 |
|||||
|
| |||||
|
|||||
|
|
Volume 2, Review 2, 1996Response to Wilma A. Dunaway and Donald A. Clelland
(review of Gary Gereffi and Miguel Korzeniewicz, eds. COMMODITY CHAINS
AND GLOBAL CAPITALISM. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1994)
by
Miguel E. Korzeniewicz, Department of Sociology, University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Gary Gereffi, Department of Sociology, Duke University, Durham,
North Carolina, USA
Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz, University of Maryland at College
Park, College Park, Maryland, USA
v. 8/12/96
Wilma A. Dunaway and Donald Clelland have raised important
issues in their recent review of Gary Gereffi and Miguel E.
Korzeniewicz's Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism (Westport,
CT: Praeger, 1994) (henceforth, CCGC). Dunaway and Clelland
criticize several aspects of the book in question, and extend
their criticisms to the general orientation of the annual
conferences on the Political Economy of the World-System (PEWS).
Regarding CCGC, they raise two central objections. First, they
argue that the articles contained in this book are preoccupied
with empirical detail to the exclusion of reference to world-
systems theory. Second, they contend that the book fails to
consider unequal exchange as the key to international division of
labor, as "none of the articles in this volume directly analyzes
the extraction of surplus between the nodes of the chain or the
exploitation of labor that occurs in the many processes" (p. 2).
According to Dunaway and Clelland, by focusing on competition
rather than exploitation, many of the articles in CCGC adopt an
approach that resembles the "free-market" language/interpretation
of mainstream economists. In the eyes of the reviewers, "Even
[Page 1]
though Wallerstein (WORLD INEQUALITY, 1975, pp. 9-29) declared it
dead twenty years ago, developmentalism leaps off the pages of
this book more often than world-systems theory." Dunaway and
Clelland do spare the editors of CCGC from some of the blame,
calling attention to a larger pattern of PEWS conferences and
edited volumes that focus on "atheoretical descriptions of the
international arena" (p. 4), and urging future PEWS editors to
restrict contributions to authors who use or directly address
world-system explanations of social change.
The articles contained in CCGC clearly do not restrict
themselves to mere empirical description. Even a superficial
reading of the book reveals important conceptual insights into the
social processes through which commodity chains are organized and
transformed. We can illustrate this point with a few examples.
In Chapter 2, Hopkins, Wallerstein, Ozveren, and Pelizzon provide
a detailed discussion of how commodity chains are transformed
during the A- and B-phases of Kondratieff cycles. The authors
argue that the activities commanding the highest profits within a
given chain undergo dynamic changes, and they challenge both
mainstream classifications of production processes (such as the
emphasis on primary, secondary and tertiary sectors) and the
theoretical assumptions derived from these classifications (such
as the importance given to manufacturing as an engine of growth).
R. Korzeniewicz and Martin in Chapter 4 analyze variations in the
peripheralization of six commodities over time, establishing
procedures through which to identify the spatial distribution of
commodity chains across zones in the world-economy. Gereffi's
Chapter 5 introduces a fundamental distinction between producer-
driven and buyer-driven commodity chains, a distinction that is
further probed in many of the subsequent chapters, and that can be
used to clarify the character of shifts in the relative
distribution of wealth between producers and intermediaries.
Among other issues, the remaining articles use their analysis of
commodity chains to critically evaluate the concepts of Fordism
and Post-Fordism (e.g., Raynolds in Chapter 7 and Taplin in
[Page 2]
Chapter 10), ongoing changes in the linkages between production,
distribution and consumption (e.g., Chapters 12-15), and shifts in
the importance of different activities (such as services) during
periods of expansion and contraction in the world-economy (e.g.,
Rabach and Kim in Chapter 6). As indicated in the introduction to
the book, such insights are clearly relevant to those engaged in
further developing world-systems theory, and they are likely to
have an impact within other theoretical frameworks as well.
