Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

labor by extending political control over a broader geographic area. Only the contemporary capitalist world-system, however, unites such a broad geographic region (essentially the entire globe) in a single division of labor without unified political control of corresponding scope. Frank (1998) has challenged the Eurocentrism of world-systems theory, arguing that the Western European capitalist heyday is but an interlude in the dominance of Asia in the world economy. Arrighi and Silver (1999) compare the contemporary period to the two major hegemonic transitions—from Dutch to British power in the 1700s and from British to U.S. power in the early twentieth century . They argue that the financial expansion of the last two decades of the twentieth century, is not so much a sign of deepening globalization as of systemic crisis, with an uncertain outcome which depending largely on the response of the declining hegemonic power, the United States. The comparative perspective across geographic scales and historical time periods that world-systems theory can provide gives valuable insight into the novelty or otherwise of contemporary globalization processes.

Another interesting trend in current sociological work on the global system is the increasing concern of sociologists with the politics of international relations among states. The third volume of Wallerstein’s (1989) epic analysis of the modern world-system makes it clear that the world-system perspective, often accused in the past of being excessively ‘‘economistic,’’ is now focusing much more on the logic of interstate politics, an emphasis that is also central to Arrighi’s work. At the same time, other major sociological figures have turned their attention to the political and military aspects of the international system (e.g., Giddens 1985; Mann 1988; Tilly 1992). There has also been some attempt within world-systems theory to incorporate the dynamics of households (Smith and Wallerstein 1992) and of social movements. The emphasis within the tradition remains firmly on structural, macro-level processes, despite an increasing attention to cultural constructions (Wallerstein 1990). World-systems theory does analyze how the core countries are affected by the development of the world-system—unlike in the previous perspectives. However, this analysis is concentrated on the struggle among core nations for hegemonic power within the world system.

There is very little analysis of the impact of peripheral development, or even of globalization processes more generally, on the core within any of the perspectives discussed so far.

A quite different systems perspective on globalization has been advanced by Robertson (1992). Building on a concern to link a Parsonian concept of social systems to an analysis of international relations, Robertson posits that globalization involves the structuration of a social system at the global level. He argues that this process of globalization has been underway since the early fifteenth century and has resulted in ever-increas- ing global complexity within the social system. He shares with world-systems theory a ‘‘long view’’ of the development of globalization tendencies. However, he rejects the ‘‘reductionism’’ and ‘‘economism’’ of world-systems theory in favor of an analysis of the cultural and social conditions of social order within a global system. Robertson argues that there is an intensification of global consciousness in the sense that individuals increasingly orient toward the world as a whole. This rise in global consciousness is sustained both by the greater material interdependence of people around the world and by the interplay of four components of the global social system: the individual self, the national society, the world-system of societies, and humankind (1992, p. 27). The self-definition of each element can no longer be sustained in isolation from the other elements—under conditions of globalization each component is constituted relative to the others, providing the defining feature of globalization.

CURRENT GLOBAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

Each of the ‘‘classical’’ perspectives on globalization has therefore generated insights into the process and continues to sustain a research tradition of its own. However, the theme of globalization has spread beyond the confines of these traditions to become a central organizing concept across a wide range of sociological perspectives and research. Since approximately the early 1980s, globalization has had an increasingly visible impact on the core countries themselves, shaping the concerns of sociologists located in those countries. Sociology itself has been at least partially globalized—both by the emergence of ‘‘indigenous’’ sociological

communities around the world and by the growing international communication between these communities (Albrow 1996). Previous eras of sociological research into the global system had been shaped by a concern for the impact of the core on the periphery. However, these new patterns of globalization and new locations and perspectives of sociologists have generated an interest in how specific components of that system are being rearticulated and in particular how the global, the local, and the national are being reconstituted (Waters 1995). This diverse body of research typically examines globalization by generating ‘‘theories of the middle range,’’ often as a reaction against what was seen as overly abstract or deterministic systems-level theories (Portes and Walton 1981). The diffusion of the concept of globalization through sociology and this concern for revealing the mechanisms of globalization were reflected in a fragmentation of perspectives in the 1990s. In the rest of this article, we will review some of this recent research, focusing on the issues of the globalization of production, the constitution of a ‘‘global culture’’ and the future of the state in a global economy.

Over the course of the 1970s and 1980s, a growing body of work emerged that took the influence of the global system seriously in its analysis of change at the domestic level while at the same time using analysis of domestic political struggles and their economic consequences to explain changing ties with the global system (see Evans and Stephens 1988). These attempts to integrate international and comparative analysis are not unique to sociology. A parallel trend can be observed in political science as well (see Gourevitch 1986; Putnam 1988).

