centre and periphery: the marriage of two minds

Centre and Periphery: The Marriage of Two MindsAuthor(s): Nigel McKenzieSource: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 20, No. 1 (1977), pp. 55-74Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4194166 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 17:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ActaSociologica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.79 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:25:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4194166?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Acta Sociologica 1977 - Vol. 20 - No. 1

Centre and Periphery: the Marriage of Two Minds

Nigel McKenzzie University of Oslo

The article takes up the problem of the centre/periphery concept as it is encountered in social science; specifically in the theories of Johan Galtung, Stein Rokkan, Andre Gunder Frank and Jon Naust- dalslid. The author in analysing the theories of Galtung and Gun- der Frank finds that the problem of uniting geographic and socio- economic space is not solved, because centre and periphery are seen as points on a 'flow diagram'. Rokkan's more modest theory suffers from the separation of form and content. From this critique the author develops, through a reformulation of Naustdalslid's thesis a concept of centre and periphery based on modes of production, linked by an economic integration mode derived from Polanyi.

The aim of this article is to examine the concepts of centre and periphery as used in social science theory - here I include historians and exclude geographers for reasons which will become clear later - and to propose sketchily a more usable and logical definition of them.

The theories I shall mention are those of Johan Galtung, Stein Rokkan, Andre Gunder Frank and Jon Naustdalslid. In each, the concept centre! periphery is used in a different way and for different purposes, but all have as a base the idea that one can analyse societal relations using a centre/ periphery model, and that the relationship between centre and periphery is of fundamental importance for an understanding of the society or sector of society they are concerned with.

The very concept of centre/periphery immediately conjures up a picture of points and circles - a spatially oriented metaphor - and common to all of the theories I shall be examining is the problem of how to marry what David Harvey (following Wright Mills) calls the 'sociological imagination' with 'spatial consciousness' (Harvey 1973:23). This 'problem', while rarely explicit, is of as great an importance as the problem of historic dynamism. If a theory based on a centre/periphery model is unable to describe, explain

55



and hypothesize about specific spatial locations as well as about specific historical events it is largely unusable as a 'general' theory. We can of course make use of some of its conceptual apparatus, but as a whole the theory will not function in the real world - only at a certain level of abstraction.

A third common factor is the concept of power, which in at least three of the theories is associated with 'exploitation'. Finally, all these theories build either implicitly (Rokkan) or explicitly (Galtung, Frank and Naust- dalslid) on a theory of social change, and indeed it is the geographical location of social change that creates the centre and its periphery.

This critique will to a certain extent take up all four of these points, but here we are chiefly concerned with the first.

(1) Spatial consciousness (geographic space) versus sociological imagination (socio-economic space).

(2) Historical awareness or explanation. (3) The concept of power and/or exploitation. (4) The theory of social change.

Clearly, there will in many cases be a direct connection between thcse four factors, so let me say a few introductory words about them, especially the first.

The problem of combining socio-economic space with geographic or Eucli- dean space in one theory or model has for long been a key problem for all economists - especially for those working at the regional level. For the international theorists the problem could be ignored to some extent (and was) by the helpful fact that toll barriers and national boundaries occurred at the same point in space. At the regional level this does not occur, and the thesis of general equilibrium, which at first encountered only 'ideological arguments' from its own ranks over the place of monopolies in the era of free competition, was hit a hard blow by the unresolvable fact that land is not only a resource of finite dimensions, but that ownership of this particular commodity granted one a monopoly. In an effort to overcome this problem techniques such as 'partial equilibrium' were introduced. A similar problem confronts social scientists in other disciplines who when confronted by the geographical terms rural and urban have written volumes in an attempt to define them sociologically. Harvey has noted in his study of urbanism the difficulties:

There are plenty of those possessed with a powerful sociological imagination ... who nevertheless seem to live and work in a spaceless world. There are also those, possessed of a powerful geographical imagination or spatial consciousness, who fail to recognise that the way space is fashioned can have a profound effect upon social processes ... Into this interface between sociological and the spatial approach to problems,

56



a number of individuals and groups of individuals and even whole disciplines have crept. (Harvey 1973:24)

The theories that we shall be considering are forced into this gap whether they have voluntarily crept there, or forced in at gunpoint.

Galtung

Galtung's concept of centre/periphery is most clearly expressed in two articles - 'A Structural Theory of Imperialism' and 'Sosial Posisjon og sosial adferd' - and it is on these two articles I shall build my critique.

The relationship between centre and periphery is described by Galtung as a general structural relationship between collectivities (collective units), where imperialism is seen as a form of dominance between these collectivities. The centre and periphery are defined in relation to this concept of imperialism. In order that there be a situation where a centre/periphery relationship can occur, the collective units forming these concepts must be coupled, i.e. they must interact. The fact that there is a relationship between two collective units (in Galtung's case - two nations) is the precondition for their cen- trality and/or their peripherality. The definition of centre and periphery is then threefold: (1) in terms of their absolute properties - e.g. the centre is high on rank dimensions and the periphery is low - and in terms of their relations; (2) inzteraction relations - what is, and how is it exchanged; and (3) inzteraction structure - 'the centre is more centrally located in the interaction network than the periphery' (Galtung 1971:103).

