Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-ff9ft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-19T00:08:33.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Power-relational core–periphery structures: Peripheral dependency and core dominance in binary and valued networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2018

CARL NORDLUND Open the ORCID record for CARL NORDLUND [Opens in a new window]
CARL NORDLUND*
Affiliation:
The Institute for Analytical Sociology, Linköping University, S-601 74 Norrköping, Sweden Department of Network and Data Science, Central European University, Nador u. 9, Budapest, 1051, Hungary Department of Economic History, Lund University, Box 7080, S-220 07 Lund, Sweden (e-mail: carl.nordlund@liu.se)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With origins in post-war development thinking, the core–periphery concept has spread across the social and, increasingly, the natural sciences. Initially reflecting divergent socioeconomic properties of geographical regions, its relational connotations rapidly led to more topological interpretations. In today's network science, the standard core–periphery model consists of a cohesive set of core actors and a peripheral set of internally disconnected actors. Exploring the classical core–periphery literature, this paper finds conceptual support for the characteristic intra-categorical density differential. However, this literature also lends support to the notions of peripheral dependency and core dominance, power-relational aspects that existing approaches do not capture. To capture such power-relations, this paper suggests extensions to the correlation-based core–periphery metric of Borgatti and Everett (2000). Capturing peripheral dependency and, optionally, core dominance, these extensions allow for either measuring the degree of such power-relational features in given core–periphery partitions, or as part of a criteria function to search for power-relational core–periphery structures. Applied to the binary and valued citation data in Borgatti and Everett (2000), the proposed extensions seemingly capture dependency and dominance features of core–periphery structures. This is particularly evident when, circling back to the original domains of the concept, examining the network of European commodity trade in 2010.

Keywords

core–peripheryhistory of ideaseconomic historyperipheral dependencycore dominance

