Debates within the Discipline

From its inception, one of the strengths of development sociology has been its mutual concern with disciplinary/theoretical and policy/practice issues. Since the 1950’s, sociology has engaged these twin foci to explore both internal and international spatial inequality in two contrasting ways. The first conceptualizes development as a series of interventions in transition-economies with the goal of facilitating economic growth and/or improving lives and livelihoods.  The second understands the ‘development project’ (McMichael 1996) as an organizing principle to promote global capitalist expansion during the Cold War, with an overarching geopolitical goal of securing resources and markets for Western powers. A range of lively debates exists both within and across these two perspectives.

In the 1950s, development thought was dominated by modernization theory. This lens divided the world into “traditional” and “modern” societies, each with distinct qualities, such as economic structures, values, or family and community organization. Positing that modern societies possessed a set of characteristics that had allowed them to advance economically, modernization theory focused on strategies to facilitate a transition from traditional (generally third-world countries) to modern (Western) economies (Rostow 1963). Modernization theory itself was a diverse set of ideas about how to facilitate this transition. Following in the footsteps of classical sociological thinkers, several modernization theorists sought to understand and theorize transition moments such as the industrial revolution (Smelser 1959, Bendix 1967) and social structures such as religion (Bellah 1957) as ways of understanding the mechanisms that facilitated the transition to modernized societies. One popular model in the modernization literature articulated a dual economy approach, divided by a low technology agricultural sector in rural areas (e.g. traditional), and modern infrastructure in the urban areas (cf. Boeke 1953; Lewis 1954; Lambert 1967). Another argued that the change from “traditional” to “modern” required the transformation of values to those similar in Western societies (cf Parsons 1951; Hoselitz 1960; Lerner 1958; McClelland 1961). Writers argued that developed countries were characterized by universalism, achievement orientation, and functional specificity; whereas in developing areas individuals needed to learn “the need for achievement” (McClelland 1961).

Farming near Tilonia, Rajasthan, India

Modernization theory continues to be a central concept in both the sociology of development and in development practice (for recent articulations, see Inkeles and Smith 1974, and Davis 2004). Yet, by the 1960s, many modernization writers realized that the process of modernization did not necessarily guarantee a smooth path to liberal democracy and was often accompanied by discontinuities, breakdowns, dictatorship, rebellions, and protests (Moore 1966, Eisenstadt 1970). Dependency theory, originating in Latin America in the inter-war years, emerged as a response to and direct critique of modernization theory (Cardoso 1979, Furtado 1964). Dependency theorists looked beyond domestic economies to suggest that the persistence of underdevelopment could be explained through long histories of unequal exchange between Europe and the United States and the rest of the world. These relationships, emerging from imperialism and colonialism, were at once fundamental to the rise of the West and central to the structural underdevelopment of the rest of the world (Baran 1957, Sweezy and Baran 1966, Amin 1973, Gunder-Frank1978, Rodney 1974, Evans 1979). Dependency thinkers posed various approaches to understanding and addressing this relationship. Some, particularly Latin-American thinkers associated with the UN Economic Commission for Latin America, posed import-substitution industrialization as a strategy for development. Others, such as Paul Baran, adopted a more overtly Marxian view of dependency, seeing it as an international division of labor into regionally defined skilled and unskilled workers. Thinkers in this school saw little path out of these dependent relationships short of political revolution. As such, dependency theorist moved away from a modernization approach to development as “transition” to one that, rather, asked questions about processes of transformation. A common theme that united dependency thinkers, and subsequently paved the way for new directions in the sociology of development, was the use of a core/periphery model to explain both international and internal socio-economic relationships. As such, dependency theorists mapped their analyses of the foreign trade, labor, and investment linkages that produced underdevelopment to a global, historical, and relational framework of analysis.

World-Systems Analysis systemized and advanced the logic of underdevelopment theory into a coherent framework of global development.  Historically, world-systems analysis grew out of development sociology.  Of the four scholars ever to have been awarded the PEWS Distinguished Career Award, Immanuel Wallerstein’s first three books (1961, 1964, 1967) were on post-colonial Africa, Andre Gunder Frank’s first three books (1967, 1969, 1969) were on Latin American development and the sociology of development, Janet Abu-Lughod’s first book (1971) was a history of Cairo, and Giovanni Arrighi’s first three books (1967, 1969, 1973) were on Africa and imperialism.

