the centre-periphery perspective in development geography

THE CENTRE-PERIPHERY PERSPECTIVE IN DEVELOPMENT GEOGRAPHY’

by

WIM ETTEMA*

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Introduction The dynamic of a social science is not only stimulated from within by autonomous progress, but is often as much the result of outside influences. This is clearly demonstrated by the geographical concern with underdeveloped countries. The regions now classified as ‘underdeveloped’ have been the subject of study by geographers for a long time. Several post-war developments, however, have not only intensi- fied that interest but have also added new dimensions to it : events such as decolonization, the rise of the United Nations and the introduction of development aid. Geographers have become increasingly concerned with development and its concomitant spatial changes. Development geography has emerged alongside traditional regional geography (Ettema 1979, p. 67; Kleinpenning 1981, p. 43).

Thinking in terms of development and underdevelopment requires a development theory, a vision of the development process. In particular, economists and sociologists have realized this much sooner than geographers. Economists have developed a special branch of their science to deal with the problems of underdevelopment (Todaro 1977) and sociologists have devised a whole range of development theories. Both these disciplines have specialized journals at their disposal geared exclusively to the problems of developing areas.

Hagerstrand’s view on the diffusion of innovations constitutes one authentic geographical contribution to the development debate (Abler, Adams & Gould 1972, Ch. 11). In general, however, geographers have adopted many ideas

* 1’ Jacob van Campenstraat 25-111, 1072BB Amsterdam. Received, March 1982; revised, May 1982.

from economics and sociology. They have developed a synthesis in the form of modernization geography. This is characterized not only by the adoption of sociological and economic concepts, but also by an inductive-statistical methodology, as introduced by Berry (1960). This approach still has much appeal as is apparent from recent work by Smith (1979). The dominance of an inductive methodology has led to a faulty integration of theory and research. Moreover, the foundations of modernization thinking itself have come under serious attack (Slater 1974, Ettema 1979”). Nevertheless, the inductive approach and the interest in diffusion have supplied much in- formation on the nature and the dynamics of spatial differentiation in developing countries. Thus an impartial evaluation of the modernization approach seems warranted. Browett (1980) has recently made a start in this direction.

To present such an evaluation is not the purpose of this present analysis. The intention is, instead, to present an appraisal of some approaches that may be considered as alter- natives to the modernization perspective. This survey concerns theories of spatial polarization on the one hand, and dependency - or imperialism - theories on the other. These theories may collectively be termed the Centre- Periphery perspective since in both cases underdevelopment is connected with interaction between regions in a context of power inequality. There is always a distinction between strong and weak regions, with the first. con-

I This is a translation of ‘Het Centrum-Periferie Perspek- tief in de Ontwikkelingsgeografe’, which has appeared in Politiek en Ruimte 3 (1982). pp. 7-26, published by Stichting Politieken Ruimte (Nijmegen, The Netherlands).

Tijdxhrifr voor Econ. en SOC. Geografie 74 (1983) Nr . 2 107

ditioning the latter. The former are called the Centre, core region or metropolis, the latter constitute the periphery subordinate to it.

These theories will not be presented as such, but their actual or potential value to development geography will be assessed. Thus an inten- tional bias is introduced. Moreover, it is argued that the theories concerned must be discussed in the light of their empirical contribution, that is by the research results they have induced. Finally, some research priorities will be suggested.

Centre and Periphery Several geographers who have rejected the modernization approach plead for the acceptance of a Centre-Periphery perspective in the study of development problems. As was stated above, there are two separate traditions within that perspective, which appear to have largely ignored each other. One of these describes development in terms of regional differentiation, interaction and polarization. Wellknown protag- onists are Myrdal (1965; 1st. ed. 1957), Hirsch- man(1978; 1st. ed. 1958) and Friedmann (1973). Polarization thinking has played a significant part in regional development planning (Brook- field 1975, Ch. 4). The critics of the modernization approach, however, feel more familiar with the dependency/imperialism perspective. This approach will, therefore, be discussed first. I t concerns the ideas developed within the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) of the United Nations, headed by the economist Prebisch (Di Marco 1972), as well as the neomarxist approach founded by Baran (1976; 1st. ed. 1957). Largely under the influence of Frank (1971) a synthesis has been achieved (Roxborough 1979).

A characteristic of the dependency perspective is the application of a socio-political development theory to different levels of geographical scale : “...from the world metropolis down to the hacienda or rural merchant.. .” (Frank 1971,

One set of questions involves the international relationships between advanced and underdeveloped countries. Another set concerns intrunational relations between different classes and regions within the underdeveloped countries themselves. (Stallings 1972, p. 6)

While the centre and the periphery form the elements of a spatial configuration of international capitalism, the bourgeoisie and proletariat constitute the elements of the social configuration of capitalism. Dependency theory explains the unequal

p. 175).

exchange of goods, labour, and capital between the centre and the periphery. It explains where capital tends to be concentrated but not how the appropriation of surplus occurs. The articulation of classes and the spatial configuration of the international capitalist system are ‘congruent’ but not identical. (Gregory & Piche 1978, p. 39)

Kleinpenning (198 1, p. 45) and Browett (198 1, p. 156) claim that the dependency perspective has found many supporters among geographers. In their opinion this is highly to be regretted. In his textbook on development geography, Kleinpenning (1978, Ch. 19) devotes a whole chapter to dependency theories. The subsequent criticism is as extensive as the preceding exposition ! Thus one is not surprised by his conclusion that he finds the dependency perspective of highly limited value. Recently, he has reaffirmed this position (Kleinpenning 198 1). Browett (1981, p. 156) also warns us not “(to) jump from the frying pan of the diffusionist paradigm into the fire of the dependency paradigm.. .”. According to him, accepting the dependency paradigm means entering a cul-de- sac. Moreover, Kleinpenning as well as Browett suggests that the acceptance of the dependency perspective implies a far-reaching commitment, a kind of political-ideological conversion. Browett (1981, p. 159) is quite explicit in this respect.

The writings of both authors form part of a larger stock of writings criticizing the dependency perspective (Warke 1973, Ray 1973, Nove 1974, Lall 1975, O’Brien n d ) . In particular, authors like Amin (1973), Frank (1971) and Szentes (1971) have been strongly attacked, and understandably so. A high level of abstraction, political accusations, and, unusual for geographers, strong, often marxist, preconceptions combined with a’ turgid idiom are extremely irritating for the reader.

In the ensuing discussion a crucial issue has in our opinion been neglected, i.e. the relation between theory and research in development geography. As long as this issue is not clarified, the whole debate about the validity of the dependency perspective seems largely sterile.