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 348 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amin, S. (1976). Unequal development: An essay on the social formations of peripheral capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Baker, D. R. (1992). A structural analysis of social work journal network: 1985–1986. Journal of Social Service Research, 15 (3–4), 153–168.Google Scholar
Bauer, P. T. (1954). West African trade: A study of competition, oligarchy, and monopoly in a changing economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berman, B. J. (1974). Clientelism and neocolonialism: Center-periphery relations and political development in African states. Studies in Comparative International Development, 9 (2), 3–25.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (2000). Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks, 21 (4), 375–395.Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Bousquet, N. (2012). Core, semiperiphery, periphery; a variable geometry presiding over conceptualization. In Babones, S. & Chase-Dunn, C. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of world-systems analysis (pp. 123–124). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. P., Fitzgerald, W. J., & Beck, R. J. (2006). Computing core/periphery structures and permutation tests for social relations data. Social Networks, 28 (2), 165–178.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. P., Fitzgerald, W. J., Mahutga, M. C., & Smith, D. A. (2010). Computing continuous core/periphery structures for social relations data with MINRES/SVD. Social Networks, 32 (2), 125–137.Google Scholar
Breiger, R. L. (1981). Structures of economic interdependence among nations. In Blau, P. M. & Merton, R. K. (Eds.), Continuities in structural inquiry (pp. 353–380). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Breiger, R. L., Boorman, S. A., & Arabie, P. (1975). An algorithm for clustering relational data with applications to social network analysis and comparison with multidimensional scaling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 12 (3), 328–383.Google Scholar
Cardoso, F. H., & Faletto, E. (1967). Dependency and development in Latin America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chan, S. (1982). Cores and Peripheries Interaction Patterns in Asia. Comparative Political Studies, 15 (3), 314–340.Google Scholar
Chase-Dunn, C. K. (1998). Global formation: Structures of the world-economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Chase-Dunn, C. K., & Grimes, P. (1995). World-systems analysis. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 387–417.Google Scholar
Chase-Dunn, C. K., & Hall, T. D. (Eds.) (1991). Core/periphery relations in precapitalist worlds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Condliffe, J. B. (1951). The commerce of nations. London: G. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
de Janvry, A. (1975). The political economy of rural development in Latin America: An interpretation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57 (3), 490–499.Google Scholar
Della Rossa, F., Dercole, F., & Piccardi, C. (2013). Profiling core-periphery network structure by random walkers. Scientific Reports, 3, Article number 1467.Google Scholar
Dominguez, J. I. (1971). Mice that do not roar: Some aspects of international politics in the world's peripheries. International Organization, 25 (2), 175–208.Google Scholar
Doreian, P., Batagelj, V., & Ferligoj, A. (2005). Generalized blockmodeling. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
dos Santos, T. (1970). The structure of dependence. The American Economic Review, 60 (2), 231–236.Google Scholar
Duvall, R. D. (1978). Dependence and dependencia theory: Notes toward precision of concept and argument. International Organization, 32 (01), 51–78.Google Scholar
Everett, M. G., & Borgatti, S. P. (2000). Peripheries of cohesive subsets. Social Networks, 21 (4), 397–407.Google Scholar
Frank, A. G. (1967). Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Galtung, J. (1966a). East-West interaction patterns. Journal of Peace Research, 3 (2), 146–177.Google Scholar
Galtung, J. (1966b). Small groups theory and the theory of international relations. Presented at the Lecture at the 75th Anniversary of the University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
Galtung, J. (1968). Small group theory and the theory of international relations: A study in isomorphism. In Kaplan, M. A. (Ed.), New approaches to international relations (pp. 270–302). New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Galtung, J. (1971). A structural theory of imperialism. Journal of Peace Research, 8 (2), 81–117.Google Scholar
Gills, B., & Frank, A. G. (Eds.) (2014). The world system: Five hundred years or five thousand? New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, N. P. (1967). Trends in world airline patterns. Journal of Peace Research, 4 (4), 366–408.Google Scholar
Gochman, C. S., & Ray, J. L. (1979). Structural Disparities in Latin America and Eastern Europe, 1950-1970. Journal of Peace Research, 16 (3), 231–254.Google Scholar
Hojman, D. A., & Szeidl, A. (2008). Core and periphery in networks. Journal of Economic Theory, 139 (1), 295–309.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. R. (1991). Geography and trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. R. (1998). What's new about the new economic geography? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14 (2), 7–17.Google Scholar
Lee, S. H., Cucuringu, M., & Porter, M. A. (2014). Density-based and transport-based core-periphery structures in networks. Physical Review E, 89 (3), 032810.Google Scholar
Lloyd, P., Mahutga, M. C., & Leeuw, J. D. (2015). Looking Back and Forging Ahead: Thirty Years of Social Network Research on the World-System. Journal of World-Systems Research, 15 (1), 48–85.Google Scholar
Love, J. L. (1980). Raul Prebisch and the Origins of the doctrine of unequal exchange. Latin American Research Review, 15 (3), 45–72.Google Scholar
McKenzie, N. (1977). Centre and periphery: The marriage of two minds. Acta Sociologica, 20 (1), 55–74.Google Scholar
Meier, G. M., & Baldwin, R. E. (1957). Economic development: Theory, history, policy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Mullins, N. C., Hargens, L. L., Hecht, P. K., & Kick, E. L. (1977). The group structure of cocitation clusters: A comparative study. American Sociological Review, 42 (4), 552–562.Google Scholar
Muñiz, A. S. G., & Carvajal, C. R. (2006). Core/periphery structure models: An alternative methodological proposal. Social Networks, 28 (4), 442–448.Google Scholar
Nemeth, R. J., & Smith, D. A. (1985). International trade and world-system structure: A multiple network analysis. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 8 (4), 517–560.Google Scholar
Nordlund, C. (2010). Social ecography; international trade, network analysis, and an Emmanuelian conceptualization of ecological unequal exchange. Lund: Department of Social and Economic Geography, Lund University. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1606296.Google Scholar
Nordlund, C. (2016). A deviational approach to blockmodeling of valued networks. Social Networks, 44, 160–178.Google Scholar
Oman, C. P., & Wignaraja, G. (1991). The postwar evolution of development thinking. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Prebisch, R. (1950). The economic development of latin america and its principal problems. New York: United Nations, Dept. of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Rokkan, S., & Urwin, D. W. (1983). Economy, Territory, identity: Politics of West European peripheries. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Rombach, M. P., Porter, M. A., Fowler, J. H., & Mucha, P. J. (2014). Core-periphery structure in networks. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 74 (1), 167–190.Google Scholar
Smith, D. A., & White, D. R. (1992). Structure and dynamics of the global economy: Network analysis of international trade 1965–1980. Social Forces, 70 (4), 857–893.Google Scholar
Snyder, D., & Kick, E. L. (1979). Structural position in the world system and economic growth, 1955–1970: A multiple-network analysis of transnational interactions. American Journal of Sociology, 1096–1126.Google Scholar
So, A. Y. (1990). Social change and development: Modernization, dependency and world-system theories. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Vanolo, A. (2010). The border between core and periphery: Geographical representations of the world system. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 101 (1), 26–36.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: Concepts for comparative analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16 (04), 387–415.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, I. (1979). The capitalist world-economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, H. C., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. L. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology, 81 (4), 730–780.Google Scholar