[I'm submitting this review again to fix errors in my review which is currently posted]

Here at last is a collection of Wallerstein's essays that span his entire career. This will be useful as a text for an advanced undergraduate class, or for interested readers, because it covers such a wide spectrum of IW's thought. His arguments are quite compelling and after digesting Wallerstein's analysis, one will not view our world the same way. It begins with an interesting introduction on his personal path-breaking arrival at world-systems as units of analysis (as opposed to nation-states, etc.).

One can trace this development through the four sections of essays. The first covers his work on Africa which led him, like those working at the time on Latin America, to realize that nations-states are not independently developing societies, but political units of a larger whole in which people are interconnected geo-politically, economically, and socially. But unlike most dependency theorists, Wallerstein looked for the origins of underdevelopment in the transition from capitalism to socialism, which brought him to Braudel, the late great French historian. Under Braudel's influence, Wallerstein broke through the earlier debates on where and when capitalism began by focusing on one key problem: how people are historically linked to each other such that they form a social whole, and, how one measures this whole geographically. The answer: an extensive division of labor or a political economy.

Few could have accomplished what Wallerstein did in his detailed studies of capitalism, beginning with the monumental Modern World-System I (1974), in terms of the elegant theorizing that he developed on the basis of an exhaustive study of the literature(s) that covered myriad and subtle points of debate among historians over the transition to capitalism. The key points of his research are summed up in the second set of essays. Whereas others failed to see the interconnections (e.g. Perry, 1974), Wallerstein showed how and why different regions changed politically, economically, and socially as a result of being part of the same system.

Regardless of whether one agrees that the 1450-1750 period can be characterized as full-blown capitalism or not, it is difficult to refute Wallerstein's argument that what was then the "Third World" (New Spain and Eastern Europe) was in fact part of the same social system as was Western and Southern Europe). To hold fast to the deepness of the integration of areas is something which other world-systemists, including AG Frank, have recently neglected, and who have misinterpreted long distance commercial as binding ties of *significant,* or integrative, historical causality.

The third set of essays examines the major institutions of the modern world-system, including the "economic" aspects of its cycles of growth and stagnation in relation to the geographic spread of the system (the spread and density of commodity chains), and how class and social relations (e.g. households) change in different ways in the three main areas of global stratification -- core, semiperiphery, and periphery -- but how they system stays ideologically glued by the notion, or rather myth, of national development.

In the final set of essays, Wallerstein argues how this notion, and the entire ideological carapace of capitalism, including the social sciences, has become unglued, and how the system is entering into a long period (50 years or so) of decay. The insights are plentiful and gripping, especially the prognosis for the future -- which is what the entire project is really about: to understand the past to effectively change the present and direct the future toward a better global society. The weakness of Wallerstein's work in general, however, with his focus on the structural regularities (with the main exception of the limits of geographic expansion that are key to the system's demise), is a tendency to see capitalism as *essentially* the same from 1550 to the recent present. This stands in contrast to more recent writers working either at the same global level, such as Giovanni Arrighi (see his 1994 magnum opus), or those who combine global and local (anthropological) levels, such as Dale Tomich (1989) who offers a theoretically powerful and historically specific study of modern slavery. Nonetheless, Wallerstein is a must read for all concerned with globalization and the future of our world.

Here at last is a collection of Wallerstein's essays that span his entire career. This will be useful as a text for an advanced undergraduate class, or for interested readers, because it covers such a wide spectrum of IW's thought. His arguments are quite compelling, and after digesting Wallerstein's analysis, one will not view our world the same way. It begins with an interesting introduction on his personal path-breaking arrival at world-systems as units of analysis (as opposed to nation-states, etc.).

One can trace this development through the four sections of essays. The first covers his work on Africa which led him, like those working at the time on Latin America, to realize that nations-states are not independently developing societies, but political units of a larger whole in which people are interconnected geo-politically, economically, and socially. But unlike most dependency theorists, Wallerstein looked for the origins of underdevelopment in the transition from capitalism to socialism, which brought him to Braudel, the late great French historian. Under Braudel's influence, Wallerstein broke through earlier debates on where and when capitalism began by focusing on one key problem: how people historically linked such that they form a social whole, and how one measure this geographically. The answer was an extensive division of labor: a political economy. Few could have accomplished what Wallerstein did in his mostdetailed studies of capitalism begining with the monumental Modern World-System I (1974) in terms of the elegant theorizing he developed on the basis of an exhaustive study of the literature(s) that covered myriad and subtle points of debate among historians.