Instead of assessing the merits of these efforts to break new
ground in commodity chain analysis, Dunaway and Clelland propose
measuring theoretical engagement by limiting world-systems theory
to the analysis of the extraction and uneven distribution of
surplus. But even using this restricted yardstick, CCGC contains
relevant observations. Again, space limitations allow merely a
few examples. Wallerstein and Hopkins are only cited by Dunaway
and Clelland for their mention of "the pivotal question" of
commodity chain analysis, namely "the division of [economic]
surplus among the various boxes of the chain." In fact,
Wallerstein and Hopkins' analysis of commodity chains in chapter 2
is far more variegated and richer than the reviewers suggest.
They list six questions that can be posed in looking at the social
organization of the nodes or boxes in commodity chains (CCGC, pp.
18-19), the first and most important of which is "the degree to
which the box is relatively monopolized by a small number of units
of production, which is the same as asking the degree to which it
is core-like and therefore a locus of a high rate of profit . . ."
In Chapter 12, M. Korzeniewicz indicates that "[w]hile Korean and
Chinese firms are producing the actual (athletic) shoe, U.S.-based
Nike promotes the symbolic nature of the shoe and appropriates the
greater share of the value resulting from its sales (p. 261)."
Chapter 9 (by Appelbaum, Smith, and Christerson) examines changes
in the geography of apparel production (raw materials, fabric, and
final product) to argue that surplus extraction is most acute (and
capital most mobile) in the low-wage, low-value sector. In
Chapter 10, Taplin argues that the apparel industry in the United
[Page 3]
States is becoming increasingly hierarchical. The subordinate
relationship of contractors to firms placing the orders is
extreme, as the latter firms are forcing contractors to contain
their costs through wage-depressing tactics that accentuate
existing structural inequalities between firms. These
inequalities, together with the pressures from overseas
manufacturers who also pursue cost-lowering strategies, add to the
evolving stratification of the production process and the
reconfiguration of the commodity chain. The extraction and uneven
distribution of surplus is likewise an important concern in many
of the other chapters.
Insofar as world-systems theory is concerned with the analysis
of asymmetrical interdependence, both dimensions of this process --
asymmetry and interdependence -- require our attention. Dunaway and
Clelland seem to prefer studies that emphasize the asymmetrical
character of world-economic relationships, examining only a
relatively narrow range of asymmetries at that. While the
questions concerning the distribution of economic surplus in a
commodity chain are certainly worthwhile, the measurement of such
flows between and within commodity chains requires both good
description and dynamic theoretical constructs. CCGC seeks to
develop a more complex understanding of the various dimensions
inherent in both asymmetry and interdependence (such as regions,
countries, communities, households, firms, and organized as well
as unorganized labor). The scope of this framework helps
commodity chains research to meet one of its biggest challenges,
which is to promote world-systems theory as a bridge that crosses
the macro-micro divide in social, economic, and political
analysis.
If Dunaway and Clelland seek to carve out a narrow niche for
their definition of theoretical relevance, so be it, but we should
be allowed a healthy dose of skepticism in evaluating whether
their exclusionary approach indeed provides the only way to
advance our knowledge of the world-economy. The issue is pertinent
to the current direction of PEWS conferences and publications.
[Page 4]
While we would all agree on the need to use such opportunities to continue building world-systems theory, we reject the notion that such an objective requires the exclusion of either related theoretical perspectives (in areas such as the sociology of development or organizations) or scholars who are not already strong adherents of our approach. There are inherent difficulties in our choice. Often, we will need to forge new areas of consensus as we seek to combine theoretical elaboration with exposure to research developed outside a world-systems perspective. Such an intellectual exchange, however, is essential to the advance of world-systems theory. Note: In preparing this response, we have received useful suggestions from Richard Appelbaum, Brad Christerson, Walter Goldfrank, and Ian Taplin. [Page 5] |
|
 Top |
Archive | Vol. 2 |