> "Devine, James" wrote:
>
>
> >
>
> I should mention that I am far from being a hard-core Wallersteinian
> (especially since I don't read his stuff very often). In some ways,
> the core/periphery distinction is useful, while in some ways it's not:
> the model doesn't seem to allow for the f
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27729] Re: core vs. periphery
> Ulhas writes:>>There is no undiffrentiated mass of nations called the Third World.
I wrote:
>>Of course. What's constant amongst these countries, though, is the relationship between the center and the periphery, the relationship of domina
> Everyone knows that the US balance of
> payment deficit an engine of growth on the Asia-Pacific region and China
is
> biggest beneficiary there. What domination/subordination model is involved
> here?
>
> Ulhas
- US trade balance deficit means that the USA pays only 75% of its
importations. The
Ulhas:
>1. How does one know this without having studied in depth each social
>formation in the periphery so-called?
Good point. That is why read over 2000 pages on Argentina in order to
prepare a series of posts. In general, there is far too much blather on the
internet about such questions, eve
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27713] Re: core vs. periphery
Ulhas writes:>There is no undiffrentiated mass of nations called the Third World. <
Of course. What's constant amongst these countries, though, is the relationship between the center and the periphery, the relationship of domination and subordi
