Energy flow — the capture and transformation of energy, and the output of pollution generated during that process — is essential to increases in complexity, but with the cost of growing disorder, or entropy. In world-systems, energy flow has been, and continues to be, a basis for intersocietal conflict and competition, including unequal exchange that generates inequality in levels of development and ecological degradation across societies. This article builds upon extant research on the role of energy flow in world-systems through an analysis of data on energy use and GDP in the world-system from 1975 to 2005 and for 1975—2004 for CO2 emissions. Using a panel of 87 countries, a world-system core, semiperiphery, and periphery is generated based on population-weighted energy use. Analysis of energy flows through this world-system provides support for the existence of unequal ecological exchange — the core countries are using more energy, emitting more CO2, and attaining more GDP per capita relative to the semiperiphery, with the periphery lagging well behind both. This relationship also holds for net importers of energy as compared to net energy exporters. This demonstrates the inequality in resource use that leads to the development of the core and the underdevelopment of the periphery. But gains are being made by countries in the semiperiphery and periphery relative to the core for both per capita and percentage of world total measures. This potential for development may place the planet in peril, however, as efficiency gains in the core are being offset by growth in emissions by the semiperiphery and periphery.
The evolution of the polity, particularly the transition of chiefdoms to states, has been the subject of considerable debate. In this article, the authors engage the discussion surrounding the meta-theoretical positions on the tempo of change, specifically whether states emerged gradually from quantitative changes in chiefdom societies—gradualism—or if their appearance was the result of punctuated and qualitative change—punctuated equilibrium. After revisiting the classic debate, the authors update it with new contributions drawn from the natural and social sciences. They contend that chiefdoms do not simply become states as a result of increases in the size of component parts; instead, punctuated equilibrium, stemming from responses to selection pressures from social forces, has more empirical support than gradualism in explaining state formation. The authors then take steps toward an integrative model of polity evolution, in which the state emerges as a discrete change resulting from social forces reaching critical thresholds.
The issues that Stephen K. Sanderson raises in his response to our discussion of his critique of the world-systems perspective deserve and require further comment and clarification. We want to briefly elucidate our positions on levels of analysis, core/periphery exploitation, Marxism, socialist and communist projects and the possible future of socialism, and our stance on the trajectory of global state formation.
Stephen Sanderson's (2005) 'World-systems analysis after thirty years: Should it rest in peace?' raised the prospect of an area of scholarship that had run its course. We answer the five main criticisms that he asserts against world-systems analysis: the primacy of exogenous over endogenous forces; teleology and reification; an incorrect understanding of the role of foreign investment; an inaccurate analysis of long-term trends of inequality; and, a misinterpretation of state socialism. As we respond to his criticisms, we find that while some of his arguments have merit, particularly against the relatively narrow form of world-systems analysis that he considered, his assumption of methodological individualism runs counter to the epistemological position of most world-systems scholars. Our review of the field finds it to be evolving and expanding into new realms that no do not suffer from the deficiencies Sanderson identified. Indeed, now at 35 years and counting, world-systems analysis is not dying, it is thriving.