an imbalance of not only economic but also social power. Thus, core and periphery
relationships are conceived of as undesirable and exploitative, with spatial integra-
tion and economic interdependence seen as “solutions.” This view is evident in the
writings of many neo-Marxist theoreticians, who generally see core and periphery
development as symptomatic of what, in their perspective, are the broader distor-
tions of capitalistic economic systems. Other theoretical answers have been pro-
posed to redress the imbalances wrought by core and periphery development,
including growth pole theory. Proponents of the growth pole model hold that eco-
nomic development can be stimulated by the establishment of urban settlements in
the periphery, which, through the process ofagglomeration, stimulate further
development across the entire region. The success of growth pole strategy is open
to debate, but additional models and strategies designed to alleviate the worst char-
acteristics of core-periphery development are the focus of much of the work of
economic geographers.
Political geographers often make use of the core and periphery model in form-
ing theories about political integration, state cohesion, national identity, and other
aspects of the subdiscipline. Indeed, the nature of the core and periphery relation-
ship in regard to control of political space has been viewed as playing an integral
part in the generation ofcentrifugal and centripetal forces. For political geogra-
phers, the core region is characterized by the spatial concentration of political
power and influence, often represented by the capital city of a state. Political con-
trol, at least in theory, diminishes as distance from the core area increases, so that
in the peripheral regions of the state, the manifestation of state authority is mini-
mized. As was the case with economic geography, this nonuniform distribution
and reduction in the political influence of the state apparatus in the hinterland of
the country is viewed as negative, and states sometimes seek spatial remedies. In
recent decades, for example, a number of countries relocated the capital city from
a marginal core region to a more centralized location. In theory, by shifting the
seat of political authority to a more central location, those regions in the hinterland
that were less integrated into the country’s political structures would become more
tightly united to the state, by dint of simple proximity to the capital. An excellent
example of this strategy is the case of Kazakhstan, which in 1997 relocated the
capital city from Almaty, a marginal location in the southeastern corner of the
country, to Astana, a city positioned near the geographical center of Kazakhstan.
Although several reasons were provided by Kazakh authorities as to why the move
was necessary, many observers hold that the motivation was to secure the loyalty
of the northern regions of Kazakhstan, which hold a large Russian minority. Core
and periphery theory may be found in much of the theoretical structures of politi-
cal geography, including bothHeartland theoryandRimland theory.
Core and Periphery 73