(Draft, Please Do Not Quote. Comments Most Welcome!)
Ideational Semiperiphery:
Israeli Economics as a Case Study
Ronen Mandelkern1
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
ronenmm@pob.huji.ac.il
Paper prepared for Workshop on Policy Ideas, Discourses and Debates in the
Globalisation Process: Have Developing Countries a Chance to Compete?
European Consortium for Political Research, Joint Sessions of Workshops,
Nicosia 2006: 25-30 April 2006
1
PhD candidate, Department of Political Science. My sincere thanks to Michael Shalev.
Abstract
One of the contributions of world-system theory was to break down the dichotomy between
developed and developing countries by introducing the concept of semiperiphery. I wish to claim
that applying this concept to an ideational instead of materialist analysis may serve us in better
understanding the logic of ideational influence in international politics.
The first part of this paper is dedicated to a theoretical analysis of the concept of ideational
semiperiphery. In parallel to the original definition in world-system theory, it will be claimed here
that when it comes to the ideational sphere, semiperipheral countries are an intermediate stratum
between core and periphery, and their existence supports the political viability of the system as a
whole. Semiperipheral countries' limited partnership with the core, at certain stages in the process
of international ideational influence, contributes to their cooperation with the hegemonic system.
At the same time, for peripheral countries this partnership signifies a potential option to impact the
system, and thus gives (a certain amount of) legitimacy to the existing situation of unequal
influence.
In the second part of the paper the relevance of this theoretical framework is examined in relation
to the world of economic knowledge. Using comparative data on the performance of economists in
different countries I produce a rough mapping of the core, periphery and semiperiphery in the
economics world and empirically identify the characteristics of the semiperiphery.
The third section of the paper examines academic economics in Israel during the 1970s and the
beginning of the 1980s, treated as a case study of the semiperiphery. The dependence of Israeli
economics on American economics is reflected by the training of most Israeli senior economists in
American universities, and by their continuous reference to and reliance on American knowledge
bases, such as American economic journals or American economic research centers and
universities. Furthermore, the Israeli case also demonstrates the importance of "imported"
ideational influence on actual policymaking.
Finally, comparing Israel with other semiperipheral cases points to a dialectic dynamic between
ideational and materialist dominance and influence, and signifies the importance of the interplay of
different kinds of power resources and impacts in studying the international system..
2
Introduction
The original use of the term semiperiphery, in Wallerstein's world-systems theory, has a clear
materialist orientation (Wallerstein 1974; 1979; 2004). In this paper I wish to somewhat
abandon this orientation and to examine the meaning of semiperiphery from an ideational
perspective. Thus, the main theoretical questions that will lead this paper are can we indeed
put this concept to meaningful use within ideational analysis, and if so how we should
understand it.
In order to provide a satisfactory answer to these questions, two main steps need to be taken.
First, the concept of semiperiphery cannot stand on its own, by definition. The term is part of
a broader theoretical perspective that needs to be under consideration. I will suggest possible
ideational applications of Wallerstein's world-systems theory in general, and then examine the
applicability of the world-system perspective on international ideational influence in the
context of real world examples from the sphere of economic ideas.
The second step will be employing this concept to describe and analyze Israeli economists'
role within the world of economic research. It should be mentioned that my initial motivation
for examining the term semiperiphery from an ideational perspective was Israel's seemingly
deviant place within the conventional frameworks for understanding international ideational
influence. Economics in Israel is distinguished by the high degree to which it is subject to
American influence, on the one hand, and its high status in conventional economic research
rankings on the other. I will claim that this seeming contradiction is not only possible but
even plausible if we understand Israel as a case of ideational semiperiphery.
Nevertheless, although the theoretical discussion was inspired by the Israeli case, my
argument is not built exclusively on the Israeli experience but also on comparisons to
different but related cases such as Mexico and South-Korea, which also suggest the
usefulness of the concept of ideational semiperiphery. In addition, comparison of such diverse
cases will provide us with useful insights regarding common features of different trajectories
towards semiperipheral status within the international system of ideational influence.
3
I conclude that the concept of semiperiphery is indeed useful in ideational analysis. First, in
breaking the dichotomy between developing and developed countries, or between influencing
and being influenced. That is not to say that there are no longer systems of unequal influence,
only that the relationships within such systems are more complicated in some cases.
Secondly, this concept may help us create a qualitative, and not only quantitative, distinction
between levels and types of influence. Finally, although my discussion begins by seeking an
alternative to materialist analysis, I conclude that there are benefits to an integrated
perspective.
