these changes) in terms of eff orts by those who control 
these production processes to maximize the accumulation of capital within 
this ‘market’—if not in the very short run, at least in some reasonable middle 
run”(Wallerstein 1989:130, parenthetical reference in original).13 So, capital accu-
mulation coupled with market responsiveness are the hallmarks of when a pro-
cess (commodity chain) is considered “integral to” the world-economy, and a 
particular arena thus offi  cially incorporated.

13.  Additionally, Hall (2000b) argues contra Wallerstein that ‘regularized plunder’ 
also has important incorporating eff ects, though Wallerstein maintains the need to be 
linked to integrated chains of production.  Potentially, this should serve as a measuring 
point along the spectrum of processes of incorporation.



Jon D. Carlson242 Broadening and Deepening 243

need for effi  ciency must be present, which is often provided by the profi t motive 
in a commercialized system (Kardulias 1990:31). In essence, there needs to be 
a motivation for the specialization, which is usually trade-related when dealing 
with issues of capitalist incorporation. Additionally, one can use the concept of 
craft specialization as a mid-point in the discussion of mode of production, situ-
ating this ‘specialized activity’ between the very basic accumulation strategy of 
‘gathering’ and that of full-scale ‘production.’ In doing so, a greater ability to dis-
tinguish between types of economic activity is achieved, and one should be able 
to use this to trace relevant impacts along other arenas of incorporation.

4. Spatial Boundaries: From Core to ‘Zone of Ignorance’
Th e process of incorporation plays a crucial role in the defi nition of external 

arena. Not only is this arena undergoing incorporation seen as ‘not internal’ and 
yet ‘not quite external,’ but as “a given zone is incorporated into the world-econ-
omy, this often led to an adjacent further zone being pulled into the external arena. 
It is though there were an outward ripple of expansion” (Wallerstein 1989:167, 
emphasis added). Th is delineation is relevant, because as Wallerstein observes, 
“As a zone became incorporated into the world-economy, its transfrontier trade 
became ‘internal’ to the world-economy and no longer something ‘external’ to it” 
(1989: 171). Although this occurs at the tail-end of the incorporation process (and 
consequently the beginning of peripheralization), it serves as yet an additional 
reason to clarify the overall process and the spatial concepts associated with it.

Th is indicates that there is some sort of “supra-external” arena that is unde-
fi ned by the capitalist world economy and exists as what is essentially a “zone of 
ignorance.” Th is raises interesting defi nitional considerations for what is really an 
external arena and what is not. One is literally talking about the known universe 
at any point in history, and that that is not known. Additionally, this indicates 
that instead of a three-tiered working defi nition of the world-system (core, semi-
periphery, periphery), there are actually six tiers (core, semiperiphery, periphery, 
incorporating zone, external arena, zone of ignorance).

Wallerstein identifi es an external arena in relation to the capitalist world-
economy as a “zone from which the capitalist world-economy wanted goods 
but which was resistant (perhaps culturally) to importing manufactured goods 
in return and strong enough politically to maintain its preferences” (1989:167). 
China and Japan in the eighteenth century both serve as examples. Presumably, 
the relevant governing agents in any zone bordering the expanding capitalist 
world-economy have three potential paths: (1) they can be strong enough to 
maintain their preferences and not choose incorporation, (2) they can be strong 
enough to maintain their preferences yet choose incorporation, or (3) they can be 
too weak to maintain their own preferences. In the latter case, the zone is pre-

Th is raises an interesting diff erentiation of “gathering” vs. “producing.” In 
relation to African incorporation, Wallerstein remarks: “Th is assumes, which 
may not be incorrect, that the infrastructural base of ‘gathering’ as opposed 
to ‘producing’ is much thinner and that, therefore the costs of expansion and 
contraction of the quantity of gathering activities is signifi cantly less than that 
involved in productive activities” (1989:133).14 It would seem, then, that “gath-
ering” processes would be more responsive to market conditions than “produc-
tive” processes, if only because they have less associated infrastructure and entry 
cost. Th e question of just when organized gathering transposes into production 
becomes more relevant. As a partial answer, it is worthwhile to borrow the 
anthropological concept of a “specialized activity.”

Th e idea of “specialized activity”15 requires development. Kardulias (1990:25) 
observes that craft specialization is often treated as an indication of cultural 
complexity that develops in response to a variety of infl uences, including “eco-
nomic emoluments off ered by the European market.” Specialized production can 
be defi ned as: “non-subsistence activity which is performed by a particular or 
restricted number of households within a community; the individuals in such 
households then exchange their products or services for foodstuff s and items 
produced by other specialists” (1990:32). However, when contact is between soci-
eties at diff erent levels of development, the group operating at a more advanced 
level may be able to off er extra incentives or previously unavailable goods. So, 
new contact may serve to induce new specialization, or increased levels of exist-
ing specialization. Th e key to the concept of craft specialization is that “the spe-
cialist off ers some product or service which is his/her particular domain, due to 
particular skills, knowledge, or aptitudes” (1990:32).16

Two traits are generally present in regions engaging in specialization. First, 
there should be restricted access to the resource area in order to regulate produc-
tion, distribution and consumption of the particularized commodity. Second, a 

14. Th e spice trade in the South Pacifi c serves as a good example of the diff erence 
between gathering and producing.  Originally, spices were gathered by locals and sold to 
the Dutch (and others).  Th is was the status quo until the latter half of the 19th century 
when the Dutch took the extra step of establishing plantations for the production of 
spices (e.g. nutmeg).

15. I use the terms “craft specialization”, specialized activity” and “specialized produc-
tion” interchangeably.

16. Th is activity also roughly corresponds to the historical emergence of craft guilds 
in Medieval Europe, prior to the emergence of full capitalist activity in the long six-
teenth-century. (See Smith, 1991).



Jon D. Carlson244 Broadening and Deepening 245

sumably assimilated and transformed if it has resources or goods that agents in 
the world-economy desire. Perhaps the best possible outcome (for the external 
zone) is that the zone is somehow ignored and left for future capitalist broaden-
ing and deepening. In any case, it appears logical that any zone adjacent to the 
world-system will eventually be absorbed, either in the short or middle run. 