Theory and research Although development geographers have easily adopted concepts from other social sciences, this does not imply that they have a clear idea of the role of theory in modern social science. Geography has a strong and persistent tradition of pure description, where the concepts applied are not derived from a coherent and explicit theory. Gradually, however, a viewpoint has

I08 Tijdsehriy! voor Econ. en Soe. Geografie 74 (1983) N r . 2

found support that it makes sense to have geographical research guided by questions derived from a certain theory and to confront the research outcome with the theoretical point of departure. In this way theory and research interact in a dynamic process.

A theory consists of concepts, of statements about the relations between those concepts, and of empirical references, that is, of statements about the relation of the theory to social reality. It must be possible to translate a t least part of the t.heory into variables that can be measured. This, of course, is what is meant by the concept of operationalization. When a theory has a high level of abstraction, operationalization becomes more difficult. On the other hand, a low level of abstraction may imply that the theory adds nothing to our common sense experience. Thus the well known plea for middle range theory.

A classical example of middle range theory in development geography is Turner’s view on the connection between intra-urban mobility and the origin of squatter settlements (Turner 1968, Van Lindert 1979). The usefulness of this kind of theory, with clearly defined and operational concepts, and with explicit empirical references, has been demonstrated by the wealth of research i t has induced.

Invariably, the theory appears to be at least partly faulted, or of more limited application than was originally suggested. The Turner thesis again is a clear example (Kliest & Scheffer 1981). This, of course, underlines the need to rethink the theory and to formulate new research questions. More than anything, the strength of a theory is borne out by its capacity to generate questions, the answers to which supply new insights into social reality. A good theory makes one wonder about relations that were not perceived before (Galtung 1970, p. 459).

On page 107 it was stated. that thinking in terms of development and underdevelopment requires a development theory. For geographers this theory does not refer to development in abstract space, but to the relation between development and spatial differentiation.

The geographical perspective may be summarized as a concern with who gets what where, and how. The stress on where underlines the geographer’s preoccupation with spatial o r areal inequality -- with differences in living standards according to place of residence. These variations may be examined at different geographical scales, to focus on inequality among national populations, regions, neighbourhoods and so on (...) ... the geographer stresses the way in which the spatial

structure of the economy and society may work to the advantage of some people in some places and to the disadvantage of others. (Smith 1979,

The dependency perspective normally deals with countries as a whole. Internal inequalities are described in terms of class, income or economic sectors. Spatial inequalities within countries are hardly dealt with. Since underdeveloped countries certainly know large internal differences the question, “Who gets what where?” is only roughly approached when we are dealing with countries as a whole. Thus, international inequality must be linked up with intra-national inequality to answer the question, “Who gets what where?” in a more satisfactory way.

A preliminary assessment of dependency theory leads us to the conclusion that (a) the theory mainly refers to national societies, (b) pays little attention to internal spatial differentiation, and (c) pays even less attention to the relation between the integration of a country within the ‘world system’ and its internal spatial differentiation. It is far more a socio- political than a geographical theory. On the other hand, as far as international inequality is concerned, the dependency theory may certainly claim the attention of geographers. Moreover, the polarization theories mentioned above do deal with spatial (regional) differentiation in developing countries just as, in a similar way, the dependency perspective deals with international differentiation. Thus both may be complementary, although as yet nobody has tried to reconcile them. It is considered here that such an effort should not be a purely theoretical exercise. It should only be done after a review of research findings emerging from both traditions.

p. 18)

Galtung One of the very few authors who have tried to cast the dependency perspective in an empirical mould has been Galtung (1971) and his example has led to a number of investigations which are reviewed in the next paragraphs.

For Galtung, two observations serve as points of departure : - The tremendous inequalities within and be-

tween nations. - The persistence of these inequalities and their

apparently highly institutionalized nature. As the main cause of this situation he identifies the power inequalities within international relations and their effect on the internal situation in developing countries. The relations between rich and poor countries are characterized by

Tijdschrift voor Econ. en Soc. Geografie 74 (1983) Nr. 2 109

vertical interaction within a feudal interaction structure. Vertical interaction is related to, but broader than, the concept of unequal exchange. Galtung points out that even when there is a certain balance in the economic exchange between countries, there may be large differences in spin-off effects within those countries :

... trade, or interaction in general, is symmetric, or on equal terms, if and only if the total inter- and intra-actor effects that accrue to the parties are equal. (Galtung 1971, p. 88)

... we see vertical interaction as the major source of the inequality of this world, whether it takes the form of looting, of highly unequal exchange, or highly differentiated spin-off effects due to processing gaps. (Galtung 1971, p. 89)

The latter refers to the international division of labour, in which the underdeveloped countries sell mainly primary goods and have to import manufactures from the developed ones. This situation is maintained by the feudal interaction structure of international relations. I t implies little interaction between the poor countries themselves and the monopolization by the Centre of the contacts which the Periphery maintains with the rest of the world, In economic terms, this implies that the peripheral country depends on a few trade partners and that a large share of its exports is made up of only a few products. These circumstances make the peripheral countries highly dependent on the Centre. Since the peripheral countries usually have a much lower National Income than the central ones, the trade between Centre and Periphery makes up a much higher percentage of Gross National Product in the peripheral countries compared to the central ones. To quote a well known example : the trade between Cuba and the USA used to make up some 50% of Cuban GNP as against an insignificant fraction of American GNP.

While the Cuban political system thus contained very great pressures to be responsive to the needs and demands of the United States, the reciprocal pressures in the United States were trivial and limited to only a few interests. (Russett 1967, p. 126)

The basic aspect of the feudal interaction structure, however, is that it keeps the Periph- ery divided. It strongly impedes the establish- ment of connections between the peripheral countries themselves. Thus each one separately remains locked up in a metropolis-satellite situation.

Most of the variables treated by Galtung are fairly easy to operationalize. They concern the degree of processing of imports compared to

exports (measured by the Vertical Trade Index), the number of important trade partners and the degree of concentration on a few export products. Galtung employs statistical data referring to.sixty rich as well as poor countries. The dependency variables are correlated with development variables and with some Gini-in- dices referring to internal inequality. The correlation matrix shows a number of clear connections in the direction predicted. The procedure followed is, however, fairly primitive and clearly intended more as an example than as a thorough test of the model.

Statistical elaborations A thorough test of Galtung’s model has been provided by Walleri (1978). His is indeed not the first attempt to test dependency hypotheses. It is, nevertheless, the closest approach to Galtung’s model and employs a sophisticated methodology. Walleri concentrates on external economic relations, on what he calls “trade dependence”. He employs the following variables :

I. Dependence Vertical and feudal interaction structure 2. Trade partner concen-

3. Trade commodity con-

11. Domestic intervening 4. Gross fixed domestic variables capital formation as a

percent of GNP 5. GIN1 index of sectoral

income distribution 6. GNP per capita

Source : Walleri 1978, p. 108.