Theoretical Framework
Brief reference to central characteristics of the original world-systems theory is necessary
before entering our main discussion. First, one should note that world-systems theory is based
on Marxist-materialist analysis, thus applying to it an ideational perspective which is not
necessarily based on economic conditions is contrary to its spirit. The second main
component of its ontology is the meaningless of a state or a country on its own, especially in
the current era. According to this theory, since the 19th century there has been one capitalist
world economy that should be examined as a whole if one wishes to make substantive
observations (e.g. Wallerstein 1979; 1984; 2004).1 Although rejecting these assumptions, I
wish to claim that world-systems theory can still inspire and enrich an analysis that is founded
on different basic assumptions.2
One of the most important contributions of world-systems theory was the breaking of the
dichotomy between the developed and developing world, and the creation of a three-layered
division between the states in the world (Arrighi and Drangel 1986; Wallerstein 1976b).
Wallerstein's original typology of core, periphery and semiperiphery builds on different
patterns of economic production and reflects the hierarchy of exploitation not only within
states (i.e. class exploitation) but also between them. This division is also politically
1
Wallerstein assumes that there have been occasions when specific isolated countries existed, but in
the modern era that option diminished.
2
See Skocpol (1977) for an important critique of world-systems theory.
4
significant, since it enables the survival of such a system of exploitation. The existence of an
intermediate layer between the core and the periphery reduces the risks created for the core
from its exploitative position, since a large part of its exploitation does not occur directly. It
also reduces the pay-offs the core has to offer to any opposition that might arise, since a
significant opposition could be launched only by the semiperiphery (Wallerstein 1979: 2124).
Furthermore, and probably most important for our topic, the semiperiphery provides an
environment in which change for the weak is possible, and is perceived as such. As one
author put it, the political meaning of semiperiphery "emphasizes the voluntary action of
states to improve the relative position of their countries by accepting competition but by
pursuing a policy of catching-up. The solutions can vary all over the place, going from
isolation or protective interlude [...] to the most extreme form of liberal integration." (Aymard
1985: 40)
And as Wallerstein noted, the significance of accepting competition cannot be
underestimated:
"Since there is a game of geographical musical chairs, there is hope for "mobility"
despite "polarization" – mobility for states as well as for individuals. What is usually
omitted from the analysis is that, in a stratified system, upward mobility for one unit
is downward mobility for another. The wonder is not that there is so little class
consciousness, but that there is so much." (Wallerstein 1984: 9)
Can we draw a parallel to these observations when we come from an ideational standpoint? It
seems that if we put aside the highly materialist concepts of production and exploitation, and
focus on the political importance of the concept according to world-system analysis, some
useful insights may be derived. Thus, when applying the concept of semiperiphery to an
ideational analysis one should primarily focus on the stability and legitimacy that a threelayered mechanism provides to the international system of ideational influence.
As in materialist analysis, the most relevant notion for our topic is the acceptance of
competition by the weak countries as a means for upward mobility. When it comes to
5
ideational processes, competition is not over economic resources but over influence, prestige,
and most important for our purposes, relative autonomy in setting one's norms and theoretical
ideas. These resources are not distributed equally between countries around the world; rather,
some of them enjoy an autonomous position and compete over influencing others, and may be
termed core, whereas others are mainly influenced and lack autonomous stand, not to mention
prestige, and will be termed periphery. But we can also think of a third bloc of countries, that
are indeed highly influenced but are not passive or helpless, instead playing an important role
within the process of ideational influence, as an active agent. Such countries will be termed
here semiperiphery, and they are marked by their partial autonomy in the process of setting
their own norms and ideas.
In the spirit of Wallerstein's theory, it can be assumed that countries in the ideational
semiperiphery perform two significant political functions for the system as a whole. First,
with their face towards the periphery, they serve as an important source of legitimacy for the
system. The semiperiphery signals peripheral countries that their passive stand in the face of
ideational influence from the core is not necessarily the only option; instead, they can make
an effort and acquire a right to participate in the process of ideational influence and even
impact it to some extent.
The second political function of the semiperiphery is rooted in its relations with the countries
that constitute the core. One may regard this relationship as totally unequal and claim that its
effects on the core are negligible. Such a claim would only emphasize the system legitimating
function of these relationships: the participation of the semiperiphery within the process of
ideational influence enhances its obligation to the process itself, and gives legitimacy to the
results of that process. Thus, the semiperiphery cooperates with ideational influence and
hegemony and does not pose it significant opposition, while the core in its turn provides the
semiperiphery only symbolic opportunities to participate in the process of agenda-setting.
I wish to argue against the claim that this participation has only symbolic significance that
does not create a real chance for meaningful influence by the semiperiphery. The active role
of semiperipheral countries within the ideational process is reflected by their ability to choose
6
the core country they wish to be exposed to and interact with, or even specific ideas they
select as a source of influence. One should be cautious and not make a claim that implies that
semiperipheral countries actually lead the directions of ideational processes. But these
countries do play an active part in determining the demand for ideas, thus they do influence
the process of ideational competition within core countries, and the determination of
ideational hegemonic trends.
Semiperipheral countries play an important role in certain stages of international ideational
influence. Adler and Haas (1992; Haas 1992) divided the process of policy evolution to four
stages which are innovation, diffusion, selection and persistence. Adopting this division I
hypothesize that in contrast to the core, semiperipheral countries play only a marginal part in
the innovation stage. Their main involvement in this process is most likely to occur at the
stages of selection and diffusion, and in this respect unlike peripheral countries they can be
expected to play an active role in the process of international ideational influence.
