This article examines the potentials of world-systems analysis (WSA) and uneven and combined development (UCD) for the history of nineteenth-century Habsburg Monarchy by critically engaging with Andrea Komlosy’s account of the Monarchy, written from the perspective of WSA. It argues that Komlosy does not provide a consistent WSA interpretation of the Monarchy’s history by trying to analyze the Monarchy as a world-economy in its own right, thus excluding geopolitical dynamics and the world-economy. Furthermore, core-periphery relations within the Monarchy are dealt with in a contradictory fashion. Crucially, the quite anomalous state formation is not accounted for. The problematic account of state formation, it is argued, is due to the limitations of WSA. By taking a closer look at the genesis of the Austro–Hungarian Compromise, the article claims that UCD is better suited for explaining state formation in the Monarchy.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Allinson Jamie C. , and Anievas Alexander . 2009. “The Uses and Misuses of Uneven and Combined Development: An Anatomy of a Concept.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22, no. 1: 47–67.
Allinson Jamie C. , and Anievas Alexander . 2010a. “Approaching ‘the International’: Beyond Political Marxism.” In Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism, edited by Anievas Alexander , 197–215. London: Routledge.
Allinson Jamie C. , and Anievas Alexander . 2010b. “The Uneven and Combined Development of the Meiji Restoration: A Passive Revolutionary Road to Capitalist Modernity.” Capital & Class 34, no. 3: 469–490.
Anievas Alexander . 2014. Capital, the State, and War: Class Conflict and Geopolitics in the Thirty Years’ Crisis, 1914–1945. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Anievas Alexander , and Matin Kamran , eds. 2016. Historical Sociology and World History: Uneven and Combined Development over the Longue Durée. London: Rowan and Littlefield.
Anievas Alexander , and Nisancioglu Kerem . 2015. How the West Came to Rule. London: Pluto Press.
Arrighi Giovanni . 1998. “Capitalism and the Modern World-System: Rethinking the Non-Debates of the 1970s.” Fernand Braudel Center Review 21, no. 1: 113–129.
Bassett Richard . 2015. For God and Kaiser: The Imperial Austrian Army, 1619–1918. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Beer Adolf . 1877. Die Finanzen Oesterreichs im XIX. Jahrhundert. Prague: Verlag von F. Tempsky.
Berzeviczy Albert . 1932. Az abszolutizmus kora Magyarországon 1849–1865 [The age of absolutism in Hungary, 1849–1865], vol. 3. Budapest: Franklin.
Brandt Harm-Hinrich . 1978. Der österreichische Neoabsolutismus: Staatsfinanzen und Politik 1848–1860, vol. 1. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bruck Carl Ludwig Freiherr von . 1860. Die Aufgaben Oesterreichs. Leipzig: O. Wigand.
Burbank Jane , and Cooper Frederick . 2010. Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Callinicos Alex , and Rosenberg Justin . 2008. “Uneven and Combined Development: The Social-Relational Substratum of ‘the International’? An Exchange of Letters.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 21, no. 1: 77–112.
Chase-Dunn Christopher , and Grell-Brisk Marilyn . 2016. “Uneven and Combined Development in the Sociocultural Evolution of World-Systems.” In Historical Sociology and World History: Uneven and Combined Development over the Longue Durée, edited by Anievas Alexander and Kamran Matin , 205–219. London: Rowan and Littlefield.
Chase-Dunn Christopher , and Hall Thomas D. . 1997. Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems. Boulder: Westview Press.
Clark Christopher M. 2006. Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600–1947. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Davidson Neil . 2012. How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions? Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Davidson Neil . 2015. We Cannot Escape History. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Davidson Neil . 2016. “The Conditions for the Emergence of Uneven and Combined Development.” In Historical Sociology and World History: Uneven and Combined Development over the Longue Durée, edited by Anievas Alexander and Kamran Matin , 31–53. London: Rowman and Littlefield.
Deák István . 1979. The Lawful Revolution Louis Kossuth and the Hungarians, 1848–1849. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dunn Bill , and Radice Hugo , eds. 2006. 100 Years of Permanent Revolution: Results and Prospects . London: Pluto Press.
Eddie Scott . 1989. “Economic Policy and Economic Development in Austria–Hungary, 1867–1913.” In Cambridge Economic History of Europe, edited by Mathias Peter and Pollard Sidney , 814–886. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eisenmann Louis . 1971. Le compromis austro–hongrois de 1867: Étude sur le dualisme. Hattiesburg: Academic International.
Engels Friedrich . 1960. “Österreich.” In Karl Marx-Friedrich Engels-Werke, vol. 8, 29–34. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
Evans Robert John Weston . 2006. Austria, Hungary, and the Habsburgs: Essays on Central Europe c. 1683–1867. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Friedjung Heinrich . 1935. The Struggle for Supremacy in Germany, 1859–1866. London: Macmillan.
Good David F. 1984. The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1750–1914. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gramsci Antonio . 1987. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Hanák Péter . 1967. “Hungary in the Austro–Hungarian Monarchy: Preponderancy or Dependency?” Austrian History Yearbook 3, no. 1: 260–302.