World-systems analysis moved beyond these early analyses of the causes of development in the colonial and post-colonial periphery to both expand the range of dependent variables to include the effects of dependent development, and to expand the historical scope of analysis beyond the nineteenth and twentieth century Euro-American world system. Active areas of research today include gender-based social movements in the global South (Moghadam 2005), labor conditions in the global South (Ross 2004), the historical development of the global South (Singh 2006), economic growth and income inequality (Babones 2009), the rights of indigenous peoples (Hall and Fenelon 2009), and the environment and development (Jorgenson and Kick 2006).  World-systems perspectives on development tend to be structuralist and deeply historical.  World-systems sociologists added geographical breadth and historical depth to the dependency approach, tracing the roots of today’s core-periphery structure back 400 years (Wallerstein 1974), 800 years (Abu-Lughod 1991), or even several thousand years (Frank and Gills 1993; Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997).  World-systems sociologists see the global South and the global North as interdependent components of a single global socioeconomic system.  Gerreffi’s 1993  concept of global commodity chains has complemented traditional world-systems perspectives nicely by providing new micro and meso theoretical foundations for the dynamics of cross-national links

Within comparative macrosociology, another line of research has emerged which studies local capacity to develop in the face of hostile world-systemic factors; such models generally invoke a proactive state which limits the autonomy of multinational actors and proactively invests in sectors with long term growth potential. The classic statement of this perspective is Peter Evans 1979 Dependent Development which studied developmentalist actions by the Brazilian state. This was followed by a substantial literature on East Asian developmentalist states.  (Amsden 1989, Gold 1986) The next generation of studies in this tradition studied failed developmentalist states, identifying the social and political pre-conditions for ineffective clientilist intervention. (Chibber 2003, Lange and Rueschemeyer 2005). A parallel tradition exists in economic sociology examining the role of the state in the historical creation of markets and financial institutions. (Carruthers 1996)

Not all sociological work on development is macrosociological; there are significant microsociological traditions as well. Formal decompositions have shown that population factors can contribute very extensively to increases in per capita GDP (Kelley and Schmidt 2001). The most well known demographic contributor to growth is population control. (Stockwell 1962, Easterlin 1967) Fertility reduction lowers dependency ratios (the percent of the population not of prime working age), which increases productivity. Reduced child-bearing promotes greater educational attainment and labor force participation among women. (Ahlburg and Mason 2001) Greater education increases the human capital stock and productivity of a nation – although there is significant debate about the size of the effect and the mechanism by which this occurs. (Rubinson and Browne 1994) Mortality affects development as well; long life spans have been empirically shown to raise savings rates. (Kinugasa and Mason 2006)  Furthermore, migration has substantial effects on economic growth both by reallocating stocks of human capital and by providing financial remittances to impoverished areas. (Borjas and Tienda 1987, Massey and Parado 1994).

Mural in a Zapatista Caracole

A related tradition of work is the literature on gender and development. The various theoretical frameworks that constituted the sociology of development – modernization, dependency, Marxist, world-systems – initially were inattentive to the gender dynamics of development processes, but sociologists such as Rae Lesser Blumberg, Hanna Papanek, Patricia Fernandez-Kelly, Helen Safa, Saskia Sassen, Rita Gallin, Deniz Kandiyoti, Susan Tiano, Kathryn Ward, Shelley Feldman, Anita Weiss, and Val Moghadam drew on feminist concepts, stratification theory, and the interdisciplinary field of women-in-development (later to be known as gender-and-development) to integrate gender analysis into the sociological study of development.

In the 1980s, studies showed how gender ideologies emphasizing the “nimble fingers” of young women workers and their capacity for hard work, especially in the southeast Asian economies, justified the recruitment of women for unskilled and semiskilled work, in labor-intensive industries at wages lower than men would accept and in conditions that unions would not permit. Research also showed the “feminization of employment” across the globe, in the dual sense of an increase in the numbers of women in the labor force and a deterioration of work conditions (labor standards, income, and employment status).  Gender ideologies, however, also underpinned the retention of the sexual division of labor within the home, along with the creation of a “global care chain” through migration and demand for low-cost caregivers.  There is now a large literature examining women’s roles in and contributions to production, capital accumulation, reproduction, “the care economy”, and labor mobility, along with movements for social/economic rights.  While scholars differ as to whether the development process is exploitative or emancipatory (or both) for women and gender relations, the literature taken as a whole confirms that the relationship between gender relations and the development process is dynamic and interactive.