A final theoretical observation concerns the above-mentioned political functions of the
semiperiphery.3 Semiperipheral countries are a source of system stability and consistency: as
a source of legitimacy they serve as stabilizers. But as 'consumers' in the process of ideational
competition they may also serve as a source of change, influencing the competition between
hegemonic powers and perhaps even under some circumstances stimulating movement of
countries from the semiperiphery to the core. Needless to say, core countries, as "suppliers",
need to pay a price for semiperipheral cooperation. Such price may be restricted to the
ideational sphere, e.g. allowing for participation in the ideational process within the core, or
take a material form, such as financial aid.
To summarize, according to the theoretical framework posited above, ideational influence
occurs within a triple-layered world-system, in which semiperipheral countries play a pivotal
role in the diffusion and selection of ideas. In the next part of this paper I will try to apply this
theoretical framework to the world of economics and to use several practical measures in
3
These claims are inspired also by Wallerstein (1976b: 351-2)
7
order to place specific countries within the categories of ideational core, periphery and
semiperiphery.
Ideational Core, Periphery and Semiperiphery: Some Examples
When thinking of a country which is the core of economics scholarship in today's world, the
United States immediately comes to mind not only as part of the core but also as the
hegemonic power within it. One may even wonder is there any competition to American
economics these days and whether economic research and study in all countries is in fact
American in essence (Coats 1997).4 Most importantly, does this lack of competition derive
from some objective or unavoidable circumstances, thus having no significant political
explanation? Recall that competition between core countries is essential in the suggested
theoretical framework, thus the answer to the question of whether any other country can be
regarded as belonging to the core, when the economics profession is considered, is crucial.5
Indeed, if American standards for measuring influence in economics are taken as the criterion,
the answer is probably negative (e.g. Kalaitzidakis et al. 2001; Portes 1987).
Nevertheless, as several studies have shown, at least until the early 1990s continental
European economics has had important unique characteristics that not only distinguish it from
American economics but also imply that its position is still autonomous in respect to both
structure and content. American economists tend to publish much more in general, and
specifically many more journal articles than European economists. American and European
economists also differ in the contents of their research, which is theoretically oriented in the
US as opposed to the practical and policy orientation in Europe. European economists also
tend to focus as teachers in undergraduate students as opposed to their American counterparts
4
Assuming there is, in spite important internal differences, something that we may call American
economics. See also Hansen (1991: 1085)
5
It is worth mentioning that in the materialist world-system analysis only three countries were always
regarded as core. These were the USA, the UK and West Germany (Terlouw 1993: 88). One may claim
that in an enormous ideational arena such as the US we can talk about a substantial competition within
a country.
8
that invest most of their efforts in postgraduate students (Frey and Eichenberger 1992; 1993;
Kolm 1988).
A measure of the autonomous position of continental European economics is reflected by
their independent training, i.e. socialization, of academic economists. Data from the "Who's
Who in Economics" survey provides a rough but useful measure for this purpose. This source
catalogs the most influential economists in the world, but to a large extent according to
American standards (i.e. influence is mostly regarded as publication in highly ranked
journals) (Blaug 1986; Blaug 1999; Blaug and Sturges 1983; Blaug and Vane 2003).
European economists that appear in this survey are not a representative sample of all
European economists, but we may assume that they are equally or more oriented towards
American economics than their colleagues that are not included in this list. Thus, we can
expect that if most of the French economists listed in "Who's Who" took their graduate
studies in France, the rate of locally trained economists in France in general is at least the
same.
From the data of the 1st edition of this survey from 1983 we can indeed learn about relative
European autonomy: 20 of 25 French economists and 19 of 20 German economists that
appear in the list have graduated in France or Germany, respectively. In Canada, on the other
hand, 15 of 19 economists were trained in the US and none was trained locally. According to
the data of the last edition from 2003, it seems that European autonomy was somewhat
reduced: a large share of economists in the list from Central European countries, that is 11 out
of 28, graduated in the US. But still, 16 others graduated locally. This numbers imply
relatively significant autonomy, especially when compared to Canada in which 18 of 22
economists in the list were trained in the US, or to Southern European countries where 11 of
12 economists in the list completed their PhDs in the US or the UK. Note that the
Scandinavian countries had a relatively strong autonomous position during all the period: in
9
1983 all seven Scandinavian economists on the list graduated locally; while in 2003 10 of 11
and only one graduated in the US.6
There are also a number of examples of autonomous scholarship before the current era of
American hegemony in economics. The main cases of independent schools in economics are
the Stockholm School in Sweden, the French regulation school, and the United Nations
Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) (Babb 2001: 4).7 To this we may add
British economics, which before 1945 was probably the most influential source of economic
knowledge (Backhouse 1997).