Superficially it would seem that the first definition is a socio-economic one (given Galtung's variables; see Galtung 1971:101) and the last geographic in that the centre is 'centrally located in the interaction network' (although of course this can be a socio-economic network independent of geographic space), the last is the gap bridging definition. If we can call this last (3) a geographical spatial definition and surely we must, because Galtung specifies nations which only exist at fixed geographic locations, then we come upon a weak point in the theory. Galtung recognizes the importance of the spatial relationships in that the crucial mechanism for the maintenance and form of imperialism is transport and/or the means of communication, i.e. if one hasn't telephones, fast ships and planes, one is forced to occupy territory in order to have dominance over it.

However, as Naustdalslid1 notes, Galtung is unable to explain why for instance European nations should exploit other nations and should tramp around the world to do so - therefore he cannot explain why transport networks have developed in the way they have. For Galtung, means of communication seem to spring up almost by chance. This is not only important for Naustdalslid's critique of Galtung, it also has important consequences for an explanation of Galtung's failure to reconcile the spatial with the socio-economic. The reason (or at least one of the reasons) is that the

57



'reconciling definition' (3) of 'feudal interaction structure' has been ab- stracted from reality and at this level the means of communication thesis has been worked out, and the whole has then been imposed back upon reality again.

This feudal interaction structure is not geographically founded and yet in reality it is dependent on a recognition of spatial differentiation. It is based on the concept of 'divide and rule', i.e. play one social unit off against another and you can control them both. Galtung's 'social units' are nations, defined in a non-spatial way. When Galtung brings in the means of transport and communication as the relating mechanism, he is introducing a spatial concept, certainly with a socio-economic content, but nevertheless spatial in form. But because in Galtung's theory these are unrelated to a spatial reality the reasons why a particular nation should dominate another nation in a particular way (see Galtung's phases of imperialism; Galtung 1971:94) are still a mystery. How was it that Portugal and Spain dominated half the world with a means of transport/communication (galleons) that was no more advanced than Chinese junks or Arab dhows?2 Why should England use exactly the same methods to maintain control of Ireland as it did in India or South America when communication and transport were in effect no problem?

Despite its use of spatial concepts such as nations, channels of communication, Galtung's centre/periphery relationship is in essence a purely socio- economic relationship unlocated in space. This may seem a strange assertion in view of one of Galtung's opening sentences 'the world consists of centre and periphery nations' (Galtung 1971:81) and that he places so much weight on spatial concepts. But as I have mentioned in passing, before, a fundamental characteristic of a nation as a socio-economic collective, as oppo- sed to a nomadic tribe or spiritual nation, is that it does not exist without a location in space. Due to the nature of space and its finite two dimen- sionality, this gives each nation a monopoly over the space it occupies. It is exactly this fact that forced the Romans to occupy Gaul and Britain and which forced the Americans to occupy Vietnam.

Conflict and space Just as Galtung's theory does not explain why certain events happen at certain geographically located places, so it does not explain why certain events happen at certain historical time points. In Galtung's thesis 'military occupations' happen, and indeed they happen because of a disharmony of living conditions, but Galtung is concerned with mechanisms - there is therefore no qualitative difference between the military expansion of Russia in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the formation of the British Empire at the same time; stages of exploitation follow one another in a linear fashion. Galtung's mechanisms 'concern the relation between the parties concerned, particularly between nations' (Galtung 1971:85). On the surface

58



these relations appear to be trade relations, but as Marx has shown (and Piaget, and Levi Strauss) these apparent relationships conceal far more fundamental and structural relationships: the relationships of production. As this also constitutes part of my critique of Gunder Frank's thesis, I shall content myself here with a quote from Naustdalslid:

The chief objection which has been raised ... is that the theory does not tackle the dynamic in the development of the centre/periphery relationship. To put this concretely, the question of how the centre/ periphery relationship arises, develops and is replaced by other centre periphery constellations. (Naustdalslid 1974:247)

Galtung's theory builds on a conflict theory of social change; it is 'partly' meant as a broadening or generalization of Marxist thought, although Marx- ists 'will not necessarily or decidedly not, accept this as such' (Galtung 1975:21). Why will they not accept this? Galtung's argument is based on a critique of 'vulgar Marxism', a critique which genuine Marxists must also be in agreement with, insofar as Galtung equates Marxism with 'economic reductionism'. However, Galtung's theory is not a 'broadening' or a 'generalization' of Marxist thought, and it is here that we come to another reason why his theory is unable to bridge the gap between spatial consciousness and sociological imagination. Galtung follows, in his conflict theory, what Colletti calls 'real opposition' (Colletti 1975:6). Although Galtung appears to follow a 'dialectical opposition' - that is by Colletti's definition:

if in fact we wished to know what the other is (in an oppositional relationship), we must at the same time know what the other is, which the first is negating. Each term therefore to be itself implies the other term. (Colletti 1975:4)

this is only superficially true. Clearly centre and periphery are iii exactly the kind of relationship that Colletti sketches here - a centre cannot exist as a centre without a periphery. The relationship between the two is within the nature of the objects themselves and because they form part of one and the same thing - in this case the world system. But despite the fact that Galtung does indeed give us a typology (van den Bergh 1972) - a list of characteristics of the centre and of the periphery - these do not constitute the relationship itself. The relationship occurs as trade. The centre exchanges one type of good for another type of good produced by the periphery. It is the difference between these goods which constitutes the asymmetry, the 'dominance', the 'disharmony'.

Each of the opposites is real and positive. Each subsists for itself.