In the 1990s, work on global and local production systems, while often informed by dependency theory, also took a somewhat different approach. Reich (1991) argues that ‘‘national champion’’ corporations are rapidly being transformed into ‘‘global webs,’’ or ‘‘virtual corporations,’’ that coordinate knowledge inputs from around the globe. Castells (1997) argues that the structural logic of society is increasingly expressed through a ‘‘space of flows’’ that stretches across the globe. Flows of capital, information technology, organizational interaction, images, sounds, and symbols are the expression of the dominant processes of global society. They are based on an electronic infrastructure,

supported through key nodes or locations, and directed by a dominant, managerial elite. Most people continue to live in the ‘‘space of places’’ where local context dominates their experience. However, the space of flows tends to dominate the space of places as function and power are increasingly organized in flows while experience remains rooted for the most part in places (Castells 1997, p. 428).

Organizational theory suggests, however, that the model of the virtual corporation is likely to be problematic as home and host country effects, corporate cultures, and sectoral characteristics still shape corporate strategies in significant ways. Gereffi advances the concept of ‘‘global commodity chains’’ (GCCs) as the organizational structure that ties together these various social and institutional contexts in a global production network (Gereffi 1994; Gereffi and Korzeniewicz 1994; Harrison 1994). These GCCs are dominated either by key producers or by dominant brand name marketing firms, creating ‘‘producer-driven’’ and ‘‘buyer-driven’’ GCCs. The overall organization of the GCCs and location within the GCC shape workers’ wages, conditions, and power in the workplace (Bonacich et al. 1994).

This perspective therefore goes well beyond perspectives that simply warn about capital mobility and virtual corporations. It also allows us to provide more nuanced accounts of the dynamics involved in territories’ dependency on foreign capital, although the analysis of the political contexts of GCCs has not yet been fully developed. This more nuanced analysis of global production structures also holds the potential for improved integration of the role of domestic dynamics in determining the position of individual nations within the system and, by extension, shaping the structure of the system itself.

Increased attention is also being paid to how, even in an era of globalization, long-established patterns of interaction and cultural forms can profoundly shape a nation’s ability to compete globally. The success of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan can, for example, be argued to be due in part to the contribution of communitarian, patrimonial, and patrilineal cultural logics to creating the organizational networks that are at the heart of these countries’ economic success (Orrú et al. 1997). A

country’s historically shaped ‘logic of social organization’ can make it better suited to competition in particular industries—for example, a more decentralized, less hierarchical culture such as that of the United States may be more suitable for industries, such as software, that are based on knowledge sharing (Biggart and Guillen 1999; Guillen 1994).

Theorists of ‘‘industrial districts’’ have made a somewhat different point regarding the importance of local social and cultural practices in shaping global competitiveness. They argue that in an era of post-Fordist production, where information processing is critical and the need for ‘‘flexible specialization’’ central to competitiveness, local face-to-face relationships are necessary to build up the trust that supports such competitiveness (Piore and Sabel 1984). Initial versions of this approach pointed to long-established civic traditions, craft traditions, and kin relations as underpinning such organizational forms, in Italy in particular (Piore and Sabel 1984; Putnam 1993). Later research has explored the emergence of such cooperation and trust in ‘‘new’’ regions, such as Silicon Valley (Saxenian 1994), Hollywood (Storper 1997), Southern California (Scott 1993), and numerous other regions identified in a huge range of studies (Castells and Hall 1994). Sabel has explored at a theoretical level how such ‘‘constitutional orders’’ can develop or even be promoted by policy (Sabel 1996a).

Sassen explicitly attempts to integrate these local and global perspectives through an analysis of how labor flows are shaped by capital flows (Sassen 1988, 1998), how ‘‘global cities’’ arise as centralized nodes of control over decentralized production systems (Sassen 1990), how domestic structures of inequality are created by the demand for high-wage professionals and low-wage service workers (Sassen 1988, 1990), and how the state comes to play a critical role in globalization, even as it is transformed by the process (Sassen 1996, 1998). She extends this analysis to begin to analyze the incorporation of women into the global economy and the opportunities and threats posed for them by this process (Sassen 1998). Sassen demonstrates the interaction between transnational corporate networks and labor flows and territorial entities such as global cities and local and national states in shaping global capitalism.

