Complementary and Competitive Regimes of Accumulation: Natural Resources and Development in the World-System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the post-war period, natural resource production has often been associated withperipheralization in the world-economy. This paper seeks to demonstrate that this associationdoes not hold when examined from a long-term perspective, and explains the conditions underwhich natural resource production can support upward economic mobility in the world-system.First, this paper provides evidence that the production of cash crops and resource extraction hasnot always equaled peripheralization in the world-economy, as demonstrated by, among otherthings, the upward economic mobility of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealandduring the nineteenth century. It then puts forth a new hypothesis that the existence ofopportunities for raw material producing countries depends on whether the hegemonic regime ofaccumulation at a given time structures the economy in a way that is either complementary orcompetitive to the economic development of raw material producing countries. By examining theBritish centered regime of accumulation during the nineteenth century, we find that it wascomparatively complementary to economic development in raw material producing countrieswhereas the twentieth century United States centered regime was comparatively competitive withraw material producers. Based on a comparison with Britain and the United States, the paperalso suggests that Chinas increasingly central role in the world-economy may be comparativelycomplementary to economic development in raw material producing countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".