the dominance of the core. In addition, some states in the semi-periphery acquire
sufficient influence to exploit states located in the periphery, and therefore do not
see it in their economic interests to undermine the commanding position of the
core, which they seek to join.
World Systems Theory remains influential among many political geographers,
who find the global scale of the analysis useful. Others have criticized the theory
based on what they view as several weaknesses. One of the most common charges
against WST is that it fails to properly take into account differences in culture and
in historical circumstances. Cultural geographers and anthropologists attacking
the theory on this basis hold that Wallerstein and others have ignored fundamental
differences between cultures and have ignored the distinctive character of various
historical civilizations, as well as differing social and economic value systems
among countries. Other critics have pointed out that at the time Wallerstein and
others were propounding the existence of a nearly ubiquitous world system com-
mitted to capitalism, dozens of countries, including the USSR and China, were
pursuing economic advancement under a heavily socialized, state-controlled
model, and they could hardly be considered as part of a global capitalist system.
The rise of transnational corporations along withglobalizationof capital markets
has also undermined some of the fundamental assumptions of WST, because such
corporations frequently locate production facilities in the periphery, dramatically
increasing industrial production there. Yet despite the critiques of its detractors,
WST continues to be a widely discussed and debated theory of state relations
and economic development among geographers and social scientists in general.372 World Systems Theory