This creative tension between local and global is also visible in research on ‘‘global culture.’’ For many authors, the global reach of markets has brought with it the cultural construction of actors around the world as individualized consumers, often in association with the more general spread of U.S. cultural norms internationally (Barber 1995; Featherstone 1990; Ritzer 1993; Sklair 1991). Others see a reaction against this process in a return to ‘‘tribalism,’’ in the increase in ethnic and nationalist conflicts and atrocities, and in the general struggle between ‘‘locals’’ caught in the space of places and ‘‘cosmopolitans’’ operating in the space of flows (Barber 1995; Castells 1997).

Each of these implies a vision of global culture as a homogenizing force, with local identites surfacing as a reaction against this domination or, in certain cases, exclusion. However, other authors emphasise how global cultural forms become transformed in the local culture and how local cultures form part of a more varied and heterogenous global culture. Appadurai (1996) argues that global cultural flows are shaped by the multiplicity of perspectives generated by flows of people, money, technologies, ideologies, and media technologies and symbols. Working through these varied cultural landscapes, local cultures work to incorporate global symbols but in ways specific to the local context. There is no pure local culture that is untainted by global culture but rather a variety of local cultures that are increasingly interpenetrated and constantly remade out of elements of global cultural flows (Appadurai 1996; Hall 1991).

Research on migration and transnational communities provides an opportunity to examine the interaction of local and global forces in shaping ‘‘global culture.’’ Hodagneu-Sotelo (1994) shows how migration can present opportunities for women to play a more central role in their communities and in mediating relations between the community and the state. Transnational communities of migrants emerge that may have huge economic and social impacts on the home and host countries by creating new identities and structuring flows of social and financial resources (Massey and Parrata 1998; Portes 1996). Another social group that has received much research attention, but rarely under the rubric of globalization, is professionals, who, as we have seen, are central to the process of globalization and are most likely to be integrated into global networks in the workplace (Reich 1991)

or in their migration patterns (Castells 1997). Finally, research into virtual communities promises to provide insights into the nature of community and shared culture in an ostensibly placeless cyberspace (Turkle 1995; Wellman et al. 1996).

Finally, we turn to the state, which is often claimed to be a doomed social actor in the face of globalization as mobile corporations, finance, migrants, and symbols undermine its economic, political, and cultural authority (Esping-Andersen 1996). Furthermore, globalization is one factor shifting the focus of politics away from the state and established interests and toward ‘‘new social movements’’ organized around new identities forged from ‘‘codes’’ from around the world (Melucci 1996). A variety of research, mainly in political economy, has aimed to show the continuing national diversity in socioeconomic organization and the persistent power of the state to shape economic outcomes (Boyer and Drache 1996; Hirst and Thompson 1996; Wade 1996). Indeed, globalization has in many ways been produced by states. Sassen (1998) argues that the state has played a key role in creating the international and local conditions for global production and capital accumulation. States have negotiated new legal regimes that secure the rights of capital on a global scale and have supported the strategic sites through which the global economy is organized. Economic sociology’s improved understanding of the social and political construction of markets can be applied very usefully to the continuing national diversity in state–market relations (Berger and Dore 1996). Fligstein (1990), for example, shows the domestic conditions for the increased U.S. corporate emphasis on finance, an emphasis that, at the end of the 1990s, threatened the East Asian economies (Wade 1998). The particular property rights and exchange rules underpinning the construction of a single market within the European Union have also been profoundly shaped by interstate negotiations (Fligstein and Mara-Drita 1996).

Neil Brenner (1998, 1999) argues that state structures and strategies are being reconstituted in order to mediate the global and local processes discussed above. The ‘‘glocal state’’ attempts to promote the global competitiveness of its major urban regions through increased ties to both local and international actors. Sassen (1999) points out that this remaking of certain parts of the state

apparatus to promote global competitiveness begins to shape the character of the state as a whole, as even those sections of the state still predominantly concerned with national social policy become accountable to the new priorities and as the national legal and institutional structure is changed to accommodate international capital. These processes are not inevitable, however, as the international hegemony of Anglo-American economic ideology contributes to the creation of a ‘‘leaner, meaner’’ state that retains the institutional capability to support capital even as its capacity to provide social services or to support civil society weakens (Evans 1997). This excessive global liberalization and integration of financial markets is likely to have a corrosive effect on domestic state capacities and social welfare (Block 1996).