59



Sincc to be itself, each has to be referred to the other, we have here a case of mnitual repulsion. (Colletti 1975:6)

It is in fact this 'real opposition' that Galtung refers to in his 'disharmony of interest'. As I mentioned this refers back to Galtung's inability to marry the socio-economic with the geographic - in geographic space there is a 'real opposition' - we can define Russia as a nation geographically without reference to any other nation because it occupies a space that no other nation does. On the other hand the socio-economic definition of a nation must be one which refers to a 'dialectical opposition'. In other words, by confusing the two, Galtung is unable to relate the two sides of his theory.

Rokkan There are other criticisms which can be made of Galtung's centre/periphery model, and some of these will be made clearer in our discussion of Gunder Frank's theory and centre/periphery model. However, first it is worth looking at centre and periphery as formulated by the political scientist Stein Rokkan because in some ways it takes a nearly opposite stance. Rokkan's theory confronts the socio-economic (or in this case the socio-political) geographic problem directly. This is perhaps so, for exactly the same reasons that regional economists have confronted the problem more directly than international economists, i.e. Rokkan is studying the internal Norwegian situation. Therefore, while his 'units' or 'collectivities' are rather diffuse, he is forced at the starting point to take a geographical perspective.

It is not possible to identify either centre or periphery withiout studying the communication network. Here we must make a sharp distinction between individuals as communication nodes and localities. (Rokkan 1975:150)

There is therefore no clear definition of what 'centre' means. Jells Arup Seip has found four 'sub-definitions' relating to territorial, social classes, cultural and institutional, and these indirectly derived definitions will form the basis for my evaluation. This is perhaps unjust in that Rokkan disagrees with some of Seip's interpretations of his model and claims that centre and periphery are only 'opening words' which serve as 'keywords' for the purpose of constructing the model. On the other hand, Seip's work seems to me to be a reasonable interpretation of Rokkan's theory (behind the model) (Seip 1975).

For Rokkan, the geographical is a separate 'component factor'. Just one of several which describe the differences (as expressed in the voting figures) between the political periphery and the political centre. Yet this 'geographical factor' is in fact the key component in the definition. In his reply to Seip's criticism (Rokkan 1975) Rokkan produced a schema showing an

60



economic axis and a cultural axis. Common to both is the geographic or 'territorial response' factor and what Rokkan calls 'segmented mobilization' (which seems to be another name for class, strata, or organizational response) (see Rokkan 1975: Fig. 3). There is a very clear attempt to relate these to the economic and cultural variables and indeed most 'interests' seem to be defined according to the degree of 'peripherality' which in Rokkan's model appears to be another name for rural. While there is not space to go into this aspect, the synonymous use of rural and periphery brings to the surface the classic sociological debate on whether rural is a viable sociological concept.

Rokkan is interested in finding out what it is that differentiates periphery and centre, politically. He has already established that there are significant differences in the voting pattern; now the question is why? Implicit in the model is a clear separation between the economic, the political (which I assume we can substitute for 'force'), the cultural and the legal, all of which are given an equal weight in Rokkan's 3D model (see Rokkan 1975: Fig. 5). In Norway 'the periphery' has a greater representation in propor- tion to its numerical size (population) than the centre, and in giving equal weight to the various factors Rokkan has defined power as the combination of these four factors. Therefore, the periphery:

could capture important positions of power in the centre through the legislative, the juridicial and the administrative channels, but it had little possibility to influence the balance between the internal and external economy and was placed in a weak position in the struggle against the growing press from the larger world centres outside the system (Rokkan 1975:149).

This is essentially a 'pluralistic' view of society, where to some degree at least these various factors - the political, cultural, economic and legal - are evenly weighted and balance each other out. The periphery has greater control in the political/administrative sphere (proportionally), while the centre has greater control over the economic.

In Rokkan's model, while the centre is where power, generally, and political power, in particular, is practised, it can be influenced and indeed determined by the periphery. The practising of political power will always remain in the centre; therefore, for the periphery to exercise this power it must travel to the centre. This - the necessary means of transport and communication to exercise power - is the basis for Rokkan's connecting 'mechanism' between centre and periphery. The means of transport and communication are not as in Galtung's theory the 'mechanisms of dominance', for here there is no 'conflict' theory, rather the struggle to maintain the equilibrium. That Rokkan admits that this balance is not perfect separates him from the more extreme American political equilibrists, e.g. the periphery is de-

61



pendent on the centre through 'changes in supply and demands for goods, services and instructions from the centre' (Rokkan 1975:137) and the fact that there are 'conflict constellations' within the Norwegian system. In this combination of different groups and factors the 'communication factor' is obviously of great importance. Here Rokkan introduces the term 'communication potential', which has two elements - the geographic (technical) and access (socio-political) - which are closely related to Galtung's 'interaction' and 'rank'. Interaction between centre and periphery is no one way or one dimensional phenomenon - but even so in Rokkan's model the measure of the communication potential is still largely through the ballot box - a classic of one way communication.

Imperialism

This of course has implications for Rokkan's view of the state and here the model gets rather involved. As we have implied earlier, the state (as exer- ciser of power) is seen as a pluralistic expression. Similarly the centre's control over distance and time is seen as one of form. The centre and the state in the model are containers which can be occupied at any time by any one and in this connection Rokkan introduces the idea of 'temporal imperialism' to explain the control that the state/centre uses. This concept is expressed by 'the written and the monument' (time and space). But these are not just expressions of 'temporal imperialism', they were/are built to lend both speed and permanence to communication; again they are forms without content. Whereas Galtung's centre and periphery explained hows) imperialism was maintained within different phases by describing for example the difference in the type of goods exchanged, Rokkan merely comments on the channels without relating them to the various 'movements' he describes, i.e. the 'temperance movement' and the 'language movement'.