Th e puzzle of boundaries and bounding mechanisms is precisely one area 
Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997; Hall 1999c:7, 2000b:239) have been addressing. 
Th ey argue that there are four types of “bounding mechanisms” within any single 
world-system, which only rarely coincide. Th e broadest type is a boundary of 
information or cultural fl ows; it may be considered an information exchange net-
work [IN]. Th is is what I have referred to as the ‘known universe’ of a system. 
Th e next type of boundary is that of luxury or prestige goods fl ows; it is referred 
to as the prestige goods network [PGN]. Th is is of comparable size, but not 
coincident with, the information network. Th e third bounding mechanism is the 
boundary of political/military interaction [PMN]. Th e fourth, and most narrow, 
consists of the fl ow of bulk goods, and makes up the bulk goods exchange 
network [BGN]. Obviously, this directly corresponds to Wallerstein’s eff ective 
world-system. Typically, these four networks are “nested” within one another 
[See Figure 1.4]. While Wallerstein’s world-system lies at the center, the answers 
to many of my questions are likely in the more “external” networks.

5. Frontiers
Wallerstein never explicitly deals with the concept of frontiers, other than to 

note that they are formed and transformed when new areas are absorbed into an 
expanding world-system. Otherwise, he only addresses the issue of transfrontier 
trade briefl y in his explanation of incorporation (1989:128–189). How are fron-
tiers formed and transformed? What do we mean when activity (e.g. trade, infor-
mation exchange) is ‘transfrontier’? Th e idea of a frontier is part and parcel of 
incorporation.

Hall (1986, 1999c, 2000b) off ers more clarifi cation on the issue of ‘frontiers’ 
as implicit in the process of incorporation and how they relate to other bound-
ing mechanisms. From a working defi nition, Hall (2000b:241) off ers that a fron-
tier is “a region or zone where two or more distinct cultures, societies, ethnic 
groups, or modes of production come into contact.” Like a membrane—an image 
Hall borrows from Slatta (1998)—a frontier’s permeability varies with the direc-
tion and type of things (information, goods, people) moving through it. While 
Wallerstein posits that the incorporation process is always driven from the center 
outward, the image of a membrane allows one to recognize that infl uences on 
this process can (and often do) fl ow from the area being absorbed toward the 
center. Th e question becomes one of understanding how much infl uence these 

‘outside-in’ fl ows can have on the process. How much is inevitable, and to what 
extent can one ‘negotiate peripherality’ (Kardulias 1999; Morris 1999) or even 
‘negotiate externality,’ and thus eff ectively resist incorporation? What factors are 
relevant to this ability? Concern with these factors, and attention to the detail of 
how local groups come to terms with larger social systems, “is not simply a way 
to fi ll in the details which the grand theorists gloss over. Rather it is fundamental 
to any serious attempt to understand the expansion and contraction of world-
systems” (Morris 1999:63).

Hall shares the position that close attention to local conditions, actors and 
actions is necessary in understanding incorporation. While the frontier is rela-
tively ‘narrow and sharp’ from a global perspective, “from nearby it is a broad zone 
with considerable internal spatial and temporal diff erentiation” (Hall 2000b: 
240). It is in this zone of historical interaction that confl ict often arises from 
contact, and where “no one has an enduring monopoly on violence” (Baretta 
and Markoff , quoted in Hall 2000:241). Th is is the stuff  that makes politics! 

Figure 4 – Spatial Boundaries of World-Systems

Source: Rise and Demise by Christopher Chase-Dunn and Thomas Hall
Copyright © 1997 by Westview Press, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Westview Press, a member of Perseus Books, L.L.C.



Jon D. Carlson246 Broadening and Deepening 247

Frontiers are, in essence, the zone just beyond the “state.” Frontiers are the region 
just past the contrived political markings of ‘borders.’ Th is is where the rules of 
the system are laid bare, and where anything goes.

B. Building a Model of Incorporation

To appropriately understand the expansion of the modern ‘state’ system one 
must examine the actual process of this expansion, and this is refl ected in the 
incorporation of new regions, polities, and cultures. Regarding the nature of 
incorporation, Hall observes that, “[v]ast disruptions of social, economic and 
political processes accompany the expansion of states, whether the expansion is 
based on accumulation of capital or plunder” (1986:397–8). Th is supports the 
argument that signifi cant change occurs before the point scholars traditionally 
assign as the start of incorporation. Indeed, Hall maintains that the very concep-
tion of incorporation is problematic: “(a) with respect to incorporating state or 
system; (b) with respect to types of incorporated groups; (c) with respect to both 
timing and degree of incorporation; and (d) with respect to a variety of factors 
that can aff ect the process” (1986:398; see also 1999c, 2000b). Obviously, refi ne-
ment of the concept of ‘incorporation’ is needed!

What can be said about the process of incorporation and what can be off ered 
to refi ne its conceptualization? To begin with, there are two separate, yet related, 
aspects involved with the incorporation and eventual peripheralization of an 
external region into the world-system. First, we need to recognize that overall 
we are talking about a series of ongoing processes, which may be divided into 
separate phases. Second, against this background of ongoing process, a zone will 
nominally pass through—or experience—diff erent ‘states of being’ or conditions 
within that process. Th is will necessarily depend on the degree of involvement 
with the world system, as well as the impact of case-specifi c factors. 

1. The Processes
Something, some process, is involved in the ‘hooking’ of an arena into the 

external (and ultimately internal) domain. Accordingly, I conceive of three sub-
processes in the larger incorporation process.17 First, a ‘zone of ignorance,’ or 
mythic domain, largely unexplored and unknown to the current members of 
the world-system is contacted; here the ‘grooming’ process of conditioning the 
area toward capitalist exchange and production is initiated. Th is may be the pro-

cess in which most social and behavioral change takes place. In particular I am 
interested in examining the way in which organized production develops, and 
the notion of ‘craft specialization’ will prove instrumental in exploring this. As 
a related topic, I am also interested in how the consumerism central to capital-
ism is introduced or developed. To explore this notion I borrow the notion of 
“induced wants” from Sklair (1991:131), who also observes that Marcuse (1964) 
talks about “false needs” in a similar context. 

Th e next procedural phase is one of incorporation, whereby an external are-
na’s contact and involvement with the world-system is developed, ultimately pro-
ducing ‘nominal incorporation,’ building toward ‘eff ective incorporation.’ Here 
the processes that began during the grooming process become more developed 
and socially pervasive. Once the incorporation process is well advanced, the pro-
cess of ‘peripheralization’ may be seen as taking over. Within this, an eff ectively 
incorporated arena may be conceived as moving into the actual periphery of the 
world-system, and ultimately may proceed into the semiperiphery.18 Beyond this, 
it seems like additional refi nement may be needed to understand the processes 
behind transition from one ‘level’ to another within the world-system, but that is 
not my concern at this time, as this has been more fully explored by Wallerstein 
and others.

