document_title: Jeep Grand Cherokee

question_text: what years did jeep make a diesel grand cherokee

text: Jeep Grand Cherokee

text: Development[edit]

text: The Grand Cherokee's origins date back to 1983 when American Motors Corporation (AMC) was designing a successor to the smaller Jeep Cherokee (XJ).[2] Three outside (non-AMC) designers—Larry Shinoda, Alain Clenet, and Giorgetto Giugiaro—were also under contract with AMC to create and build a clay model of the Cherokee XJ replacement, then known as the "XJC" project.[3] However, the basic design for the Cherokee's replacement was well under way by AMC's in-house designers and the 1989 Jeep Concept 1 show car foretold the basic design.[4]

text: As AMC began development of the next Jeep in 1985, management created a business process that is now known as product lifecycle management (PLM).[5] According to François Castaing, Vice President for Product Engineering and Development, the smallest U.S. automaker was looking for a way to speed up its product development process to compete better against its larger competitors.[6] The XJC's development was aided by computer-aided design (CAD) software systems making the engineers more productive while new communication allowed potential conflicts to be resolved faster thus reducing costly engineering changes because all drawings and documents were in a central database.[6] The system was so effective that after Chrysler purchased AMC in 1987, it expanded the system throughout its enterprise, thus connecting everyone involved in designing and building products.[6]

text: The Grand Cherokee thus became the first Chrysler-badged Jeep product. Development work for the new Jeep model continued and Chrysler's employees (after the 1987 buyout of AMC) were eager for a late-1980s release date; however, CEO Lee Iacocca was pushing for redesigned Chrysler minivans, thus delaying the Grand Cherokee's release until late-1992[7] as an Explorer competitor. Unlike the Explorer, the Grand Cherokee utilized monocoque (unibody) construction, whereas the Explorer was a derivative of the Ranger pickup with a separate body-on-frame.

text: The Grand Cherokee debuted in grand fashion at the 1992 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. The vehicle that was driven was a Poppy Red Clear Coat 1993 Grand Cherokee ZJ Laredo with a quartz cloth interior and high-back bucket seats. Then Chrysler president Robert Lutz drove Detroit mayor, Coleman Young, from the Jefferson North Assembly Plant on North Jefferson Avenue via a police escort to Cobo Hall, up the steps of Cobo Hall and through a plate glass window to show off the new vehicle.[8] Sales of the 1993 model year Grand Cherokee began in April 1992.[9]

text: Production of the Grand Cherokee started shortly afterward in the purpose-built Jefferson North Assembly in Detroit, Michigan. European Grand Cherokees are manufactured in Austria by Magna Steyr.[10] The Grand Cherokee "played a significant part in reviving Chrysler's fortunes by moving it into the then nascent market for high-margin sports utility vehicles."[11]

text: Upon its introduction, it was the first USA-manufactured automobile using HFC-134a refrigerant in place of HCFC-12 for the HVAC system.

text: First generation (ZJ; 1993–1998)[edit]

text: The original Grand Cherokee was launched in 1992 as a 1993 model year vehicle in the luxury SUV segment. The "ZJ" models, manufactured from 1992 to 1998, originally came in three trim levels: base (also known as SE), Laredo, and Limited, subsequent trims were added, included Orvis (95–98), TSI (97–98). The base model included features such as full instrumentation, cloth interior, and a standard five-speed manual transmission, while gaining the moniker "SE" name for the 1994 model year. Power windows and locks were not standard equipment on the base trim. The minimal price tag differential resulted in low consumer demand, and as a result, the low-line model was eventually discontinued. Additional standard features included a driver-side air bag (starting in 96) and four-wheel anti-lock braking system (ABS). The Laredo was the mid-scale model with standard features that included power windows, power door locks, cruise control, and a leather wrapped steering wheel. Exterior features included medium-grey plastic paneling on the lower body and five-spoke alloy wheels. The Limited was the premium model, featuring body color lower body paneling, and gold exterior accents. The Limited also boasted standard features such as leather seating, heated mirrors, front power seats, a keyless entry system, wood grain interior appliqué, lace style alloy wheels, a driver information center with compass, digitized climate control, and electrochromic rearview mirror, and Jensen brand stereo with multi-band equalizer. By 1996 the option list grew to include heated seats. Standard was the 4.0, with the 5.2 V8 (and 5.9 in 1998) being optional. As with other models. Package groups with the various trim levels included: fog lamps, skid plates, as well as convenience, lighting, luxury, power, security, and trailer towing packages.

text: When it was first introduced in April 1992 as an early 1993 model year vehicle, the Grand Cherokee only had one powertrain choice: the 4.0 L AMC-derived straight-six engine that made 190 horsepower. This became the "volume" engine for the Grand Cherokee. Transmission choices included a four-speed automatic transmission (early production ZJs used the AW4 – the A500SE (later 42RE) replaced the AW4 during the latter half of the 1993 model year) or an Aisin AX15 manual transmission. Low demand for the manual transmission resulted in its discontinuation after 1994, but European-market ZJs retained it when coupled to the diesel engine (which was unavailable in North America). The drive train choices included rear-wheel drive or four-wheel-drive. In 1995, the engine dropped 5 horsepower to 185 due to new EPA regulations imposed on the 1996 model year.

text: In 1998, a variant of the top-level Grand Cherokee Limited, the "5.9 Limited" was introduced. Jeep ads claimed it to be the "world's fastest sport utility vehicle", verified by third-party testing. The primary improvements in the 5.9 Limited version included a 245-horsepower 5.9L OHV V8 engine, heavy-duty 46RE automatic transmission, functional heat-extracting hood louvers, unique wide-slot body-colored grille with mesh inserts, special rocker moldings, low-restriction exhaust with three-inch chrome tip, a low-profile roof rack, and special 16" Ultra-Star wheels. The 5.9 Limited also received a 150 amp alternator and a 2-speed electric cooling fan. Other features include a standard 180-watt, 10-speaker Infinity Gold sound system with rear roof-mounted sound bar, standard sunroof, and an interior swaddled with unique "calf's nap" soft leather and faux wood trim. The 5.9 Limited was awarded "4x4 of the Year" for 1998 by Petersen's 4-Wheel & Off-Road magazine. Production of this model was 14,286 units.

text: Export models produced at the plant in Graz, Austria, were given the vehicle designation of "ZG".

text: Engines[edit]

text:
Years
Engine
Displacement
Power
Torque
Notes

1993–1995
4.0 L Straight-6
242 CID
190 hp (142 kW)
225 lb⋅ft (305 N⋅m)

1996–1998
4.0 L Straight-6
242 CID
185 hp (138 kW)
220 lb⋅ft (298 N⋅m)
new emission standards introduced

1993–1994
5.2 L V8
318 CID
220 hp (164 kW)
285 lb⋅ft (386 N⋅m)

1995–1998
5.2 L V8
318 CID
220 hp (164 kW)
300 lb⋅ft (407 N⋅m)

