The causes of convergence in Western immigration control

2002 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
EYTAN MEYERS

In recent years, some scholars have argued that there has been a convergence of the immigration control policies of the industrial democracies. This article demonstrates that, in fact, there has been an extraordinary similarity among the immigration control policies of the major receiving countries for over a century. It examines six alternative explanations for these similarities in immigration control policies: (1) a global hegemon that forces or persuades various countries to act in unison; (2) global or regional migration regimes and organizations; (3) interdependence between the immigration control policies of various countries; (4) emulation of immigration control policies of one country by other countries; (5) the world system approach; and (6) interdependence between the socioeconomic and foreign policy factors that lead to immigration control policies. The article argues that it is the last factor that explains most of the similarity among the immigration control policies. It demonstrates how global economic cycles, shared migratory pressures, alliances that produce common foreign policy considerations, wars that receiving countries are involved in and global ideological cycles produce the convergence of immigration control policies in various receiving countries.

Author(s):  
Przemysław Potocki

The article is based on an analysis of certain aspects of how the public opinion of selected nations in years 2001–2016 perceived the American foreign policy and the images of two Presidents of the United States (George W. Bush, Barack Obama). In order to achieve these research goals some polling indicators were constructed. They are linked with empirical assessments related to the foreign policy of the U.S. and the political activity of two Presidents of the United States of America which are constructed by nations in three segments of the world system. Results of the analysis confirmed the research hypotheses. The position of a given nation in the structure of the world system influenced the dynamics of perception and the directions of empirical assessments (positive/negative) of that nation’s public opinion about the USA.


Author(s):  
Alexandre Freitas

The objective of this article is to discuss the relevance of the concept of semiperiphery to analyze the world system in the 21st century. First, the main concepts of the world-system approach will be analyzed. In the second part, a more in-depth examination of the question of the semi-periphery will be made through its political and economic characteristics. Later, we will examine the empirical attempts to define the semiperiphery, its role in the reproduction of the capitalist world-economy and the question of mobility in the world-system hierarchy. In conclusion, the role of government apparatus in the issue of development and overcoming the status of semi-periphery in the capitalist world-system will be highlighted.


2021 ◽  
pp. 104-120
Author(s):  
Anna Izgarskaya ◽  
Stanislav Lysenko

The article summarizes the results of criticism of I. Wallerstein's model of peripheralization, carried out at different times by foreign researchers who used this model to interpret processes in pre-capitalist systems and societies. On this basis, the authors formulate a number of requirements for the subsequent development of a theoretical model of relations between the core and the periphery of the world-system approach of I. Wallerstein. The authors believe that the results of the study may be relevant for the analysis of societies undergoing a process of peripheralization in the post-Soviet space and, in particular, Russia.


1980 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. Kennedy

The study of modern international relations is carried on, essentially, by two main types of scholars: diplomatic historians, and political scientists. There may be other types, like economists and sociologists, who recognize and take account of the importance of international politics in their own fields of study; but foreign affairs, and the processes that take place within the global system of relations, are not of central concern to them. By contrast, diplomatic historians (by which is meant here, not merely those who research into the rather narrow past actions of diplomats alone, but also those interested in the history of foreign policy and_what has affected it) would simply not exist if there was no perception and acceptance of international relations as a field of study; and this would be equally true of that well-defined sub-division of political science which has as its essential concern the analysis of relations between nation-states and of other ‘actors’ in the world system.


2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-45
Author(s):  
S. Yachin ◽  
◽  
I. Kupriyashkin ◽  
H. Mei-Lan ◽  
◽  
...  

1995 ◽  
pp. 497-511
Author(s):  
Kees Terlouw

France is the only state who always belonged to the core of the world-system and never attained hegemony, nor declined into the semi-periphery. This paper focuses on the reasons for this relatively stable position in the pre-industrial world-system. Crucial is France's size and fragmented regional structure. These constraints prevented France from building on its favorable position at the inception of the world-system. France's development within the world-system was further retarded by the shift in the center of gravity and mode of transportation of the world-system. This interplay between general processes, at the level of the entire world-system, and the specific regional structure within France, demonstrates how the general processes of the world-system can be linked to the specific situation in a given country.


1992 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Bergesen

During the 1980s, a transition to democratic politics occurred in two very different parts of the world: state socialist Eastern Europe and dependent capitalist Latin America. This paper asks, “why‘? Why did regime change occur in the 1980s and why in the semiperipheral zone of the world system? Why, for instance, was there no regime instability on a similar scale in the core or the periphery? This paper proposes an answer that links convulsive political restructuring to the downturn phase of long Kondratieff-like economic cycles of the world-economy. Specifically, the generalized downturn that the world-economy entered in the 1970s is seen as the beginning of a Kondratieff B-Phase of economic difficulty, the political response to which is mediated by a state's zonal position in the larger world system. More powerful core nations respond by acting outwardly, in an effort to control the external environment through mechanisms such as the formation of economic blocs, like moves toward Europe an economic cooperation in 1992, and North American free-trade negotiations. Semiperipheral nations, being more constrained and weaker, act inwardly, changing their regimes to better deal with economic hardships. Finally, peripheral nations, weakest and most constrained, take little or no political action.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document