2. The States of Being
Against the background of procedural change that occurs over time, a geo-

graphic region may be contextually fi xed in various ‘states of being’ depending on 
the specifi c historic time-period under examination. As such, it would be nice to 
be able to examine a ‘snapshot’ of a given region at a particular time in question. 
Since the “patterns that we see on a map are actually freeze-frame snapshots of 
complex processes of incorporation” (Hall 1999c:11), it makes sense to take this 
one step further and actually use historically contemporary maps to ‘operation-
alize’ the diff erent phases of incorporation.19 Furthermore, from a methodologi-
cal standpoint there is a growing body of literature evaluating ‘maps as text.’20 

17. Of course, we can conceive of the world system in general as an ongoing process, 
with a multitude of nested processes.  For example, see Modelski (2000).

18. It has been historically possible to become ‘peripheralized’ directly into the semi-
periphery.  Th e United States entered the system in the semiperiphery, as did Japan and 
(arguably) Russia.

19. While I am not doing this in this particular work, future case study research will 
use this operationalization in context of the model developed here.

20. For an introduction to this use and its accompanying rhetoric, see Wood and Fels 
(1992).  Mitchell (1999) also provides a specifi c example of how this may be carried out.   
Mitchell says that “we must remember that the map is a picture, that every picture tells 
a story, and that every story makes part of the text” (1999: 41), and that “Like any story, 



Jon D. Carlson248 Broadening and Deepening 249

Evaluating maps made during incorporation is essentially a method of reading 
the text of the process, and should provide the ability to clarify the diff erent 
‘states of being’ within the overall process.

For example, some regions may exist beyond the bounds of what is consid-
ered the external arena. While these regions may have trade links, social links, 
or geographic proximity to regions considered external, they may not be ‘known’ 
to members of the world-system (e.g. pre-Columbian America, interior Africa). 
Th us, these regions exist in only a mythic sense beyond the boundary of the 
information network, or in what I have termed a zone of ignorance (outside the 
information network). Th is zone would not appear on the maps of the members 
of the world-system, and is characterized by the ‘Cave, Hic Dragones’ approach to 
mapmaking. 

Th e next state of being (toward increased involvement with the world-sys-
tem) is the state of being in the external arena. Here a region is known to the 
members of the world-system, but is not in any signifi cant way productively 
involved with it (being in the information network). Here, the system members 
know of a region and can place its name roughly on a map, but it will not 
refl ect any geographic accuracy and is commingled with regions that only exist in 
myth.

Eventually some type of priming, luxury trade develops. Trade increases. 
Th is includes prestige goods, along with an increase of information exchange and 
cultural pollination. Th e region is still considered in the external arena (being in 
the prestige goods network). Maps will begin to refl ect a region, but lack signifi -
cant detail. Outlines of continents should be fairly accurate, but little knowledge 
of internal features will be evident.

As involvement increases and economic linkages develop with the world-
system, a region may be seen as having moved into a state of being nominally 
incorporated (being in the political-military network). Maps will have some detail 
of major cities and geographic features, but still be incomplete, missing major 
features beyond the areas central to network interactions.

Th is develops into a state of being eff ectively incorporated, whereby a given 
region enters the periphery (being in the bulk goods network). Here, there 
should be complete detail on maps, as the region is now part of the system. 
Beyond this, a region may develop out of the peripheralization process into a 
state of being semiperipheral. And, as I have mentioned, addressing processes 
involved beyond incorporation is not my immediate concern.

To clarify, I conceive of this dual-natured typography in Figure 5.
It should be recognized that this typography is merely a heuristic tool for 

visualizing what may be relevant characteristics of the larger processes associated 
with incorporation into the world-system. Keep in mind, these processes are in 
no way discrete. Instead, they segue into one another, which means that the tran-
sition between phases is likely “fuzzy.” Along this same line of consideration, the 
transition between states of being is likely to be similarly indistinct, even though 
the kernel of each may be readily distinguished. It is to be expected that at dif-
ferent points in the processes, or in diff erent states of being, particular emphasis 
on socio-cultural, political, or economic factors may be more relevant than for 
others. Th is should allow both a refi nement of world-systems theory, as well as a 
better practical application of the theory to particular periods of systemic expan-
sion.

Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997:63) use a similar organizational tool in an eff ort 
to break apart the processes of incorporation. Th is is an invaluable reference for 
deciphering the various verbiage diff erent scholars have used for aspects of the 
incorporation process. By using Wallerstein’s terms as a baseline reference, one 
can correlate the various terms discussed. 

It is important to add a caveat to the use of this diagram. While I argue 
that regions pass through various states of being, one should not take this to 
mean that I endorse the conversion of these states into linear stages or some 
predestined, lockstep evolutionary process. I am talking about zones within a 
social system, and a given zone may rapidly transition from one state of being to 
another, without necessarily ‘existing’ in an intermediary state of being. Certainly 
these zones may embody distinct geographic areas, but they more relevantly cap-
ture the notion of social, economic, cultural, and political interactions that are 
happening in a given area (the system of interactions). 

Th is is especially relevant if one is examining the incorporation of settings 
that may be categorized as pre-capitalist, and necessitates the following refi ne-
ments: 

First, incorporation is not unidimensional, but multidimensional along the 
four types of world-system boundaries. Incorporation can be economic (for 

maps are propaganda, but maps have the full weight of science behind them, and this 
obscures our sight of the pervasive nature of maps” (40-41).

I. Process

II. State of 
Being*

Zone of 
Ignorance

External 
Arena

Nominal 
Incorporation

Effective 
Incorporation Periphery

Grooming Incorporation Peripheralization

Figure 5 – Typography of Incorporation

➞ ➞ ➞ ➞

* with Fuzzy Transitions in Temporal Condition



Jon D. Carlson250 Broadening and Deepening 251

either bulk goods or luxury goods), political/military, or socio-cultural, 
which includes all types of information and symbols; second, incorporation 
creates multiple frontiers, corresponding to each of the boundaries; third, 
ceteris paribus, incorporation will begin at the furthest boundaries, (cultural, 
symbolic, informational, or luxury goods) and proceed to narrower, more 
intense forms along the political-military boundary, and finally along the 
bulk goods dimension; and fourth, relations among the dimensions of 
incorporation and the resulting frontiers is complex theoretically and 
empirically. (Hall 1999a:444).