The state is therefore remade by globalization, even as it plays a critical role in constituting the global economy. Sociologists are beginning to explore the implications of this reconstitution of the state for economic sovereignty and citizenship. Castells (1997) argues that a ‘‘network state’’ is emerging, a state in which sovereignty is pooled between increasingly intertwined local, national, and international levels of governance, such as in the European Union. Debates persist as to whether this network state means the eclipse of local or national institutions as European Union institutions increasingly come to predominate (Streeck and Schmitter 1991) or even as a ‘‘postnational society’’ is created in Europe (Habermas 1998). There are persistent examples within Europe, however, that local and national institutions continue to play a central role in generating economic and social progress. Recent examples include national corporatist institutions in the Netherlands (Visser and Hemerijck 1996), local ‘‘micro-corporatism’’ in Italy (Locke 1995; Regini 1995), and a combination of the two in the Republic of Ireland (Sabel 1996b).

States are clearly being transformed by both the localization and globalization of economic life. Boyer and Hollingsworth (1996) argue that economic action is best conceived of as ‘‘nested’’ within a combination of local, national, and international institutions, rather than as ‘‘embedded’’ within national regimes. Indeed, formal sovereignty is shifting away from the state in many cases—toward both privatized transnational legal

regimes (such as international commercial arbitration) and increasingly legitimate international human rights codes and instruments. These developments are also transforming the character of citizenship—on the one hand weakening certain provisions around economic and social citizenship (Sassen 1996) while on the other universalizing certain human rights (Soysal 1994). In short, then, the state remains a vital actor within the global system but one whose role, purpose, and structure are being transformed in new and unexpected ways.

Sociology itself is being transformed and globalized, if only partially up to this point. In the process, global systems analysis has moved from the specialization of a number of key theories to perhaps becoming a defining element of sociology in the twenty-first century. New methodologies are being developed to counter the abstraction of systems analysis and to provide insights into the process of globalization as revealed in local contexts and as practiced by social actors (Burawoy et al. forthcoming). What new theoretical and methodological traditions will emerge from this period of change remains unclear. Overall, our understanding of the global system must still be considered a project ‘‘under construction’’ rather than a finished set of tools easily applied to specific problems.

This is all the more true given the rapid changes in the global system itself. Some things are clear nonetheless. We know that trajectories of change in national societies cannot be analyzed without reference to the global system in which they are embedded any more than the analysis of change in individual communities can be attempted without awareness of the national society in which they are embedded; but we also know that the character of relations between an individual state and the larger system is shaped not just only by the evolution of the global system but also by the outcome of political struggles at the local level. We know that the nations located at the bottom of this structure are disadvantaged economically as well as politically, but we also know that mobility is possible. We know that diffusion of ideas and norms throughout the global system has a powerful influence on how social institutions are structured in individual nations, but we also know that this diffusion takes place within a system that has a very hierarchical structure. Increasingly, we understand that local

societies incorporate global cultural forms in complex and contested ways.

We know that the contemporary global system is an invention of the last half-dozen centuries; predicting how long it will endure is another question. For some, the future seems gloomy as the market threatens to undermine both state and society and lead to barbarism, as Polanyi (1944) suggested. For others, the future holds the possibility of the re-creation of civilizing institutions on a more comprehensive global scale. Still others seek to identify spaces for action within globalization processes, hoping to shape alternatives to the pessimistic Polanyian vision of creeping barbarism.

REFERENCES

Abu-Lughod, J. 1989 Before European Hegemony. New York: Oxford University Press.

Albrow, M. 1996 The Global Age. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Amsden, A. H. 1989 Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Appadurai, A. 1996 Modernity at Large. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Arrighi, G. 1994 The Long Twentieth Century. Lon-

don: Verso.

———, and B. Silver 1999 Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Baran, P. 1957 The Political Economy of Growth. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Barber, B. R. 1995 Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Times Books.

Beck, U. 1992 Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

———, A. Giddens, and S. Lash 1994 Reflexive Modernization. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Berger, S., and R. Dore, eds. 1996 National Diversity and Global Capitalism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Biggart, N., and M. Guillen 1999 ‘‘Developing Difference: Social Organization and the Rise of the Automotive Industries in South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, and Argentina.’’ American Sociological Review, forthcoming.

Block, F. 1996 The Vampire State: And Other Myths and Fallacies About the US Economy. New York: The New Press.

Boli, J., and G. M. Thomas 1999 Constructing World Culture : International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Boli-Bennett, J. 1979 ‘‘The Ideology of Expanding State Authority in National Constitutions, 1870–1970.’’ In J. Meyer and M. Hannan, eds., National Development and the World System. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bonacich, E., et al., eds. 1994 Global Production: The Apparel Industry in the Pacific Rim. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Bornschier, V., and T.-H. Ballmer-Cao 1979 ‘‘Income Inequality: A Cross-National Study of the Relationships Between MNC-Penetration, Dimensions of Pow- er-Structure and Income Distribution.’’ American Sociological Review 44:487–506.