I . Vertical trade index

tration index

centration index

111. Developmental performance

Much attention is paid to the direction of causation between trade dependence and developmental performance. The sample consists of 15 OECD-members and 73 Third World countries. The data refer to the time period

The results indicate a clear connection between the degree of dependence and developmental performance. When a time-lag of ten years is maintained, the dependency scores measured in 1960 predict 48% of the variance in development in 1970. Walleri concludes :

. ..the findings reported herein provide a firm basis for the causal inference that structures of dominance/dependence do indeed condition the simultaneous processes of development/underdevelopment. (Walleri 1978, p. 114)

Galtung and Walleri use samples consisting of

1960- 1970.

110 Tijdschrift voor Econ. en SOC. Geografie 74 (1983) N r . 2

both rich and poor countries. The samples of most other authors are more homogeneous.

Chase-Dunn (1975) employs a sample in- cluding all poor countries for which data are available. He tries to measure the influence of foreign investments and loans on development. He applies panel regression analysis with log GNP/Cap. 1950 and 1970 as the dependent variable, as well as energy consumption and the percentage of the male population occupied outside agriculture. In particular, where the loans are concerned, the analysis is seriously handicapped by lack of data. The hypothesis “investment dependence retards development” (Chase-Dunn 1975, p. 729) is, however, confirmed. Moreover, the larger the time-lag between both groups of variables - dependence/ development-the more pronounced the negative relation appears to be. Chase-Dunn concludes that the dependency perspective should be taken seriously in the study of unequal development.

Several studies use samples of Latin American or African countries. Kaufman, Chernotsky & Geller (1975) have studied a sample of 17 Latin American countries. Their dependency indivators serve :

... to tap the extent of foreign investment in Latin American economies, the degree to which a single metropolitan country dominates the flow of trade, and the diversification or concentration of the ‘satellite’ export structure. (Kaufman et al. 1975, p. 310)

The authors employ a number of variables referring to size and composition of foreign trade and foreign investment. These are related to indicators of economic growth as well as to variables characterizing the internal political and military structure. The results are quite confusing and often contrary to the hypotheses derived from dependency thinking. Dependency shows a positive correlation with economic growth and one-sidedness of exports correlates with a favourable balance of trade. Also, the relation between external and internal structural characteristics is contrary to expectations. The authors state :

By most of the measures we have devised, more dependent economies grow faster, rather than more slowly; they have more, rather than less, equal land tenure structures; and, according to our measures of capital dependency, they have more constitutional stability and less militarism. (Kauf- man et al. 1975, p. 321)

These results are in striking contradiction to those found by Alschuler (1976) for a similar sample of Latin American countries, using com-

parable data but a different statistical approach. In this case most hypotheses derived from the dependency perspective are confirmed!

The obvious difference in results by two studies employing highly similar data has led to a re-analysis by Ray & Webster (1978). It appears that many of the findings of Kaufman et al. drastically change when just one case is omitted from the sample. The same holds for the differences in results between the analyses of Kaufman et al. and Alschuler. Similarly, small variations in the time period studied Iead to dramatic changes in results.

In his analysis of thirty African countries, McGowan (1976) mainly relies on trade variables to operationalize dependency. As usual, he assumes that dependency must correlate nega- tively with economic growth and development. The latter are indicated by 23 variables. A clear picture does not emerge. To start with, the dependency variables do not show strong correlations between themselves, a problem also present in other analyses. The magnitude of trade (export+import) as a percentage of GNP correlates positively with a number of indicators of economic performance. On the other hand, none of the indicators of economic performance correlates consistently with all four dependency variables. In his final discussion, McGowan (1976, p. 38) points out that economic performance is not only influenced by economic dependence, but also by political, military and cultural dependence. This aspect has been elaborated by Vengroff (1977).

Like McGowan, he uses a sample of African countries. Although some of his operationaliza- tions are clearly too crude, his analysis does suggest interesting connections between different kinds of dependency. Also, just like McGo- wan, he has to reject the basic hypothesis of a negative relation between economic performance and dependency, although here again the picture is far fram clear.

Compared to the studies discussed above, a somewhat different approach to test Galtung’s model is supplied by Gidengil (1978). She does not correlate dependency variables with development. Instead, she uses cluster analysis to verify the existence of groups of countries showing the required combination of ‘central’ or ‘peripheral’ features. Her sample consists of 68 rich as well as poor countries. One quarter of these appear not to belong to any natural cluster. The rest falls into five categories. One of these consists of twenty countries representing the specific combination of characteristics associated with the Centre. A group

Tijdschrqt voor Econ. en SOC. Geograjie 74 (1983) Nr. 2 111

of thirteen, mainly Latin American, countries are most representative of the Periphery. Most interestingly, next to this category there are three others of a more mixed nature.

Gidengil’s analysis is one of the first efforts to translate the abstract centre-periphery concept into concrete geographical space.That this results in a kind of ‘fragmentation’ of the periphery will not surprise those who have been dissatisfied with the blanket concept of one Third World. Such a concept is not only taxonomically unsound but also seems to obscure more than it clarifies. As such Giden- gil’s analysis merits the special attention of geographers.

Discussion Bornschier, Chase-Dunn & Rubinson (1978) have supplied a review of all statistical analyses on dependency and development available until 1977. Their article is an indispensible guide to anyone wishing to enter the field. Moreover, they have incorporated earlier work into a new research design focusing upon the effects of foreign investments and loans on development. Their conclusions deserve to be quoted in full :

(1) The effect of direct foreign investment and aid has been to increase economic inequality within countries. ( 2 ) Flows of direct investment and aid have had a short-term effect of increasing the relative rate of economic growth of countries. (3) Stocks of direct foreign investment and aid have had the cumulative, long-term effect of decreasing the relative rate of economic growth of countries. (4) This relationship has been conditional on the level of development of countries. The stocks of foreign investment and aid have had negative effects in both richer and poorer developing countries, but the effect is much stronger within the richer than the poorer ones. ( 5 ) These relationships hold independently of geographical area. (3ornschier e t a / . 1978, p. 651)

The analysis by Bornschier et al. proves again that best resultsare obtained with a sophisticated methodology and a relatively large sample of countries.’

I t has been pointed out elsewhere (Ettema 1979h, p. 13) that the use of samples consisting of countries presumes that each country is an identical system, reacting likewise to certain impulses. That this may be somewhat doubtful has already been argued by Linz & De Miguel (1968). The seriousness of this problem probably diminishes with increasing sample size. Sample size is, however, tied to a maximum: all countries of the world. In the studies discussed by Bornschier et al. sample size varies from seven

to 91. The experience with samples consisting of African or Latin American countries alone indicates that a larger sample size is to be preferred. The availability, however, of com- parable data - not to mention time series! - diminishes when sample size increases. This is one of the main problems of the approach discussed above.

Nevertheless, this should not be used as an excuse to neglect the testing of dependency hypotheses. Methodological problems, or problems with limited supply of data, do not diminish the importance of a subject. The operationalization of dependency theory remains an absolute necessity as long as one holds that social theory should be confronted with social reality.