Referring to peripheral countries, most of the African countries are natural representatives for
that category, and also certain states in Latin America, South East Asia and the Middle East.
It is obvious that a certain threshold of economic development is a necessary condition for the
existence of institutions that will perform economic research worthy of its name. Countries
within these regions, such as Sudan in Africa or Bangladesh in South East Asia, with their
approximately $2000 GDP per capita, cannot build such institutions. Obviously, without their
existence autonomous research and study is unlikely, to say the least.
One may question whether these countries should be regarded at all as being part of the
economics world: they are certainly affected by economic policy designed in core countries
but probably do not engage with economics research at all. I would argue that if a country is
starting to be a part of economics world (by creating institutions and providing an
infrastructure for researchers to significantly engage with economists from core countries),
then it is becoming a part of the semiperiphery. The reason is that when a country is
allocating resources for such activity it also needs to decide which country's knowledge it will
rely upon. This type of dependency on the activity of the core is essentially different from that
6
Data from 2003 was aggregated according the country clusters in order to provide a simpler picture
which still reflects general trends. Local graduation means in all the countries of the region, but this
does not imply that we should consider regions instead of countries as the main unit of analysis
(especially since most local graduation were in the original country and not in other countries in the
region). Central Europe includes France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland;
Southern Europe includes Italy, Spain, Greece and Cyprus; Scandinavia includes Sweden and Norway
in 1983 and Sweden, Denmark and Finland in 2003. See Appendix 1 for full data.
7
On the independence of French economics see Kolm (1988: 208). Sandelin and Veiderpass doubt the
existence of a truly independent Swedish school in economics (Sandelin and Veiderpass 1997).
10
of the periphery. The rest of this paper will be focused on the semiperipheral class of
countries.
In semiperipheral countries institutions of economic research and study exist and play a
meaningful and significant role in social and public life, while nevertheless being highly
dependent on external sources of knowledge and training. Although they perform important
functions within the local political environment, these institutions cannot stand on their own.
Mexico and South Korea serve as good examples. Both of them have established and
strengthened their academic institutions, and specifically their economic research, in the last
few decades. But in both countries this development was highly dependent on American
support, especially during the training process, and on the American knowledge centers and
networks, that served as a focal point of reference (Babb 2001; Choi 1997).8 Again, the place
where economics faculty members conducted their PhD studies serves as a good measure for
estimating such dependency on the hegemonic power: the vast majority of economics faculty
members of the leading universities in these countries are American trained: 17 out of 22 PhD
holders in ITAM, Mexico and 27 out of 32 in Seoul National University, South Korea.9.
A further useful tool for assessing the system of American hegemonic power in economics
and the countries related to it is the statistical data provided by the ISI-Thompson company on
journal publications in the field of business and economics.10 It should be emphasized that
these data and ranking are very American oriented for two reasons: first, as mentioned above,
publication in academic journals is less common in Europe; secondly, ISI-Thompson data
include only journals in which paper titles, abstracts and keywords appear in English.11 Thus,
8
Materialist world-systems analysts have also placed these specific countries within the semiperiphery
(Arrighi and Drangel 1986; Terlouw 1993: 88 [without Chile]; Wallerstein 1976a)
9
The definitions of the leading economics departments in Mexico are based on Babb and Harberger,
and those of Korea are based on Choi. The specific departments were selected according to English
available websites of these departments. ITAM website: http://economics.itam.mx/ ; SNU website:
http://econ.snu.ac.kr/eng/main/ (April 2, 2006).
10
Binding together economics and business limits this indicator's contribution, and may also reflect an
American orientation towards business studies.
11
For example, it is clear that the numbers provided by ISI-Thompson regarding Germany and France
probably do not reflect actual research conducted in these countries: according to these data German
and French scholars have published significantly less than their British counterparts in the given period
(approximately 1:4 ratios). This could not be interpreted as an indicator of weakness in economic
11
this quantitative data is useful only in relation to countries that we accept from the start as
dependent on American economics and much less to relatively autonomous countries in this
field. Data for selected relevant countries is provided in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Country
USA
England
Canada
Australia
Israel
Taiwan
South Korea
Brazil
Mexico
Argentina
Chile
Thailand
Colombia
Costa Rica
Uruguay
Original rank by
total number of
papers 1995-2005
1
2
3
5
14
18
19
36
37
39
40
48
51
60
67
Total papers
1995-2005
Total citations
1995-2005
64,389
15,467
7,512
4,639
1,766
1,232
1,222
410
335
285
237
78
64
31
24
424,479
70,659
34,179
16,980
9,843
2,648
4,211
1,008
910
351
1008
180
104
63
49
Source: ISI Web of Science / Essential Science Indicators, April 2nd, 2006,
http://portal.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi?DestApp=ESI&Func=Frame
Assuming that all countries that appear in the table may be regarded at least as
semiperipheral, it is clear that the semiperiphery is not unified and that we can divide it into
an upper stratum which contains Israel, Taiwan and South Korea, and lower and middle strata
which contains Latin American countries and Thailand. A comparison between Harberger's
(1997) account of the progress of economics within different states in Latin America (that is
Americanization) and the ISI-Thompson data provided in the table is useful for further
analyzing internal stratification between the middle and the lower strata within the
semiperiphery.