1995–1998
2.5 L TURBO DIESEL
VM Motori/Detroit Diesel
115 hp (86 kW)
221 lb⋅ft (300 N⋅m)
Not Available in North America

1998
5.9 L V8
360 CID
245 hp (183 kW)
345 lb⋅ft (468 N⋅m)

text: Second generation (WJ; 1999–2004)[edit]

text: The redesigned WJ 1999 Grand Cherokee shared just 127 parts with its predecessor (mostly fasteners). The European model was coded WG. The spare tire was relocated from the side of the cargo compartment to under the floor. (Like the 1998 ZJ, the rear tailgate glass opened separately.) The two heavy pushrod V8 engines were replaced by Chrysler's then-new PowerTech. The new V8 engine produced less torque than the old pushrods, but was lighter, offered better fuel economy, and provided similar on road performance figures (the 23-gallon fuel tank was replaced with one of a 20.5-gallon capacity). The straight-six engine was also updated in 1999. A redesign of the intake manifold added 10 horsepower (7.5 kW). While other Jeep vehicles used the Mopar 5 x 4.5 bolt circle, this was the first Jeep following the 1987 Chrysler buyout to receive a wider bolt pattern: – 5 x 5.

text: A notable feature available in this generation was the automatic four wheel drive option called Quadra-Drive, which employed the New Venture Gear NV247 transfer case. This two-speed chain-driven transfer case uses a gerotor, a clutch pack coupled to a hydraulic pump, to transfer torque between the front and rear axles. The transfer case contains three modes, 4-All Time, Neutral, and 4-Lo. In 4-All Time, 100% of torque is sent to the rear axle in normal conditions. If the rear axle starts spinning at a higher rate than the front axle, hydraulic pressure builds up in the gerotor and causes the clutch pack to progressively transfer torque to the front axle until both axles return to the same speed. Neutral mode is intended for towing the vehicle. In 4-Lo, the front and rear axles are locked together through a 2.72 reduction gear ratio. The NV247 transfer case is mated to front and rear axles containing Jeep's Vari-Lok differentials. Vari-Lok differentials also use a gerotor to transfer torque between the wheels on either side of the axle. The major advantage of Quadra-Drive was that the combined transfer case and progressive locking differentials in each axle could automatically control traction between all four wheels. However, only the center differential could be permanently locked, and only in 4Lo. The Quadra-Trac II system included the NV247 transfer case with the standard open front and rear differentials.

text: The 45RFE and 545RFE automatic transmission in the WJ was notable. It included three planetary gear sets rather than the two normally used in a four-speed automatic. This gave it six theoretical speeds, and it would have been the first six-speed transmission ever produced in volume, but it was programmed to only use five of these ratios. Four were used for upshifts, with a different second gear for downshifts. Although five of the six ratios were used, Chrysler decided to call it a "4-speed automatic". In 2001, the programming was changed to make use of all six ratios. Rather than have six forward gears, the transmission was programmed to act as a five-speed with the alternate second gear for downshifts. The rpm at 70 miles per hour (110 km/h) on a 545RFE is 2000 rpm, 200 rpm less than the 45RFE programming. 1999 and 2000 model year WJ owners can have their 45RFE transmission's programming flashed to enable the extra gear as both transmissions are physically the same. (Must purchase new PCM and ABS module and program them with a fake VIN to make this work.) The 42RE 4-speed automatic remained the transmission for the Inline 6 engine. It had slight changes from the previous model Grand Cherokee.

text: The interior was also completely redesigned in 1999. The redesign allowed for larger rear doors, and more space for rear passengers. Controls for various items like headlights, heated seats, and rear wiper were moved to more convenient locations. The electronic Vehicle Information center was moved from below the radio to above the windshield, and was standard on all 2000 and up models. Limited models included automatic dual-zone climate control. A 10 CD-Changer was also available with the Infinity Audio package.

text: In addition to Jeep's UniFrame construction, Daimler Chrysler partnered with Porsche to further strengthen the frame.[citation needed] This was done to reduce NVH. UniFrame is an unusual construction scheme, it incorporates all of the strength and durability of a body-on-frame construction into a unitized construction. By adding stiffness and rigidity to the structure, they enhanced the ride and strengthened the network of steel beams, rails and pillars (or "safety cage") that surround and protect occupants. More than 70 percent of the underbody is high-strength steel. All Jeep Grand Cherokees feature UniFrame construction.

text: The Grand Cherokee received a minor facelift for 2004 including round fog lamps, a lower front fascia and a new body-color matched inset grille design.

text: Export models produced at the plant in Graz, Austria, were given the vehicle designation of "WG".

text: Engines[edit]

text:
Years
Engine
Displacement
Power
Torque
Notes

1999–2002
3.1 L TURBO DIESEL
VM Motori
140 hp (104 kW)
271 lb⋅ft (367 N⋅m)
Not Available in North America

1999–2004 (1999–2005 Outside North America)
4.0 L Straight-6
242 CID
195 hp (145 kW)
230 lb⋅ft (312 N⋅m)

1999–2004 (1999–2005 Outside North America)
4.7 L V8
287 CID
235 hp (175 kW)
295 lb⋅ft (400 N⋅m)

2002–2005
2.7 L CRD Diesel
Mercedes Benz Diesel
163 hp (122 kW)
295 lb⋅ft (400 N⋅m)
Not Available in North America

2002–2004 (2002–2005 Outside North America)
4.7 L H.O. V8
287 CID
265 hp (198 kW)
325 lb⋅ft (441 N⋅m)

text: Third generation (WK; 2005–2010)[edit]

text: The all-new WK Grand Cherokee debuted in 2004 for the 2005 model year. It was first unveiled at the 2004 New York International Auto Show. Features available for the first time in a Jeep included Quadra-Drive II four-wheel drive, rear-seat DVD player and optional 5.7 L Hemi V8. The 3.7 L V6 engine replaced the 4.0 L Straight-6. A Mercedes Benz sourced 3.0 V6 Common Rail Diesel (CRD) was available outside of North America from launch.

text: The design still emphasizes power and luxury, with significant work done on improving noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH). However, for the first time, Jeep also emphasized on-road performance to a similar extent as the cornerstone of its brand, off-road capability.

text: This newfound emphasis on on-road refinement led Jeep to replace the XJ-era live-axle with leading-arms front suspension (found in the ZJ and WJ) with a new design: an independent double-wishbone setup like that which debuted in the 2002 Liberty. The new Jeep changed its philosophy due to what it perceived as increasing demand in the SUV marketplace for on-road performance and decreasing demand for off-road capability. Although classed as a truck-based SUV, the WH/WK Grand Cherokee has more luxuries than a "crossover" especially refinement, capability and NVH.

text: The 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee made its European debut at the Euro Camp Jeep held in Ardèche, France. This Jeep has gained 5 stars in the Euro Ncap crash safety tests conducted in 2005.