It is not to be denied that there are authors who have great difficulties with the approach discussed above. Palma (1978, p. 905) for example states :

If one accepts (as 1 do) that the basic feature of the dependency analyses is their conception of the dynamic of the societies in question in terms of the specific form of their articulation into the world economy, then the mixing of data from different situations of dependency can be at most of second- ary interest, if not of mere curiousity value; it can neither validate nor invalidate statements which should be presented as characteristic of .sppec(/ic situations of dependency.

In fact, Palma’s position is somewhat more qualified than this quotation suggests. He also criticizes those dependency theorists who have tried to impose a rigid model on a complex and dynamic reality (Palma 1978, p. 903). In addi- tion, he does not at all object to efforts to make the theory more consistent and operational. It is maintained here that the quoted objections might be met methodologically. This, however, concerns an important issue demanding far more discussion.

A serious limitation of all studies mentioned above, is the near exclusive attention paid to economic dependence and economic development, although Galtung identifies five types of ‘imperialism’, depending on the type of exchange between centre and periphery nations : economic, political, military, communication and cultural (Galtung 1971, p. 91). Moreover, no attention is paid to the institutions maintaining the feudal international interaction structure : the multinational corporations, the international aid agencies and the dependent elites within the periphery (Alschuler 1976, Walleri 1978). It might well be argued that accounting for these requires a different research methodology. There

112 Tijdxhrifi vooi Econ. en Soc. Grografie 74 (1983) A’r. 2

is a general need for case studies - preferably longitudinal - of regions or of certain topics. Very good examples have been supplied by Furtado (1976) in his study of Latin American development, by Leys (1977) on Kenya and by Biersteker (198 1) who deals with multinational corporations in Nigeria. There has, as yet, been no adoption of Palma’s advice to re-unite quantitative studies with historical structural analyses (Palma 1978, p. 912). This certainly has to be the long-term strategy of dependency research.

Internal dij‘jeren tiation Dependency theory does not only refer to international inequality. Underdeveloped countries are said to be characterized by a peripheral capitalist structure and this relates to a set of internal features. It concerns the class structure, the dominance of multinational corporations, the degree to which capitalist relations of production are present and the articulation of different modes of production (Taylor 1979, Roxborough 1979). Above, criticism was expressed concerning the absence of a vision of the process of spatial differentiation under conditions of peripheral capitalist development. Such a vision would have to link up internal regional differentiation with the way a country is integrated into the world system. Only one study is known that tries to relate both levels of scale in an empirical fashion.

Paix & Coutsinas (IEDES 1977) have classified 77 underdeveloped countries using as criteria the composition of imports and exports as well as the significance of international trade (exports+ imports) related to GNP. They distin- guish seven groups of countries and each category is subsequently described in terms of its internal spatial structure. I t is assumed that the external r e l a t i o n e “articulation au systeme mondial” (IEDES 1977, p. 321) - deter- mine the internal spatial structure. This is of course impossible to prove in a concise exposition referring to 77 countries ! Moreover, the whole description is highly impressionistic and as such lacks conviction.

Amin (1974) and Slater (1975) have made some remarks on regional differentiation under peripheral capitalist conditions in Western Africa and Tanzania respectively. Slater (1975, p. ‘1 54) distinguishes between areas specialized in export production, surrounding areas supplying goods and services to the first category, and finally peripheral areas supplying labour migrants or which have “involuted in near-

isolation from the dominant export-oriented areas”.

Slater’s approach is highly deductive and leaves a large number of obvious questions unanswered. With regard to spatial differentiation under peripheral capitalism it certainly remains a pioneering effort. It has been followed up by a project by the Institute of Social Geography a t the University of Amsterdam, headed by Ton Dietz (Dietz et al. 1979, Van Geuns 198 1, Dietz & Van Geuns 198 1, Schellen- berger 198 1).

A central concern of this project was the mapping of the features of structural heterogeneity, i.e. the situation resulting from the contact between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production. Important indicators are the relative degree of market-oriented production (degree of commercialization), the presence of wage labour, labour migration, the use of consumption goods, capital goods and inputs obtained within the money economy (Dietz & Van Geuns 1981, p. 2). Wage labour, labour migration and agricultural commercialization have been mapped in Kenya and Tanzania. This has resulted in a typology of regions. Moreover, recent changes have been measured to gauge the magnitude of polarization or spread tenden- cies. The regions where capitalist relations of production are relatively most important are called the centre, whereas the others are classified as different types of periphery.

The project is still in progress and so far the emphasis has been on problems of data col- lection and elaboration. Some comment seems, however, to be indicated, particularly on the interim-report issued by Dietz & Van Geuns (198 1). The operationalization of structural heterogeneity in terms of regional differentiation is a very promising approach. What is lacking, however, is a clear conception of the spatial structures accompanying structural heterogeneity. So far, a set of maps have been presented showing the intensity of a certain phenomenon - wage labour for example - occurring in a certain district. Classifying certain districts as centre and others as periphery refers to an implicit concept of regional interaction which is nowhere explained, though there are some superficial references to Myrdal (1 965) and Williamson (1968). Thus more reflection on spatial differentiation in connection to structural heterogeneity, on the one hand, and polarization thinking, on the other, seems indicated.

Tijdschrifi voor Econ. en Soc. Geografk 74 (1983) Nr. 2 113

Polarization Myrdal (1965) and Hirschman (1978) have described development in terms of regional interaction. From the start it has been recog- nized that certain regions might show lasting stagnation and underdevelopment (Hirschman 1978, p. 189). Friedmann (1959) has elaborated this point by stating that certain areas - which later he has come to call “core regions” - may condition the structure of others to a high degree. This may hamper autonomous development there. The parallel to a colonial situation is obvious and is drawn already in Friedmann’s first essay on regional development and planning (Friedmann 1959, p. 172). The phrase ‘internal colonialism’ has, by the way, found only modest acceptance after Gonza- lez-Casanova’s (1968) sociological treatment of the phenonlenon, which is largely irrelevant to geographers.

The concept that in the process of development certain regions may be ‘colonized’ by others has been elaborated upon in research conducted by Becker (1974), Schuurman (1978) and Ettema (1980”). Becker has analysed the emergence of a centre-periphery system in Brazil by a detailed study of a particular area, the North of the state of Espirito Santo. It concerns an agrarian frontier region, colonized by small farmers from overpopulated coffee areas. There were initially few ties with the Brazilian Centre, consisting of Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro. Those ties that were present consisted of large- scale forest exploitation and the import of consumption goods. Integration by infrastructural provisions was highly deficient.