Bornschier, V., C. Chase-Dunn, and R. Rubinson 1978 ‘‘Cross-National Evidence of the Effects of Foreign Investment and Aid on Economic Growth and Inequality: A Survey of Findings and a Re-analysis.’’

American Journal of Sociology 84:651–683.

Bottomore, T., and R. J. Brym, eds. 1989 The Capitalist Class: An International Study. New York: New York University Press.

Boyer, R., and D. Drache 1996 States Against Markets: The Limits of Globalization. London: Routledge.

Boyer, R., and J. R. Hollingsworth 1996 ‘‘From National Embeddedness to Spatial and Institutional Nestedness’’ In R. Boyer and J. R. Hollingsworth, eds., Contemporary Capitalism. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Brenner, N. 1998 ‘‘Global Cities, Glocal States: Global City Formation and State Territorial Restructuring in Contemporary Europe.’’ Review of International Political Economy 5(1):1–37.

——— 1999 ‘‘Beyond State-Centrism? Space, Territoriality and Geographical Scale in Globalization Studies.’’ Theory and Society 28(1):39–78.

Brenner, R. 1976 ‘‘Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe.’’ Past and Present 70:30–75.

———1977 ‘‘The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism.’’ New Left Review 104:24–92.

———1998 ‘‘The Economics of Global Turbulence.’’

New Left Review 229:1–264.

Burawoy, M., et al. forthcoming Global Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cardoso, F. H. 1974 ‘‘As tradicoes de desenvolvimentoassociado.’’ Estudos Cebrap 8:41–75.

———, and Enzo Faletto 1979 (1969) Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Castells, M. 1997 The Information Age, 3 vols. Oxford: Blackwell.

———, and P. Hall 1994 Technopoles of the World. London: Routledge.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher 1975 ‘‘The Effect of International Dependence on Development and Inequality: A Cross-National Study.’’ American Sociological Review 40(6):720–738.

——— 1989 Global Formation: Structures of the World Economy. New York: Blackwell.

———, and T. D. Hall 1997 Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems. Boulder: Westview Press.

———, and K. M. Mann 1998 The Wintu and their Neighbors: A Very Small World-System in Northern California. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Crowly, A. M., J. Rauch, S. Seagrove, and D. A. Smith 1998 ‘‘Quantitative Cross-National Studies of Economic Development: A Comparison of the Economics and Sociology Literatures.’’ Studies in Comparative International Development 33(2):30–57.

Delacroix, J., and C. Ragin 1981 ‘‘Structural Blockage: A Cross-National Study of Economic Dependence, State Efficacy and Underdevelopment.’’ American Journal of Sociology 86:1311–1347.

Dixon,W. J., and T. Boswell 1996a ‘‘Dependency, Disarticulation and Denominator Effects: Another Look at Foreign Capital Penetration.’’ American Journal of Sociology 102(2):543–562.

——— 1996b ‘‘Differential Productivity, Negative Externalities, and Foreign Capital Dependency: Reply to Firebaugh.’’ American Journal of Sociology

102(2):576–584.

Emmanuel, A. 1972 Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Escobar, A. 1995 Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Esping-Andersen, G., ed. 1996 Welfare States in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Evans, P. B. 1979 Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational State and Local Capital in Brazil. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

——— 1987 ‘‘Class, State, and Dependence in East Asia: Some Lessons for Latin Americanists.’’ In F. Deyo, ed., The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

———1995 Embedded Autonomy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

———1997 ‘‘The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalization.’’ World Politics 50(1):62–87.

———, and John Stephens 1988 ‘‘Development and the World Economy.’’ In Neil Smelser, ed., The Handbook of Sociology. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

———, and Michael Timberlake 1980 ‘‘Dependence, Inequality and the Growth of the Tertiary: A Comparative Analysis of Less Developed Countries.’’ American Sociological Review 45:531–53.

Featherstone, M., ed. 1990 Global Culture. London: Sage.

Ferguson, J. 1990 The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Firebaugh, G. 1992 ‘‘Growth Effects of Foreign and Domestic Investment.’’ American Journal of Sociology

98(1):105–130.

——— 1996 ‘‘Does Foreign Capital Harm Poor Nations? New Estimates Based on Dixon and Boswell’s Measures of Capital Penetration.’’ American Journal of Sociology 102(2):563–575.