In addition to these needed refinements, it is important to note that incorpora-
tion takes place at different rates and to differing extent for various members of 
the system. To clarify, a region may exist only in the information network of one 
system member, yet be involved in the trade of luxury (or perhaps even bulk) 
goods with another member of the same system. Taken with the recognition of 
the multiple frontiers involved, it is no understatement to argue that incorpora-
tion is a complex phenomenon.

3. Discussion of Comparative Cases21

As a basis for examining the related concepts of “external arena” and “incor-
poration,” what Alexander George (1979) refers to as a structured, focused com-
parison seems most promising as a method of investigation, or as a way in which 
to study these issues empirically.22 To examine the actual process of incorpora-
tion, one can individually trace relevant ‘markers’ over any time period in ques-
tion. Th ese markers may be degree of political autonomy, type and volume of 
trade carried on with the system and the core specifi cally, or alterations in tradi-
tional social or cultural behavior. Additionally, some type of “pre-contact” base-
line for these factors should be laid out, so that any change may then be studied 
in relation to the change in type of interaction with the system. While it is recog-
nized that these processes are inter-related and reciprocal, by addressing them as 
separate facets, one is able to develop a clearer understanding of the incorpora-
tion process as a dynamic whole. 

With an eye toward theory building, a careful comparison of cases of incor-
poration is likely to be benefi cial. In selecting my own sample cases, particular 
attention is given to trade networks along coastal areas, largely due to the pat-
terns of European trade expansion. Additionally, I am concerned with regions 
that have had no ‘polluting’ contact with the European world-system in order 
to get a ‘cleaner’ picture of the incorporation process. Specifi cally, sample cases 
are:23 

• The Nootka Indians of the northwest American coast and the fur 
trade. 

• The Asante Kingdom of West Africa and the emergence of the slave 
trade.

• Abyssinia/Ethiopia and its independence from, yet relation with, the 
trans-Arab trade.

21. While I am not carrying out a comparative case study here, my current research 
centers upon doing exactly that (in context of this model).  So, this discussion is also 
laying the foundation of ‘what to expect’.

22. See also George and Bennett (2002, forthcoming) for a description of how case 
studies contribute to theory development.

23. Th ese are only the case studies I plan on carrying out in the near future.  A multi-
tude of others are possible, including the pre-Columbian civilizations of meso-America, 
Hawaii and other Polynesian kingdoms, other instances of African incorporation, and 
even further study on how systems incorporate one another.  Here, the absorption of the 
Ottoman Empire looks like an intriguing research venue.

Figure 6 – Continuum of Incorporation 

Source: Rise and Demise by Christopher Chase-Dunn and Thomas Hall
Copyright © 1997 by Westview Press, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Westview Press, a member of Perseus Books, L.L.C.



Jon D. Carlson252 Broadening and Deepening 253

• Japan and its ability to (temporarily) resist encroachment of Western 
trade.

Each case has been chosen in the hopes that it will provide some answers to 
other fundamental questions involved in the incorporation process. Each of the 
fi rst three should provide some clues to the diff erentiation between mere gather-
ing and formalized production, as well as variation between non-state and state-
like political entities. Th e case of the fur trade raises questions surrounding the 
role of luxury goods in the incorporation process, and provides an example of a 
‘pristine’ pre-European contact and pre-capitalist setting.

Th e second case, the slave trade on the western coast of Africa, gives the 
interesting situation where the ‘good’ being traded is labor. Th is poses an intrigu-
ing question for the consideration of an area as incorporated or not: Is an area 
linked into the production cycle if it is the source of labor that is used elsewhere, 
which is part of the formalized production network? More basically, one may 
argue that more than just labor is being extracted. In essence, wealth is being 
plundered in that all the human and real capital involved in producing adults 
(and their own future productive capacity) is removed. Additionally, since the 
local polities were (presumably) more ‘developed’ than on the northwest coast 
of America, one should get diff erentiation along the spectrum of incorporation 
and its eff ects. Finally, taken in conjunction with Warner’s work, looking at the 
Asante Kingdom in particular should off er additional insight into political inter-
action on the frontier of the expanding world-system and ‘state’ development.

Th e third case will be an examination of the incorporation of Abyssinia 
(Ethiopia). It is potentially interesting because as a region, it was eventually 
linked to the emergent world-system through a considerable amount of trade, 
but maintained its political independence well into the twentieth century. It also 
is a classic example of a region existing on the boundary of the zone of ignorance 
and the external arena for a considerable amount of time. Th is will provide a nice 
case of a region that eff ectively ‘resisted’ colonial political domination while still 
maintaining trade ties with the system. Additionally, Abyssinia should provide 
a case of how non-European polities may resist being undermined (as was the 
case in West Africa) yet be increasingly recognized by European states within the 
system.

Finally, the case of Japan may be seen as the odd choice. But, quite simply, 
Japan serves as an example of how a region may join the system after having 
negotiated externality. Also, since it had prior linkages to the Chinese world-
system, it should be worthwhile to examine the ability of an area to ‘reverse’ the 
incorporation process, in addition to the aforementioned ability to ‘resist’ polit-
ical sublimation. Finally, Japan is also often used as a singular non-European 
case in much extant international politics literature (e.g. Bull 1984; Snyder 1991; 

Johnson 1993; Kupchan 1994), and will provide a touchstone for engaging these 
competing explanations.

4 .Measures of Incorporation
When specifi cally analyzing the socio-cultural arena of incorporation, the 

development of structural change in the societies in question (due to their expo-
sure to the “internal” area) should be evident. Th is may take the form of alter-
ation of traditional lifestyles, coercion of labor, or other fundamental social 
change. Initially, this may include alteration of traditional patterns of movement, 
changes in gender roles, alteration of spiritual bases, or identity shifts. As one 
moves up the spectrum of incorporation, changes in classes and mode of produc-
tion are likely indicators. If early change is present, then it seems likely that an 
argument for the initiation of incorporation may be strengthened. When look-
ing at the political-military arena, whether or not political structural change has 
occurred (e.g. “state-building,” changes in laws, regime change, alteration of local 
power structures), or if some sort of formalized political relationship with the 
“internal” area has been instituted, may be relevant. If either of these changes are 
present, then again the argument for that society’s incorporation, and against its 
consideration as an external arena, would be strengthened. Finally, with regards 
to the economic facet of incorporation, the type and quantity of goods being 
exchanged, as well as how they are ‘produced,’ serve as measures of the process. 