The colonists produced food for their own subsistence and some coffee to obtain a cash income. Natural conditions there are, however, unfavourable to coffee growing. The government wished to reorganize coffee growing in view of problems of overproduction. This implied the concentration of coffee cultivation in certain suitable areas and the planting of high quality grades. The export of lower grades was frequently prohibited, which discouraged coffee growers in Espirito Santo. Premiums were paid to farmers eradicating their inferior coffee trees, under the condition that certain other crops were planted. Since these crops came to nothing on the exhausted soils, this meant the failure of most of the colonists’ farms. The land then came into the hands of larger farmers who switched to extensive cattle ranching and to that end evicted their share croppers.

Space has thus become more.productive at the

cost of siphoning off the population. Migrating to new pioneer fringes, i t is likely to have to go through the same process again in a few years time .... (Becker 1974, p. 292)

A similar story is told by Schuurman (1978) in a study of agricultural colonization east of the Andes. In the Andean countries food production stagnates while demand increases. This leads to rising imports of food. The situation is exacer- bated by massive rural-urban migration. Thus the government has a strong interest to foster the colonization of ‘empty’ areas. It may diminish rural population pressure and increase food production. The latter will, of course, only be effective if the colonist produces for a market. That is the rationale behind government- sponsored colonization projects in the Oriente.

Insufficient investments in infrastructural provisions and a faulty credit supply, however, make the colonist dependent on middlemen offering transport and credit facilities. More- over, the elasticity of supply is low : low prices do not result in a decrease in production. In this way maximal profit is derived from the Oriente. The Oriente has been integrated into the national economy through ‘drainage’ relations. As a result, the region has been trans- formed from a resource frontier into a periphery.

Ettema (1980”) has related the specific kind of regional underdevelopment demonstrated by Spanish Galicia to the way the region has been integrated into the national and the international economy. Galician underdevelopment is the outcome of a long process of functional specializa- tion largely conditioned from without (Ettema l98Od, p. 17).

The Galician countryside is inhabited by small farmers mainly geared to subsistence, but at the same time tied to the market by the necessity to obtain some cash income. One of the traditional ways to obtain cash was the sale of cattle which were exported largely to Britain. This market was lost when refrigerated ships started to import Argentinian and later North American meat in the third quarter of the last century. After a prolonged crisis, Galician cattle raising was saved by the rail- way finished in 1884 connecting Galicia to the rest of Spain. The cattle trains were to become the most important link between the Galician economy and the large population concentra- tions of Madrid and Barcelona.

The increasing integration of the Spanish market and its concomitant regional specializa- tion, as well as international competition, has destroyed a number of agrarian activities of commercial importance in Galicia. The same

114 Tvdschrgt voor Econ. en Soc. Geografe 74 (1983) Nr. 2

situation holds for the indigenous iron industry, exercised in many small forges.

Next to cattle raising, the chronic shortage of cash (caused by many taxes in cash as well as in kind) was solved by the Galician farmers by massive seasonal migration to other parts of Spain. Latin America became the destination of hundreds of thousands of Gali- cians from 1853 and the money they remitted settled the fight for full ownership of the land. Circular migration aimed at the European industrial regions has become a most important source of income since 1960. Thus the Galician countryside is characterized by a synthesis of agriculture and labour migration into a specific, largely externally conditioned, mode of existence.

Galician industry also shows specific peripheral features. Around 1970 some 19"! of the economically active population was employed in industry. This industry is heavily concentrated in three coastal cities. Inputs are obtained from outside of Galicia, and inter-industrial linkages within the region are almost absent. Galician industry assembles final products or produces raw materials or semi-manufactures for further processing elsewhere. Thus little in- direct employment is generated. The rise of an urban market on the coast has, however, produced some feed-back to the Galician economy. In the vicinity of the cities commercial horticulture has been stimulated. Also a small number of modern agribusinesses have appeared, raising cattle, pigs and poultry or geared to dairy-production. They offer a striking contrast to the mass of small peasant farms surrounding them (Ettema 1980", pp. 24-30).

Galicia forms part of an economy far more developed than was the case in preceding examples. This does not make the analysis less interesting. It does, however, suggest that a future Centre-Periphery perspective needs to take into account different types of spatial differentiation according to national level of development.

Comment This discussion has demonstrated the desira- bility of a close tie between theory and research. A good theory suggests relations that were not perceived before and it is the task of research to verify these. This is, however, a somewhat narrow vision of the role research has to play in the field of the Centre-Periphery concept. A theory is very seldom a complete whole. More often it is fragmentary and incon- sistent. Thus the interaction between theory

and practice will not be so neat as we suggested. Quite often theory draws attention to a promising field, the external conditioning of regional and national economies for example. Only those parts of the theory which have been elaborated systematically may then give rise to very pointed research questions. There always remains much room ,for research of a more exploratory nature .

Geographers wishing to enter the field defined by different approaches within the Centre- Periphery perspective will be inspired by the empirical analyses cited in this survey.

The cross-national approach appears to have paid little attention to indicators of internal spatial inequality. Here clearly remains a task for geographers. Perhaps reference should also have been made to the work by Nas (1976) who has tried to relate the rank-size distribution of cities in a large sample of countries to certain indicators of development and dependency. Al- though the results have not been very pronounced, his example certainly merits attention.

A serious problem is posed by the limited time-horizon of cross-national studies. Many spatial structures may have a long history difficult to compress into a few statistical indicators. This problem is borne out very clearly by the analysis by Paix & Coutsinas (IEDES 1977). To tackle this problem, research techniques other than cross-national statistical analysis have to be applied. In my opinion, a comparative approach might be rewarding, as well as case studies of single countries. On both cases problems of data supply and comparability would be greatly diminished compared with studies working with large samples of countries.

A comparison of different countries or a case- study of a single one would be greatly enhanced in its effectiveness by a classification of countries. This subject has recently been receiving increasing attention. The heterogeneity of underdeveloped countries has been underestimated too long. A recent classification is that by Van Dam (1980). In a comparative approach, countries within the same class of the classification or from different classes may be compared with relation to salient features of their spatial structure. Of course, the classification would have to take into account the different ways the countries have been integrated into the world system. Gidengil's (1978) effort to construct a classification using Galtung's variables should be remembered in this connection.

All other studies discussed in this survey are based on the level of a nation or a region. They concern situations of regional under-

Tijdschriyt voor Econ. en Sac. Geografie 74 (1983) Nr. 2 115

development with the national level of development apparently as the main differentiating factor, or perhaps, in this context, it is better to speak not so much of the level of development as of the degree of preponderance of capitalist relations of production. The logic of the Centre-Periphery perspective holds this to be the main factor in the origin of polarization processes. Only a well integrated fully fledged capitalist economy will see the unfolding of large-scale interregional resource transfers and the rise of institutions sustaining this situation. In Kenya and Tanzania these processes are in an initial stage, although institutions like marketing boards may fulfil an important ‘drainage’ function, just like circular labour migration (Gregory & Piche 1978).

