JWSR v8n2 - JWSR Special Issue on Global Inequality - Part II  Global Inequality: An Introduction journal of world-systems research, viii, 1i, spring 2002, 146–148 Special Issue on Global Inequality – Part II http://jwsr.ucr.edu issn 1076–156x © 2002 Michelle Bata and Albert J. Bergesen This is Part II of the special issue on global inequality. Th e articles in this issue extend some of the theoretical issues raised in the fi rst issue. By focus- ing on specifi c regions and comparing the development of global inequalities in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the articles in this issue suggest new directions in global inequality research. In the fi rst article, “Critiques of World-Systems Analysis and Alternatives: Unequal Exchange and Th ree Forms of Class and Struggle in the Japan–US Silk Network, –,” author Elson Boles off ers a critique of more recent world-system analyses. His complaint is that such analyses rely too heavily on macrostructural abstraction instead of giving weight to the “total history” of interstate relationships. As such, by examining the Japan–US silk network, he endeavors to focus not on the particulars of how modern capitalism might shape that network, but instead concentrates on historical method, theory, and concep- tualizations. Boles begins by noting that the form of the Japan–US network during –  was integral to the incorporation of Japan into the modern world-system. Japan’s incorporation was critical because it allowed for the creation of a global division of labor as it pertained to the silk network. He then develops an incor- porated comparisons method in order to reconstruct the relationships between the agencies, labor forms, and social relationships involved in the Japan–US network. He fi nds that interstate disparities of the network arose through the interconnections among distinct capital-labor relationships. Specifi cally, Boles Michelle Bata Albert J. Bergesen Michelle Bata University of Arizona Department of Sociology Social Science Building, Room 400 Tucson, AZ 85721 bata@u.arizona.edu Albert J. Bergesen University of Arizona Department of Sociology Social Science Building, Room 400 Tucson, AZ 85721 albert@email.arizona.edu http://w3fp.arizona.edu/soc/default.asp mailto:bata@u.arizona.edu mailto:albert@email.arizona.edu http://w3fp.arizona.edu/soc/default.asp http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ Michelle Bata and Albert J. Bergesen Global Inequality: An Introduction  concludes that the integration of specifi c forms of production and class relation- ships via interstate markets decisively structured the uneven market pressures on commodity prices and on production relationships. Th us, unequal exchange in the Japan–US silk network was sustained on the basis of the social conditions of production. Th e next article by John Talbot off ers another view of the unequal exchange in the world-system. In “Information, Finance, and the New International Inequality: Th e Case of Coff ee,” Talbot argues that a “new” international inequal- ity exists that has been superimposed on the “old” form of international inequal- ity, and that this superimposition helps explain increasing global inequality. Based on Arrighi’s () concept of the four systemic cycles of accumulation, Talbot conceptualizes the old and new forms of inequality as they are linked to the rise and fall of global hegemons. For instance, the old form of international inequality was established during the British cycle, which was signifi cant because that cycle drew the world into a single market based on a singular global divi- sion of labor, which relied on the control of production processes and the fl ow of goods. On the other hand, the new form of international inequality emerged during the crisis of the US regime in the s, and was based on the control of capital and the fl ow of goods. Using the world coff ee market during the period of US fi nancial expansion since , he compares the events in the coff ee industry following two severe frosts in Brazil that disrupted the market. His argument is that the combination of the old and new forms of inequality disadvantages coff ee producers in peripheral and semiperipheral nations such that core-based trans- national corporations (TNCs) were able to gain control of production through their control over fi nancial capital. He concludes that the way in which TNCs dealt with the shock of the frosts in Brazil illustrates how new international inequality functions, and further highlights the ramifi cations of superimposing the new form on the old form of inequality. Next, Bruce Podobnik adds to the debate concerning increasing global inequality in his article titled “Global Energy Inequalities: Exploring the Long- Term Implications.” He opens his article by claiming that insuffi cient attention has been paid to the unequal levels of energy consumption in the world-system. Th is inattention is problematic because unequal levels of energy consumption can lead to environmental and human challenges, as well as increase the potential for resource-based geopolitical confl icts. He contends that energy-related diffi - culties will eventually undermine stability in the world. By highlighting the fact that many people in the developing world struggle to access modern energy tech- nologies while people in more developed regions consume energy resources at an unsustainable rate, he illustrates how the expanding capitalist world-economy intensifi es processes of environmental degradation. Th e fi nal article is Andre Gunder Frank’s review essay of the book Globalization and History: the Evolution of a Nineteenth Century Atlantic Economy by Kevin O’Rourke and Jeff rey Williamson. Frank critically evaluates the authors’ central question: “whether the Atlantic economy experienced conver- gence of income among its constituent parts.” His world-systemic answer is that this question cannot be answered without considering the broader web of eco- nomic relations in which the Atlantic Economy was embedded. In making this point Frank also begins to outline a diff erent way to conceive of global inequality in the world economy in terms of a “world-wide multilateral system of balances and imbalances of trade and payments.” It is a most provocative discussion with rich implications for how the distinctly international aspects of global inequality should be conceptualized. Introduction