However, this still leaves the question of how to measure the various states of 
being at any given point during the overall incorporation process. To establish the 
timing of a respective case’s movement through the incorporation process (refer 
to Figure 1.5), historical maps serve as an important data source for establishing 
this timing. As mentioned, maps may be thought of as ‘freeze-frame snapshots’ 
of incorporation. When a region is in the zone of ignorance, it will not appear on 
the maps of system members. When a region is in the external arena (yet in the 
information network), the region’s name should appear on maps, but it will not 
be refl ected with any geographic accuracy. As luxury trade develops and a region 
moves into the prestige goods network, accurate outlines of regions and con-
tinents should appear on maps, but little additional information will be appar-
ent. As a region moves into the political-military network, maps will have major 
details correct, but will still lack complete information. As a region enters the 
periphery as part of the bulk goods network, more complete information should 
appear on system-members’ maps, as the region is eff ectively part of the system.

Th is avenue of investigation is appealing for several reasons. First, it off ers 
the potential for a concrete examination of what would otherwise be theoretic 
posturing. One is able to ‘see’ historical processes in action, as opposed to just 
being able to hypothesize about them. Second, as information (and maps in 



Jon D. Carlson254 Broadening and Deepening 255

particular)24 was jealously guarded during the time periods under investigation, 
using maps as an empirical measure will allow a way to track the transmission 
of information among system members. Th ird, this will in turn make it easier to 
distinguish just when various states knew what about a region on the frontier. 
Th us, one is able to distinguish the variable rates of incorporation among rel-
evant actors in a region. Finally, this should be taken as a method to understand 
not just the important role information plays in the expansion of the system, but 
the incredible impact that lack of information has. Indeed, geographic ignorance 
or dis-information often was actively promoted as a tool of imperial expansion.

VI. CONCLUSION

Why the vast divergence between so called traditional “realist” theories of 
the international system and world-system theories of expansion? One possible 
answer lies in the very subject that is the central unit of analysis in the study of 
the world-system: the social system itself. Because the object of study is a “social” 
system, it is mandatory that such a system be recognized as historically con-
structed. By this, it is necessary to acknowledge that history—both as a record 
of events and as a prescription for future behavior—is primarily written by the 
“winners” of history’s confl icts. Th is confl ict includes and is manifested in all 
aspects of social, political, and economic expansion and development. As such, 
it necessarily refl ects the views, ideals, desires, and ‘needs’ of the winners. Th is 
particularized historical outlook serves not only as a source of legitimation for, 
but a reifi cation of, the status quo. 

By examining the broader aspects of the emergence and development of the 
modern world-system in this context, a richer understanding of history is pro-
vided. World-systems theory is even more relevant to the study of modern poli-
tics because it provides a ‘political program’ for the ‘losers’ of history; it provides a 
version of history that ‘losers’ might appropriate. By looking beyond the empha-
sis on the ‘state’ and ‘power’ relations, and by paying attention to the socially-
driven economic motivations of actors below the state level, one is able to call 
into question not only the assumptions driving state-level activity, but the very 

theories derived from these assumptions. Th us, it is increasingly evident that the 
fi eld of international relations is not just in crisis because of the end of the Cold 
War, but is facing a paradigmatic crisis as well. By undertaking a comparative 
case study such as this, questions regarding the ‘best’ way to go about studying 
international politics are raised. Th e traditional approaches to the study of inter-
national politics off er decreasingly satisfactory explanations, and it is time for 
a shift to a more benefi cial research program. A globalist paradigm should be 
adopted, and the world-systems perspective provides an appealing and estab-
lished research program through which this may be accomplished.

Th is model of incorporation should benefi t the body of world-systems anal-
ysis in several ways. First, it off ers a better understanding of the tremendous 
changes that occur before a region is traditionally considered part of the system. 
Th us, one can bridge the gap between much of the work done on non-state peo-
ples and work centered upon states. Second, this model provides a clearer pic-
ture of the impact that external actors can have on the system and actors within 
the system. Related to this, one may recognize that external actors often have an 
ability to negotiate some terms of incorporation, and in some instances are able 
to negotiate externality. Fourth, this approach can also provide insight into the 
dynamics that drive the expansion of the system as a whole; it can parse out the 
more fundamental causes pushing the broadening of the capitalist system, which 
has application to current debates on globalization. To do this in a historic con-
text, it is necessary to include additional concepts relating to “production” (e.g. 
craft specialization) and more clearly conceptualize the process of incorporation. 
Fifth, this model of incorporation tells a more complete story of how the system 
expands, which can then be compared to other explanations in various compet-
ing bodies of literature (e.g. realism, neorealism). Finally, the world-systems per-
spective is better positioned as a progressive research program (in the Lakatosian 
sense), and off ers a more interdisciplinary approach to the study of global poli-
tics than is currently available. Many scholars give voice to the need to utilize 
such an interdisciplinary approach to studying international relations yet ignore 
viable options. Hopefully, this framework takes a step toward remedying this 
shortcoming in the international relations literature. 

24. While there was an active trade in charts and maps in Europe, this trade dealt 
mainly with decorative wall-maps or charts for public consumption (See Koeman, 1980).  
Portugal and Spain (and later Britain)  established chart-making offi  ces that developed 
charts specifi cally for their own navy’s exclusive use.  Mitchell (1999: 25) summarizes in 
context of the exploration of the New World:  “Spain and Portugal led European nations 
in hoarding their maps of the New World, convinced that knowledge was power, and 
consequently that power rested, at least in part, in maps.” 



Jon D. Carlson256 Broadening and Deepening 257

REFERENCES

Abu-Lughod, Janet L. (1989). Before European Hegemony: Th e World System A.D. 
1250–1350. New York: Oxford University Press.

Abu-Lughod, Janet L. (1993). “Discontinuities and Persistence: One World System or 
a Succession of World Systems?” in Andre Gunder Frank and Barry K. Gills, eds. 
Th e World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Th ousand? London: Routledge, pp. 
278–290.

Arrighi, Giovanni (1978). Geometry of Imperialism: Th e Limits of Hobson’s Paradigm. 
London: NLB.

Arrighi, Giovanni (1994). Th e Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins 
of Our Times. New York: Verso.

Arrighi, Giovanni (1999). “Th e Global Market,” Journal of World-Systems Research. v, 2, 
(Spring), pp. 199–224. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/

Arrighi, Giovanni and Beverly J. Silver (1999). Chaos and Governance in the Modern 
World System. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Baretta, Silvio R. D. and John Markoff  (1978). “Civilization and Barbarism: Cattle 
Frontiers in Latin America,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 20: 4, pp. 
587–620.