It has become clear that the only way Rokkan could marry the geographic and the socio-political was to divorce them as soon as they met. This is because Rokkan's spatial consciousness is a formal one where space is seen as a container of political activity rather than as a creative or productive clement; passive rather than active. In this sense he views space as 'effective space', i.e. space 'created out of ecological differentiation by arranging for the flow of goods and services from areas of supply to areas of demand'. But the idea of centre and periphery is itself a conception of 'created space', in that industrialization, and with it urbanization, 'involves the structuring and differentiation of space through the distribution of fixed capital investments' (Harvey 1973:310), i.e. the monuments of which Rokkan writes. 'Created space comes to dominate effective space as a consequence of the changing composition of capital' (Harvey 1973:310). Harvey further notes (on the same page) that there is a tendency to 'analyse urban phenomena as if effective space (largely understood as efficiency of movement) were the only appropriate concept'. It is exactly this tendency that Rokkan fol-

62



lows with his 'containerised space'. This concept of 'created space' is fundamental to Henri Lefebvre's analysis of urbanization recently summarized in Miljfmagasinet, where the idea of created space is related in passing to a centre/periphery model:

Villages and countryside do not disappear, but achieve a new meaning. The previously dominant contradiction between town and country has been brushed aside, and is now to be found within the urban network; between different political and economic centres, between centre and periphery, between integration and segregation. (Milj0magasinet, 1975, No. 9, p. 14)

Gunder Frank

It is structure functionalism that Gunder Frank takes to task in his metropole/satellite model. As Galtung notes, a centre/periphery model needs to have interaction between the collective units which form the centre and the periphery. For the 'dualist model' proposed by the particular variant of structure functionalism called 'modernization theory', there is a very rigid separation between the two economies - the modern and the traditional - which according to this theory make up the total economy of many 'develop- ing nations' in the Third World. The terms centre and periphery are also to be found in these dualist models (e.g. Friedman 1966), but are used as a model for practical action, as a norm-giving model. In its simplest form 'modernization theory' builds on an evolutionist theory most clearly expressed in Rostow's 'stages of development' (Rostow 1962). The centre is characterized by industrialization, high growth rates, high productivity, and the periphery by agriculture, low or no growth and low productivity; occasio- nally the centre is described as being capitalist and the periphery noncapita- list. It is this view which dominates in the international and national development agencies, as both Naustadalslid and Carter have shown with respect to the Distriktenes Utbyggingsfond in Norway and the Highlands and Islands Development Board in Scotland. The major question asked in modernization theory is: How can the periphery or traditional sector be modernized, 'developed' and industrialized? This question is justified in the name of progress and 'equalization'. By these means the whole problem of development has been to all intents and purposes depoliticized, and any 'lack of success' in regional policy is attributed to the 'stubbornness' of the local population or the lack of speed in the policy's implementation; in practical terms, more of the same is needed.

In sociological terms modernization theory rests on the dichotomy theories of various types; Parsons with 'pattern variables', Redfield with the 'folk/ urban' typology, and Tonnies with the renowned Gemeinschaft/Gesellschaft. Needless to say, this view with its comforting support of the status quo has been strongly criticized by Hobsbawn and Sweezy (Kyklos 1961), and Gun-

63



der Frank, among others. In the case of Gunder Frank, the critique was also a critique of 'vulgar Marxism'. In Frank's case, again, it led to the formulation of a centre/periphery model which was designed to show how the western capitalist system which the 'modernizers' espoused was in fact engaged in the 'development of underdevelopment'. Frank's work is of course well known, as indeed are criticisms of it. However, Ian Carter has used aspects of the theory to explain the regional problem in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and it is largely to this application that I shall refer.

The key aspect of dualism which Frank attacked was its assumption that the two sectors of the economy were almost completely separate. Because fixed technical coefficients are used in this capital intensive sector, it could not absorb the increasing labour force; this meant that there is no flow of labour from one sector to the other:

because the supply of capital to this sector (modern) is limited and technical coefficients are fixed. On the other hand capital does not flow to thc r ival sector either (traditional), where thc marginal productivity ought to be higher. (Szentes 1973:78)

The marginal productivity of labour is regarded by some to be minimal (Arthur Lewis) and it is asserted that there is considerable 'disguised' un- employmcnt in rural areas and in the traditional sector.

In his rejection of this thesis Frank attempts to show that both sectors are in fact the creation of a single historical process; the penetration of capitalist modes of production and capitalist 'motivation' into the 'remotest areas of Latin America' (Carter 1974:297). Frank includes in his critique Rostow, Herskovits, Parsons and the whole modernization school in American sociology, because they leave out of the account the fact that the 'developed' nations when 'underdeveloped' did not have to compete with more 'developed nations' and that these countries were never 'systematically underdeveloped' (see Gunder Frank 1971).

This systematic underdevelopment occurs by means of a metropole/satellite system according to Frank.