text: The Grand Cherokee received a minor facelift for 2008. The bottom part of the headlights became rounded and High Intensity Discharge (HID) Headlamps with auto leveling were added. The lower portion of the front bumper was still removable as it was from launch to increase the approach angle for off-road use. The 4.7 L was refined, now producing 305 hp (227 kW; 309 PS), and 334 lb⋅ft (453 N⋅m).

text: The 2009 Jeep Grand Cherokee is available with an improved 5.7 L Hemi engine rated at 357 hp (266 kW; 362 PS) and 389 lb⋅ft (527 N⋅m) of torque. The engine uses variable valve timing to increase fuel economy.[12]

text: Engines[edit]

text:
Years
Engine
Displacement
Power
Torque
Notes

2005–2010
3.7 L V6
225 CID (3,687 cc)
215 hp (160 kW)
235 lb⋅ft (319 N⋅m)
Base, Laredo, Laredo X, Limited

2005–2007
4.7 L V8
287 CID (4,698 cc)
230 hp (172 kW)
295 lb⋅ft (400 N⋅m)
Laredo, Laredo X, Limited

2008–2009
4.7 L V8
287 CID (4,698 cc)
305 hp (227 kW)
334 lb⋅ft (453 N⋅m)
Laredo, Laredo X, Limited

2005–2008
5.7 L Hemi V8
345 CID (5,654 cc)
325 hp (242 kW)
369 lb⋅ft (500 N⋅m)
Laredo X, Limited, Overland

2009–2010
5.7 L Hemi V8
345 CID (5,654 cc)
357 hp (266 kW)
389 lb⋅ft (527 N⋅m)
Laredo X, Limited, Overland

2006–2010
6.1 L Hemi V8
370 CID (6,059 cc)
420 hp (313 kW)
420 lb⋅ft (569 N⋅m)
SRT8

2005–2010 Europe/ 2007–2009 North America
3.0 L Mercedes Benz CRD OM642 V6
182 CID (2,988 cc)
215 hp (160 kW)
376 lb⋅ft (510 N⋅m)
CRD, Predator, Model S, Laredo X, Limited, Overland

text: Fourth generation (WK2; 2011–present)[edit]

text: The fourth-generation WK2 Grand Cherokee went on sale in summer 2010 as a 2011 model.[13] It was unveiled at the 2009 New York Auto Show.[14] In 2009, during its development, Chrysler management used it as an example of future products to convince United States federal regulators of Chrysler's future viability for the purpose of requesting a federal loan. This culminated in the Chrysler Chapter 11 reorganization that same year.

text: The fourth-generation Grand Cherokee retains its classic Jeep styling combined with a modern and sleek body style. The interior features leather trim and real wood accents, plus Bluetooth and uConnect electronics options. With the additional awards for the 2011 Grand Cherokee, the Jeep Grand Cherokee has won 30 awards for off-road capability, luxury, value, best-in-class, and safety, making it the most awarded SUV ever.[15] Among the awards are: Top Safety Pick for 2011 from the IIHS, listed as a Consumers Digest Best Buy for 2011, Safest SUV in America by MSN Autos, and Truck of the Year for 2011 by The Detroit News.[citation needed]

text: Like previous generations, the WK2 Grand Cherokee chassis is a steel unibody. Unlike previous generations, it features four-wheel independent suspension for better on-road handling. The WK2 and 2011 Durango use a Chrysler designed and engineered platform/chassis that Mercedes-Benz later used for the Mercedes-Benz W166 series. The Chrysler designed platform was part of the DaimerChrysler engineering projects that were to launch the WK2 Grand Cherokee with the Mercedes-Benz ML to follow. However, due to the subsequent sale and bankruptcy of Chrysler, the Grand Cherokee launch was delayed and the ML launched before the Grand Cherokee.

text: Four wheel drive systems include Quadra-Trac I, Quadra-Trac II, and Quadra-Drive II. Using Selec-Terrain, the driver can select modes for Auto, Sport, Snow, Sand/Mud, and Rock.

text: Optional Quadra-Lift height adjustable air suspension can raise the vehicle's ground clearance up to 11.1 in (282 mm).[16] Lift modes include Park, Aero, Normal Ride Height, Off-Road 1, and Off-Road 2.

text: Engine choices include the all new 3.6 L Pentastar V6 and 5.7 L Hemi V8. The Hemi V8 retains the Multiple Displacement System (MDS) that shuts down four cylinders in low-power driving situations. The V8 comes with the multi-speed automatic transmission that includes Electronic Range Selection (ERS) to manually limit the high gear operating range. Trailer towing is rated 7,400 lb (3,400 kg) for Hemi models and 6,800 lb (3,100 kg) for Pentastar models.[17] A 3.0 L turbocharged diesel V6 developed and built by Fiat Powertrain Technologies and VM Motori (with Multijet II injection[18]) rated at 177 kW (241 PS; 237 hp) and 550 N⋅m (410 lb⋅ft) of torque offered in export markets from mid-2011.[19] The new 3.0 L CRD turbodiesel engine is available in European markets as 140 kW (190 PS; 188 hp) low-power version.[20]

text: The new Grand Cherokee SRT8, which started production on July 16, 2011,[21] is equipped with a 470 hp (350 kW; 480 PS) 6.4 L Hemi V8 engine. Jeep claims the new SRT8 gets 13 percent better fuel economy than its predecessor.[citation needed] To keep the gas mileage respectable,[clarification needed] Jeep has employed a new active exhaust system that lets Chrysler's cylinder-deactivating Fuel Saver Technology operate over a wider rpm band. Chrysler claims that with the larger gas tank, the SUV can now travel up to 500 miles (800 km) on a single tank, while other sources estimate range to be 450 miles (720 km).

text: The Jeep Grand Cherokee was released in India on 30 August 2016. Alongside the Wrangler, the Grand Cherokee was the first model to be sold directly by Jeep in the country.[22] Jeeps have been built under licence by Mahindra in India since the 1960s.[23]

text: Engines[edit]

text:
Years
Engine
Displacement
Power
Torque
Notes

2011–
3.6 L Pentastar V6
220 CID (3,604 cc)
290 hp (216 kW)
260 lb⋅ft (353 N⋅m)
Laredo, Laredo E, Laredo X, Altitude, Limited, Sterling Edition, Trailhawk, Overland, High Altitude, Summit[24]

2011–
5.7 L Hemi V8
345 CID (5,654 cc)
360 hp (268 kW)
390 lb⋅ft (529 N⋅m)
Laredo X (up to 2013), Altitude (up to 2013), Limited, Sterling Edition, Trailhawk, Overland, High Altitude, Summit[24]

2012–
6.4 L Hemi V8
392 CID (6,417 cc)
475 hp (354 kW)
470 lb⋅ft (637 N⋅m)
SRT8, SRT[25]

2018–
6.2 L supercharged Hemi V8
376 CID (6,166 cc)
707 hp (527 kW)
645 lb⋅ft (875 N⋅m)
Trackhawk[26]

2011–
3.0 L CRD V6
182 CID (2,988 cc)
140 kW (190 PS; 188 hp)
440 N⋅m (320 lb⋅ft)
US SPEC Lower output to meet emission standards

