International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

science must start with the abstract and progress to the concrete. The ap-
proach is not to reduce complexity to simpler variables, but to contextualize 
the simpler variables and make them more complex and able to explain real 
social situations (Wallerstein 2004: 19). This contextualization of variables 
will result in a coherent interpretation of the processes of particular histori-
cal systems. An interpretation is necessary to provide a plausible account of 
how the processes of particular historical systems followed a particular his-
torical path (Wallerstein 1987/2000: 148). Epistemologically, this means to 
search for substantive interpretative patterns (Wallerstein 1997/2000: 198). 
In short, world-systems analysis attempts to “make sense” of the complexity 
of social reality, to “interpret” it usefully and plausibly (Wallerstein 1997/ 
2000: 202). The core task of social science is to offer plausible explanations 
of historical reality. This requires long-term, large-scale social change to be 
placed at the center of analysis. This describes the core of world-systems 
analysis as analysis. The topic will be discussed in the next chapter in more 
detail. 
Fifth, world-systems analysis is theory and praxis: analyses must be “so-
cially useful”. In the words of Wallerstein: “Those scholarly analyses that are 
more correct are more socially useful in that they aid the world to construct a 
substantively more rational reality” (Wallerstein 1997/2000: 200). 
In sum, world-systems analysis is a call for a holistic historical social sci-
ence (Wallerstein 2004: xi). It is based not on the antinomies common for 
most social science approaches: macro and micro, global/local or struc-
ture/agency – but on their unity (Wallerstein 1997/2000: 185). In fact, this 
unity actually “permits us to see that micro and macro, global and local, and 
above all structure and agency are not unsurpassable antinomies but rather 
yin and yang.” (Wallerstein 1997/2000: 196). 
On the basis of these perspectives of the philosophy of science, we will 
now take a closer look at the substantive theoretical body of world-systems 
analysis. 

---

181 
Step 2: 
World-systems analysis 
2.1. The “historical social system” as the unit of analysis 
The social reality to be analyzed by world-systems analysis is not that of the 
states themselves or even that of the states system but “something larger”: a 
world-system or historical system (Wallerstein 2004: x). The term world-
system comes from the work of Fernand Braudel. 
“Historical systems” as a unit of analysis was first introduced in Volume 
1 of The Modern World-System (Wallerstein 1974). In this perspective, the 
state and the inter-state structure (usually the core subject matter of IR) is just 
one institutional structure among others, and therefore only part of an inte-
grated framework of the modern world-system. A world-system (or historical 
system) is “a spatial/temporal zone which cuts across many political and cul-
tural units, one that represents an integrated zone of activity and institutions 
which obey certain systemic rules” (Wallerstein 2004: 17). There are three var-
iants of historical systems. Wallerstein first distinguishes between mini-systems 
and world-systems, then defines two types of world-systems: world-economies 
and world-empires. Please note that the hyphens in “world-system”, “world-
economies” and “world-empires” are important, as it is “not about systems, 
economies, empires of the world, but about systems, economies, empires that 
are a world” (Wallerstein 2004: 17, emphasis added). The systems do not nec-
essarily encompass the entire globe.
The criterion used to distinguish between the varieties/forms of world-
systems is the specific mode of division of labor, the “logic” of a particular 
system. The mode of division of labor determines how the systems are repro-
duced (Wallerstein 1987/2000: 139). This idea goes back to the economic 
historian Karl Polanyi (Polanyi 1944: The Great Transformation). Polanyi 
distinguished three forms of organizing an economy: by reciprocity, by redis-
tribution and by the market. The historical systems defined by Wallerstein are 
related to these three forms of economic organization; reciprocity of ex-
changes is a defining feature of the mini-systems (about six generations, with 
highly homogenous structures). The extraction and redistribution of tributes 
from local, self-administered, direct producers by a central organ is character-
istic of world-empires with vast political structures and diverse cultural pat-
terns. In addition to multiple political structures, integrated production struc-
tures and market exchange provide the organizational logic of reproduction in 
world-economies (Wallerstein 2004: 17; 1987/2000: 139-140).

---

182 
In short, there is a link between the “logic” and “form” of historical sys-
tems (Wallerstein 1987/2000: 139). A world-system is a “historical system 
governed by a singular logic and a set of rules within which persons and 
groups struggle with each other in pursuit of their interests and in accord with 
their values” (Wallerstein 1996: 87).
The choice of the “historical system” as the unit of analysis reflects Wal-
lerstein’s view of a unity of historical social science: the “unit” or “entity”, 
i.e. the specific historical system, is simultaneously systemic and historical 
(Wallerstein 1987/2000: 139).
The system is socially created; it has a history, is driven by mechanisms 
and goes through crises. The social processes of a historical system are un-
derstood as integrated, complex wholes. The introduction of the historical 
system as a unit of analysis is therefore the introduction of a different vision 
of social reality compared to positivist approaches to IR. The core object of 
the scientific approach of world-systems analysis is to define and explain the 
units of analysis – historical systems. 
2.2. Social times: structural time or the longue durée 
Having discussed the systemic quality of the unit of analysis, we will now in-
vestigate its historical character in more detail. The systemic quality points to