Harberger provides names of academic institutions in seven Latin American states in which
"good economics" research and study is carried out, that is in other words American-oriented
economics. When comparing the countries named by Harberger to the country ranking
research, but also of the essential difference between Anglo-Saxon research in economics and the
continental model (see also Kolm 1988).
12
provided by ISI in the field of Business and Economics, we can indeed locate all seven among
the 76 countries ranked. What is interesting in the present context is the clear division
between four countries that are ranked in the middle, that is between places 36th to 40th, with
several hundred papers between 1995 to 2005 (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Chile) and
three others that are ranked quite low, between the 51st to 67th places, with only a few dozen
papers in the given period (Colombia, Uruguay and Costa Rica). On the one hand, the
difference between the two groups is remarkable. But on the other hand, both of them share
the same essential characteristics, of meaningful academic institutions in the local arena
which are highly dependent on American ideational resources, and thus both deserve to be
regarded as semiperipheral (Montecinos 1997). As will be further shown, in spite of Israel's
high position in economics "performance", especially when defined in American measures, it
cannot be regarded as part of the core, rather it exemplifies the higher stratum of the
semiperiphery.
Israel 1973-1985: a Case of Ideational Semiperiphery
So far I have provided data that reflects the contemporary situation in the economics world. In
the discussion on Israel, however, I will mainly focus on an earlier period, the 1970s and the
early 1980s. During this period Israel suffered a severe economic crisis that was composed of
stagnation, high foreign debt and at the end also hyperinflation. The close of this period marks
an essential change in Israeli economic policy towards acceptance of the main components of
the Washington Consensus, especially fiscal and monetary restraint.12 My hypothesis, that
will be examined elsewhere, is that this change is strongly connected to the American
character of economics study and research in Israel and that local economists played an
important part in pushing for that change. Here I shall focus on the characteristics of Israeli
12
Coats (1997, 351-2) provides a concise description of the Washington Consensus term.
13
economics during that time and on the usefulness of the concept of ideational semiperiphery
for capturing its essence.13
First, some words on Israel and its higher education system. Israel is a small country
(population 7 million), and until the 1990s, when a new law enabled community colleges to
provide academic degrees, it also had a small and condensed higher education system that
consisted of only eight universities, none of them private. Only 6 of the universities included
economics studies. The budgeting process of universities in Israel was, and still is, very
centralized: the lion's share of their income is provided by the government and is allocated by
a central body dominated by senior Israeli academics.14 The structural centralization within
the higher education system reflects the general centralized or étatist character of the Israeli
state as a whole during the 1970s and 1980s (Kleiman 1999; Levi-Faur 1999).
Practically, economists' impact on Israeli economic policy took two main forms: a direct one,
when an economist was formally or informally appointed as an advisor (e.g. Michael Bruno
or Yakir Plessner),15 and an indirect one, when professional economists within the state
administration were trained by academic economists. The two main bodies within state
bureaucracy that absorbed professional economics and affected economic policy are the
Ministry of Finance (especially its Budget Division) and the Bank of Israel (Kleiman 1981;
Naveh 1972).
The American character of Israeli economics dates back to the early 1950s and the
establishment of the Department of Economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (the
only Israeli University at that time). The department's founding and establishment was mainly
carried out by Don Patinkin, a leading Jewish-American economist who had just immigrated
to the new state. Patinkin's role in the Americanization of the department was not necessarily
expressed in the content of his teaching. Rather, his main contribution in this direction was
connected to the structure of the department, its programs and most important, its promotions
13
Note that Israel during the research period is considered as semiperiphery also from the materialist
perspective of world-system analysis (Silver 1990).
14
Council for Higher Education website: http://www.che.org.il
15
See also Maman and Rosenhek (2005) and Keren (1993).
14
system which was based on success in publishing in highly-ranked (American) economics
journals (Naveh 1972). Moreover, Patinkin's status enabled him to "send" his students to the
best departments of economics in the United States to earn their PhDs (Kleiman 1981;
Michaeli 2005).
Indeed, Patinkin's contribution in that area cannot be underestimated. Checking the data
regarding senior Israeli economists within the two leading departments in 1980, reveals an
unequivocal picture: of the 34 relevant economists, only five completed their doctoral
dissertations in Israel; almost all the others (except two), earned their PhDs in the US. Note
that 78% of them studied in the top six US departments (Hansen 1991).16 I wish to claim that
this measure is not only indicative of the process of professional socialization of Israeli
economists but also signals its results, even without turning to the specific content of
economic research in Israel.