2014–
3.0 L CRD V6
182 CID (2,988 cc)
179 kW (243 PS; 240 hp)
569 N⋅m (420 lb⋅ft)
Available outside North America from launch. US SPEC Limited, Overland, Summit[24]

text: Sales[edit]

text:
Calendar Year
United States
Canada
Outside North America
Total

1993

1994
238,512[27]

1995
252,168

1996
279,195

1997
260,875[28]

1998
229,135

1999[29]
300,031

2000
271,723

2001[30]
223,612

2002[31]
224,233

2003
207,479

2004[32]
182,313
7,454

2005
213,584
9,166

2006[33]
139,148
7,075

2007
120,937
8,078

2008[34]
73,678
7,617

2009[35]
50,328
6,254 [36]
14,869[37]
71,451

2010[38]
84,635
7,255 [36]

2011[39]
127,744
10,283

2012[40]
154,734
10,416[41]

165,150

2013[42]
174,275
11,587
69,143
255,005[43]

2014
183,786[44]
13,150
82,631
279,567

2015[45]
195,958
11,605
69,673
277,236

2016
212,273[46]
15,091[47]

text: Safety[edit]

text: NHTSA[edit]

text:
NHTSA 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV 4WD:[48]

Overall:

Frontal Driver:

Frontal Passenger:

Side Driver:

Side Passenger:

Side Pole Driver:

Rollover:
 / 16.9%

text: Recalls[edit]

text: In 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched an investigation into 1993–2004 model year Jeep Grand Cherokees which involves the fuel tanks of these SUVs. Because the gas tanks are mounted between the bumper and rear axle, a rear collision could cause the fuel tank to leak, causing a fire. The NHTSA claims that it has reports of 157 deaths resulting from fires caused by Grand Cherokees crashing. Also affected are 2002–2007 Jeep Liberty models and 1986–2001 Jeep Cherokee models, which totals about 5.1 million affected vehicles.[49]

text: In June, 2013, Chrysler Corporation responded to the recall, agreeing to recall 2.7 million Jeeps, though eliminating both the 1986–2001 Jeep Cherokee XJ and 1999–2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee WJ from the recall. The recall will include 2.7 million 1993–1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee ZJ and 2002–2007 Jeep Liberty KJ vehicles.

text: Two weeks prior to this recall, Chrysler Corporation claimed that the affected Jeep vehicles were safe, though agreed to recall the affected vehicles later.

text: To remedy the problem, Jeep dealerships will install a trailer hitch onto the rear bumpers of Jeep vehicles that will protect the fuel tank if the vehicle is involved in a rear impact. If an affected vehicle is not currently equipped with a trailer hitch, one will be installed onto it, and older Jeep and non-factory aftermarket trailer hitches will be replaced with one from Chrysler Corporation. Despite the recall, the market for these Jeep vehicles has not suffered.[50]

text: In May 2013 there was a recall of WKs with the Quadra-Drive II and Quadra-Trac II systems. This followed cases of cars rolling away due the transfer case moving into neutral of its own accord, and the owner not having applied the parking brake. The recall revised the Final Drive Control Module (FDCM) software. However, following the recall there were widespread reports on enthusiast web sites [51] of both the neutral and low ratio modes of the transfer case ceasing to function, and a survey showed that fewer than 10% of respondents had experienced no issues with the recall.[52] Attempting to resolve these issues, some dealers subsequently replaced the transfer case actuator, FDCM, and even the transfer case itself, often at customer expense and usually to no avail.

text: The cause of the roll-aways was faulty soldering in the transfer case actuator. It has been deduced that the revised software detects this by noting any deviation in resistance, and thereupon locks the transfer case in high ratio for safety; but that it is over-reacting to minor resistance variations from other causes. Originally Chrysler dealers claimed that the loss of neutral and low ratio following the recall was co-incidence; then it claimed that the revised software was revealing pre-existing faults in the system, despite it occurring even with new parts. Chrysler have also claimed that only a small fraction of cars have issues following the recall;[53] but most users never have occasion to use the low ratio and may never discover the fault. Four years after this recall its issues remain unresolved.

text: In April 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) ordered a recall of 2014 and 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokees and other cars that use an electronic gear shifter because it sometimes does not go into (or does not remain in) the park position, despite the operator's best intentions. Consumers reported that they put the car in park and left the engine running, and then were surprised when the car rolled away under power.

text: An investigation by FCA US and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found some drivers have exited their vehicles without first selecting “PARK.” Such behavior may pose a safety risk if a vehicle’s engine is still running. The Company is aware of 41 injuries that are potentially related. The vehicles involved in these events were inspected and no evidence of equipment failure was found. The vehicles also deliver warning chimes and alert messages if their driver-side doors are opened while their engines are still running and “PARK” is not engaged. However, investigation suggested these measures may be insufficient to deter some drivers from exiting their vehicles without selecting “PARK,” so FCA US will enhance the warnings and transmission-shift strategy on these vehicles. The enhancements will combine warnings with a transmission-shift strategy to automatically prevent a vehicle from moving, under certain circumstances, even if the driver fails to select “PARK.”[54]

text: Jeep has now replaced the shifter with a conventional lever which stays in position for late 2016 models.

text: In October 2017, 2011-14 model year Grand Cherokees were recalled due to improperly installed brake shields in some vehicles.[55]


document_title: World-systems theory

question_text: who developed the world systems theory which explains how global stratification developed

question_tokens: who developed the world systems theory which explains how global stratification developed

root

text: World-systems theory

text: Background[edit]

text: Immanuel Wallerstein has developed the best-known version of world-systems analysis, beginning in the 1970s.[5][6] Wallerstein traces the rise of the capitalist world-economy from the "long" 16th century (c. 1450–1640). The rise of capitalism, in his view, was an accidental outcome of the protracted crisis of feudalism (c. 1290–1450).[7] Europe (the West) used its advantages and gained control over most of the world economy and presided over the development and spread of industrialization and capitalist economy, indirectly resulting in unequal development.[2][3][6]

tag: p

text: Though other commentators refer to Wallerstein's project as world-systems "theory", he consistently rejects that term.[8] For Wallerstein, world-systems analysis is a mode of analysis that aims to transcend the structures of knowledge inherited from the 19th century, especially the definition of capitalism, the divisions within the social sciences, and those between the social sciences and history.[9] For Wallerstein, then, world-systems analysis is a "knowledge movement"[10] that seeks to discern the "totality of what has been paraded under the labels of the... human sciences and indeed well beyond".[11] "We must invent a new language," Wallerstein insists, to transcend the illusions of the "three supposedly distinctive arenas" of society, economy and politics.[12] The trinitarian structure of knowledge is grounded in another, even grander, modernist architecture, the distinction of biophysical worlds (including those within bodies) from social ones: "One question, therefore, is whether we will be able to justify something called social science in the twenty-first century as a separate sphere of knowledge."[13][14] Many other scholars have contributed significant work in this "knowledge movement".[2]

text: Origins[edit]

text: Influences and major thinkers[edit]

text: World-systems theory traces emerged in the 1970s.[1] Its roots can be found in sociology, but it has developed into a highly interdisciplinary field.[2] World-systems theory was aiming to replace modernization theory, which Wallerstein criticised for three reasons:[2]

text:
its focus on the nation state as the only unit of analysis
its assumption that there is only a single path of evolutionary development for all countries
its disregard of transnational structures that constrain local and national development.