Fligstein, N. 1990 The Transformation of Corporate Control. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

———, and I. Mara-Drita 1996 ‘‘How to Make a Market: Reflections on the Attempt to Create a Single Market in the European Union.’’ American Journal of Sociology

102(1):1–33.

Frank, A. G. 1998 Re-Orient: Global Economy in the Asian Age Berkeley: University of California Press.

Frobel, F., J. Heinrich, and O. Kreye 1981 The New International Division of Labor: Structural Unemployment in Industrialized Countries and Industrialization in Developing Countries. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Gereffi, G. 1994 ‘‘The International Economy.’’ In N. Smelser and R. Swedberg, eds., The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press/Russell Sage Foundation.

———, and M. Korzeniewicz 1994 Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Giddens, A. 1985 The Nation-State and Violence. Berkeley: University of California Press.

——— 1991 The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Gourevitch, P. 1986 The Politics of Hard Times. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Guillen, M. F. 1994 Models of Management: Work, Authority, and Organization in a Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Habermas, J. 1998 The Inclusion of the Other. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Hall, S. 1991 ‘‘The Local and the Global: Globalization and Ethnicity’’ In A. D. King, ed., Culture, Globalization and the World-System. Binghamton: Department of Art and Art History, State University of New York– Binghamton.

Harrison, B. 1994 Lean and Mean. New York: Basic Books.

Hirst, P., and G. Thompson 1996 Globalization in Question. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

Hodagneu-Sotelo, P. 1994 Gendered Transitions. Berke-

ley: University of California Press.

Hodson, R., ed. 1997 The Globalization of Work. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Inkeles, A., and D. Smith 1974 Becoming Modern: Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Kentor, J. 1998 ‘‘The Long-Term Effects of Foreign Investment Dependence on Economic Growth, 1940– 1990.’’ American Journal of Sociology 103(4):1024–1046.

Korzeniewicz, R. P., and T. P. Moran 1997 ‘‘WorldEconomic Trends in the Distribution of Income, 1965–1992.’’ American Journal of Sociology

102(4):1000–1039.

Lash, S., and J. Urry 1994 Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.

Locke, R. 1995 Remaking the Italian Economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Mann, M. 1988 States, War and Capitalism. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Massey, D. S., and E. A. Parrado 1998 ‘‘International Migration and Business Formation in Mexico.’’ Social Science Quarterly 79(1):1–20.

Melucci, A. 1996 Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Meyer, J. W. 1980 ‘‘The World Polity and the Authority of the Welfare State.’’ In A. Bergesen, ed., Studies of the Modern World-System. New York: Academic Press.

——— J. Boli, G. M. Thomas, and F. O. Ramirez 1997 ‘‘World Society and the Nation-State.’’ American Journal of Sociology 103(1):144–181.

———, D. Frank, A. Hironaka, E. Schofer, N. B. Tuma 1997 ‘‘The Structuring of a World Environmental Regime, 1870–1990.’’ International Organization

51(4):623–651.

———, F. O. Ramirez, and Y. N. Soysal 1992 ‘‘World Expansion of Mass Education, 1870–1980.’’ Sociology of Education 65(2):128–149.

O’Hearn, D. 1990 ‘‘TNCs, Intervening Mechanisms and Economic Growth in Ireland: A Longitudinal Test and Extension of the Bornschier Model.’’ World Development 18(3):417–429.

Orrù, M., N. Biggart, and G. Hamilton 1997 The Economic Organization of East Asian Capitalism. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Piore, M., and C. Sabel 1984 The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books.

Portes, A. 1996 ‘‘Global Villagers: The Rise of Transnational Communities’’ The American Prospect (March– April):74–77.

———, and J. Walton 1981 Labor, Class and the International System. New York: Academic Press.

Prebisch, R. 1950 ‘‘The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems.’’ Economic Bulletin for Latin America 7(February):1–22.

Putnam, R. 1988 ‘‘Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.’’ International Organization 42(Summer):427–460.

——— 1993 Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Ramirez, F., and J. Boli 1982 ‘‘Global Patterns of Educational Institutionalization.’’ In P. Albach et al., eds.,

Comparative Education. New York: MacMillan.

Regini, M. 1995 Uncertain Boundaries: The Social and Political Construction of European Economies. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Reich, R. 1991 The Work of Nations. New York: Vintage Books.

Ritzer, G. 1993 The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge.