Analyzing Israeli economists' performance reveals some very interesting facts, that may make
one wonder whether Israeli economics are so Americanized that they should actually be
regarded as part of the core. First, Israeli economists published at impressive rates in the most
highly-ranked American journals: during the 1970s, 82% of senior academic economists (as
defined earlier) published at least one research article in the six highest-ranked journals, with
an average of 3.4 papers per economist.17 Their participation in other arenas of American
research corresponds with these data. Israeli economists spent most of their sabbaticals in
American universities; many of them served as journal editors and were part of American
research institutions such as the National Bureau for Economic Research and the RAND
16
The economists included were only those in research tenure track who completed their Ph.D's in
1975 or before (the reason for this time limit relates to the analysis below of their publication
characteristics, i.e. "giving" one enough time to publish within the research period). All members of the
departments were included, even if they are considered by the colleagues as mathematicians or
statisticians.
Hansen's data regards the 1980s. The universities included are Chicago, Harvard, MIT, Princeton,
Stanford and Yale.
17
The journals included are the American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Political
Economy, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economics and
Statistics. All these six journals are research journals that appear in the top-ten in all rankings I survey
at the past and present, and specifically at a ranking from the early 1980 which is most relevant for the
research period (Hirsch et al. 1984).
15
Corporation. Others took part in Americanized international economic institutions like the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.18
One of the most impressive measures of the achievements of Israeli economists may be found
in the "Who's Who in Economics" project that was already mentioned. Comparing the
numbers of economists by country reveals that in the first edition Israel was placed 6th, after
the US, the UK, Canada, Germany and France. In the last edition, Israel was ranked in 5th
place. Indicators that rank institutions place Israeli universities very high worldwide and also
in relation to European universities (Hirsch et al. 1984; Kalaitzidakis et al. 2001)
There is a worn out phrase in Israel according to which Israel is actually the 51st state of the
USA. Indeed, it seems that in our case there is some truth in that phrase. Again, one may even
wonder whether Israel is not actually a part of the American economics, i.e. the core, rather
than an autonomous locale of economics study. This raises a more general question, that is
can we indeed apply a real meaning to local economics? I suggest that local economics should
be understood as the interface between academic economic research and the local political
context, in the conjunction between claims to universal knowledge and specific policy
making. Israeli economics cannot be regarded as part of US economics in this sense, simply
because the ideas that are discussed in the economics departments of Israeli universities will
impact, directly or indirectly, policy makers in Israel and not in Mississippi or North Dakota.
Furthermore, the data we have presented indicate the need to distinguish between research
quality, research autonomy and ideational influence. Our indicators undoubtedly reveal high
research quality, but within the context of an influenced and dependent research environment.
Israeli economics could have been regarded as part of the core in the world of economics if it
was not so dependent on American institutions.
Also note the fact that Israeli economics were, and still are, actually very small and even
negligible in comparison to American economics:19 Israeli papers in the above mentioned
journals during the 1970s constitute approximately 2.5% of all papers; Israeli researchers
18
19
This data is based on analyzing Israeli economists' CVs.
This claim was also made by two senior Israeli economists with whom I had background talks.
16
were a small minority within the organizations they participated in; and the Israeli economists
listed in "Who's Who in Economics" were only 4% of non-American economists, and
approximately 2% of the number of American economists. Referring to the stages of
international ideational influence defined at the beginning of this paper, it seems that in
addition to their participation in the stages of selection and diffusion, Israeli economists also
played a marginal part in the innovation stage. But this fact places Israeli economics only in
the higher strata within the ideational semiperiphery, and not within the core.
How has Israel's semiperipheral stand within the world of economics affected its economic
policy? As described above, the significant and influential economics departments in Israeli
universities were Americanized quite from the start (one should note that Tel-Aviv University
was established by the Hebrew University). But the country's political orientation was alien to
the spirit of professional economics that Patinkin and his students promoted. In the 1950s and
1960s the socialist self-perception of the political leaders made them reject the notion that
Israel is subject to the universal economic rules that are discussed in the academy (Kleiman
1981; Michaeli 2005). But gradually professional economists who received their economic
education within the American-oriented academic system took positions within the relevant
government offices, such as the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Israel, and started to
affect economic policy from within (Kleiman 1981).
As mentioned earlier, during the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s the Israeli economy
suffered from severe stagflation, along with a huge debt problem that reflected an overarching
dependency upon American economic resources. The combination of economic dependency
on American financial aid, along with an Americanized economic staff, both within the
government and the academy, provided as remarkably strong infrastructure for implementing
an economic plan whose roots may be found in the Washington Consensus. As Maman and
Rosenhek show, the combined influence of local economists on the one hand and American
economists sent by the U.S. government on the other, stood behind the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Plan that was introduced in 1985 (Maman and Rosenhak 2005).
