Migration and Nationalism. The Olympics and the International Trade with Athletes

Text sample: 2.3. Economic and Political Approaches: World-systems theory is a dominant approach of the analysis of global relations. This chapter considers the development and origins of this theory. Furthermore, key elements of world-systems theory are analysed. Territorial factors, nations as agents, and capitalistic aspects are specifically focused on. Afterwards, the origins of human capital theory are explored. This theory considers cost-benefit approaches in migration. Education, as a particular form human capital is outlined. Physical education is especially important to identify as a theme in this book to create connections with the later central analysis. 2.3.1. World-Systems Theory: In the nineteenth century, world-systems theory originated as a result of the 'rejection of social science categories' (Wallerstein, 2013, p. 1). The theory 'was a protest or resistance movement within the structures of knowledge' (Lee, 2011, p. 27). Inevitably, the growing structures of knowledge led to a 'process of rationalizing', and this turned into a crisis. A result of this process is a changing world view from an autonomous unit towards a relational system (cf. ibid, p. 36). According to Lee, this rationalisation can also be called 'secularisation' or 'scientisation' (cf. ibid, p. 27). The aim of this method of analysing global relations was to move away from the separation of different disciplines of social sciences towards a universal analysis, embedded in history. Therefore, it is important to clarify that world-systems theory 'is not a subcategory of sociology' (Wallerstein, 2013, p. 1). It needs to rather be seen 'as a new perspective on social reality.' (Wallerstein, 2007, p. 1). As the term 'world-system' suggests, it is a macro-sociological analysis, which focuses on a 'capitalist world economy' in the context of a 'total social system' (cf. Martínez Vela, 2001, p. 1). Wallerstein points out that world-systems theory, or world-systems analysis, 'rejects the utility and even the validity of sociology today as an intellectual category, while acknowledging its continued strength as an organizational reality, and as a cultural preference.' (Wallerstein, 2013, p. 1). The use of the term 'world-system analysis' instead of 'world-system theory' is insofar more appropriate, as it highlights the importance of its consideration as a knowledge movement. Hence, Wallerstein indicates the primary strength of this analysis: it has resisted the temptation to define itself too narrowly and dogmatically, while still not allowing itself to be defined so loosely that anything that seems to deal with questions beyond the space of single nations/societies/social formations is deemed within the family. (Wallerstein, 2013, p. 7) To analyse the world-system, a comparison of stakeholders of this system is also implied. Here, theorists not only talk about separated nations, but also about multinational companies as collective agents (cf. Faist, et al., 2014, p. 157). This cross-national relation often shows the 'development and unequal opportunities across nations' (Martínez Vela, 2001, p. 1). As a result, this 'combination makes the world-system project both a political and an intellectual endeavor.' (ibid). Wallerstein classifies three key elements of world-systems analysis. First, the significance of the analysing unit. As mentioned before, the level of analysis in this book is not particularly 'a State/society/social formation' (Wallerstein, 2014, p. 4), but is rather based upon the context of a cross-linked system. For Wallerstein, 'world' cannot be understood as synonymous for 'global or planetary but simply to refer to a relatively large unit (relatively large in terms of area and population) within which there is an axial division of labor.' (ibid). Second, the world-system analysis is not everlasting. Besides world-system analysis, Wallerstein defines any system as following: They have lives. They come into existence; they pursue their historical trajectories within the framework of the rules that define and govern the system; and they eventually move so far from equilibrium that the system enters into terminal structural crisis. (Wallerstein, 2013, p. 4) The third and final element is the rejection of the 'ontological separation of the imagined arenas so dear to the old dominant set of premises' (Wallerstein, 2013, p. 5). This means the denial of separated socio-cultural, political, and economical components. The main subject of the world-system analysis is the modern world-system, which originated in the sixteenth century. Its occurrence was geographically limited and could be traced back to European and American areas. Meanwhile, the world-system expanded over the whole globe and can be called world economy (cf. Wallerstein, 2007, p. 23/ Lee, 2011, p. 27). In this century, capitalism emerged and replaced feudalism (cf. Lee, 20011, p. 27). Like many other theorists, Wallerstein directly refers to a 'capitalist world-economy' (Wallerstein, 2007, p. 23; italics in the original). Primarily, the world economy is a wide geographical area in which 'a division of labor and hence significant internal exchange of basic or essential goods as well as flows of capital and labor' (Wallerstein, 2007, p. 23) is focused on. Therefore, it could be suggested that the whole essence of the modern world-system is 'the axial division of labor' (Lee, 2011, p. 32). Because of the cross- or international character of a world economy, there is no binding to one specific political framework. It is a construct of many units in cultural, religious, and, therefore also, political ways. These units are 'loosely tied together in our modern world-system in an interstate system.' (ibid). Wallerstein points out that a system can only be called a capitalist system if it has precedence on an ongoing growth of capital. This suggests that a capitalist system is only a phenomenon of the modern system. (cf. Wallerstein, 2007, p. 24). Hence, only a world economy can provide a framework in which a capitalist-system can exist. The main subjects of a capitalist world-system are markets and actors that compete with each other. At this point, we must focus on nations, as the most important actors of the 'capitalist-market game'. The playgrounds of this game are the economic and political fields. These fields are strongly connected with each other; they have a reciprocal relationship. In order to elaborate this book's analysis, the different spheres, Wallerstein identifies in world-systems analysis, are important to consider to understand cross-/international dynamics. He categorises core states, peripheral states and semi-peripheral states (cf. ibid, p. 29). Core states are the centre of economic power, and have control over the whole system; they are the economic leaders. On the contrary, peripheral states are on the fringe of the world economy. Peripheral areas are completely dependent on core areas and are controlled by them. The area in between is called semi-peripheral. Semi-peripheral states are pressurised by the other two spheres, because they need to focus on not shifting into the periphery, but moving towards the core. Consequently, they have the hardest challenge to deal with (cf. Wallerstein, 2007, p. 29). It is necessary to mention that boundaries between these spheres cannot be seen as equal to state borders, but rather as a 'mechanism per se that fragments the system into partially independent, semi-autonomous parts' (Lee, 2011, p. 33). Nevertheless, Wallerstein still sees the 'national states, or more precisely, the bounded territories over which national states attempt to exercise sovereignty' (Wallerstein, cited by Brenner, 2011, p. 116) as the elemental units. As can be reasoned from the above, a result of this system is a hierarchical order of various centres of power (cf. Brenner, 2011, p. 116). In the epistemological context, we can talk about state-centrism and its three essential assumptions. The first assumption refers to 'the conception of space as a static platform of social action that is not itself constituted or modified socially' (ibid, p. 108); 'spatial fetishism' is a result of this. The second assumption is 'that social relations are organized within territorially self-enclosed spatial containers' (ibid); this is what Brenner calls 'methodological territorialism'. The third and final assumption of the epistemology of state-centrism is 'that social relations are organized at a national scale or are undergoing a process of nationalization' (ibid); Brenner calls the result 'methodological nationalism'. The aim of this concept is the generation of an 'internalist model of societal development in which national territoriality is presumed to operate as a static, fixed, and timeless container of historicity.' (ibid). It is generally accepted that the concept of state-centrism is mostly relevant in political sciences, rather than in other disciplines of social sciences.