Blanton, Richard, Peter Peregrine, Deborah Winslow, and Th omas D. Hall. (1997). 
Economic Analysis beyond the Local System. Lanham, MD: University Press of 
America.

Bradley, C. (1996). “Fertility in Maragoli: Th e Global and the Local,” in Economic 
Analysis Beyond the Local System, R. Blanton, P. Peregrine, T. D. Hall and D. 
Winslow, eds. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, pp. 121–138.

Braudel, Fernand. (1977). Afterthoughts on Material Civilization and Capitalism. 
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Braudel, Fernand (1981). Civilization and Capitalism: 15th–18th Century, vol. 1. New York: 
Harper & Row.

Braudel, Fernand (1982). Civilization and Capitalism: 15th–18th Century, vol. 2. New York: 
Harper & Row.

Braudel, Fernand (1984). Civilization and Capitalism: 15th–18th Century, vol. 3. New York: 
Harper & Row.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and David Lalman. (1992). War and Reason: Domestic and 
International Imperatives. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.

Bull, Hedley (1984). “Th e Emergence of a Universal International Society,” in Hedley 
Bull and Adam Watson, eds. (1984). Th e Expansion of International Society. Oxford: 
Clarendon Press, pp. 117–126.

Bull, Hedley and Adam Watson, eds. (1984). Th e Expansion of International Society. 
Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Burch, Kurt (2000). “Changing the Rules: Reconceiving Change in the Westphalian 
System,” International Studies Review, 2:2, 181–210.

Carlson, Jon D. (1999). “World-Systems Incorporation and the Zone of Ignorance: 
Th e Northwest Fur Trade,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western 
Political Science Association, March 25–27, Seattle, WA.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher (1981). “Interstate System and Capitalist World-Economy: 
One Logic or Two?” International Studies Quarterly, 25:1, 19–42.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher (1999). “Globalization: A World-Systems Perspective,” 
Journal of World-Systems Research,  v: 2 (Spring), pp. 176–198. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Peter Grimes. (1995). “World-Systems Analysis,” Annual 
Review of Sociology, 21, 387–417.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Th omas D. Hall, Eds. (1991). Core/Periphery Relations in 
Precapitalist Worlds. Boulder: Westview Press.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Th omas D. Hall. (1993). “Comparing World-Systems: 
Concepts and Working Hypotheses,” Social Forces, 71:4, 851–886.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Th omas D. Hall (1997). Rise and Demise: Comparing 
World-Systems. Boulder: Westview Press.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Kelly M. Mann (1998). Th e Wintu and Th eir Neighbors: 
A Very Small World-System in Northern California. Tucson: University of Arizona 
Press.

Curtin, Philip D. (1984). Cross-Cultural Trade in World History. New York: Cambridge 
University Press.

Denemark, Robert A. (1999). “World System History: From Traditional International 
Politics to the Study of Global Relations,” International Studies Review,1:2 
(Summer): 43–75.

Denemark, Robert A., Jonathan Friedman, Barry K. Gills and George Modelski, eds. 
(2000). World System History: Th e Social Science of Long-Term Change. New York: 
Routledge.

Derrida, Jacques (1994). Specters of Marx: Th e State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, 
& the New International. New York: Routledge.

Diamond, Jared (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: Th e Fates of Human Societies. New York: 
W. W. Norton & Company.

Doyle, Michael (1986). Empires. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Feinman, Gary M. (1999). “Th e Changing Structure of Macroregional mesoamerica: 

Th e Classic-Postclassic Transition in the Valley of Oaxaca,” in P. Nick Kardulias, 
ed. (1999). World-Systems Th eory in Practice: Leadership, Production and Exchange. 
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers, Inc., pp.53–62.

Fitzpatrick, John (1992). “Th e Middle Kingdom, the Middle Sea and the Geographical 
Pivot of History,” Review 15: 3 (Summer), pp. 477–521.

Flint, C. and F. Shelley (1996). “Structure, Agency, and Context: Th e Contributions of 
Geography to World-Systems Analysis,” Sociological Inquiry, 66: 496–508.

Frank, Andre Gunder (1990). “A Th eoretical Introduction to Five Th ousand Years of 
World System History,” Review 13:2 (Spring), pp. 155–250.

http://jwsr.ucr.edu
http://jwsr.ucr.edu


Jon D. Carlson258 Broadening and Deepening 259

Frank, Andre Gunder (1999). “Abuses and Uses of World Systems Th eory in 
Archaeology,” in P. Nick Kardulias, ed., World-Systems Th eory in Practice: 
Leadership, Production, and Exchange. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld 
Publishers, Inc.

Frank, Andre Gunder and Barry K. Gills, eds. (1993). Th e World System: Five Hundred 
Years or Five Th ousand? London: Routledge.

Garst, Daniel. (1985). “Wallerstein and His Critics,” Th eory and Society, 14, 469–495.
George, Alexander. (1979). “Case Studies and Th eory Development: Th e Method of 

Structured, Focused Comparison,” in Paul G. Lauren, ed., Diplomatic History: New 
Approaches. New York: Th e Free Press, pp.43–68.

George, Alexander and Andrew Bennett (2002, forthcoming). Case Studies and Th eory 
Development. Boston: MIT Press.

Gereffi  , Gary and Miguel Korzeniewicz, eds. (1994). Commodity Chains and Global 
Capitalism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Gills, Barry K. and Andre Gunder Frank (1991). “5000 Years of World System History: 
Th e Cumulation of Accumulation,” in Chase-Dunn and Hall, eds., Core/Periphery 
Relations in Precapitalist Worlds. Boulder: Westview Press.

Goldfrank, Walter L. (2000). “Paradigm Regained? Th e Rules of Wallerstein’s World-
System Method,” Journal of World Systems Research, Special Issue: Festschrift for 
Immanuel Wallerstein vi: 2 (Summer/Fall), pp. 150–195. http://jwsr.ucr.edu

Grimes, Peter (2000). “Recent Research on World-Systems” in A World-Systems 
Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and 
Ecology, Th omas D. Hall, ed. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefi eld, pp.29–55.

