Assess the advantages and disadvantages of using the World Systems Theory to study politics and international relations.

Researching Politics and International Relations
Theory Essay
Word Count: 1500 plus or minus 10%. Word count does NOT include the reference list.
Question:
‘Assess the advantages and disadvantages of using the World Systems Theory to study politics and international relations.’

In this essay you need to:

1. Address metatheory

2. Engage with key thinkers who have developed the approach.

3. Describe the broad ideas and key concepts of the approach.

4. Give examples of the application of the approach by established academics.

5. Contrast the World Systems Theory with one other theoretical approach (I would contrast with neo-realism by Kenneth Waltz)

6. Assess the advantages and disadvantages of using the World Systems theory to study politics and international relations.

Note: All 6 of these points need to be addressed within the essay. Although the order does not have to be laid out in this way. The structure is down to you.
I would suggest looking at two advantages and two disadvantages of using the World systems theory in IR. Exploring these in great detail. To be more explanatory rather than just descriptive.
The theoretical approach to analyse?
World Systems Theory in International Relations created by Immanuel Wallerstein developed in 1974 (note that though this approach is based in classical Marxism, any answer that looks only at classical Marxism will not be passed)

1- (Metatheory) Where does that theoretical approach situate in terms of ontology and epistemology? Why? (See figures below for support.)
Positivist Epistemology – This view is shared by neorealism, neoliberalism, behaviouralism, rational choice, rational choice institutionalism, and liberal feminism.
Critical Realism – This position is taken by Marxism, Critical Theory, radical feminism, CRT, Historical Institutionalism, constructivism in IR, forms of post-colonialism.
Interpretivism – This position is taken by interpretivism, poststructuralism, forms of post-colonialism, and post-structural feminism.
2 -Engage with key thinkers who have developed the approach.
It will be important for you engage with their contribution to the approach you’re addressing in the essay.
3 – Give examples of the application of the theoretical approach by established academics
Mention one (maximum two) example(s) of how the approach has been used by academics before.
It will most likely be the application of a particular theory that comes out of the theoretical approach (for example, if looking at Neoliberalism there is the theory of balance of power or the theory of complex interdependence).
This is where you can add most secondary sources. I will attach some that you could use. One good one I have looked at is Christopher Chase-Dunn and Peter Grimes I will add this to attached files
4- Contrast the theoretical approach with another approach
what theoretical approach would you want to contrast your approach of choice with? For example, there are groups of theoretical approaches that are quite straightforward to compare like neoliberalism and neorealism, or Behaviouralism and rational choice.
For the World Systems theory (Neo-Marxism) I would suggest contrasting this with Kenneth Walz Neo-Realist theory. Use a paragraph to do this. Remember the main focus of the essay is World Systems. – it would be good to perhaps use a reference for neo-realist theory to compare.

5 – Assess the advantages and disadvantages of using the World Systems theory to study politics and/or international relations – mentioning a couple of advantages and a couple of disadvantages is fine but make sure you explain why those are advantages and disadvantages of your theoretical approach of choice. – Explore 2 advantages and disadvantages in detail
Some disadvantages for World-Systems theory are:
• Its level of determinism – the theory suggests that the position of actors within the structure determine the way they behave
• Able to outline the evils of international capitalism but has no scheme which will change it
• It is reductionist – it reduces all phenomena – war, economic crises, inequality, aspects of identity and so forth – to the dynamic of capitalism and to social class and class struggle. In practice, structuralists have failed to ask questions about gender, ethnicity, and other sorts of identities (everything is explained by class)
• Are all interests determined by social class?
It suggests an end point to history – socialism