The key points of his research are summed up in the second set of essays. Whereas others failed to see the interconnections (e.g. Perry, 1974), Wallerstein showed how and why different regions changed politically, economically, and socially as a result of being part of the same system. Regardless of whether one agrees that the 1450-1750 period can be characterized as full-blown capitalism or not, it is difficult to refute Wallerstein's argument that what was then the "Third World" (New Spain and Eastern Europe) was in fact part of the same social system as was Western and Souther Europe). To hold fast to the deepness of the integration of areas is something which other world-systemists, including AG Frank, have recently neglected, and who have misinterpreted long distance commercial ties for binding ties of *significant,* or integrative, historical causality.

The third set of essays examines the major institutions of the modern world-system, including the "economic" aspects of its cycles of growth and stagnation in relation to the geographic spread of the system (the spread and densit of commodity chains), and how class and social relations (e.g. housholds) change in different ways in the three main areas of global stratification -- core, semiperiphery, and periphery -- but how they system stays ideologically glued by the notion, or rather myth, of national development. In the final set of essays, Wallerstein argues how this notion, and the entire ideological carapace of capitalism, including the social sciences, has become unglued, and how the system is entering into a long period (50 years or so) of decay. The insights are plentiful and gripping, especially the prognosis for the future -- which is what the entire project is really about: to understand the past to effectively change the present and direct the future toward a better global society.

The weakness of Wallerstein's work in general, however, with his focus on the structural regularies (with the main exception of the limits of geographic expansion that are key to the system's demise) is a tendency to see capitalism as *essentially* the same from 1550 to the resent present. This stands in contrast to more recent writers working either at the same global level, such as Giovanni Arrighi (see his 1994 magnum opus), or those who combine global and local (anthropological) levels, such as Dale Tomich (1989) who offers a theoretically powerful and historically specific study of modern slavery. Nonetheless, Wallerstein is a must read for all concerned with globalization and the future of our world.

This is an important albeit not uncontroversial contribution to the field of international political economy. The book tries to answer the question whether the world capitalist system is in crisis and the paths available for future world development. The works are firmly located within the world system thesis expounded by Wallerstein in many of his previous works.

The book intoruduces the concept of 6 vectors within which future paths can be examined. These are the inter-state system; world production; world labour force; human welfare; cohesion of states; and the structures of knowledge.

The book displays the weaknesses inherent in the world system thesis. These include overstating the degree of integration of the economies of the world and thus not taking into account the emergence of "non-states" run either by armed bandits or by organised crime.

The book does not deal adequately with the current state of the state. Given the debate around MNCs and their increasing expansion into areas which were the domain of the state this is an issue needing serious appraisal.

The depiction of this era as being a post US hegemonic era is also an area which will be contested by many writers, not least of all the Fukuyama's of the world.

Wallerstein concludes that the future depends onm how the following factors develop: * the extent to which there is loyalty to citizenship;

* the level of security through police order; the extent to which military orders are maintained; * level of welfare especially in relation to health and food distribution; * stability of religious institutions.

This collection of essays published in the 1970s covers in short and accessible form some of the most important and innovative of Wallerstein's ideas. The first essay is a brilliant exposition of Wallerstein's view that the only way to understand history is to look not at individual nations but at the larger world system in which the nations exist. There is an essay on ethnicity, class and race which is probably the clearest explanation in the literature for the Marxist view that ethnicity is really determined by class. In Wallerstein's view, the notion of 'people of color' has nothing to do with physical phenotype, but everything to do with the class position within the world-system of the country that person is from. Thus 'pan-Africanism can include the white skinned Arabs of North Africa, but can exclude white skinned Afrikaaners of South Africa.'