Habermas, Jurgen (1973). Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hall, Th omas D. (1986). “Incorporation in the World-System: Toward a Critique,” 

American Sociological Review, 51, 390–402.
Hall, Th omas D. (1987). “Native Americans and Incorporation: Patterns and Problems,” 

American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 11:2:1–30.
Hall, Th omas D. (1989). Social Change in the Southwest, 1350–1880. Lawrence: University 

Press of Kansas.
Hall, Th omas D. (1998). “Th e Rio de la Plata and the Greater Southwest: A View from 

World-System Th eory,” in Contested Ground: Comparative Frontiers on the Northern 
and Southern Edges of the Spanish Empire, Donna J. Guy and Th omas E. Sheridan, 
eds. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Hall, Th omas D.  (1999a). “Precapitalist World-Systems,” in Encyclopedia of Political 
Economy, vol. 2, Phillip Anthony O’Hara, ed. New York: Routledge Publishing, 
pp. 897–900.

Hall, Th omas D.  (1999b). “World-System: Incorporation Into,” in Encyclopedia of 
Political Economy, vol. 2, Phillip Anthony O’Hara, ed. New York: Routledge 
Publishing, pp. 1265–1267.

Hall, Th omas D. (1999c). “World-Systems and Evolution: An Appraisal,” in World-
Systems Th eory in Practice: Leadership, Production, and Exchange, P. Nick Kardulias, 
ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers, Inc. pp. 1–23.

Hall, Th omas D. (2000a). “World-Systems Analysis: A Small Sample from a Large 
Universe,” in A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, 
Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology, Th omas D. Hall, ed. Boulder, CO: 
Rowman & Littlefi eld, pp. 3–27.

Hall, Th omas D.  (2000b). “Frontiers, and Ethnogenesis, and World-Systems: 
Rethinking the Th eories,” in A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, 
Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology, Th omas D. Hall, ed. Boulder, 
CO: Rowman & Littlefi eld, pp. 237–270.

Hall, Th omas D., Ed. (2000). A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, 
Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology. Boulder, CO: Rowman & 
Littlefi eld

Hirst, P. and Th ompson, G. (1996). Globalization in Question: Th e International Economy 
and the Possibility of Governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hugill, Peter J. (1993). World Trade Since 1431: Geography, Technology, and Capitalism. 
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Inglehart, Ronald (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and 
Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Irwin, Douglas A., ed. (1996). Trade in the Pre-Modern Era, 1400 – 1700. Brookfi eld, 
VT: E. Elgar.

Jackson, Robert H. (1990). Quasi-states: International Relations, Sovereignty and the Th ird 
World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, Chalmers (1993). “Th e State and Japanese Grand Strategy,” in Rosecrance, 
Richard and Arthur A. Stein, eds. Th e Domestic Bases of Grand Strategy. Ithaca, 
NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 201–223.

Kapstein, Ethan B. (1995). “Is Realism Dead? Th e Domestic Sources of International 
Politics,” International Organization, 49: 4, 751–74.

Kardulias, P. Nick (1990). “Fur Production as a Specialized Activity in a World System: 
Indians in the North American Fur Trade,” American Indian Culture and Research 
Journal, 14:1, 25–60.

Kardulias, P. Nick (1999). “Multiple Levels in the Aegean Bronze Age World-System,” 
in P. Nick Kardulias, ed. (1999). World-Systems Th eory in Practice: Leadership, 
Production and Exchange. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers, Inc., 
pp.179–201.

Kardulias, P Nick, ed. (1999). World-Systems Th eory in Practice: Leadership, Production 
and Exchange. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers, Inc.

Keohane, Robert O., ed. (1986). Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia 
University Press.

Koeman, C. (1980). “Th e Chart Trade in Europe from its Origin to Modern Times,” 
Terrae Incognitae 12: 1, 49–64.

Krasner, Stephen D. (1995). “Power Politics, Institutions, and Transnational Relations,” 
in Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures, 
and International Institutions, T. Risse-Kappen, ed. New York: Cambridge 
University Press.

http://jwsr.ucr.edu


Jon D. Carlson260 Broadening and Deepening 261

Krasner, Stephen D. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton 
University Press.

Kuhn, Th omas S. (1970). Th e Structure of Scientifi c Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press.

Kupchan, Charles A. (1994). Th e Vulnerability of Empire. Ithaca: Cornell University 
Press.

Lakatos, Imre (1970). “Falsifi cation and the Methodology of Scientifi c Research 
Programmes,” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Imre Lakatos and Alan 
Musgrave, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–196.

Lane, Frederic C. (1979). Profi ts from Power: Readings in Protection Rent and Violence-
Controlling Enterprises. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Larsen, Clark Spencer and George R. Milner. (1994). “Bioanthropological Perspectives 
on Postcontact Transitions,” in In the Wake of Contact: Biological Responses to 
Conquest. Clark Spencer Larsen and George R. Milner, Eds. New York: John Wiley 
& Sons, Inc., pp. 1–8.

Larvor, Brendan (1998). Lakatos: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
Marcuse, Herbert (1964). One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced 

Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
McGowan, Patrick J. and Bohdan Kordan (1981). “Imperialism in World-System 

Perspective: Britain 1870–1914,” International Studies Quarterly, 25:1: 43–68.
Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Th omas, and Francisco O. Ramirez 

(1997). “World Society and the Nation State,” American Journal of Sociology, 
103:1( July):144–181.

Mitchell, Ken (1999). “Science, Giants, and Gold: Juan de la Cruz Cano y Olmedilla’s 
Mapa Geográphico de la America Meridional,” Terrae Incognitae, 31:1, pp. 25–41.

Modelski, George (2000). “World System Evolution,” in Robert A. Denemark, Jonathan 
Friedman, Barry K. Gills and George Modelski, eds. World System History: Th e 
Social Science of Long-Term Change. New York: Routledge, pp. 24–53.

Morganthau, Hans J. (1978). Politics Among Nations: Th e Struggle for Power and Peace. 
New York: McGraw Hill.

Morris, Ian (1999). “Negotiated Peripherality in Iron Age Greece: Accepting and 
Resisting the East,” in P. Nick Kardulias, ed. (1999). World-Systems Th eory in 
Practice: Leadership, Production and Exchange. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld 
Publishers, Inc., pp.63–84.

North, Douglass C. (1981). Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: 
Cambridge University Press.

Pailes, Richard A. and Joseph W. Whitecotton. (1979). “Th e Greater Southwest and the 
Mesoamerican ‘World’ System: An Exploratory Model of Frontier Relationships,” 
in William W. Savage, Jr. and Stephen I. Th ompson, eds. Th e Frontier: Comparative 
Studies. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pp. 105–121.

