Search results

After exploring how methodological flaws in modern social science impoverish comparative analyses of international development, Immanuel Wallerstein's world-systems analysis is offered as an alternative, with focus on how its realist methodology -- particularly that brand of realism premised on the particular holism of its object of interest -- can replace the positivism that currently dominates such research. Criteria for world-systems analysis are outlined, & the ongoing debate between the quantitative & qualitative schools is reframed using the concepts "lato sensu" & "stricto sensu": while the former uses Wallerstein's work as a new framework for conducting orthodox, positivistic social science, the latter adopts a realist approach. Areas of conflict between the schools are examined, & the stricto sensu approach is then used to reinterpret positivist analyses of two sets of political events -- war & democracy -- beginning from a conceptualization of war as a puzzle & democracy as a paradox. Through combining war & democracy with related social processes, & extending them in a space-time context, the narrow focus of previous research can be overcome. The foundations & rationale for such a historical systems perspective based on realist methodology are discussed, & problems that arise from the realist emphasis on stratification are addressed. A brief case study of the US civil war is provided to demonstrate implications of such a conception of stratification for studies of war & democracy in the larger world system. In Commentaries, John Agnew (Syracuse U, NY) concurs with the need for a global perspective, but questions whether, in its present form, world-systems analysis is adequate to the task. Three suggestions for improvement are offered that make a strong case for employing international comparisons to examine how real people in real places act as a result of local sociostructural factors rather than world historical forces. David Harvey (U of Oxford, England) offers several objections -- based on Marxist principles -- to the use of world-systems theory as a framework for understanding the historical geography of world capitalism, & criticizes Taylor's polarization of quantitative/positivist & realist/historical materialist approaches. Robert M. Jackson (California State U, Chico) argues that a rejection of positivism does not automatically imply support for Marxist theories of history. Several philosophy of science issues are raised, & a case is made for the incorporation of models from the physical & biological sciences into international analysis so as to avoid the restrictions of world-systems theory's political ideological assumptions. Victor Prescott & Ruth Fincher (U of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) identify several weaknesses in Taylor's presentation that obscure his attempt to develop a methodology for identifying mechanisms inherent in the operation of the world economy, specifically: inadequate & imprecise definitions, epistemological confusion about realism, & a flawed analysis of Wallerstein's theory & the claims of its critics. Suggestions for improvement are offered. Immanuel Wallerstein (State U of New York, Binghamton) reviews Taylor's analysis of democracy & economic development, examines the relationship between classical liberalism & classical Marxism, & discusses some implications for the history of ideas & of political movements. In Squire, Replying Slowly $. Taylor responds to six major areas of criticism (offering a separate, in-depth reply to Harvey), & concludes that the commentators are not familiar enough with the world-systems literature & the debates it contains. 114 References. K. Hyatt