The studies of the Andean Oriente, the Brazilian state of Espirito Santo and of Spanish Galicia demonstrate that polarization should not so much be interpreted as increasing regional inequality but as the result of a process of internal ‘colonization’. This may lead to very different types of peripheries. Just as there are many different types of underdeveloped countries we should realize the heterogeneity of peripheral regions (Rosciszewski 1977). Here again far more case-studies seem warranted,

A question which cannot be resolved here, but which needs urgent attention, concerns the concepts of Centre and of Periphery themselves. Most authors agree with Galtung (1971) or Dos Santos (1973) who have focused on the phenomenon that a national or regional economy may be externally conditioned, with far-reaching consequences for its further development. This conditioning process is greatly helped by an initial difference in development or in economic or political power. In Galtung’s terminology : i t concerns vertical interaction within a feudal interaction structure ; that is, a situation in which inequality has become institutionalized. It all started with the empirical observation that economic and political power are often highly localized, that is, are concentrated in certain areas. This explains why at the international level Centre and Periphery are often to be seen congruent with the developed and the underdeveloped countries, or with the ‘First’ and the ‘Third’ World, or with rich and poor countries (Singer & Ansari 1978).

It is an empirical fact that economic and political power often show a territorial concentration. This facilitates the identification of core regions. From these areas innovations are diffused, for example, in the sphere of produc-

tion or in the way production is organized. This is shown clearly in Becker’s study of Espirito Santo. These innovations are backed up by investments. This may or may not contribute to the welfare of the population in the region where the investments are made.

A decisive factor is the way the country is organized in a political sense. When regional autonomy is absent and the political system is not very representative, ‘colonizing’ peripheral areas will not be dificult. In particular, political systems based on patronage - where an informal structure guarantees the coordination of state policy and the interest of dominant groups - may foster the emergence of a clearly polarized spatial structure. These processes of innovation, investment and political control were of course also identified by Friedmann (1973) as being at the core of Centre-Periphery thinking. A fourth process, also mentioned by him, is migration from the periphery to the centre. The concentration of economic activity in the core region and the prevalence of strong backwash effects in the periphery make the existence of a migration stream to the centre a matter of course, although naturally not all migration is directed towards the centre.

The latter point serves as a reminder of an important qualification of the Centre-Periphery model. Spatial polarization is one group of processes among others shaping spatial organization. Physical, demographic, political and cultural factors may be of equal importance in shaping space. Possibly they may even prevent the rise of a polarized structure, or in some way prevent regional underdevelopment.

The same holds at the international level. The cross-national studies we have considered show that dependency variables never supply more than a very partial prediction of economic performance. This is of course to be expected from common sense considerations alone. The explanation of complex phenomena in terms of a single dominant influence should not only earn the distrust of the historian (Fieldhouse 1961, p. 195) but of the development geographer as well !

The observations made in this study on Centre-Periphery interaction a t the intra- national level largely apply also a t the international level. The processes identified by Galtung (1971) are similar to those mentioned by Friedmann (1973). This is not to suggest that the international system shows the same structure as a country with its constituent regions. In particular, international politics is something quite different from national politics.

116 TQdschrfi voor Econ. en Soe. Geografie 74 (1983) Nr. 2

Given the tremendous importance of international political and military considerations to the fate of developing countries, we find it ludicrous that this field is left within geography to highly partial 'geopoliticians' like Gray

The studies cited in this paper demonstrate that i t is quite feasible to use a country or a region within a country as the unit of in- vestigation. Also, given the nature of the world system, i t is perfectly feasible to study relations between states. Nevertheless, from the very essence of the Centre-Periphery perspective it is to be expected that much attention should he paid to the relationship between external integration and internal spatial diiferentiation. The widespread use of countries as units of in- vestigation should not lead us to forget that at least in the economic field it is not so much states which maintain economic relations, but producers and buyers. The export sector plays a significant role in national development (Hel-

( I 977).

A ckno ,t*ledgemen t

The author wishes to thank Mrs. P. Ellman, B.A., M. Sc., MRTPI, for her help with the translation of the article.

Refiwncos :

ABLER, A,, J. S. ADAMS & P. COULD (1972). Spatial Organi- zation. The Geographer'k View of' the World. London : Prentice Hall.

ALSC.H~IL.ER, L. R. (1976), Satellization and Stagnation in Latin America. International Studies Quarterly 20,

AMIN, S . (1973", Nea-Colonialism in West A,frica. Har- mondsworth : Penguin Books.

AMIN, S. (1973h), Le ddveloppement indgal. Essai sur Ies , formes sociales du capitali.rme periphirique. Paris : Les editions de minuit.

A M I N , S. (1974), Modern Migrations in Western Africa. In : S. AMIN, ed.. Modern Migrations in Western Africa, pp. 65- 124. London : Oxford University Press.

BAKAN, P. A. (1976; 1st. ed. 1957), The Political Economy qf Growrh. Harmondsworth : Penguin Books.

B E C K t K , B. K. (1974), The North of Espirito Santo as a Case Study on the Centre-Periphery Model. I n : R. S. THOMAN, ed.. Proceedings of the Commission on Regional Aspects of Development of the International Geographical Union, Volume I , pp. 267-295.

BERRY, B. J. L. (1960). An Inductive Approach to the Regionalization of Economic Development. In : N. GINS- BURG, ed., Essays on Geography and Economic Develop- ment. Research Paper 62, Department of Geography/ University of Chicago. pp. 110-1 19.

BIERSTEKER, T. J . (1981), Distortion or Development? Con- tending Perspectives on the Multinational Corporation. Cambridge, Mass. : The MIT Press.

BORNSCHIER, V., Ch. CHASE-DUNN & R. RUBINSON (1978), Cross-National Evidence of the Effects of Foreign Invest- ment and Aid on Economic Growth and Inequality:

pp. 39-82.

leiner 1972, Singer & Ansari 1978). The spatial structure of the export sector and its significance for regional development might be a very rewarding subject for geographical research. In a less limited sense the same holds for mono- graphs on the historical geography of underdeveloped countries written with systematic attention to the way the country concerned has become integrated into the world system.

Development geography has itself developed quite slowly and it is certainly not yet one of the important specialisms within geography. Acceptance of the Centre-Periphery perspective as a focus for geographical research has been a very limited affair indeed. Even so, it is considered that the perspective mentioned can make a significant contribution towards the elucidation of the spatial structure of development and underdevelopment. As such it may prove to be a fascinating field for geographical research.

A Survey of Findings and a Reanalysis. American Journal qf' Sociology 84, pp. 651-683.

BROOKFIELD, H. (1975). Interdependent Development. Lon- don : Methuen & Co Ltd.

BROWETT, J. (1980), Development, the Diffusionist Para- digm and Geography. Progress in Human Geography 4,

BROWETT, J. (1981), On the Role of Geography in Develop- ment Geography. Tijdschrifi voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 72, pp. 155-161.