tag: ol

text: There are three major predecessors of world-systems theory: the Annales school, the Marxist tradition, and the dependence theory.[2][15] The Annales School tradition (represented most notably by Fernand Braudel) influenced Wallerstein to focusing on long-term processes and geo-ecological regions as unit of analysis. Marxism added a stress on social conflict, a focus on the capital accumulation process and competitive class struggles, a focus on a relevant totality, the transitory nature of social forms and a dialectical sense of motion through conflict and contradiction.

text: World-systems theory was also significantly influenced by dependency theory, a neo-Marxist explanation of development processes.

text: Other influences on the world-systems theory come from scholars such as Karl Polanyi, Nikolai Kondratiev[16] and Joseph Schumpeter (particularly their research on business cycles and the concepts of three basic modes of economic organization: reciprocal, redistributive, and market modes, which Wallerstein reframed into a discussion of mini systems, world empires, and world economies).

text: Wallerstein sees the development of the capitalist world economy as detrimental to a large proportion of the world's population.[17] Wallerstein views the period since the 1970s as an "age of transition" that will give way to a future world system (or world systems) whose configuration cannot be determined in advance.[18]

text: World-systems thinkers include Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi, Andre Gunder Frank, and Immanuel Wallerstein, with major contributions by Christopher Chase-Dunn, Beverly Silver, Volker Bornschier, Janet Abu Lughod, Thomas D. Hall, Kunibert Raffer, Theotonio dos Santos, Dale Tomich, Jason W. Moore and others.[2] In sociology, a primary alternative perspective is World Polity Theory, as formulated by John W. Meyer.[citation needed]

text: Dependency theory[edit]

text: World-systems analysis builds upon but also differs fundamentally from dependency theory. While accepting world inequality, the world market and imperialism as fundamental features of historical capitalism, Wallerstein broke with orthodox dependency theory's central proposition. For Wallerstein, core countries do not exploit poor countries for two basic reasons.

text: Firstly, core capitalists exploit workers in all zones of the capitalist world economy (not just the periphery) and therefore, the crucial redistribution between core and periphery is surplus value, not "wealth" or "resources" abstractly conceived. Secondly, core states do not exploit poor states, as dependency theory proposes, because capitalism is organised around an inter-regional and transnational division of labor rather than an international division of labour.

text: During the Industrial Revolution, for example, English capitalists exploited slaves (unfree workers) in the cotton zones of the American South, a peripheral region within a semiperipheral country, United States.[19]

text: From a largely Weberian perspective, Fernando Henrique Cardoso described the main tenets of dependency theory as follows:

text:
There is a financial and technological penetration of the periphery and semi-periphery countries by the developed capitalist core countries.
That produces an unbalanced economic structure within the peripheral societies and between them and the central countries.
That leads to limitations upon self-sustained growth in the periphery.
That helps the appearance of specific patterns of class relations.
They require modifications in the role of the state to guarantee the functioning of the economy and the political articulation of a society, which contains, within itself, foci of inarticulateness and structural imbalance.[20]

tag: ul

text: Dependency and world system theory propose that the poverty and backwardness of poor countries are caused by their peripheral position in the international division of labor. Since the capitalist world system evolved, the distinction between the central and the peripheral nations has grown and diverged. In recognizing a tripartite pattern in division of labor, world-systems analysis criticized dependency theory with its bimodal system of only cores and peripheries.

text: Immanuel Wallerstein[edit]

text: The best-known version of the world-systems approach was developed by Immanuel Wallerstein.[6] Wallerstein notes that world-systems analysis calls for an unidisciplinary historical social science and contends that the modern disciplines, products of the 19th century, are deeply flawed because they are not separate logics, as is manifest for example in the de facto overlap of analysis among scholars of the disciplines.[1] Wallerstein offers several definitions of a world-system, defining it in 1974 briefly:

text: a system is defined as a unit with a single division of labor and multiple cultural systems.[21]

text: He also offered a longer definition:

text: ...a social system, one that has boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimation, and coherence. Its life is made up of the conflicting forces which hold it together by tension and tear it apart as each group seeks eternally to remold it to its advantage. It has the characteristics of an organism, in that it has a life-span over which its characteristics change in some respects and remain stable in others. One can define its structures as being at different times strong or weak in terms of the internal logic of its functioning.

text: In 1987, Wallerstein again defined it:

text: ... not the system of the world, but a system that is a world and which can be, most often has been, located in an area less than the entire globe. World-systems analysis argues that the units of social reality within which we operate, whose rules constrain us, are for the most part such world-systems (other than the now extinct, small minisystems that once existed on the earth). World-systems analysis argues that there have been thus far only two varieties of world-systems: world-economies and world empires. A world-empire (examples, the Roman Empire, Han China) are large bureaucratic structures with a single political center and an axial division of labor, but multiple cultures. A world-economy is a large axial division of labor with multiple political centers and multiple cultures. In English, the hyphen is essential to indicate these concepts. "World system" without a hyphen suggests that there has been only one world-system in the history of the world.

text: Wallerstein characterises the world system as a set of mechanisms, which redistributes surplus value from the periphery to the core. In his terminology, the core is the developed, industrialized part of the world, and the periphery is the "underdeveloped", typically raw materials-exporting, poor part of the world; the market being the means by which the core exploits the periphery.

text: Apart from them, Wallerstein defines four temporal features of the world system. Cyclical rhythms represent the short-term fluctuation of economy, and secular trends mean deeper long run tendencies, such as general economic growth or decline.[1][2] The term contradiction means a general controversy in the system, usually concerning some short term versus long term tradeoffs. For example, the problem of underconsumption, wherein the driving down of wages increases the profit for capitalists in the short term, but in the long term, the decreasing of wages may have a crucially harmful effect by reducing the demand for the product. The last temporal feature is the crisis: a crisis occurs if a constellation of circumstances brings about the end of the system.

