Transcript SOC 8311 Basic Social Statistics

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
At the most macro-global level of analysis, economic, political,
and cultural activities may now be more structurally integrated
than in any earlier historical periods. Far-flung networks of
public, private, and nonprofit organizations weave together local
communities, nation-states, IGOs, and transnational entities.
Major theoretical and empirical tasks are to explain these emerging
organizational and network forms, their global diffusion, and the
impacts of diverse trends on persons, nations, and civil societies.
 Globalization among nation-states proceeding by fits-and-jerks
along economic, political, and cultural dimensions
 World city networks and transnational advocacy networks add
several layers of complexity to the international system
The Globalization Trifecta
Globalization refers to processes that increase connectivity
among societies & their people, institutions, organizations.
Globalization intertwines cultural, political, and economic
interdependencies that challenge traditional arrangements.
“The growing extensity, intensity, and velocity
of global interactions can be associated with
their deepening impact such that the effects of
distant events can be highly significant elsewhere and specific local developments can
come to have considerable global
consequences.” (Held et al. 1999)



Communication & transportation technologies compress and
decouple time, geographic spaces, social distances (“global village”)
National & regional boundaries grow increasingly permeable
Cultural / identity groups become detached from their traditional
territorial bases (the diffusion of supraterritoriality)
How can SNA concepts & methods capture these changes?
World-System Analysis
World-system analysis, formulated by Immanuel Wallerstein and Andre
Gunder Frank, draws from neo-Marxist development theory & Fernand
Braudel’s Annales School. “A system is defined as a unit with single
division of labor and multiple cultural systems” (Wallerstein 1974).





The modern world-system is the only fully
capitalist world-economy to emerge, around
1450-1550, and it had expanded across the
entire planet by about 1900.
This world-economy consists of a tripartite
division of labor into core, semiperipheral,
and peripheral countries.
Core businesses, with support of the states where they operate,
monopolize the most profitable activities (~80% of world wealth).
Semiperiphery countries are dominated (usually by the core
countries) but they also dominate some other nations
Periphery countries are dominated by both other positions
Structural Position in the W-S
Multiple-network analyses test world-system/dependence theory
hypotheses that nations’ positions in the tripartite W-S affect
trade and investment imbalances (foreign penetration & control).
For 1960s, Snyder & Kick (1979) blockmodeled four relationships: trade flows,
military intervention, diplomatic
relations, and joint treaty memberships.
The result was a four 10-block images.
They regressed the 118 nations’ economic growth (change in GNP per
capita from 1955 to 1970) onto dummy variables for the set of 10 W-S
block positions, while controlling for 1955 GNP/capita.
Core block C nations had highest net GNP growth rates, about $500
per capita more than others. Although, semi- and peripheral blocks did
not have distinctly different growth rates, they concluded the effects
were “entirely consistent with world-system/dependency theories.”
periphery
core
semiperiph
periphery
Role Equivalence in the W-S
Rossem (1993) argued that Snyder & Kick’s application of structural
equivalence methods misspecified the world system’s role relations,
due to substantial geographic clustering of international relations.
His SNA analyses used five international
networks: imports & exports of economic
goods; major conventional weapons trade;
foreign troop presence; diplomatic ties.
A role equivalence partition uncovered four
W-S structural positions (see next slide).
W-S role only weakly explained dependency & economic performance:
► A nation’s role was determined more by its absolute economic and
population size than by its development level (tiny nations occupy the
peripheral roles)
► National GDP growth from 1980 to 1989 was explained slightly
better by dependency than by positions in the W-S role structure
► Have W-S positions stagnated or evolved over past 20-40 years?
Role Equivalence Model of World System
Core
USA, France, Germany, UK,
Japan, Soviet Union, Canada,
Brazil, China, Saudi Arabia
Semiperiphery
Periphery 1
Sweden, India, Egypt, Austria,
Czech, Iran, Pakistan, Mexico, Iraq,
Poland, Turkey, Greece, Indonesia
Venezuela, Denmark, Kenya, Morocco,
Korea, Peru, Cuba, Hungary, Sudan,
Jordan, Israel, Ghana, Zambia,
Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Congo
Imports
Exports
Diplomatic ties
Arms trade
Troops
Periphery 2
Singapore, Jamaica, Yemen, Laos,
Uganda, Cyprus, Nepal, Mali, Iceland,
Rwanda, Benin, Guyana, Fiji, Belize,
Taiwan, Chad, Grenada, Brunei
SOURCE: Van Rossem (1996: Fig 2 & Table 2)
World Cities Network
The World-System can also be examined as an urban network
comprised of intercity movements of people, goods, information.
Global processes are geographically grounded:
“Globalization can be deconstructed in terms of
the strategic sites where global processes
materialize and the linkages that bind them.”
(Saskia Sassen 1998:392)
Air passenger traffic for pairs of cities
is widely available for measuring
social distances in WCN. Geographic
proximity also constrains the volumes
flowing between the urban dyads.
WCN forms a hierarchy of core primary (NYC, LA, London), semiand peripheral cities – how closely resembling the W-S tripartition?
SOURCE: Derudder & Witlox (2005)
Transnational Advocacy Networks
In Activists Beyond Borders (1998), Margaret Keck & Kathryn
Sikkink argued that transnational advocacy networks (TANs)
reshape international relations by generating information, using
symbolic elements, pressuring states and international orgs,
and seeking to hold them accountable to international norms.
A transnational advocacy network is nonstate actors
“working together on an international issue that are
bound together by shared values, common discourse,
and dense exchanges of information and services.”
“Boomerang effect” occurs when human rights groups inside a
country can channel information about human rights violations to
transnational actors, who in turn, generate international pressures.
Activists in Argentina & Mexico mobilized pressures from INGOs &
foreign governments to stop those nations’ human rights abuses.
Can TAN be analyzed as a transnational policy domain network?
References
Bergesen, Albert and John Sonnett. 2001. “The Global 500: Mapping the World Economy at
Century’s End.” American Behavioral Scientist 44:1602-1615.
Derudder, B. and F. Witlox. 2005. “An Appraisal of the Use of Airline Data in Assessing the
World City Network: A Research Note on Data.” Urban Studies 42:2371-88.
Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt and Johnathan Perraton. 1999. Global
Transformations: Politics, Economic and Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink. 1999. “Transnational Advocacy Networks in
International and Regional Politics.” International Social Science Journal 159:89-101.
Sassen, Saskia. 1998. “The Impact of New Technologies and Globalization on Cities.” Pp.
391-409 in Globalization of the World of Large Cities, edited by F.-C. Lo & Y.-M. Yeung.
Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Snyder, David and Edward L. Kick. 1979. “Structural Position in the World System and
Economic Growth, 1955-1970: A Multiple-Network Analysis of Transnational Interactions.”
American Journal of Sociology 84:1096-1126.
Van Rossem, Ronan. 1996. “The World System Paradigm as General Theory of
Development: A Cross-National Test.” American Sociological Review 61:508-527.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.