Alive and well: A response to Sanderson

Abstract

Stephen Sanderson’s (2005) ‘World-systems analysis after thirty years: Should it rest in peace?’ raised the prospect of an area of scholarship that had run its course. We answer the five main criticisms that he asserts against world-systems analysis: the primacy of exogenous over endogenous forces; teleology and reification; an incorrect understanding of the role of foreign investment; an inaccurate analysis of long-term trends of inequality; and, a misinterpretation of state socialism. As we respond to his criticisms, we find that while some of his arguments have merit, particularly against the relatively narrow form of world-systems analysis that he considered, his assumption of methodological individualism runs counter to the epistemological position of most world-systems scholars. Our review of the field finds it to be evolving and expanding into new realms that no do not suffer from the deficiencies Sanderson identified. Indeed, now at 35 years and counting, world-systems analysis is not dying, it is thriving.