CAPORASO, J. (1974). Methodological Issues in the Measure- ment ofInequality, Dependenceand Exploitation. In : S. J. ROSEN & J. R. KURTH, eds., Testing Theories ofEconomic Imperialism, pp. 87-1 14. Lexington, Mass. : D. C. Heath & c o .

CAPORASO, J. ed. (1978), Dependence and Dependency in the Global System. International Organization 32, pp. 1-300.

CHASE-DUNN, Ch. (1975), The Effects of International Economic Dependence on Development and Inequality : A Cross-National Study. American Sociological Review 40, pp. 720-738.

DAM, F. V A N ( 1 980). Noord-Zuidbeleid. Economisch Statisti- sche Berichten 65, pp. 1400-1408.

DELACKOIX, J. (19771, The Export of Raw Materials and Economic Growth : A Cross-National Study. American Sociological Review 42, pp. 795-808.

DIETZ, A. J., J. M. V A N HAASTRECHT & H. R. SCHEFFER (1977), Local Efjecrs of Two Large-Scale Industrial Projects in the Kafue-Mazabuka Area in Zambia: The Kafue Estate and Nakambala Sugar Estate. Nijmeegse Geografische Cahiers 8. Nijmegen : Geografisch en Plano- logisch Instituut.

pp. 57-79.

Tijdschrifi voor Econ. en Soc. Geografie 74 (1983) Nr. 2 117

DIFTI. T. et a/. (1979). Nederlandse Ontwikkelingshulp Kenia. Social Geographical Institute. University of Amsterdam (mimeo. 156 pages).

DIETZ,T. & R. V A N GEUNS (1981). Het meten van regionale verschillen in marktintegratie. Kenia en Tanzania als voorbeelden Social Geographical Institute, University of Amsterdam (mimeo. 25 pages).

DI MARCO, L. E. ed. (1972), International Economics and Developmen t I. essay.,.^ in Honor of' Raid Prebisch. New York : Academic Press.

Dos SANTOS, Th. (1973). The Structure of Dependence. I n : Ch. K . WII.HER, ed., The Political Econom), nf Develop- ment and Underrlevelopment. pp. 109- 1 17. New York : Random House.

ETTEMA, W. (1979". Geographers and Development. Trjd- schrlfi vow Economische en Sociale Geografir 70,

ETTEMA, W. ( 1979h), Empirische aspekten van rkonomische a fhankelijkheid en in tune regionale differen tiatie. Discus- sion Papers Nr. 2. Department of the Geography of Developing Countries. Geographical Institute. University of Utrecht.

ETTEMA. W. (1980LI). Spanish Galicia: A Case Study in Peripheral Integration. Utrechtse Geografische Studies 18. Utrecht : Geographical Institute. University of Utrecht.

E ~ T E M A , W. (1980h), Afhankelijkheidstheorie en -onder- zoek. CeografLch Tijdschrifi 14, pp. 288-293.

EITEMA. W. & G. TEMPELMAN, eds. (1978). Spatial Inequality and Government Policy in Developing Coun- tries. Tijdschr(fi voor Economische en Sociale Geogrufie 69.

EVERS, T. T. & P. VON WOGALI (1973). "Dependencia": Lateinamerikanische Beitrage zur Theorie der Unterent- wicklung. Das Argument 15. pp. 404-453.

FIELDHOUSE, D. K. (1961), "Imperialism" : A Historio- graphical Revision. The Economic Hi.mwy Review, Second Series 14, pp. 187-209.

F R A N K , A. G. (1971). Capitalism and Underdevelopmetit in Latin America. Harmondsworth : Pelican Books.

F R I E D M A N N , J . (1959). Regional Planning: A Problem in Spatial Integration. Papersand Proceedingsol the Regional Science Association 5 , pp. 169- 179.

F R I E D M A N N , J . (1966). RegionalDevelopment Policy: A Case Study of' Venezuela. Cambridge, Mass. : The MIT Press.

F R I E D M A N N . J . (1973). Urbanization, Planning, and National Develupment. London : Sage Publications.

F R I E D M A N N , J . & C . WEAVER (1979). TerritoryandFunction. The Evolution of' Regional Planning. London : Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.

FLIRTADO, C. (lY76), Economic Development of' Latin America. Historical Background and Contemporary Problems. Cambridge, Mass. : Cambridge University Press.

GALTUNG. J . (1970), Theoryand MethodsofSocial Research. London : George Allen & Unwin Ltd..

GALTUNG, J. (1971). A Structural Theory of Imperialism. Journal of Peace Research 8 , pp, 8 1 - 1 17.

GEUNS, R. V A N (1981). Regional Differences in Transforma- tion and Integration of the Tanzanian Agriculture; with a Case Study of the Morogoro District (Master's thesis Social Geographical Institute, University of Amsterdam).

GIDENGIL, E. L. (1978), Centres and Peripheries: An Empirical Test of Galtung's Theory of Imperialism. Journal of Peace Research 15, pp. 5 1-66.

GONZALEZ-CASANOVA, P. (1968). Internal Colonialism and National Development. I n : I . L. HOROWITZ, J. DE CASTRO & J. GERASSI, eds., Latin American Radicalism. pp, 118-139. New York, etc. : Random House.

G R A Y , C. S. (1977). The Geopolitics of the Nuclear Era. New York : Crane, Russak & Company, Inc.

GREGORY, J . W. & V. PICHE (1978), African Migration

pp. 66-74.

pp. 1-128.

and Peripheral Capitalism. In : w. M. J . V A N BINSHFRGEN & H. A. M E I L I N K , eds.. Migration and the Trans- ,fbrmation ?/' Modern African Society, pp. 37-50. Leiden : Afrika St udiecentrum.

H A M E L I N K , C. J. (1978). Derde Werelden culturele emanci- patie. Baarn : Het Wereldvenster.

HELLEINER. G. K. (1972), Intcrnational Trade and Economic Development. Harmondsworth : Penguin Books.

HILHORST, J . G . M. (1971). Regional Planning. Rotterdam : University Press.

H I R S C H M A N , A. 0. (1978; 1st. ed. 1958), The Strategy of' Economic Dewlopmmt. New York. etc. : W. W. Norton & Corn pan y.

IEDES GROUPF. DE REcHERcHE (l977), Commerce exterieur et organisation de I'espace. Revue Tiers Monde 18,

JACKSON, S . , B. RUSSETT, D. SNIDAL & D. SYLVAN (1979), An Assessment of Empirical Research on Dependencia. Latin American Research Review 14, pp. 7-28.

A Preliminary Test of the Theory of Dependency. Com- para five Politics 7, pp. 303-330.

K L E I N P E N N I N G , J. M. G. (1978). Profiel van de derde wereld. Een inleiding tot de geografie van de onrteront~,ikkeling. Assen : Van Gorcum.

