Globalization, accumulation by dispossession and the rise of the semi-periphery: towards global post-Fordism and crisis?

Strange, Gerard/Gerry (2009) Globalization, accumulation by dispossession and the rise of the semi-periphery: towards global post-Fordism and crisis? Globalization and the 'New' Semi-Peripheries . pp. 40-57. ISSN UNSPECIFIED

Documents
Globalization, Accumulation by Dispossession and the Rise of the Semi-Periphery: Towards Global Post-Fordism and Crisis?
While in International Relations the ‘take globalization seriously’ approach is usually associated with Susan Strange's critique of state-centric orthodoxy and her subsequent championing of International Political Economy as a distinct discipline, there is a strong case for the claim that it is rooted in rather earlier neo-Marxian critical engagements with orthodox economics (Radice 1975, 1999) and with neo-Marxian engagements with so-called Dependency Theory (see, for example, Wallerstein 1974; Radice 1975; Cox 1981; Lipietz 1982a). 'Dependency theory' itself was never a singular approach. Nor was it ever part of the mainstream, being associated, rather, with a plurality of relatively marginalised sub-disciplines such as the sociology of development, radical anthropology and radical economics, rather than orthodox International Relations, Economics and Development Studies. In various ways these approaches positively engaged with but also sought to challenge and go beyond the state-centrism of dependency theory. One of the main implications of what has now become radical globalization analysis is that it forces a very substantial rethink of dependency school (state dominated) and associated conceptual and relational bifurcations such as development and/of underdevelopment, ‘north-south’, ‘core-periphery’ and 'first world-third world'. Indeed, as Hoogvelt (1997) and more recently Payne (2005), among others, have argued, it probably means that the ‘dependency' approach, in broad sweep, needs to be transcended or even in some respects abandoned (at least in so far as this has represented a general theoretical framework) in favour of globalization.
[img]
[Download]
Request a copy
[img] PDF
Semi-Periphery_2009.pdf - Whole Document
Restricted to Repository staff only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives.

188kB

Abstract

While in International Relations the ‘take globalization seriously’ approach is usually associated with Susan Strange's critique of state-centric orthodoxy and her subsequent championing of International Political Economy as a distinct discipline, there is a strong case for the claim that it is rooted in rather earlier neo-Marxian critical engagements with orthodox economics (Radice 1975, 1999) and with neo-Marxian engagements with so-called Dependency Theory (see, for example, Wallerstein 1974; Radice 1975; Cox 1981; Lipietz 1982a). 'Dependency theory' itself was never a singular approach. Nor was it ever part of the mainstream, being associated, rather, with a plurality of relatively marginalised sub-disciplines such as the sociology of development, radical anthropology and radical economics, rather than orthodox International Relations, Economics and Development Studies. In various ways these approaches positively engaged with but also sought to challenge and go beyond the state-centrism of dependency theory. One of the main implications of what has now become radical globalization analysis is that it forces a very substantial rethink of dependency school (state dominated) and associated conceptual and relational bifurcations such as development and/of underdevelopment, ‘north-south’, ‘core-periphery’ and 'first world-third world'. Indeed, as Hoogvelt (1997) and more recently Payne (2005), among others, have argued, it probably means that the ‘dependency' approach, in broad sweep, needs to be transcended or even in some respects abandoned (at least in so far as this has represented a general theoretical framework) in favour of globalization.

Item Type:Article
Keywords:Globalization, Post-Fordism, Semi-Periphery, Accumulation by Dispossession, Crisis
Subjects:L Social studies > L240 International Politics
L Social studies > L171 Capitalism
L Social studies > L150 Political Economics
Divisions:College of Social Science > School of Social & Political Sciences
ID Code:4393
Deposited By: Gerry Strange
Deposited On:12 Apr 2011 20:08
Last Modified:06 Dec 2013 09:24

Repository Staff Only: item control page