The Dynamics of Centre-Periphery Relations: The Need for a New Geography of Resource Development

Abstract

The centre-periphery model of the relations between developed and underdeveloped countries is based on the idea of the 'domination' of the latter by the former. The major instrument of this domination in recent times has been the multinational corporation. This paper calls attention to a number of countervailing strategies emerging in undeveloped countries to minimize some of the deleterious effect of this domination. These strategies include greater emphasis on national ownership of resources, insistence on real transfer of technology and stronger moves towards regional economic co-operation. For geography, these developments in centre-periphery relations have implications both for the understanding of the new competitive basis for global resource development and for greater research attention to the quaternary sector of global economic activities. THE CONCEPT OF CENTRE-PERIPHERY IN GLOBAL GEOGRAPHY IT will be useful to begin by considering the concept of a centre and a periphery in global geography. In this connection, it is perhaps appropriate to recall the pioneering contribution of Sir Halford Mackinder. In his seminal paper presented to the Royal Geographical Society in 1904 on 'The geographical pivot of history', Mackinder was at pains to make two points. The first was that with modern improvement in steam navigation by the end of the nineteenth century, the world had become a single political system where, according to him, 'every explosion of social forces, instead of being dissipated in a surrounding circuit of unknown space and barbaric chaos, will be sharply re-echoed from the far side of the globe, and weak elements in the political and economic organism of the world will be shattered in consequence'.' He contended that it was probably some half-consciousness of this fact that was at last diverting much of the attention of statesmen in all parts of the world from territorial expansion to the struggle for relative efficiency. The second point that he made was that within this system of close interrelationships, it was possible to identify two broad regions-a pivotal, continental heartland with vast resources and a broad marginal zone surrounding it, the two being linked together by the oceans. Figure i is from Mackinder's article and clearly depicts these two regions. For Mackinder, the state occupying the continental heartland would be virtually invulnerable to attack, except from the west, and would be able to utilize its resources for the development of a strong, agriculturalindustrial power. With this development would come also the opportunity to strike out against the marginal zone and eventually to gain control over the whole world. In terms of his representation, it is important to bear in mind that at the time the paper was presented, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was still an unformed chimera in the mist of time and for Mackinder, the state occupying the heartland was thought of as a possible combination of Germany and Tsarist Russia. Such a combination, he argued, could conquer the marginal zone comprising most of Europe, the Middle East, Africa, India and the Orient and with time Australia and the Western Hemisphere.