text: In Wallerstein's view, there have been three kinds of historical systems across human history: "mini-systems" or what anthropologists call bands, tribes, and small chiefdoms, and two types of world systems, one that is politically unified and the other is not (single state world empires and multi-polity world economies).[1][2] World systems are larger, and are ethnically diverse. Modernity is unique in being the first and only fully capitalist world economy to have emerged around 1450 to 1550 and to have geographically expanded across the entire planet, by about 1900. Not being political unified, many political units are included within the world system loosely tied together in an interstate system. Efficient division of labor is the unifying element of the different units, and it is also a function of capitalism, a system based on competition between free producers using free labor with free commodities, 'free' meaning available for sale and purchase on a market. More specifically, it can be described as focusing on endless accumulation of capital; in other words, accumulation of capital in order to accumulate more capital. Such capitalism has a mutually dependent relationship with the world economy since it provides the efficient division of labour, the unifying element of the world economy, through the process of accumulating wealth. Likewise, such capitalism is dependent on the world economy since the latter provides a large market and a multiplicity of states, enabling capitalists to choose to work with states helping their interests.[23]

text: Research questions[edit]

text: World-systems theory asks several key questions:

text:
How is the world system affected by changes in its components (e.g. nations, ethnic groups, social classes, etc.)?[2]
How does it affect its components?[2]
To what degree, if any, does the core need the periphery to be underdeveloped?[2]
What causes world systems to change?[2]
What system may replace capitalism?[2]

text: Some questions are more specific to certain subfields; for example, Marxists would concern themselves whether world-systems theory is a useful or unhelpful development of Marxist theories.[2]

text: Characteristics[edit]

text: World-systems analysis argues that capitalism, as a historical system, has always integrated a variety of labor forms within a functioning division of labor (world economy). Countries do not have economies but are part of the world economy. Far from being separate societies or worlds, the world economy manifests a tripartite division of labor, with core, semiperipheral and peripheral zones. In the core zones, businesses, with the support of states they operate within, monopolise the most profitable activities of the division of labor.

text: There are many ways to attribute a specific country to the core, semi-periphery, or periphery. Using an empirically based sharp formal definition of "domination" in a two-country relationship, Piana in 2004 defined the "core" as made up of "free countries" dominating others without being dominated, the "semi-periphery" as the countries that are dominated (usually, but not necessarily, by core countries) but at the same time dominating others (usually in the periphery) and "periphery" as the countries dominated. Based on 1998 data, the full list of countries in the three regions, together with a discussion of methodology, can be found.

text: The late 18th and early 19th centuries marked a great turning point in the development of capitalism in that capitalists achieved state society power in the key states, which furthered the industrial revolution marking the rise of capitalism. World-systems analysis contends that capitalism as a historical system formed earlier and that countries do not "develop" in stages, but the system does, and events have a different meaning as a phase in the development of historical capitalism, the emergence of the three ideologies of the national developmental mythology (the idea that countries can develop through stages if they pursue the right set of policies): conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism.

text: Proponents of world-systems analysis see the world stratification system the same way Karl Marx viewed class (ownership versus nonownership of the means of production) and Max Weber viewed class (which, in addition to ownership, stressed occupational skill level in the production process). The core nations primarily own and control the major means of production in the world and perform the higher-level production tasks. The periphery nations own very little of the world's means of production (even when they are located in periphery nations) and provide less-skilled labour. Like a class system with a nation, class positions in the world economy result in an unequal distribution of rewards or resources. The core nations receive the greatest share of surplus production, and periphery nations receive the smallest share. Furthermore, core nations are usually able to purchase raw materials and other goods from non-core nations at low prices and demand higher prices for their exports to non-core nations. Chirot (1986) lists the five most important benefits coming to core nations from their domination of periphery nations:

text:
Access to a large quantity of raw material
Cheap labour
Enormous profits from direct capital investments
A market for exports
Skilled professional labor through migration of these people from the non-core to the core.[24]

text: According to Wallerstein, the unique qualities of the modern world system include its capitalistic nature, its truly global nature, and the fact that it is a world economy that has not become politically unified into a world empire.[2]

text: Core nations[edit]

text:
Are the most economically diversified, wealthy, and powerful (economically and militarily)[2][6]
Have strong central governments, controlling extensive bureaucracies and powerful militaries[2][6]
Have stronger and more complex state institutions that help manage economic affairs internally and externally
Have a sufficient tax base so state institutions can provide infrastructure for a strong economy
Highly industrialised and produce manufactured goods rather than raw materials for export[2]
Increasingly tend to specialise in information, finance and service industries
More often in the forefront of new technologies and new industries. Examples today include high-technology electronic and biotechnology industries. Another example would be assembly-line auto production in the early 20th century.
Has strong bourgeois and working classes[2]
Have significant means of influence over non-core nations[2]
Relatively independent of outside control

text: Throughout the history of the modern world system, there has been a group of core nations competing with one another for access to the world's resources, economic dominance and hegemony over periphery nations. Occasionally, there has been one core nation with clear dominance over others.[3] According to Immanuel Wallerstein, a core nation is dominant over all the others when it has a lead in three forms of economic dominance over a period of time:

text:
Productivity dominance allows a country to produce products of greater quality at a cheaper price, compared to other countries.
Productivity dominance may lead to trade dominance. Now, there is a favorable balance of trade for the dominant nation since more countries are buying the products of the dominant country than buying from them.
Trade dominance may lead to financial dominance. Now, more money is coming into the country than going out. Bankers of the dominant nation tend to receive more control of the world's financial resources.[25]

text: Military dominance is also likely after a nation reaches these three rankings. However, it has been posited that throughout the modern world system, no nation has been able to use its military to gain economic dominance. Each of the past dominant nations became dominant with fairly small levels of military spending and began to lose economic dominance with military expansion later on.[26] Historically, cores were found in Northwestern Europe (England, France, Netherlands) but were later in other parts of the world (such as the United States, Canada, and Australia).[3][6]

text: Peripheral nations[edit]

text:
Are the least economically diversified
Have relatively weak governments[2][6]
Have relatively weak institutions, with tax bases too small to support infrastructural development
Tend to depend on one type of economic activity, often by extracting and exporting raw materials to core nations[2][6]
Tend to be the least industrialized[6]
Are often targets for investments from multinational (or transnational) corporations from core nations that come into the country to exploit cheap unskilled labor in order to export back to core nations
Have a small bourgeois and a large peasant classes[2]
Tend to have populations with high percentages of poor and uneducated people
Tend to have very high social inequality because of small upper classes that own most of the land and have profitable ties to multinational corporations
Tend to be extensively influenced by core nations and their multinational corporations and often forced to follow economic policies that help core nations and harm the long-term economic prospects of peripheral nations.[2]

text: Historically, peripheries were found outside Europe, such as in Latin America and today in sub-Saharan Africa.[6]

text: Semi-peripheral nations[edit]

text: Semi-peripheral nations are those that are midway between the core and periphery.[6] Thus, they have to keep themselves from falling into the category of peripheral nations and at the same time, they strive to join the category of core nations. Therefore, they tend to apply protectionist policies most aggressively among the three categories of nations.[23] They tend to be countries moving towards industrialization and more diversified economies. These regions often have relatively developed and diversified economies but are not dominant in international trade.[6] They tend to export more to peripheral nations and import more from core nations in trade. According to some scholars, such as Chirot, they are not as subject to outside manipulation as peripheral societies; but according to others (Barfield), they have "periperial-like" relations to the core.[2][27] While in the sphere of influence of some cores, semiperipheries also tend to exert their own control over some peripheries.[6] Further, semi-peripheries act as buffers between cores and peripheries[6] and thus "...partially deflect the political pressures which groups primarily located in peripheral areas might otherwise direct against core-states" and stabilise the world system.[2][3]