KLEINPENNIN(i, J . M. G . (1981). De sociale geografie van de ontwikkelingslanden. Intermeiliair 17, Nr. 12, pp. 41- 49.

K L I E S ~ . T. J. & H. R. ScHEwtm (1981), John Turner's Theory of Intra-Urban Mobility and the African Reality : Examples from East and West Africa. Tijdschrlfi voor Econoniische en Sociale Geografie 72, pp. 258-265.

LALL, S. (1975). Is "Dependence" a Useful Concept in Analysing Development'? World Developnicnt 3 , pp. 799-8 10.

Ltvs , C. (1977), Underdevelopment in Kenya. The Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism. London : Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.

LINDERT, P. V A N (1979). Intra-urbane mobiliteit en het ontstaan van spontane volksbuurten in de steden van Latijns Amerikd. Discussion Papers Nr. I . Department of the Geography of Developing Countries, Geographical Institute. University of Utrecht.

LINZ, J. J. & A. D E M I G U E L (1968), Within-Nation Differ- ences and Comparisons: The Eight Spains. I n : R. L. MEnRl rT & S. ROKKAN, eds., Comparing Nations. The Use of' Quantitative Data in Cross-National Research. pp. 303-330. New Haven : Yale University Press.

MCGOWAN, P. J. (1976), Economic Dependence and Economic Performance in Black Africa. The Journal of' Modern A,frican Studies 14, pp. 25-40.

MYRDAL, G. (1965; 1st. ed. 1957). Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions. London : Methuen & Co Ltd.

NAS, P. J. M . (1976), Stedenverdelingen, nationale ontwikkeling en afhankelijkheid (Ph. D. Thesis, Leiden University).

NOVE, A. (1974), On Reading Andre Gunder Frank. The Journal of' Development Studies 10. pp. 445-455.

~ ' B R I E N (undated), A Crilique of' Latin American Theories of' Dependency. Occasional Papers Nr. 12. Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Glasgow.

PALMA, G. (1978). Dependency: A Formal Theory of Underdevelopment or a Methodology for the Analysis of Concrete Situations of Underdevelopment? World Development 6, pp. 881-924.

PINTO, A. &J. KNAKAL (1972),The Center-Periphery System 20 Years Later. In : L. E. DI MARCO, ed., International Economics and Development, pp. 97-128. New York, etc. : Academic Press.

RAY, D. (1973). The Dependency Model of Latin American Underdevelopment. Journal of'lnter-American Studies and

pp. 301-322.

KAI!tMAN. R. R.. H. 1. C H E R N ~ T S K Y & S . GELLER (1975).

118 Tudschrift voor Econ. en Soc. Geografie 74 (1983) Nr. 2

World Afa irs 15, pp. 4-20. RAY, J. L. & J. D. SINGER (1973), Measuring the Concen-

tration of Power in the International System. Sociological Methods and Research I , pp. 403-437.

RAY, J. L. & T. WEBSTER (l978), Dependency and Economic Growth in Latin America. International Studies Quarterly

ROSCISZEWSKI, M. (1977), Problems of Spatial Structure in Third World Countries. Geographia Polonica 35, pp. 11-23.

ROXBOROUGH, I. (1979), Theories of Underdevelopment. London : The MacMillan Press Ltd.

RUSSETT, B. M. (1967), International Regions and the Inter- national System : A Study in Political Ecology. Chicago : The Free Press.

SCHELLENBERGER, B. (1981), Op de rand van de Periferie; ruimtelijke verschillen in economische ontwikkeling en de

invloed daarop in Kitui, Kenia (Master’s thesis, Social Geographical Institute, University of Amsterdam).

SCHUURMAN, F. J. (1978), From Resource Frontier to Periphery : Agricultural Colonization East of the Andes. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografe 69, pp. 95-104.

SELWYN, P. (1979), Some Thoughts on Cores and Periph- eries. In: D. SEERS. B. SCHAFFER & M. L. KILJUNEN, eds., Underdeveloped Europe. Studies in Core-Periphery Relations, pp. 35-43. Sussex : The Harvester Press.

SINGER, H. & J. ANSARI (1978). Rich and Poor Countries. London : George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

SLATER, D. (19741, Contribution to a Critique of Develop- ment Geoeraohv. Canadian Journal o f African Studies 8 .

22, pp. 409-434.

L I

pp. 325-3g. SLATER. D. (1975). Colonialism and the Suatial Structure of . . ,.

Underdevelopment - Outlines oi an Alternative Approach with Special Reference to Tanzania. Progress in Planning 4, pp. 137-162.

SLOAN, J. W. (1977), Dependency Theory and Latin American Development : Another Key Fails to Open the Door. Inter-American Economic Aflairs 3 I , pp. 2 1-40.

SMITH, D. M. (1979), Where the Grass is Greener; Living in an Unequal World. Harmondsworth : Penguin Books.

S O U Z A , A. R. DE & PH. w. PORTER (1974), The Under- development and Modernization of the Third World. Com- mission on College Geography Resource Paper No 28. Washington D.C. : Association of American Geographers.

SOUZA, A. R. DE & J . B. FOUST (1979), World Space- Economy. Columbus, etc. : Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

STALLINGS, B. (1972). Economic Dependency in A,/rica and Latin America. Beverly Hills : Sage Publishers.

SZENTES, T. (1971), The Political Economy o/ Under- development. Budapest : Akademiai Kiado.

TAYLOR, J. G. (1979), From Modernization to Modes of Production. A Critique of the Sociologies of Development and Underdevelopment. London : The MacMillan Presss Ltd.

TODARO, M. P. (1977). Economics,/or a Developing World. An Introduction to Principles, Problems and Policies ,/or Development. London : Longman Group Ltd.

TURNER, J. C. (1968), Housing Priorities, Settlement Patterns, and Urban Development in Modernizing Coun- tries. AIP Journal 36, pp. 354-363.

TYLER, W. G. & J. P. WOGART (1973), Economic Dependence and Marginalization. Some Empirical Evidence. The Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Af’uirs 15, pp. 36-45.

VENGROFF, R. (1977), Dependency and Underdevelopment in Black Africa: An Empirical Test. The Journal o/ Modern African Studies 15, pp. 613-630.

WALLERI, R. DAN (1978), Trade Dependence and Under- development. A Causal-Chain Analysis. Comparative Political Studies 1 1, pp. 94- 122.

WARKE, T. W. (1973). The Marxian Theory of Under- development : A Review Article. Journal of Developing Areas 7, pp. 699-710.

WILLIAMSON, J. G. (1968), Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development : A Description of the Patterns. In : L. NEEDLEMAN, ed., Regional Anal-vsis, pp. 99-158. Harmondsworth : Penguin Books.

Tddschr@ voor Econ. en Soc. Geografie 74 (1983) Nr. 2 119

the centre-periphery perspective in development geography

Documents