A third microsociology has considered the role of social capital in development. Social capital scholars integrated the study of national economies, with the study of ethnic entrepreneurship, and the new economic sociology that emphasized the importance of social networks. (Portes, 1998, Coleman1988, Putnam 2000, Grootaert and Bastler 2008) Proponents argue that social capital provides a way to both identify and produce synergies and positive outcomes in development practice ( Fukuyama 2002, Evans 1997, Larance 2001). Critics of this perspective argue that the concept of social capital offered a functionalist understanding of development that dangerously obscured relations of power and a range of political and social relations that underpinned and constituted conditions of inequality (Schafft and Brown 2003, Fine 1999, Harris 2002).

Not all development sociology involves the periphery and semi-periphery – and not all development sociology involves nations or world-systems. Spatial and regional sociology – while applicable to these settings – has given particular emphasis to analyses of subnational units within the developed core. Such analyses are particularly salient in an era of increasing de-industrialization. A rich and established urban literature explores inequalities of poverty, racial segregation, crime, and other conditions, much of it focusing on large and/or world cities.  Intermediate units of analysis have also been of interest.  The emphasis is on regional inequality processes beyond the metropolis but below the level of the nation-state.  Comparative subnational studies focus on shared attributes of groups of places, such as localities, states, and other territorial units, with the purpose of examining how social stratification processes unfold differentially within a nation. This body of work argues for the need to study and explain why general, national patterns do not work out evenly within a nation; at the same time, its scale of interest involves generalizing beyond individual localities and local-level actors and processes.

Sociology has had a longstanding interest in regional processes dating back from the work of the Southern Regionalists and human ecologists ( Hawley 1950; Odum and Moore 1938) and continuing through development sociology (Bunker 1985). The field of rural sociology has always been a regional sociology in that it examines the nation’s hinterland (Lobao 1990, RSS 1993). Contemporary regional sociological studies focus on the maintenance and reproduction of poverty and other inequalities at the regional scale such as Appalachia and the South (Duncan 1999; Falk et al. 2003; Fossett and Seibert 1997; Lyson and Falk 1993), Native American areas (Hooks and Smith 2004), areas of Latino settlement (Saenz 1997) and in developing nations with regionally based ethnic stratification (Brown et. al. 2007). Sociologists have also sought to understand regional processes creating urban-suburban-rural gaps (Drier et al. 2001; Orfield 1997) and connections between urban processes and national/global ones as mediated by transborder-regions (Chen 2005; Orum and Chen 2003).

Development sociology has changed significantly in the last two decades. The most important break with traditional formulations has been the rise of a critical post-developmentalism. The new work emphasizes the adverse effects of traditional development on the ecology of the planet, on the well being of subordinated peoples, and on global culture.  This literature has its antecedents in empirical examinations of the adverse effects of neoliberalism, international debt and globalization . (George 1989, 1991, Harvey 2007, Hoogvelt 2001, Sklair 2002, Beneria and Feldman 1992). New questions emerged about the unequal and uneven impacts of such programs on range of factors such health, education, and income  the penetration of trans-national corporations into newly liberalized markets (Sklair 2000); and the increasing role of NGOs in the implementation of broad development agendas and in national politics (Feldman 1997).

These concerns crystallized into a post-development critique. (McMichael 1996)  Post-development thinkers—heavily influenced by poststructural and feminist theories (Elson 1995, Harcourt 1994, Enloe 1989, Moghadam 1996)—began to rethink the whole development enterprise, exploring how the development narrative made unrealistic assumptions about poverty and underdevelopment, and how to address it through coordinated international policies. Development discourse and its structuring of development programs and practices came under particular critical scrutiny (Ferguson 1994,  Sachs 1992, Rahnema and Bawtree 1997). Such studies highlighted both the institutional structures and logics that enabled particular development interventions (Escobar 1994, Mitchell 1991) and the complicated meanings and mappings of power involved in the implementation of such projects (Mosse 2005). While post-development thought opens up a range of new spaces of inquiry in the study of development, debate remains active over whether such post-development thought itself overstates its case and, in doing so, precludes the possibilities of positive development interventions in the lives of those living in poverty (Berger 1995, Kiely 1995).