The metropole expropriates economic surplus from its satellites and appropriates it for its own econonmic development. The satellites remain underdeveloped for lack of access to their own surplus and as a consequence of the same polarisation and exploitative contradictions which the metropolis introduces and maintains in the satellites' domestic economic structure. The combination of these contradictions once firmly implanted reinforces the processes of development in the increasingly dominant metropolis and underdevelopment in the ever more dependent satellites, until they are resolved through the abandonment of capitalism by one or both interdependent parts (Gunder Frank 1969:33)

64



The metropolis/satellite contradiction exists not only between the world capitalist metropolises and the peripheral satellite countries, it is also found within these countries among their regions and between 'rapid development of the towns and industrial centres (and) lagging and decline in the agricultural districts' (Gunder Frank 1969:34).

If it is satellite status which generates underdevelopment, then a weaker or lesser degree of metropolis/satellite relations may generate less deep structural underdevelopment and/or allow for more possibility of local development. (Gunder Frank 1969:34)

There are two stages in this model. The first is the split created by the capitalist mode of productions penetration between metropolitan centre and satellite and the second is that the resultant division is used as the mechanism for the extraction of surplus or rather the transfer of surplus. Frank speaks of metropolitan countries and of metropoles thereby implying rather more than an abstract centre concept (a point in space), but more of an urban dimension. To a certain extent Frank follows Marx's thesis of the increasing concentration of capital and the centralization of the means of production. Marx himself, however, avoided the problem of geographic space directly, although recognizing it in his differentiation of 'concentration' and 'centralization'. By taking the concrete case of Latin America (Chile and Brazil), Frank is specifying a fixed geographic area and his metropoles and satellites are very decidedly located in space. Implicit, although rarely expressed, in Frank's theory is a theory of urbanization, of the dominance of the town over the country, a theory reminiscent of Trotsky's statement that the history of capitalism was the history of the victory of town over country. The city or town to be a permanent fixture requires the continual extraction of surplus, initially from agriculture, to create this permanence; for Frank's model the extraction of surplus is also the key factor. But despite a fairly basic analysis of Chilean and Brazilian economic history, this theory is never developed; so the connection between urbanization and development is only hinted at. This may seem a peripheral problem, but is a good example of Frank's continuing mistake, which I shall look at in connection with Carter's work on Scotland.

Carter's mode of production In order to disprove the 'dualist' thesis, Frank tried to show that the 'lati- fundist', or Latin American estate, was a capitalist creation run on capitalist lines. It is this task with reference to the 'Highland estate' that Carter add- resses himself to, i.e. that during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries these estates were driven on 'economically rational principles' and that they were integrated with and created by the English and lowlands market economy; the capitalist economy. Carter cites both the cattle trade with

65

5



England and the kelp industry to support his arguments.3 The collection of seaweed and its production as kelp brought in a cash income for landlord and tenant alike. Kelping was and still is labour intensive. Therefore the population of those areas where it was collected were encouraged to re- produce themselves and discouraged from migrating out of the district. To facilitate this policy, the already small holdings were divided and divided again, thereby giving a tiny portion to the newcomers and at the same time forcing the tenants to earn a cash income as their holding was too small to produce all needed for subsistence, and the rent in kind. The tenants were obliged to sell their kelp to the landlord, who had a monopoly. This pro- duct was then sent further along the chain of middlemen to the national market.

Rents were set at a level where they creamed off the whole cash pro- duct from kelping, leaving the tenant the occupancy of his croft. (Car- ter 1974:309)

The kelp industry in the Hebrides and the west coast not only tied these areas to the market economy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries; it also marked a decisive transition to capitalism in the west, for the mode of production [my italics] in kelping was unambi- guously capitalist, and so were the relations of production derived from that mode of production. (Carter 1975)

In other words, Carter equates the market exchange mode of economic integration with the capitalist mode of production. It is this that forms the basis of Ernest Laclau's critique of Gunder Frank (Laclau, NLR 1971). Laclau criticizes Frank for his equation of Spanish and Portuguese colonia- lism with capitalism as a mode of production. Carter acknowledges Laclau's critique but claims that they are 'not central to my argument' (Carter 1974: 307). I shall try quickly to show that not only is Laclau's critique central, but that only by using a Marxian definition of 'mode of production' can we begin to relate the socio-economic aspect of the metropole/satellite or centre/periphery to the geographic aspect.

Carter's conditions for the capitalist mode of production appear to be (1) the making of a cash profit; and (2) applying economically rational principles to do so; (3) tied to a market exchange form of economic integration. It is clear that a definition of 'mode of production' is problematic and indeed nowhere does Marx give an unambiguous answer to the problem. In the abstract, however, we can say that it refers to the constituent elements necessary for the (re)production of material life (Harvey 1973:199), and the way these elements are combined determines the mode of production. These 'constituent elements' consist of the object of labour (natural resources), the means of production, and labour power. The way they are combined constitutes the social relations of production. Therefore we cannot as Carter does

66



'derive' the social relations from capitalism, they are a part of the very definition.

The historical conditions of its (capitalism's) existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It arises only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets on the market with the free labourer selling his labour force. (Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, p. 178)

These are the conditions which must be fulfilled before we can speak of a capitalist mode of production, and these conditions are far from being fulfilled in Carter's case. The landlord does not own the means of production and subsistence; these are still in the hands of the crofter/kelp collector. The landlord is therefore forced to expropriate the surplus in the form of rent, and by reason of his monopoly he can control the price. This removal of surplus is in essence 'extra-economic'; the landlord prevents either direct sale to middlemen by force, or extracts rents only by virtue of his 'power position'. Secondly, the two parties do not meet on the market as owner of the means of production and free labourer. The separation is not complete; the croft provides, if not all, at least a substantial part of the kelp collec- tors' means of subsistence.

