ABSTRACT
One of the most familiar ideas from the world-system perspective is the notion of a core/semiperiphery/periphery hierarchy that can help us understand the dynamics and contours of worldwide inequalities. The idea is that different “zones” of the world-system perform distinct roles in the international division of labor. Pushing beyond core and periphery, to an idea of a middle or intermediary layer is a major innovation and various arguments are made about the semiperiphery as potentially innovative, mobile, or volatile. But to systematically study whether membership in a zone – or up or down mobility between them – matters, we need to know precisely who fits where. So this paper inventories and critiques both attributional and relational measures of forty years of research on world-system position. I argue that a network analytic approach is most satisfying, but only if it is theoretically informed, uses the most updated and complete data, and employs state-of-the-art methodologies.