New directions include reconsidering the links between culture and development, engaging a range of questions about appropriation of “empowerment” in gender targeted programming, the multiple deployments of “indignity,” and the links between western norms that are often constitutive of development programs and the diverse contexts in which they are deployed ( Da Costa 2010). The environmental sociology of development has addressed the adverse effects of climate change and large scale development initiatives (Castles 2002, Cernea 2003, Vandergeest 2003, Baviskar 1997)—opening questions about the meaning of environmental conservation and the range of potential relations between economic development and the environment ( Peluso and Watts 2001, Foster 2000, Magdof, Foster and Buttle 2000, Gellert 2005) . Others engage with the range of social movements that have emerged around the world to reassert the claims of marginalized groups in political and economic arenas from which they have been excluded (Petras 2003, McMichael 2010). Such engagements continue to raise critical questions about social action, democratic governance, and participation.

The sociology of development as a field continues to be a vibrant space within sociology. It has been central both in questioning the terms and meanings of “development,” and in shaping debates and programming decisions within both sociological, practitioner, and policy circles. While many old debates remain, many new approaches seek to resolve schisms within the field and bring synthesis to longstanding divides between approaches that seek to refine and those that seek to critique development. It is at once “public,” in its engagement with projects and policies that directly seek to shape the lives and livelihoods of many throughout the Global South; theoretical, in terms of its ongoing attempts to understand processes of economic and social transformations and the ways these changes shape and are shaped by the contemporary moment; and historical, in its re-figuration of development in the context of broader capitalist and colonial historiographies.

REFERENCES

Abu-Lughod, Janet.  1991.  Before European Hegemony: The World System A.D. 1250-1350.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Ahlburg, D. A. and E. R. Jensen. 2001. “Education and the East Asian Miracle.” Pp. 231-255 in Andrew Mason (ed.), Population Change and Economic Development in East Asia. Palo Alto, Stanford.

Amin, Samir. 1973. Neocolonialism in West Africa. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Amsden, Alice. 1989. Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. Oxford, Oxford.

Arrighi, Giovanni. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Times. London: Verso.

Babones, Salvatore J.  2009.  The International Structure of Income: Its Implications for Economic Growth.  Saarbruecken: VDM Publishers.

Baran, Paul. 1957. Political Economy of Growth. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Bellah, Robert. 1957. Tokugawa Religion. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Bendix, Reinhard. 1967. “Tradition and Modernity Reconsidered.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 9:292-346.

Beneria, Lourdes, and Shelley Feldman, editors. 1992. Unequal Burden: Economic Crises, Persistent Poverty, and Women’s Work. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Borjas, George and Marta Tienda. 1987. “Economic Consequences of Migration.” Science 235: 645-651.

Bose, Christine and Edna Acosta-Belen. 1995. Women in the Latin American Development Process. Philadelphia, Temple.

Boswell, Terry, and Christopher K. Chase-Dunn.  2006.  “Transnational Social Movements and Democratic Socialist Parties in the Semiperiphery: On to Global Democracy.”  Pp. 317-335 in Christopher K. Chase-Dunn and Salvatore J.

Blumberg, Rae. et. al. 1995. Engendering Wealth and Well Being: Empowerment for Global Social Change. Westport, Conn. , Greenwood.

Brown, David. et al. 2007. “Leading Sectors and Leading Regions: Economic Restructuring and Regional Inequality in Hungary Since 1990.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 31:3. 522-542.

Bunker, Stephen.  1985.  Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Failure of the Modern State.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cardoso, Fernando Henrique. 1971. Politics and Development in Dependent Societies. Rio de Janeiro, Zahar.

Carruthers, Bruce. 1996. City of Capital: Politics and Markets in the English Financial Revolution. Princeton, Princeton.