Carter has confused two concepts - the 'integrative mechanism', a concept derived from Polanyi (Polanyi 1968). Indeed Carter uses the term 'mode of incorporation', which is remarkably similar to Harvey's reformulation of Polanyi's concept, 'mode of economic integration'. This integrative mechanism varies between different societies and times and is by no means exclusive. Market exchange, which is the dominant mode of economic integration in the capitalist mode of production, 'occurs under a variety of circumstances' (Harvey 1973:211), but it is only under capitalism that it occurs in the specific form of a dominant mode through price-fixing markets. The fixing of prices in local markets is not sufficient. This distinction is crucial because under Carter's conditions there are no basic differences between say merchantile capitalism and monopoly capitalism, indeed between trade in pre-capitalist societies and in capitalist societies. There is evidence, however, to show that a price-fixing market existed for kelp at the national level; certainly during the Napoleonic wars. It is clear from several sources (e.g. Smout) that the Highlands of Scotland were, at least by the end of the eighteenth century, 'integrated' formally with the English and lowland economies through the mode of economic integration. This integration un- doubtedly forced many landlords to operate their estates on a profit-making basis. This formal subordination to capital, however, does not make kelp production a capitalist mode of production. Profit was not transformed into capital within the Highland economy, nor was it reinvested in the estates in new production techniques, in increasing productivity, but used instead in

67



consumption - direct consumption. The major part of the surplus from the Highlands was expropriated by the landlords and extracted along the chains of satellites and metropoles by the money lenders and banks.

The Frank/Carter thesis goes further along the line in relating the geographic to the socio-economic, through an examination of the method of surplus expropriation and its subsequent flow. But in concentrating on the flow and substantially ignoring (1) how the surplus was produced and in what form, and (2) how it was transformed into fixed or constant capital the theory cannot explain why this transfer happened or define the nature of centre and periphery, metropole and satellite. It is the ability to produce the specific form of surplus which marks the periphery's mode of production and the ability to transform it into capital which marks the centre. It is this which defines the relationship between them.

It seems not an unreasonable assertion to claim that just as the capitalist mode of production has a socio-economic 'logic' which expresses itself in expansion and concentration, so the capitalist mode of production, located as it must be in geographic space, has a geographic logic which expresses itself in centralization and expanded control over ever greater areas. Indeed it is this assertion which lies behind Henri Lefebvre's thesis in 'Le Revolution Urbaine', where he says that 'the production of space' is an unavoidable starting point for the understanding of the capitalist society's development. A clear example of this is the way in which archaeologists, through the study of 'created space', can obtain key information as to the way societies lived, produced, organized their society and used their surplus. Their findings have been sadly ignored by social scientists.4 Technology's highly developed state has perhaps deceived economists and political scientists into thinking that anything is technically possible anywhere, and so the geographic aspects of capitalism have been ignored.

Norwegian modes of production

In his study of Norwegian regional policy, Jon Naustdalslid has come closer than any of the previous theories to a 'unity' of the socio-economic and the geographic. It should be noted that this was not Naustdalslid's stated intention. For the most part he limits himself to a study of the periphery and to a specific mode of production in the periphery - the pre-capitalist mode - and even more specifically to a specific form within the pre- capitalist mode - the 'peasant'.5 By doing this Naustdalslid manages to avoid some of the problems mentioned here, but at the same time throws up more questions than he is able to answer in 400 pages. Having established (using Galtung's indices) that there exists a centre/periphery relationship in Norway between geographic areas, he proceeds to show that this centre/ periphery relationship is one based (although not totally determined) on the relations between modes of production. The periphery's mainly non-capitalist mode of production is and has been steadily broken down, without any

68



adequate replacement in the form of a viable social and economic structure. The result is a society that today can hardly be called pre- or non-capitalist, but which has as yet not developed a capitalist organization. In other words, in the periphery (in Naustdalslid's case, the county of Sogn og Fjordane) the capitalist mode of production is not in itself dominant, but dominates the non-capitalist modes of production through (1) the mode of economic integration, i.e. market exchange,6 and (2) because Sogn og Fjordane is a part of a national economic system where the capitalist mode of production is dominant. (I have in fact transferred Naustdalslid's theory into my own terms, with the hoped-for benefit that I can develop the critique of Frank and Carter further.) Production is therefore forced to take place under conditions laid down by the capitalist mode (through the market exchange mode, etc.), but it has not yet been directly subordinated to capitalism either because of low growth potential, or low productivity potential.

The geographic and socio-economic related What conditions the relationship between centre and periphery for Naustdals- lid are the relations between modes of production. It is those which determine how the surplus is extracted from the periphery and transferred to the centre and not just a 'simple' asymmetric trade relationship. But clearly the periphery as a collectivity is not just the relationship between or the result of a relationship between non-capitalist and capitalist modes of production. There are for example different forms of capitalist production and different forms of non-capitalist production. The combination of these different forms of production will determine the specific societal formation of any specific society, so that in both the centre and periphery we will find various non- capitalist forms of production, perhaps transformed 'left overs' from previous modes, subordinated formally to the capitalist mode through the mode of economic integration. It is here that Galtung's typology of the centre in the periphery and the periphery in the centre becomes a useful geographic as well as socio-economic concept if we define centre and periphery according to the combination of modes and forms of production.

soc.-econ. centre soc.-econ. periphery

Geog. centre centre periphery in in

centre centre Geog. periphery centre periphery

in in periphery periphery

The above schema illustrates (using Galtung's terminology) the relationship between the geographic and socio-economic centre and periphery. With the schema below we can begin to come nearer to a method by which centre and periphery are geographically and socio-economically defined.