Parry, J.H. (1967). “ Transport and Trade Routes,” in E.E. Rich & C.H. Wilson, eds., 
Cambridge Economic History of Europe. IV: Th e Economy of Expanding Europe in 
the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Cambridge, Engl.: Cambridge University 
Press, pp. 155–219.

Peregrine, Peter N. (1992). Mississippian Evolution: A World-System Perspective. 
Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.

Peregrine, Peter N. (1999). “Legitimation Crises in Prehistoric Worlds,” in P. Nick 
Kardulias, ed. World-Systems Th eory in Practice: Leadership, Production and 
Exchange. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers, Inc., pp. 37–52.

Peregrine, Peter N. (2000). “Archaeology and World-Systems Th eory,” in Th omas D. 
Hall, Ed. A World-Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Cultures, 
Indigenous Peoples, and Ecology. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefi eld, pp. 59–68.

Polyani, Karl. (1944). Th e Great Transformation: Th e Political and Economic Origins of 
Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.

Rosecrance, Richard and Arthur A. Stein, eds. (1993). Th e Domestic Bases of Grand 
Strategy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Schneider, Jane (1977). “Was Th ere a Pre-Capitalist World-System?,” Peasant Studies 
6: 20–9; reprinted in Chase-Dunn and Hall, eds. Core/Periphery Relations in 
Precapitalist Worlds, pp. 45–66. Boulder: Westview Press, 1991.

Shannon, Th omas Richard (1996). An Introduction to the World-System Perspective, 2nd 
Ed. Boulder: Westview Press.

Sklair, Leslie (1991). Sociology of the Global System. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University 
Press.

Sklair, Leslie (1999). “Competing Conceptions of Globalization,” Journal of World-
Systems Research, 5: 2 (Spring), pp. 141–159. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/

Skocpol, Th eda (1977). “Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System: A Th eoretical and 
Historical Critique,” American Journal of Sociology, 82, 5, 1075–1090.

Skocpol, Th eda (1984). “Emerging Agendas and Recurrent Strategies in Historical 
Sociology,” in Vision and Method in Historical Sociology, Th eda Skocpol, ed. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp356–391.

Skocpol, Th eda, ed. (1984). Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.

Slatta, Richard W. (1998). “Spanish Colonial Military Strategy and Ideology,” in Donna 
Guy and Th omas Sheridan, eds. Contested Ground: Comparative Frontiers on the 
Northern and Southern Edges of the Spanish Empire. Tucson: University of Arizona 
Press.

Smith, Alan K. (1991). Creating a World Economy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Smith, J., J. Collins, T.K. Hopkins and A. Muhammed Akhbar, eds. (1988). Racism, 

Sexism, and the World-System. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Snyder, Jack. (1991). Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. 

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
So, Alvin Y. (1984). “Th e Process of Incorporation into the Capitalist World-System: 

Th e Case of China in the Nineteenth Century,” Review, VIII, 1, 91–116.
So, Alvin Y. (1986). Th e South China Silk District: Local Historical Transformation and 

World-System Th eory. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Spruyt, Hendrick (1994). Th e Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems 

Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

http://jwsr.ucr.edu


Jon D. Carlson262 Broadening and Deepening 263

Spruyt, Hendrick (2000). “Th e End of Empire and the Extension of the Westphalian 
System: Th e Normative Basis of the Modern State Order,” International Studies 
Review, 2:2, 65–92.

Tiano, Susan (1994). Patriarchy on the Line: Labor, Gender, and Ideology in the Mexican 
Maquila Industry. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Tracy, James D., ed. (1990). Th e Rise of Merchant Empires: Long Distance Trade in the 
Modern World, 1350–1750. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Van Evera, Stephen. (1996). Guide to Methodology for Students of Political Science. 
Cambridge, MA: Defense and Arms control Studies Program, MIT.

Viotti, Paul R. and Mark V. Kauppi. (1999). International Relations Th eory: Realism, 
Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond, 3rd Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974). Th e Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and 
the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. San Diego, 
CA: Academic Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1980). Th e Modern World System II: Mercantilism and 
the Consolidation of the European World Economy, 1600–1750. San Diego, CA: 
Academic Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1989). Th e Modern World System III: Th e Second Era of Great 
Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730–1840s. San Diego, CA: Academic 
Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1991). Unthinking Social Science: Th e Limits of Nineteenth-
Century Paradigms. Oxford: Polity.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1991b). Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the Changing 
World-System. Cambridge, Engl.: Cambridge University Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1995). “Th e Modern World-System and Evolution,” Journal of 
World-Systems Research, 1:19, pp. 1–15. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1998a). Utopistics: Or, Historical Choices of the Twenty-fi rst 
Century. New York: Th e New Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1998b). “Th e Rise and Future Demise of World-Systems 
Analysis,” Review 21:1 (winter), pp. 103–112

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1999). Th e End of the World as We Know It: Social Science for the 
Twenty-First Century. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Waltz, Kenneth (1979). Th eory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ward, Kathryn B. (1984). Women in the World System. New York: Praeger.
Ward, Kathryn B. (1993). “Reconceptualizing World-System Th eory to Include 

Women,” in Th eory on Gender/Feminism on Th eory, P. Englund, ed. New York: 
Aldine, pp. 43–68.

Ward, Kathryn B., ed. (1990). Women Workers and Global Restructuring. Ithaca, NY: 
ILR Press.

Warner, Carolyn M. (1998). “Sovereign States and Th eir Prey: Th e New Institutionalist 
Economics and State Destruction in Nineteenth-Century West Africa,” Review of 
International Political Economy, 5:3 Autumn, 508–533.

Ward, Kathryn B. (1999). “Th e Political Economy of ‘Quasi-statehood’ and the Demise 
of 19th Century African Politics,” Review of International Studies, 25, 233–255.

Wendt, Alexander E. (1987). “Th e Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations 
Th eory,” International Organization, 41:3 Summer, 335–70.

Webb, Malcolm C. (1975). “Th e Flag Follows Trade: An Essay on the Necessary 
Interaction of Military and Commercial Factors in State Formation,” in Ancient 
Civilization and Trade, Jeremy Sabloff  and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, eds. 
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 155–209.

Wood, Denis and John Fels (1992). Th e Power of Maps. New York: Guilford Press.
Wolf, Eric R. (1982). Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley, CA: University 

of California Press.

http://jwsr.ucr.edu

	Jon D. Carlson