This book is short but dense, and was adapted from lectures made by Wallerstein, who is arguably one of the most influential social science theorists (in our generation) about global and historical issues.
Here, he outlines global inequality and describes how the world nations can be considered part of a global system of social stratification. Some background is given on how these inequalities are rooted in half a millenium of colonialism and (now) neocolonialism. For readers new to Wallerstein's thinking, this book will require quite a bit of study but many pages are just overflowing with profound insights. The result will be an understanding that will provide intelligent and studious readers with a framework that can be used to interpret modern history and current international events, as well as inequalities and issues within most countries around the world.

Highly recommended reading for advanced undergraduates, grad students, and professionals. Only 110 pages, but can easily fill an entire weekend for the studious reader.
An outstanding work that should be read before Wallerstein's more detailed analyses, such as "The Modern World-System" series.

Immanuel Wallerstein has given us an important book. This book explains how and why Great Britain emerged from the 18th century with economic hegemony. The best thing which the book does is to place free-market capitalism as a historical process, rather than as an extra-historical inevitability, which is usually taught in most public schools, and assumed in most public debates and private understandings of economics in the U.S.

Do not be scared away by the book's academic-sounding title. The book is accessible. Wallerstein writes in a lucid manner, but is treating a complex topic, and he seems to be writing mostly for academics. Basically, reading this book should be a challange for the average reader (like me), but a rewarding and seriously educating challange in the end. The reading is slow, but worthwhile.

I would lastly add that education of this sort, especially after one is through with school, is the duty of every citizen of a democracy. Knowledge is the foundation for power.

Since this book was first published in 1996, there has been at least some progress in terms of what Vernon Jordan calls "signs of new opportunities" as indicated by the appointment as CEOs of Kenneth Chenault (by American Express) and Richard Parsons (by AOL Time Warner). However, obviously, much more remains to be achieved in a society which still relies so heavily on gender-specific adjectives (e.g. female jockey) and hyphenated descriptives (e.g. Lilliputian-Americans). Let us all hope that Chenault and Parsons were selected wholly because they were best-qualified to provide the organizational leadership needed. Period.

The subtitle of Collins' book ("The Making and Breaking of a Black Middle Class") implies -- to me, at least -- initiatives which were consciously and deliberately expedient. That is to say, in response to various pressures (especially from the federal government) on many corporations in the late-1960s to create access to career opportunities previously denied to black executives. These same corporations then "racialized" the positions many black executives occupied by limiting their responsibilities to supervising Affirmative Action programs, cultivating "special markets", and solidifying relationships with minority customers. In almost every instance, this eliminated them from the "fast track" to positions at higher levels within their respective organizations. Their income permitted what Dick Gregory once referred to as an "Oreo lifestyle" but job security was tenuous. I was curious to know: Was the emergence of a Black Middle Class, throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, more a perception than a reality?

In an e-mail from her, she responds to that question. "I really don't think the emergence of the middle class was illusionary at all. I think the socioeconomic gains were/are real but they are grounded in different sets of conditions than those that prop up whites. I think that its emergence and growth was, and still is, dependent on the continued support of public policies and social pressure. When I look at the Ken Chenaults and Richard Parsons of the world I see them as anomalies rather than as symbols of a a trend. In other words, I don't think these companies are going to integrate their power structures in a sustained way unless there's some type of external nonmarket pressure to do so. Of course, I could be wrong and, if so, I'll have to rethink my understanding of race relations in the business world."

I was also curious to know to what the extent (if any) the demographics of black executives (male and female) have changed since 1996 when her book was first published. In the same e-mail, Collins observes: "The demographic trends associated with the number of black executives is almost impossible to measure for several reasons. One, the best source (EEO1 data that surveys private employers) groups managers so that rank is obscured. Managers counted here could be the manager of a 7-11 food store or a CFO of a Fortune 500 company. Census data does have an "administrator" category, but that probably relates more to public than to private sector employment. This problem has been my nemesis and probably will continue to be so because I am forced patch together information from various sources and than draw inferences." Although the scope and depth of Collins' survey sample may seem insufficient to support her generalizations (i.e. two sets of interviews with 76 of the most successful black executives in Chicago's major corporations), she consulted extensive supplementary research resources which apparently confirmed what she learned from those interviewed.

