Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:47:25.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drift and Pluralization in International Trade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Francis A. Beer  and
Elliot Z. Wyner
Francis A. Beer
Affiliation:
Francis A. Beer and Elliot Z. Wyner are associated with the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin. The authors thank the Institute for Latin American Studies at the University of Texas which provided assistance for the preparation of this article.
Elliot Z. Wyner
Affiliation:
Francis A. Beer and Elliot Z. Wyner are associated with the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin. The authors thank the Institute for Latin American Studies at the University of Texas which provided assistance for the preparation of this article.
Get access

Extract

In recent years, a considerable body of literature has dealt with relations between the so-called developed and developing nations. More recently, a number of analysts have attempted to gain leverage over the problem by utilizing a systemic perspective that links centers and peripheries.

Type
Notes on Theory and Method
Information
International Organization , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , Winter 1974 , pp. 119 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Galtung, Johan, “A Structural Theory of Imperialism,” Journal of Peace Research, No. 2 (1971), 81–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Langholm, Silvert, “On the Concepts of Center and Periphery,” Journal of Peace Research, Nos. 3–4 (1971), 273–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brams, Steven J., “A Note on the Cosmopolitanism of World Regions,” Journal of Peace Research, No. 1 (1968), 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Domínguez, Jorge I., “Mice That Do Not Roar: Some Aspects of International Politics in the World's Peripheries,” International Organization, 25, 2 (Spring, 1971), 186.Google Scholar

3 This measure differs from Domínguez's theoretical center in that it excludes the Sino-Soviet group: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the People's Republic of China, and the socialist nations of Eastern Europe. However, it includes all the nations of Western Europe—Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Yugoslavia—as well as the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. Together these center nations represent over 80 percent of the world's trade.

4 EIp refers to the economic importance of the center for the periphery. The periphery's exports to the center, as a percentage of the periphery's total exports, are added to the periphery's imports from the center, as a percentage of the periphery's total imports.

EIc refers to the economic importance of the periphery for the center. The center's exports to the periphery, as a percentage of the center's total exports, are added to the center's imports from the periphery, as a percentage of the center's total imports.

These statistics were chosen because they had been used by Dominguez and would thus render our work directly comparable to his. Further, they were easily calculable and the results appeared generally consistent with those obtained through use of the relative acceptance (RA) index.

Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that such statistics have specific theoretical and methodological implications. Theoretically, they imply the independence and reality of nationally aggregated data; they obscure patterns of sub-national trade as well as the effects of bodies such as multinational corporations. Methodologically, they include a statistical control for total trade, which focuses on relative rather than absolute increases or decreases. For further discussion of the comparative strengths, weaknesses, and relations of other transaction statistics, see: Puchala, Donald J., “International Transactions and Regional Integration,” in Lindberg, Leon N. and Scheingold, Stuart A. (eds.), Regional Integration: Theory and Research (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; and Caporaso, James A., “Theory and Method of the Study of International Integration,” International Organization, 25, 2 (Spring, 1971), 228–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 If we were to add the Soviet Union, China, Poland, and Czechoslovakia to the center, as does Dominguez, the asymmetry would become even more pronounced.