Robertson, R. 1992 Globalization. London: Sage

Robinson, W. I. 1998 ‘‘Beyond Nation-State Paradigms: Globalization, Sociology, and the Challenge of Transnational Studies.’’ Sociological Forum 13(4):561–594.

Rodrik, D. 1997 Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.

Rubinson, R. 1976 ‘‘The World Economy and the Distribution of Income within States.’’ American Sociological Review 41:638–659.

Sabel, C. 1996a ‘‘Constitutional Orders: Trust Building and Response to Change ‘‘In R. Boyer and J. R. Hollingsworth, eds., Contemporary Capitalism. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

——— 1996 Ireland: Local Partnerships and Social Innovation. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

Salzinger, L. 1997 ‘‘From High Heels to Swathed Bodies: Gendered Meanings Under Production in Mexico’s Export-Processing Industry.’’ Feminist Studies 23(3):549–574.

Sassen, S. 1988 The Mobility of Labour and Capital. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

———1990 The Global City. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

———1996 Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.

———1998 Globalization and its Discontents. New York: The New Press.

———1999 ‘‘Cracked Casings: Notes Towards an Analytics for Studying Transnational Processes.’’ Mimeo, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago.

Saxenian, A. 1994 Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Scott, A. J. 1993 Technopolis. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Sklair, L. 1991 Sociology of the Global System. Hemel Hempstead, U.K.: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Smith D. A., and D. R. White 1991 ‘‘Structure and Dynamics of the Global Economy: Network Analysis of International Trade, 1965–1980.’’ Social Forces 70(4):857–893.

Smith, J., and I. Wallerstein 1992 Creating and Transforming Households: The Constraints of the World-Economy. Cambridge, U.K., and Paris: Cambridge University Press and Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.

Snidal, D. 1985 ‘‘The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory.’’ International Organization 39(4):580–614.

Snyder, D., and E. Kick 1979 ‘‘Structural Position in the World System and Economic Growth, 1955–1970: A Multiple Network Approach.’’ American Journal of Sociology 84(5):1096 –1126.

Storper, M. 1997 The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. London: Guilford Press.

Streeck, W., and P. Schmitter 1991 ‘‘From National Corporatism to Transnational Pluralism: Organized Interests in the Single European Market.’’ Politics and Society 19(2):133–164.

Soysal, Y. 1994 Limits of Citizenship. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Tilly, C. 1992 Coercion, Capital and European States, AD 990–1990. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

Turkle, S. 1995 Life on the Screen. New York: Touchstone/Simon and Schuster.

Van Rossem, R. 1996 ‘‘The World System Paradigm as General Theory of Development—A Cross-National Test.’’ American Sociological Review 61(3):508–527.

Visser, J., and A. Hemerijck 1996 A Dutch Miracle. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Wade, R. 1990 Governing the Market. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

———1996 ‘‘The Limits of Globalization.’’ In S. Berger and R. Dore, eds., National Diversity and Global Capitalism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

———1998 ‘‘The Coming Fight Over Capital Flows.’’

Foreign Policy 113:41–54.

Walker, R. A. 1999 ‘‘Putting Capital in Its Place: Globalization and the Prospects for Labor.’’ Geoforum, forthcoming.

Wallerstein, I. 1974 The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy. New York: Academic Press.

———1989 The Modern World-System, III: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World Economy, 1730’s–1840’s. New York: Academic Press.

———1990 ‘‘Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World-System’’ In M. Featherstone, ed., Global Culture. London: Sage.

Waltz, K. 1979 Theory of International Relations. Reading,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Warren, B. 1980 Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism. London: New Left Books.

Waters, M. 1995 Globalization. London: Routledge.

Wellman, B., et al. 1996 ‘‘Computer Networks as Social Networks.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 22:213–238.

Zeitlin, M. 1984 The Civil Wars in Chile (or the Bourgeois Revolutions That Never Were). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

SEÁN Ó RIAIN

PETER B. EVANS

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Government regulation is part of two larger areas of study, one encompassing all state policy making and administration, whether regulatory or not, the other encompassing all regulatory and deregulatory

activity, whether by the state or by some other institution. Viewed either way, the subject remains an interdisciplinary growth industry, with contributions made by political scientists, economists, legal scholars, historians, and sociologists. Scholarly emphasis in the 1990s on economic globalization and its consequences has added to an already rich literature on government regulation, deregulation, and re-regulation. Now attention is focused on the supranational as well as the national level. Cross-national, comparative studies of government regulation complement a large literature focused on the United States.

WHAT IS GOVERNMENT REGULATION?