The Collins Web site features a statement which asserts that her analysis in this book "challenges arguments that justify dismantling affirmative action. She argues that it is a myth to believe that black occupational attainments are evidence that race no longer matters in the middle-class employment arena. On the contrary, blacks' progress and well-being are tied to politics and employment practices that are sensitive to race." That brief excerpt refers to her analysis of circumstances almost two decades prior to 1996. It remains for each reader to read and evaluate Collins' book, then draw her or his own conclusions as to its relevance to circumstances today. I rate the book so highly because she addresses so many important issues which remain timely in 2001; also, because she raises questions which must continue to be asked, and then answered honestly, until such time that there is no longer a need to do so.

Some books help us in understanding some key concepts.Exactly 'After Liberalism' is one of these,and Wallerstein serves a very different view to the reader in solving complex problems of internatinal relations and even daily life.

I read this book for a college course, and I must say that it is a great book. It outlines not only the problems with how political action has worked in the past, but also gives insight into what may need to be done to create a sustainable future. I find myself referencing this book all the time.

This is a short and easily read book about the social sciences, how they evolved, what basic topical and methodological issues defined them, how they found their place between natural science and the humanities, and how they developed their internal relations. The book is not just descriptive, but also critical in its analysis. It discusses the special kind of narrow view that dominates these sciences, and argues for a new organization of the social sciences. It basic argument is that one cannot meaningfully study a problem in one of the social sciences without regarding perspectives from the other. One could wish some more details of the single social sciences (e.g. psychology and educational research) and about epistemological influences (e.g. behaviorism and cognitivism).

The book should be of interest to science studies and to people concerned with the classification of the sciences and the organization of knowledge. It is one element in what I have christened "domain analysis" in library and information science.

A book such as this is somewhat valuable, but I was disappointed by the narrowness of the people included. It's as if only Leftists in universities had any experience of the Cold War, and since we know this to be false, why not call this book "Leftist Academics and The Cold War University" or something? What about the old guys reading Latin texts in their offices who thought the world was going mad? What about old-fashioned Liberals who were profoundly ambivilent towards both the American Right and the Stalinist (and post-Stalinist)American Left? The editor was more interested, I suppose, in gathering lefty celebs with high name recognition than he was in getting a ground level view, and that mention of Studs Terkel in the above editorial comments made me yearn for some of Terkel's interest in the folks who are usually overlooked in the rush to sign up the people who've already had their say. Until a good oral history of that sort comes around, I guess this will have to do.

Viewing a political era from a particular point of view, from a subjective perspective can often manage to shed light on much more. The experiences reported by the individuals in this book are extremely well written stories that transcend the bounds of what at first seems a narrow topic. Still, if you have a particular interest in education and the politics of universities and colleges, you will find this book even more intriguing.

I find it very disturbing that people consider these professors as "Marxist Zealots". By your comment, A READER FROM THE USA, you demonstrate who is really misleading the public. Noam Chomsky is NOT a Marxist, he is an Anarchist. Get your facts straight. And to say that these people thought Pol Pot was a "great guy" only shows to which degree you are willing to fabricate lies in order to advance your own political bias. These people are against all forms of genocide and oppression, whether it be Stalin, Pol Pot or JFK and Richard Nixon.

Wallerstein's basic argument, as far as I could follow it, is that the shape of the world system, as he calls it, is driven largely by comparative advantage. The Poles have a kind of subsistence or slave farming that depends on farming vast tracts of marginal land. The English, by contrast, cultivated smaller plots and were involved in the luxury carry trade. Thus Wallerstein makes a distinction between the "center" and "periphery." The basic argument, or the "take-away," as a business school graduate would say, is that a world system that is based on an empire is doomed to failure. A closed system like the Hapsburg empire is doomed to fail because it is not nearly as nimble in taking advantage of comparative advantage as an open system like that which orbited around England in the 16th century. The underlying argument, as I detect it, is that empires such as the communist or, currently, the American empire are doomed. It is also true that Wallerstein does not work with primary documents. This is better suited to scholars who are more familiar with the literature than I am, because Wallerstein's theorizing begins where other more concrete books leave off.