69



soc.-econ. centre soc.-econ. periphery

Geog. centre capital 1 capital 1 capital 2

Gcog. periphery capital 2 capital 1 non-capital

(capital 1 = most advanced form; capital 2 = less advanced form of capitalist mode; non-cap. non-capitalist mode of prod.)

The link between these boxes will vary according to their composition. Just as the capitalist mode of production is dominant in both the Norwegian and Scottish societies, so the market exchange mode of economic integration is also dominant; the first conditions the latter. But clearly there are other modes or forms of economic integration at work in these societies - different means of extracting the surplus from periphery to the centre. Perhaps the clcarest cxample is that of the 'redistributive mode'. This can be associated with Morton Fried's 'rank society' (Fried 1967:117). In Fried's rank society, of which the feudal is the classic example, the society is characterized by the flow of surplus from periphery to centre through a hierarchy to 'support the activities of an elite' (Harvey 1973:209). At the top of this hierarchy this surplus is then redistributed according to the rules and principles per- taining to that society. This mode of economic integration has continued under capitalism, but being subordinated to the market exchange mode it has changed form. The tax collecting of the state, and the redistribution through various 'welfare state' mechanisms, has been subordinated to the demands of 'economic rationality' and thereby serves the dominant mode of production, i.e. fulfilling tasks that pure market exchange is unable to take on. It also operates a transferral mechanism for the extraction of surplus in forms other than that of surplus value, so that, for example, the redistributive function in education operates to facilitate the removal of 'educated' youth from the periphery to the centre. But this removal is conditional on the composition of modes and forms of production in both the centre and periphery. This is the direct extraction of surplus labour from the periphery direct bLIt it is only made possible by capital's indirect means. The societal formation in the periphery can be relatively defined as being a 'less advanced composition'7 than that in the centre, but both the modes of economic integration operate under the centre formations conditions, i.e. the conditions of the 'more advanced composition'.

Some conisequenices for development

The tendency of the profit rate to fall8 has not only led to the expansion of capital and its concentration socio-economically, but has had and is having enormous consequences geographically. It has lcd as Lefebvre has shown to an increase in the amount of global surplus realized in speculation

70



and real estate, because here the rate of the circulation of surplus can be pressed upwards perhaps faster than any other sector. 'The reduction in turnover-time of the fixed capital is one of the fundamental characteristics of late capitalism' (Mandel 1975:223). Both the expansion of capital into previously non-capitalized sectors and the concentration of capital has effects on the periphery. These effects are essentially determined not by a variant of 'unequal exchange' as both Galtung and Frank imply, but by the periphery's social formation.

A classic and recent example of the effects being conditioned by the social formation of the periphery has been the building operations of the large oil companies and their subsidiaries in Scotland. Taylor Woodrow, Mowlem, and Brown and Root established building sites in northern Scotland on the 'alleged basis' that here were 'the only sites in the U.K.' Asked whether major concrete construction operations could not be done on the Clyde, Taylor Woodrow replied that: 'they would prefer not to work near to the major constructions because of possible labour disputes which could not be tolerated in their tight schedule' (Taylor 1975:276). Organized labour is the direct result of the division of labour under capitalism and the method by which surplus labour is expropriated (i.e. surplus value). It is exactly for this reason that the oil companies have chosen sites in the Highlands - 'the only possible sites in the U.K.' At the same time there have been strong demands to abolish the rigid conditions of crofting tenure and to allow crofters to buy their own land. This is clearly an advance, but it is also a precondition for the freeing of the labour force and their appearance on the national labour market. The expansion of capital into uncapitalized sectors has also affected the geographic and socio-economic periphery. Land speculation, initially an urban phenomenon, has become such an urgent matter and a cornerstone of the late capitalist society that sporting estates and simply farming land have become objects of interest for finance capital.

The validity of centre and periphery How useful are the concepts of centre and periphery in an analysis of capitalist society and the problems that arise in that society? and how useful are they as a starting point for the development of a planning strategy? The words themselves are not without meaning. But it is in the definition of the concepts that the difficulties begin to arise. Only Rokkan's theory has attacked the problem directly, but due to his reduction of centre and periphery to 'formal' concepts based on geographic channels he has limited the use of centre/periphery as a model for analysing societal relations both over time and in space. Harvey has pointed out that it is only by 'bridging the interface' between the socio-economic and 'spatial consciousness' that we can understand the phenomena of urbanism. The same can be said of centre and periphery. In this critique this is the problem which has been analysed. From the theories looked at, the following major points can be summarized:

71



(1) The different nature of geographic space and socio-economic space, so that direct transfer of mechanisms or concepts from the one to the other is not automatically feasible.

(2) This relationship is reflected in the different types of 'oppositions' encountered within geographic and socio-economic space.

(3) If an equilibrium model is adopted based on an harmonious theory of social change as a base for the explanation of the centre/periphery relationship, socio-economic and geographic space can be combined, but the same criticisms of neo-classical economic theory can be directed at this type of centre/periphery model. However, a conflict model of socio-economic development, which is a closer reflection of reality, has to recognize the nature of these oppositions and contradictions and operationalize them in the model.

(4) This can only be done if, in the first instance the difference between 'created' space and 'effective' space is recognized; in other words, the ability of the centre to use space to create surplus. We can see the phenomena of urbanization as a generative and linking factor between the geographic and socio-economic.