17
Discussion: Further Insights on Ideational Semiperiphery
Comparing Israel with the two other countries identified as cases of ideational semiperiphery,
Mexico and South Korea, is useful for an enhanced understanding of the concept. Whereas
Israeli economics, as mentioned above, was brought to life Americanized, in Mexico and
South Korea this was not the obvious choice. Mexican economists' conceptions matched
those of the ECLA, which stressed that economics and economic policy making should be
established locally and cannot be imported (Babb 2001; Montecinos 1997). The initial
reference point for Korean economics, on the other hand, was Japanese economics and
economists (most of whom were communist-oriented) (Choi 1997; Ikeo 1997).
If the Americanization of economics was not inevitable, what made it happen? An important
feature common to all three cases is their geopolitical position in relation to the United States,
especially during the Cold War. The interests of the US in Mexico are quite obvious, and this
was especially true when left-wing powers rose in other Latin American countries; South
Korea served as a capitalist-democratic anchor against communist spread in South-East Asia;
and in the Middle East the US stood by Israel in competition with the Soviet Union that stood
by most Arab states.
It seems that the shared characteristics of geopolitical importance and Americanized
economics are not accidental. One should also note that Americanization of the economics
profession was also dependent on financial investments by the United States and the
governments concerned, mainly by allocating scholarships and other means that enabled
studies in the US. Thus, the last two points emphasize that ideational processes of influence
are connected to materialist processes, and this suggests that there is also a place for
materialist analysis. It might even be said that in the end what we have learned is that the
engine behind ideational influence was in fact material considerations, and that what we
thought to be meaningful ideational influence was actually only a byproduct of other
processes, reflecting these processes but actually of no real significance. However I wish to
claim, to the contrary, that what we may learn from this comparison is that politics are
actually constituted by both ideas and material factors. The Americanization of economics in
18
all three cases was indeed dependent on American interests and on American financial
investment, but on the other hand, further American influence, reflected in the liberalization
of economic policy, was dependent on common ideational perspective between the
semiperipheral state and the United States. .
Babb (2001), and Maman and Rosenhek (2005) have discussed combinations of coercive
influence and normative or expert influence in cases of changing economic policy (in Israel
and Mexico respectively). Babb stressed the importance of experts' impact in understanding
the influence of the US on Mexican economic policy via American-oriented Mexican
economists. As mentioned above, Maman and Rosenhek claim that in Israel the combined
effect of coercive threats and expert pressures has led policy towards economic liberalization.
It seems to me that the possibility of expert influence among non-core countries is connected
to the location of a country in the ideational semiperiphery, whereas peripheral countries will
be mainly influenced by coercive forces like political and economic threats or sanctions. In
semiperipheral countries, that are mainly influenced by American hegemony, there is
relatively strong initial legitimacy for economic liberalization. The existence of such
legitimacy reduces the need to use coercive measures in order to affect policy making. Thus,
from an historical perspective we can identify the moments in which ideational influence is a
consequence of materialist geopolitical power relations, as well as the times when it serves as
an independent force that drives further developments in international relations.
19
Bibliography:
Adler, Emanuel, and Peter M. Haas. 1992. Epistemic Communities, World Order, and the
Creation of a Reflective Research Program. International Organization 46 (1):367-90
Arrighi, Giovanni, and Jessica Drangel. 1986. The Stratification of the World-Economy: An
Exploration of the Semiperipheral Zone. Review 10 (1):9-74
Aymard, Maurice. 1985. Nation-States and Interregional Disparities of Development. In
Semiperipheral Development : The Politics of Southern Europe in the Twentieth
Century, edited by G. Arrighi. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications
Babb, Sarah L. 2001. Managing Mexico : Economists from Nationalism to Neoliberalism.
Princeton: Princeton University Press
Backhouse, Roger E. 1997. The Changing Character of British Economics. In The Post-1945
Internationalization of Economics, edited by A. W. Coats. Durham, N.C.: Duke
University Press
Blaug, Mark. 1986. Who's Who in Economics : A Biographical Dictionary of Major
Economists, 1700-1986. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Blaug, Mark. 1999. Who's Who in Economics. 3rd ed. Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar Pub.
Blaug, Mark, and R. P. Sturges. 1983. Who's Who in Economics : A Biographical Dictionary
of Major Economists, 1700-1981. 1st MIT Press ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Blaug, Mark, and Howard R. Vane. 2003. Who's Who in Economics. 4th ed. Cheltenham, UK
; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.
Choi, Young Back. 1997. The Americanization of Economics in Korea. In The Post-1945
Internationalization of Economics, edited by A. W. Coats. Durham, N.C.: Duke
University Press
Coats, A. W. 1997. The Post-1945 Internationalization of Economics. Durham, N.C.: Duke
University Press
Frey, Bruno S., and Reiner Eichenberger. 1992. Economics and Economists: A European
Perspective. American Economic Review 82 (2):216-20
Frey, Bruno S., and Reiner Eichenberger. 1993. American and European Economics and
Economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (4):185-93
Haas, Peter M. 1992. Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.