Castles, S. 2002. “The international politics of forced migration.” Pp. 172-92 in Fighting Identities: Race. Religion and Ethno-Nationalism. The Socialist Register 2003, edited by C. Leys and L Panitch..London: Merlin Press.

Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Thomas D. Hall, eds. 1991.  Core/Periphery Relations in the Precapitalist Worlds. Boulder: Westview.

Chen, Xiangming. 2005. As Borders Bend: Transnational Spaces on the Pacific Rim.  Lanham, M.D.: Rowman and Littlefield.

Chirot, Daniel. 1985. “The Rise of the West.” American Sociological Review 50:181-95.

Chibber, Vivek. 2003. Locked in Place: State-Building and Late Industrialization in India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Coleman, James. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94:95-120.

Cooper, F. and A. Stoler, editors. 1997. Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World. Berkeley: UCLA Press.

Da Costa, Dia (Ed). 2010. “Culture and Development.” A Special Issue of Third World Quarterly. 31:4.

Davis, Diane. 2004. Discipline and Development: Middle Classes and Economic Prosperity in East Asia and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dirks, Nicholas, editor. 1992. Colonialism and Culture. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Dreier, Peter, John Mollenkopf, and Todd Swanstrom. 2001. Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-First Century.  Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Dunaway, Wilma.  2008.  Women, Work and Family in the Antebellum Mountain South.  New York: Cambridge University Press.

Duncan, Cynthia. 1999.  Worlds Apart: Why Poverty Persists in Rural America.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

Easterlin, Richard. 1967. “Effects of Population Growth on the Economic Development of Developing Countries.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 369: 98-108.

Eisenstadt, S.N. 1968a. “The Protestant Ethic Thesis in an Analytical and Comparative Framework.” Pp. 3-45 in Eisenstadt, ed. The Protestant Ethic and Modernization. New York: Basic.

Elson, D. 1995. Male Bias in the Development Process. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Emigh, Rebecca. 2009. Undevelopment of Capitalism: Sectors and Markets in Fifteenth Century Tuscany. Philadelphia, Temple.

Enloe, Cynthia. 1989. Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Escobar, Arturo. 1994. Encountering Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Evans, Peter. 1979. Dependent Development. Princeton, Princeton.

Falk, William, Michael Schulman, and Ann Tickamyer (eds.) 2003. Communities of Work: Rural Restructuring in Local and Global Contexts.  Athens OH: Ohio University Press.

Feldman, Shelley.  2001. “Exploring Theories of Patriarchy: Perspective From Contemporary Bengladesh.” Signs: 26: 1097-1127.

Ferguson, James. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Fernandez-Kelly, Maria Patricia. 1983. For We Are Sold: I and My People: Women and Industry in Mexico’s Frontier. Albany, SUNY-Albany.

Fine, Ben. 1999. “The Development State is Dead – Long Live Social Capital?” Development and Change 30:1-19.

Fossett, Mark A. and Therese M. Seibert.  1997. Long Time Coming: Racial Inequality in Southern Nonmetropolitan Areas.  Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Foster, John. 2000. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Frank, Andre Gunder.  1967.  Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America.  New York: Monthly Review Press.

Friedman, Harriet. 1993. “The Political Economy of Food: A Global Crisis.” New Left Review 197:29-57.

Fukuyama, Frances. 2002. “Social Capital and Development: The Coming Agenda.” SAIS Review 22:23-37.

Furtado, Celso. 1964. Diagnosis of the Brazilian Problem. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gallin, Rita. 1982. Effect of Development on Women’s Work and Status: Case Study From Taiwan.  East Lansing, Michigan State.

Gellert, Paul. 2005. “The Shifting Natures of ‘Development’: Growth, Crisis, and Recovery in Indonesia’s Forests.” World Development 33:1349-68.

George, Susan. 1989. A Fate Worse Than Debt. London: Penguin Books.

Gereffi, Gary and Miguel Korzeniewicz. 1994. Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism. Westport, Connecticut, Greenwood.

Gold,  Thomas. 1986. State and Society in the Taiwan Miracle. Armonk, N.Y., M.E. Sharpe.