Despite having read and been impressed by other Wallerstein books, I was almost discouraged by some of the reviews that appeared here, talking about how "dry" this book is and how it is overfull of quotations and such. Ridiculous. I checked it out of a nearby research library and was quickly impressed enough to order a copy for myself at $60! The quotations are fascinating and readers should be impressed by the massive amount of material that Wallerstein has reviewed. Readers seeking an introductory work should look elsewhere. This is the first volume in a series of highly groundbreaking contributions to macrosociology. I personally find it much more illuminating that Wallerstein uses extensive footnoting (where most of the quotations appear) and would much rather read full quotations in these notes than simply see references to hundreds of works that I probably won't have the time and resources to locate anyway. That way, readers can appreciate what they're supposed to from the cited sources rather than just take for granted that they fit in, or have to research them on their own. The book makes valuable points with good regularity and fits them together into what would then be recognized in the field as World Systems Theory. Once I have finished it entirely, I may want to shift my rating. For now, the theoretical significance of this book (whose qualities are verified by my readings so far) definitely makes it essential reading for grad students or professionals in macrosociology. Introductory readers should probably start with introductory chapters (in theory and global inequalities) from a basic Sociology textbook and then read Wallerstein's more concise statement "Historical Capitalism" before proceeding on to this detailed series of books.

This book is the manifesto of world system theory. and that it was awarded by American association of sociology. Previously, the capitalism begin with the 1st industrial revolution. but Wallerstein questioned this common sense. he asserted it should be dated back to 16th century when Italian city-state prospered with Mediterrean trade. The book begins with how the feudalism fell and capitalism emerged. Volume 1 covers the shift of hegemoney in European world system from Italian city-states, Spain to Holland. The gist of his theorizing is the worldwide division of labor.
By the way, Overall points are easy to grasp. but the devils lies in the details. the book is flooded with bulks of long quotations. This distracts the attention of reader, so that lose the line of argument. Reading goes through between quotation to quotation. it even seems Wallerstein has no point of himself. I read twice to catch the logic of each chapter. but no avail. Dose Wallerstein has no ability to abbridge those quotations to his own word?
If you are interested in world system theory, I recommend to read Braudel's 'Civilization and Capitalism' instead. it's easy to follow and more systematic. and that much fun to read. Below I try to compare Braudel with Wallerstein
Power organizes the space. Organized space is the world where our perspective domiciles. There were always several worlds at the same time. For example, the premodern Chinese recognized other peoples than them. But they were outside their world. So they were barbarians who were much the same with beast. Only the one in the world which had meaning to them could be called human being. But now there is only one world on the globe. If we define it as the globalization, the history of capitalism is the process globalization over centuries since the 16th C. This is the grand image Braudel depicts before us in ¡®Civilization and Capitalism¡¯. If so, capitalism is not merely the system of exchange (or production), but the way to organize the world, in other word, the system of power. With no doubt, capitalism is the system of capitals. But capital is the power to control the flow of resources. Capital, in Marx¡¯s word, is the power to control the resources allocation in society. But the resource entails not only physical material but also human labor. No goods can be presented before us without human labor. Then trade of goods must reflect the relation of spaces where human beings dwell, whether it is done with coercion or contract. Trade could be carried out between the urban and the regional. The world Wallerstein depicts is the magnified image into global scale of such an order. The unit in that order is the nation-state. but in Braudel¡¯s image, The unit of space is not the state but the city. Capitalism is the network (or hierarchy) of cities, Braudel argues. Each has its own pros and cones. But these days Braudle¡¯s image has gained popularity over Wallerstein¡¯s, since Braudel¡¯s ¡®point-to-point¡¯ perspective fits better into the aspects of globalization. For instance, the global financial market could be better captured with Braudel¡¯s. It exists on the network of cities like New York, London, and Tokyo, not on the hierarchy of nation-states. According to Braudel, the capital and the state have its own interest and dynamic different from each other. In Wallerstein¡¯s framework, we can¡¯t spot such a distinction. But it¡¯s the point where we should begin to explain the current affair, globalization.