International Organization 46 (1):1-35
Hansen, W. Lee. 1991. The Education and Training of Economics Doctorates: Major
Findings of the Executive Secretary of the American Economic Association's
Commission on Graduate Education in Economics. Journal of Economic Literature
29 (3):1054-87
20
Harberger, Arnold C. 1997. Good Economics Comes to Latin America, 1955-95. In The Post1945 Internationalization of Economics, edited by A. W. Coats. Durham, N.C.: Duke
University Press
Hirsch, B. T., R. Austin, J. Brooks, and J. B. Moore. 1984. Economics Departmental
Rankings - Comment. American Economic Review 74 (4):822-26
Ikeo, Aiko. 1997. The Internationalization of Economics in Japan. In The Post-1945
Internationalization of Economics, edited by A. W. Coats. Durham, N.C.: Duke
University Press
Kalaitzidakis, Pantelis, Theofanis P. Mamuneas, and Thanasis Stengos. 2001. Rankings of
Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics. In Economics of Education
Review. Nicosia: DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS.
Keren, Michael. 1993. Economists and Economic Policy Making in Israel: The Politics of
Expertise in the Stabilization Program. Policy Sciences 26 (4):331-46
Kleiman, Ephraim. 1981. Israel: Economists in a New State. History of Political Economy 13
(3):548-79
Kleiman, Ephraim. 1999. The Political Economy of Israel: Etatism on the Crossroads. In
Israel Towards the Year 2000: Society, Politics and Culture, edited by M. Lissak and
B. Knei-Paz. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press and Eshkol Institute
(Hebrew).
Kolm, S. C. 1988. Economics in Europe and in the United-States. European Economic
Review 32 (1):207-12
Levi-Faur, David. 1999. Warfare, Polity Formation and the Israeli National Policy Patterns.
Israel Affairs 5 (2-3):156-68
Maman, Daniel, and Zeev Rosenhak. 2005. The Politics of Institutional Reform: The
'Declaration of Independence' of the Israeli Central Bank. Paper read at Fronties of
Sociology: The 37th World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology, July,
at Stockholm, Sweden
Michaeli, Micha. 2005. Early Days - a Personal Perspective. Jerusalem (Hebrew).
http://economics.huji.ac.il/Early%20Days.pdf
Montecinos, Veronica. 1997. Economists in Political and Policy Elites in Latin America. In
The Post-1945 Internationalization of Economics, edited by A. W. Coats. Durham,
N.C.: Duke University Press
Naveh, David. 1972. The Impact of Economists on Economic Policy Making. M.A.,
Department of Political Science, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv
Portes, R. 1987. Economics in Europe. European Economic Review 31 (6):1329-40
Sandelin, Bo, and Ann Veiderpass. 1997. The Dissolution of the Swedish Tradition. In The
Post-1945 Internationalization of Economics, edited by A. W. Coats. Durham, N.C.:
Duke University Press
Silver, Beverly. 1990. The Contradictions of Semiperipheral Success:The Case of Israel.
Ramat Efal: Yad Tabenkin (Hebrew).
21
Skocpol, Theda. 1977. Review: Wallerstein's World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and
Historical Critique. American Journal of Sociology 82 (5):1075-90
Terlouw, C. P. 1993. The Elusive Semiperiphery: A Critical Examination of the Concept
Semiperiphery. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 34 (1-2):87-102
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System:
Concepts for Comparative Analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History 16
(4):387-415
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1976a. Semi-Peripheral Countries and the Contemporary World
Crisis. Theory and Society 3 (4):461-83
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1976b. A World-System Perspective on the Social Sciences. The
British Journal of Sociology 27 (3):343-52
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1979. The Capitalist World-Economy : Essays, Studies in Modern
Capitalism. Cambridge Eng. ; New York: Cambridge University Press
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1984. The Politics of the World-Economy : The States, the
Movements, and the Civilizations : Essays. Cambridge Cambridgeshire; New York;
Paris: Cambridge University Press; Editions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2004. World-Systems Analysis : An Introduction. Durham: Duke
University Press
22
Appendix 1: Who's Who in Economics (2003), place of PhD studies, data by country
Country
Total
# local
PhDs
# US
PhDs
# UK
PhDs
#
Other
n.a.
Kingdom United
Canada
Australia
64
22
4
50
3
3
10
18
-
(50)
1
3
-
1
1
-
France
Netherlands
Belgium
Switzerland
Germany
Central Europe
11
8
2
2
5
28
5
5
2
1
3
16
5
3
1
2
11
1
-
-
-
Italy
Spain
Cyprus
Greece
South Europe
6
3
1
2
12
-
3
1
2
6
2
2
1
5
1
1
-
Sweden
Denmark
Finland
Scandinavia
6
4
1
11
5
4
1
10
1
1
-
-
-
Hong Kong
Japan
Korea
Singapore
Thailand
South-East Asia
3
3
2
1
1
10
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
9
-
-
-
Israel
9
4
5
-
-
-
23