Goldstone, Jack. 2008. Why Europe? The Rise of the West in World History, 1500-1850. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Gorski, Philip. 2003. The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gould, Mark. 1987. Revolution in the Development of Capitalism. Berkeley: Cambridge: Cambridge University of California Press.

Hall, Thomas D., and James V. Fenelon.  2009.  Indigenous Peoples and Globalization: Resistance and Revitalization.  Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

Harcourt, W, editor. 1994. Feminist Perspective on Sustainable Development. London: Zed Books.

Harvey, D. 2007. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Harriss, John. 2002. Depoliticizing Development: The World Bank and Social Capital. New York: Anthem Press.

Havens, Eugene et. al. 1986. Studies in the Transformation of U.S. Agriculture. Boulder, Westview.

Hauser, Philip. 1979. World Population and Development: Challenges and Prospects. Syracuse, Syracuse.

Hawley, Amos H. 1950. Human Ecology: A Theory of Community. New York: Ronald Press.

Hechter, Michael.  1999.  Internal Colonialism: The Celtic fringe in British National Development.  New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers.

Hoogvelt, Ankie. 2001. Globalization and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of Development. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Hooks, Gregory. 1991. Forging the Military-Industrial Complex: World War II’s Battle of the Potomac. Urbana, Illinois.

Hoselitz, Bert. 1963. Sociological Aspects of Economic Growth. Glencoe, Free Press.

Inkeles, Alex and David Smith. 1974. Becoming Modern: Individual Change in Six Developing Countries. Cambridge, Harvard.

Jorgenson, Andrew, Christopher Dick, and Matthew Mahutga.  2007.  “Foreign Investment Dependence and the Environment: An Ecostructural Approach.”  Social Problems 54:371-394.

Kandiyoti, Deniz. 1985. Women in Rural Production Systems.  Paris, UNESCO,

Kelley, Allen and Robert Schmidt. 2001. “Economic and Demographic Change: Synthesis of Models, Findings and Perspectives.” Pp. 67-105 in Nathan Birdsall et. al. (eds.), Population Matters: Demographic Change, Economic Growth and Poverty in the Developing World. Oxford, Oxford.

Kentor, Jeffrey, and Terry Boswell.  2003.  “Foreign Capital Dependence and Development: A New Direction.” American Sociological Review 68:301:313.

Kiely, Ray. 1995. Sociology and Development: The Impasse and Beyond. London: University College London Press.

Kinugasa, Tomoko and Andrew Mason. 2006. “Why Countries Become Wealthy: Effects of Adult Longevity on Savings.” World Development 35: 1-37.

Lachmann, Richard. 2000. Capitalists In Spite of Themselves: Elite Conflict and Economic Transitions in Early Modern Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lange, Matthew and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds.). 2005.  States and Development: Historical Antecedents of Stagnation and Advance. New York, Palgrave.

Lauderdale, Pat.  2008.  “Indigenous Peoples in the Face of Globalization.”  American Behavioral Scientist 51:1836-1843.

Leacock, Elinor and Helen Safa. 1988. Women’s Work: Development and the Division of Labor By Gender. New York, Bergin and Garvey.

Lenin, V.I. [1917] 1996. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. London: Pluto.

Lerner, D.1958. The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. New York, NY: Free Press.

Levy, Marion J. Jr. 1966. Modernization and the Structure of Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Lie, John. 1998. Han Unbound: Political Economy of South Korea. Palo Alto, Stanford.

Lobao, Linda. 1991. Locality and Inequality: Farm Structure, Industry Structure and Socioeconomic Conditions. Albany, SUNY.

Logan, John, and Harvey Molotch.  1988.  Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lyson, Thomas and William Falk. 1993. Forgotten Places: Uneven Development and the Underclass in Rural America.  Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Mann, Michael. 1986, 1993. The Sources of Social Power. Volumes 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marx, Karl. [1867] 1967. Capital, volume 1. New York: International Publishers.

Massey, Douglas and E. Parrado. 1994. “Migradollars: Remittances and Savings of Mexican Migrants to the USA.” Population Research and Policy Review  13: 3-30.

McCall, Leslie.  2001.  Complex Inequality: Gender, Class and Race in the New Economy.  New York: Routledge.

McClelland, David. 1961. The Achieving Society. Princeton: Von Nostrand.