There is no uniformly agreed-upon concept of regulation that separates it from other kinds of government activity. Mitnick (1980, pp. 3–19) offers a good overview of concepts of regulation. On the one hand, narrow definitions typically focus on government action affecting private business by policing market entry and exit, rate or price, and profit structures and competitive environment. Some narrow definitions confine regulatory activity to that undertaken by administrative agencies (see also Majone 1994). If courts are the exclusive site for state rule making and enforcement, it is not considered government regulation. On the other hand, the broadest definitions conceive of regulation as government action affecting private businesses or citizens. Government regulation then becomes virtually coterminous with all government policy making and administration, whether by legislatures, administrative agencies, courts, or some combination.

Mitnick (1980) shows that American scholarship has provided for much variation in the conceptualizing of government regulatory activity. However, Majone (1994) suggests that in the past, American concepts typically were narrower than those adopted explicitly or implicitly by European scholars. For example, self-labeled regulation theory is a ‘‘quasi-Marxist theory [in which] the notion of regulation . . . refers to institutions and norms that permit the reproduction of conflictual or contradictory social relations’’ (see Steinmetz 1996, p. 346). In this predominantly European tradition, modes of regulation are broad political-economic and cultural governance forms. They revolve

around capital accumulation and involve state action, including macroeconomic, social, and labormarket policies, but also involve systems of interest intermediation in the workplace, economic rule making by banks and other nongovernmental institutions, and cultural schemata followed and taught in families and schools. Lange and Regini (1989) and Regini (1995) reject such an all-encom- passing definition of regulation in favor of a somewhat narrower one. But they also call attention to how regulatory action structures and reconciles conflicts and allocates resources, as well as coordinates interaction and relationships in production and distribution.

Lange and Regini (1989) argue that regulatory principles and regulatory institutions must be separated analytically. Both economic and political institutions regulate or engage in governance. We tend to equate market exchange principles with economic institutions and legal rulings and administrative decrees with the state. However, as Lange and Regini (1989) demonstrate, economic institutions also employ command and control logic, while the state may employ the logic of exchange. Most recently, European scholars have moved away from equating regulation with the realm of all institutional governance or of all government legislation and social control. Many now distinguish ‘‘the regulation issue’’ both from other modes of institutional governance and from other modes of state action, including nationalization and government planning (Majone 1994, p. 77).

Sabatier (1975) has offered a useful definition of government regulation in between the broad and narrow extremes. His definition is based on the goals and content of government policy, not on the means of enforcement. It highlights the distinction between government policing of behavior and government allocation of goods and services. Distributive (e.g., defense contracts) and redistributive policies (e.g., the income tax, social welfare policies) allocate goods and services. Government policing is self-regulatory if it polices behavior to the benefit of the group whose behavior is policed. It is regulatory if it ‘‘seek(s) to change the behavior of some actors in order to benefit others’’ (Sabatier 1975, p. 307). Pollution control, antidiscrimination, consumer protection, occupational safety and health, employment relations, and antitrust are examples of regulatory policies.

Sociologists often distinguish between economic and social regulation. Where economic regulation controls market activities, such as entry and exit or price controls, social regulation controls aspects of production, such as occupational safety and health standards and pollution control (e.g., Szasz 1986). The term social regulation is also used to signal regulation that directly affects people rather, or more than, markets (Mitnick 1980, p. 15). In the 1990s literature on European economic integration, a distinction has been made between regulation (governance oriented to making markets) and reregulation (governance oriented to constraining markets) (e.g., Streeck 1998). But the term reregulation is also used more broadly, to signal regulatory reform that both liberalizes markets and institutes new rules to police them (Vogel 1996).

Regulation is dynamic. It is ‘‘an ongoing process or relation’’ between regulator and regulated parties (Mitnick 1980, p. 6). Because of the nature of the legal system in the United States, regulation U.S.-style tends to involve issuing and applying legal rules (Sabatier 1975, p. 307). For example, Congress has legislated federal statutes to promote competitive markets, to prevent race and gender discrimination in employment, and to increase workplace safety. These laws have been interpreted and enforced by the appropriate federal administrative agencies and by the federal courts. Federal regulatory agencies include the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (For case studies of many of these agencies, see Derthick and Quirk 1985; Wilson 1980b.)

Consistent with the U.S. emphasis on legal rules as implementing mechanisms, the institutional forms used to reach regulatory goals are varied. Breyer (1982) provides an overview of the ideal-typical workings of various government regulatory forms, including cost-of-service rate making (e.g., public utility regulation), standard setting (e.g., administrative rule making and enforcement