text: Semi-peripheries can come into existence from developing peripheries and declining cores.[6] Historically, two examples of semiperipheral nations would be Spain and Portugal, which fell from their early core positions but still managed to retain influence in Latin America.[6] Those countries imported silver and gold from their American colonies but then had to use it to pay for manufactured goods from core countries such as England and France.[6] In the 20th century, nations like the "settler colonies" of Australia, Canada and New Zealand had a semiperipheral status. In the 21st century, nations like Brazil, Russia, India, Israel, China, South Korea and South Africa (BRICS) are usually considered semiperipheral.[28]

text: External areas[edit]

text: External areas are those that maintain socially necessary divisions of labor independent of the capitalist world economy.[6]

text: Interpretation of world history[edit]

text: Before the 16th century, Europe was dominated by feudal economies.[6] European economies grew from mid-12th to 14th century but from 14th to mid 15th century, they suffered from a major crisis.[3][6] Wallerstein explains this crisis as caused by the following:

text:
stagnation or even decline of agricultural production, increasing the burden of peasants,
decreased agricultural productivity caused by changing climatological conditions (Little Ice Age),
an increase in epidemics (Black Death),
optimum level of the feudal economy having been reached in its economic cycle; the economy moved beyond it and entered a depression period.[6]

text: As a response to the failure of the feudal system, Europe embraced the capitalist system.[6] Europeans were motivated to develop technology to explore and trade around the world, using their superior military to take control of the trade routes.[3] Europeans exploited their initial small advantages, which led to an accelerating process of accumulation of wealth and power in Europe.[3]

text: Wallerstein notes that never before had an economic system encompassed that much of the world, with trade links crossing so many political boundaries.[6] In the past, geographically large economic systems existed but were mostly limited to spheres of domination of large empires (such as the Roman Empire); development of capitalism enabled the world economy to extend beyond individual states.[6] International division of labor was crucial in deciding what relationships exists between different regions, their labor conditions and political systems.[6] For classification and comparison purposes, Wallerstein introduced the categories of core, semi-periphery, periphery, and external countries.[6] Cores monopolized the capital-intensive production, and the rest of the world could provide only workforce and raw resources.[3] The resulting inequality reinforced existing unequal development.[3]

text: According to Wallerstein there have only been three periods in which a core nation dominated in the modern world-system, with each lasting less than one hundred years. In the initial centuries of the rise of Europe, Northwestern Europe constituted the core, Mediterranean Europe the semiperiphery, and Eastern Europe and the Western hemisphere (and parts of Asia) the periphery.[3][6] Around 1450, Spain and Portugal took the early lead when conditions became right for a capitalist world-economy. They led the way in establishing overseas colonies. However, Portugal and Spain lost their lead, primarily by becoming overextended with empire-building. It became too expensive to dominate and protect so many colonial territories around the world.[26][27][29]

text: The first nation to gain clear dominance was the Netherlands in the 17th century, after its revolution led to a new financial system that many historians consider revolutionary.[26] An impressive shipbuilding industry also contributed to their economic dominance through more exports to other countries.[24] Eventually, other countries began to copy the financial methods and efficient production created by the Dutch. After the Dutch gained their dominant status, the standard of living rose, pushing up production costs.[25]

text: Dutch bankers began to go outside of the country seeking profitable investments, and the flow of capital moved, especially to England.[26] By the end of the 17th century, conflict among core nations increased as a result of the economic decline of the Dutch. Dutch financial investment helped England gain productivity and trade dominance, and Dutch military support helped England to defeat France, the other country competing for dominance at the time.

text: In the 19th century, Britain replaced the Netherlands as the hegemon.[3] As a result of the new British dominance, the world system became relatively stable again during the 19th century. The British began to expand globally, with many colonies in the New World, Africa, and Asia. The colonial system began to place a strain on the British military and, along with other factors, led to an economic decline. Again there was a great deal of core conflict after the British lost their clear dominance. This time it was Germany, and later Italy and Japan that provided the new threat.

text: Industrialization was another ongoing process during British dominance, resulting in the diminishing importance of the agricultural sector.[6] In the 18th century, Britain was Europe's leading industrial and agricultural producer; by 1900, only 10% of England's population was working in the agricultural sector.[6]

text: By 1900, the modern world system appeared very different from that of a century earlier in that most of the periphery societies had already been colonised by one of the older core nations.[24] In 1800, the old European core claimed 35% of the world's territory, but by 1914, it claimed 85% of the world's territory, with the Scramble for Africa closing out the imperial era.[26] If a core nation wanted periphery areas to exploit as had done the Dutch and British, these periphery areas had to be taken from another core nation, which the US did by way of the Spanish–American War, and Germany, and then Japan and Italy, attempted to do in the leadup to World War II. The modern world system was thus geographically global, and even the most remote regions of the world had all been integrated into the global economy.[2][3]

text: As countries vied for core status, so did the United States. The American Civil War led to more power for Northern industrial elites, who were now better able to pressure the government for policies helping industrial expansion. Like the Dutch bankers, British bankers were putting more investment toward the United States. The US had a small military budget compared with other industrial nations at the time.[26]

text: The US began to take the place of the British as a new dominant nation after World War I.[3] With Japan and Europe in ruins after World War II, the US was able to dominate the modern world system more than any other country in history, while the USSR and to a lesser extent China were viewed as primary threats.[3] At its height, US economic reach accounted for over half of the world's industrial production, owned two thirds of the gold reserves in the world and supplied one third of the world's exports.[26]

text: However, since the end of the Cold War, the future of US hegemony has been questioned by some scholars, as its hegemonic position has been in decline for a few decades.[3] By the end of the 20th century, the core of the wealthy industrialized countries was composed of Western Europe, the United States, Japan and a rather limited selection of other countries.[3] The semiperiphery was typically composed of independent states that had not achieved Western levels of influence, while poor former colonies of the West formed most of the periphery.[3]

text: Criticisms[edit]

text: World-systems theory has attracted criticisms from its rivals; notably for being too focused on economy and not enough on culture and for being too core-centric and state-centric.[2] William I. Robinson has criticized world-systems theory for its nation-state centrism, state-structuralist approach, and its inability to conceptualize the rise of globalization.[30] Robinson suggests that world-systems theory doesn't account for emerging transnational social forces and the relationships forged between them and global institutions serving their interests.[30] These forces operate on a global, rather than state system and cannot be understood by Wallerstein's nation-centered approach.[30]

text: According to Wallerstein himself, critique of the world-systems approach comes from four directions: the positivists, the orthodox Marxists, the state autonomists, and the culturalists.[1] The positivists criticise the approach as too prone to generalization, lacking quantitative data and failing to put forth a falsifiable proposition.[1] Orthodox Marxists find the world-systems approach deviating too far from orthodox Marxist principles, such as by not giving enough weight to the concept of social class.[1] The state autonomists criticize the theory for blurring the boundaries between state and businesses.[1] Further, the positivists and the state autonomists argue that state should be the central unit of analysis.[1] Finally, the culturalists argue that world-systems theory puts too much importance on the economy and not enough on the culture.[1] In Wallerstein's own words:

text: In short, most of the criticisms of world-systems analysis criticize it for what it explicitly proclaims as its perspective. World-systems analysis views these other modes of analysis as defective and/or limiting in scope and calls for unthinking them.[1]

text: One of the fundamental conceptual problems of the world-system theory is that the assumptions that define its actual conceptual units are social systems. The assumptions, which define them, need to be examined as well as how they are related to each other and how one changes into another. The essential argument of the world-system theory is that in the 16th century a capitalist world economy developed, which could be described as a world system.[31] The following is a theoretical critique concerned with the basic claims of world-system theory: "There are today no socialist systems in the world-economy any more than there are feudal systems because there is only one world system. It is a world-economy and it is by definition capitalist in form." (Wallerstein 1979)[31]

text: Robert Brenner has pointed out that the prioritization of the world market means the neglect of local class structures and class struggles: "They fail to take into account either the way in which these class structures themselves emerge as the outcome of class struggles whose results are incomprehensible in terms merely of market forces." (Brenner 1982)[31] Robert Brenner: Director of the Center for Social Theory and Comparative History at UCLA

text: Another criticism is that of reductionism made by Theda Skocpol: she believes the interstate system is far from being a simple superstructure of the capitalist world economy: "The international states system as a transnational structure of military competition was not originally created by capitalism. Throughout modern world history, it represents an analytically autonomous level [... of] world capitalism, but [is] not reducible to it." (Skocpol 1979)[31]

text: A concept that we can perceive as critic and mostly as renewal is the concept of coloniality (Anibal Quijano, 2000, Nepantla, Coloniality of power, eurocentrism and Latin America [32]). Issued from the think tank of the group "modernity/coloniality" (es:Grupo modernidad/colonialidad) in Latin America, it re-uses the concept of world working division and core/periphery system in its system of coloniality. But criticizing the "core-centric" origin of World-system and its only economical development, "coloniality" allows to conceive further how power still processes in a colonial way over worldwide populations (Ramon Grosfogel, "the epistemic decolonial turn" 2007 [33]):" by "colonial situations" I mean the cultural, political, sexual, spiritual, epistemic and economic oppression/exploitation of subordinate racialized/ethnic groups by dominant racialized/ethnic groups with or without the existence of colonial administration". Coloniality covers, so far, several fields such as coloniality of gender (Maria Lugones [34]), coloniality of "being" (Maldonado Torres), coloniality of knowledge (Walter Mignolo) and Coloniality of power (Anibal Quijano).

text: New developments[edit]

text: New developments in world systems research include studies on the cyclical processes. More specifically, it refers to the cycle of leading industries or products (ones that are new and have an important share of the overall world market for commodities), which is equal to dissolution of quasi-monopolies or other forms of partial monopolies achieved by core nations. Such forms of partial monopolies are achievable through ownership of leading industries or products, which require technological capabilities, patents, restrictions on imports and/or exports, government subsidies, etc. Such capabilities are most often found in core nations, which accumulate capital through achieving such quasi-monopolies with leading industries or products.

text: As capital is accumulated, employment and wage also increase, creating a sense of prosperity. This leads to increased production, and sometimes even overproduction, causing price competition to arise. To lower production costs, production processes of the leading industries or products are relocated to semi-peripheral nations. When competition increases and quasi-monopolies cease to exist, their owners, often core nations, move on to other new leading industries or products, and the cycle continues.[23]

text: Other new developments include the consequences of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the roles of gender and the culture, studies of slavery and incorporation of new regions into the world system and the precapitalist world systems.[2] Arguably, the greatest source of renewal in world-systems analysis since 2000 has been the synthesis of world-system and environmental approaches. Key figures in the "greening" of world-systems analysis include Minqi Li, Jason W. Moore, Andreas Malm, Stephen Bunker, Alf Hornborg, and Richard York.

text: Time period[edit]

text: Wallerstein traces the origin of today's world-system to the "long 16th century" (a period that began with the discovery of the Americas by Western European sailors and ended with the English Revolution of 1640).[2][3][6] And, according to Wallerstein, globalization, or the becoming of the world's system, is a process coterminous with the spread and development of capitalism over the past 500 years.

text: Janet Abu Lughod argues that a pre-modern world system extensive across Eurasia existed in the 13th century prior to the formation of the modern world-system identified by Wallerstein. Janet Abu Lughod contends that the Mongol Empire played an important role in stitching together the Chinese, Indian, Muslim and European regions in the 13th century, before the rise of the modern world system.[35] In debates, Wallerstein contends that Lughod's system was not a "world-system" because it did not entail integrated production networks, but it was instead a vast trading network.

text: Andre Gunder Frank goes further and claims that a global world system that includes Asia, Europe and Africa has existed since the 4th millennium BCE. The centre of this system was in Asia, specifically China.[36] Andrey Korotayev goes even further than Frank and dates the beginning of the world system formation to the 10th millennium BCE and connects it with the start of the Neolithic Revolution in the Middle East. According to him, the centre of this system was originally in Western Asia.[37]

text: Current research[edit]

text: Wallerstein's theories are widely recognized throughout the world. In the United States, one of the hubs of world-systems research is at the Fernand Braudel Center for the Study of Economies, Historical Systems and Civilizations, at Binghamton University.[2] Among the most important related periodicals are the Journal of World-Systems Research, published by the American Sociological Association's Section on the Political Economy of the World System (PEWS), and the Review, published the Braudel Center.[2]

text: Edythe E. Weeks asserts the proposition that it may be possible to consider, and apply critical insights, to prevent future patterns from emerging in ways to repeat outcomes harmful to humanity. (See Outer Space Development, Space Law and International Relations: A Method for Elucidating Seeds (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012)). Her current research, as a Fulbright Specialist, further suggests that new territories such as the Antarctic Peninsula, Antarctica, the Arctic and various regions of outer space, including low Earth orbit, the geostationary orbit, Near Earth orbit are currently in the process of colonization. By applying lessons learned from our past, we can change the future towards a direction less likely to be widely criticized.

text: Muhammed Asadi suggests that the modern World System is highly militarized and a counterpart of the US permanent war economy where a global division of labor based on military Keynesian stabilization exists concomitant with economic accumulation. He calls these countries, militarized states, whose superior economic growth stabilizes the World System run by the command states (counterpart to Wallerstein's Core but includes military and political domination in addition to financial and trade domination) just like military spending in the US stabilizes the US economy. Militarization and wars are therefore encouraged by the Command States and facilitated by them. Militarized States have a life cycle in which destruction is almost inevitable and since their economic growth stabilizes the dominant economies it seldom translates into personal economic development [38]

text: Related journals[edit]

text:
Annales. Histoire, Sciences sociales
Ecology and Society
Journal of World-Systems Research
Review: A Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center