McMichael, Philip. 1996. Development and Social Change: Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, California, Pine Forge.

Meyer John W., John Boli, George Thomas, and Francisco Ramirez.  1997. “World Society and the Nation-State.”  American Journal of Sociology 103:144-181

Moghadam, Valentine.  2005.  Globalizing Women: Transnational Feminist Networks.  Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Moore, Barrington. 1966. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Mosse, David. 2005. Cultivating Development. London: Pluto Press.

Odum, Howard E. and H.E. Moore. 1938.  American Regionalism: A Cultural Historical Approach to National Integration.  New York: Henry Holt.

O’Hearn, Denis. 2001. The Atlantic Economy: Britain, the US and Ireland. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

O’Hearn, Denis. 2001. The Atlantic Economy: Britain, the US and Ireland. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Orfield, Myron. 1997. Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for the Community and Stability.  Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Orum, Anthony M. and Xiangming Chen. 2003.  The World of Cities: Places in Comparative and Historical Perspective.  Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Chicago: Free Press.

Petras, James. 2005. Social Movements and State Power: Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador. London: Pluto Press.

Prebisch, Raúl.  1950.  The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems.  New York: United Nations.

Pyle, Jean and Kathryn Ward. 2003. “Recasting Our Understanding of Gender and Work Under Global Restructuring.” International Sociology 18: 461-489.

Rahnema, Majid and Victoria Bawtree, editors. 1997. The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books.

Robinson, William I.  2010.  “Global Capitalism Theory and the Emergence of Transnational Elites.”  Helsinki: UNU-WIDER Working Paper No. 2010/02.

Rodney, Walter. 1974. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Dar-Es-Salaam: Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications.

Ross, Robert J.S.  2004.  Slaves to Fashion: Poverty and Abuse in the New Sweatshops.  Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Rostow, W.W. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubinson, Richard and Irene Browne. 1994. “Education and the Economy.” Pp. 581 -599 in Neil Smelser and Richard Swedberg (eds.), Handbook of Economic Sociology.  Princeton, Russell Sage.

Rudel, Thomas. 2002. “Paths of Destruction and Regeneration: Globalization and Forests in the Tropics.” Rural Sociology 67(4):622-636.

Rural Sociological Task Force on Persistent Poverty.  1993.  Persistent Poverty in Rural America.  Boulder: Westview Press.

Saenz, Rogelio. 1997. “Ethnic Concentration and Chicano Poverty: A Comparative Approach.” Social Science Research 26:205-228.

Sasken, Sassia.  1988. Mobility of Labor and Capital: a Study in International Investment and Labor Flow. Cambridge, Cambridge.

 Schafft, K. and D. Brown. 2003. “Social Capital, Social Networks, and Social Power.” Social Epistemology. 17:4. 329-342.

Sklair, Leslie. 2002. “Transnational practices and the analysis of the global system.” Pp. 15-32 in Globalization in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Alex Hulsemeyer. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Smelser, Neil. 1959. Social Change in the Industrial Revolution: Application of Theory to the British Cotton Industry. Chicago, Chicago.

Stockwell, Edward. 1962. “Relationship Between Population Control and Economic Development.” American Sociological Review 27: 250-252.

Thomas, George, and John W. Meyer. 1984.  “The Expansion of the State.” Annual Review of Sociology 10:461-482.

Tiano, Susan. 1994, Patriarchy on the Line: Labor, Gender and Ideology in the Mexican Maquila Industry.  Philadelphia, Temple.

Tilly, Charles.  1990.  Coercion, Capital, and European States: AD 990-1990.  Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Vandergeest, P. 2003. “Land to Some Tillers: Development-Induced Displacement in Laos.” International Social Science Journal. 175. 47-56.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974-1989. The Modern World System. volumes 1-3. New York: Academic.

Weber, Max. [1904-05] 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner.

Weiss, Anita. 1992. Walls Within Walls: Life Histories of Working Women in the Old City of Lahore. Boulder, Westview.

Wilkinson, David.  2008.  “Hegemonia: Hegemony, Classical and Modern.”  Journal of World-Systems Research 14:119-141.

Woo-Cumings, Meredith, editor. 1999. The Developmental State. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s