(5) The conflict between 'created' space and 'effective' space and the problem of this geographic/socio-economic relationship can only be resolved by examining the origins and manner of the expropriation of surplus (value) and the way in which this surplus circulates and is transformed into fixed capital. This presumes that the relationship between centre and periphery is seen as one between different compositions of modes and forms of production.

The concepts of centre and periphery are relative; transferred into physical space they too easily become absolute or idealist concepts akin to 'rural'/ 'urban'. It is here that Lenin's concept of a societal formation is of use in operationalizing centre and periphery. It not only enables us to define the concepts more precisely but gives us a starting point for bridging the interface or marrying the two minds.

Notes 1 Naustdalslid bases his critique on an article by van den Bergh (see References). 2 The immediate and perhaps obvious reply here is that the Portuguese and Spanish

empires utilized gunpowder as an aggressive means. It should be pointed out, however, that the Chinese had discovered gunpowder before these nations, and that in all probability it was not the technique which was decisive, but the nature of mode of production which meant that the European powers had an expansionist policy where gunpowder was used as an aggressive weapon.

3 Kelp is an alkaline ash obtained through burning seaweed and was in demand as fertilizer, soap, and glass burning.

72



4 For those interested in following up the use of archaeological data for social scientists and the implications for urbanization theories, I would refer them to P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham & G. W. Dimbleby (Eds.), Man, Settlement and Ur- banism, Duckworth, London 1972.

5 It would perhaps be more correct to term the 'peasant form of production' non-capitalist rather than pre-capitalist.

6 It is important to stress that the capitalist society is based on an integrative form of market exchange. It is here worth quoting Polanyi to clarify this concept: "in order for exchange to be integrative the behaviour of the partners must be oriented on producing a price that is as favourable to each partner as he can make it. Such a behaviour contrasts sharply with that of exchange at a set price' (quoted in Harvey 1973: 210). It is with Harvey's interpretation that I worked in this essay, i.e. 'Market exchange occurs under a variety of circumstances but it functions as a mode of economic integration only when price-fixing markets operate to coordinate activities' (Harvey 1973 : 211).

7 The term 'less advanced composition' is perhaps unfortunate, but to this date I have been unable to find an expression which smacks less of an evolutionistic theory.

8 Again over this point there is considerable disagreement. Since Marx first formulated this 'tendency' in capitalism (Capital, Vol. 111, pp. 211-260) there have been many attempts to prove this assertion wrong. As the statistics are confused, we must rely on intelligent analysis, which we can find in Mandel 1975.

References Bergh, van den & Benthem, Godfried van. 'Theory or Taxonomy? Some Criti-

cal Notes on Johan Galtung's "A Structural Theory of Imperialism", Journal of Peace Research, 1972.

Carter, Ian, 'The Highlands and Islands of Scotland as an Underdeveloped Region', in De Kadt & Williams (Eds.), Sociology and Development, Tavistock 1974.

Carter, Ian, 'A Socialist Strategy for the Highlands', in Gordon Brown (Ed.), The Red Paper on Scotland, EUSPB, 1975.

Colletti, Lucio, 'Marxism and the Dialectic', New Left Review, Vol. 93 (1975). Fried, Morton, The Evolution of Political Society, New York 1967. Galtung, Johan, 'A Structural Theory of Imperialism', Journal of Peace Research,

1971. Galtung, Johan, 'Sosial posisjon og sosial adferd', in Periferi og sentrum i historien,

Universitetsforlaget, Oslo 1975. Gunder Frank, Andre, Sociology of Development atnd Underdevelopment of Socio-

logy, Pluto Press, 1971. Gunder Frank, Andre, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America,

Penguin Books, Harmondsworth 1969. Harvey, David, Social Justice and the City, Edward Arnold, 1973. Hobsbawn, Eric & Sweezy, Paul. 'The Stages of Economic Growth: A Critique',

Kyklos, Vol. 14 (1961). Laclau, Ernest, 'Feudalism and Capitalism in Latin America', New Left Review,

Vol. 67 (1971). Mandel, Ernest, Late Capitalism, New Left Books, 1975. Marx, Karl, Capital, Vol. 1, Lawrence & Wishart, London. Miljhmagasinet, No. 9, 1975. Naustdalslid, Jon, 'Interessedimensjonar i norsk distriktsutbygging'. Magistergrad-

avhandling, Institutt for statsvitenskap, Oslo 1974.

73



Polanyi, Karl, in G. Dalton (Ed.), Primitive, Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays oj Karl Polanyi, Boston 1968.

Rokkan, Stein, 'Sentrum og periferi, 0konomi og kultur: modeller og data i klio- metrisk sosiologi', in Periteri og sentrum i historien, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo 1975.

Rostow, W. W. The Stages of Economic Growth, Cambridge University Press, 1962. Seip, Jens Arup, 'Modellenes tyranni', in Periferi og sentrum i historien, Universi-

tetsforlaget, Oslo 1975. Smout, T. C. A History of thte Scottish People 1560-1830, Collins/Fontana, 1973. Szentes, Tamas, The Political Economy of Underdevelopment, Akademiai Kiado,

Budapest 1973. Taylor, Dave, 'The Social Impact of Oil', in Gordon Brown (Ed.), The Red Paper

on Scotland, EUSPB, 1975.

74



centre and periphery: the marriage of two minds

Documents