Ingrao Charles W. 1994. The Habsburg Monarchy, 1618–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Janos Andrew C. 1982. The Politics of Backwardness in Hungary, 1825–1945. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jászi Oszkár . 1964. The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Judson Pieter M. 1996. Exclusive Revolutionaries: Liberal Politics, Social Experience, and National Identity in the Austrian Empire, 1848–1914. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Judson Pieter M. 2016. The Habsburg Empire: A New History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kaps Klemens . 2008. “Gescheitertes Aufholen in Zentraleuropa. Der Abstieg der Habsburgermonarchie zu einem semiperipheren Wirtschaftsraum im Spiegel ihrer Außenhandelsstruktur 1791–1880.” Zeitschrift für Weltgeschichte 9, no. 1: 103–122.
Koch Klaus . 1989. “Österreich und der Deutsche Zollverein (1848–1871).” In Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, vol. 6/1: Die Habsburgermonarchie im System der internationalen Beziehungen, edited by Wandruszka Adam and Urbanitsch Peter , 537–559. Vienna: VöAW.
Komlos John . 1983. The Habsburg Monarchy as a Customs Union: Economic Development in Austria–Hungary in the Nineteenth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Komlosy Andrea . 2003. Grenze und ungleiche regionale Entwicklung: Binnenmarkt und Migration in der Habsburgermonarchie. Vienna: Promedia.
Komlosy Andrea . 2004. “State, Regions, and Borders: Single Market Formation and Labor Migration in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1750–1918.” Fernand Braudel Center Review 27, no. 2: 135–177.
Komlosy Andrea . 2015. “Imperial Cohesion, National-Building, and Regional Integration in the Habsburg Monarchy?” In Nationalizing Empires, edited by Miller Alexei and Berger Stefan , 369–427. Budapest: Central European University Press.
Kwan Jonathan . 2013. Liberalism and the Habsburg Monarchy, 1861–1895. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lakatos Ernő . 1942. A magyar politikai vezetőreteg 1848–1918 [The leading political stratum in Hungary, 1848–1918] . Budapest.
Macartney C.A. 1969. The Habsburg Empire, 1790–1918. New York: Macmillan.
Mann Michael . 1993. The Sources of Social Power: The Rise of Classes and Nation-States, 1760–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mielants Eric . 2007. The Origins of Capitalism and “The Rise of the West.” Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Miller Alexei , and Rieber Alfred J. . 2004. Imperial Rule. Budapest: Central European University.
Nolte Hans-Heinrich . 1980. “Zur Stellung Osteuropas im internationalen System der Frühen Neuzeit. Außenhandel und Sozialgeschichte bei der Bestimmung der Regionen.” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 28, no. 2: 161–197.
Nolte Hans-Heinrich . 1995. “Internal Peripheries: From Andalucia to Tatarstan.” Fernand Braudel Center Review 18, no. 2: 261–280.
Nolte Hans-Heinrich . 2004. “The Modern World-System and Area Studies: The Case of Russia.” Fernand Braudel Center Review 27, no. 3: 207–242.
Pap József . 2007. “‘Két választás Magyarországon’: az országgyűlési képviselők társadalmi összetétele a 20. század első éveiben” [“Two elections in Hungary”: The social composition of the members of parliament at the beginning of the twentieth century]. AETAS 22, no. 1: 5–31.
Rosenberg Justin . 2006. “Why Is There No International Historical Sociology?” European Journal of International Relations 12, no. 3: 307–340.
Rosenberg Justin . 2013. “Kenneth Waltz and Leon Trotsky: Anarchy in the Mirror of Uneven and Combined Development.” International Politics 50, no. 2: 183–230.
Péter László . 1992. “The Aristocracy, the Gentry and Their Parliamentary Tradition in Nineteenth-Century Hungary.” The Slavonic and East-European Review 70, no. 1: 77–110.
Schulze Max-Stephan . 2007a. “Origins of Catch-Up Failure: Comparative Productivity Growth in the Habsburg Empire, 1870–1910.” European Review of Economic History 11, no. 2: 189–218.
Schulze Max-Stephan . 2007b. “Regional Income Dispersion and Market Potential in the Late Nineteenth Century Hapsburg Empire.” Working paper no. 106/2007, Department of Economic History, London School of Economics, November 2007. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22311.
Seton-Watson Hugh . 1990. The Russian Empire, 1801–1917. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sked Alan . 1992. The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire, 1815–1918. London: Longman.
Skocpol Theda . 1977. “Wallerstein’s World Capitalist System: A Theoretical and Historical Critique.” American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 5: 1075–1090.
Somogyi Éva . 2007. “A dualizmus államrendszere. Negyven év után a kiegyezésről” [The dualist state system: On the Settlement forty years later]. In A Monarchia kora – ma [The period of the Monarchy today], edited by Gerő András , 109–121. Budapest: úMK.
Stein Lorenz von . 1856. Oesterreich und der Frieden. Vienna: Braumüller.
Szűcs Jenő . 1983. “The Three Historical Regions of Europe: An Outline.” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29, no. 2/4: 131–184.
Taylor A.J.P. 1965. The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809–1918: A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria–Hungary. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Teschke Benno . 2014. “IR Theory, Historical Materialism, and the False Promise of International Historical Sociology.” Spectrum: Journal of Global Studies 6, no. 1: 1–66.
Wallerstein Immanuel . 1980. Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750. New York: Academic Press.
Wallerstein Immanuel . 1984. The Politics of the World-Economy: The States, the Movements, and the Civilizations; Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallerstein Immanuel . 1989. The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730–1840s. San Diego: Academic Press.
Wallerstein Immanuel . 1991. The Capitalist World-Economy: Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallerstein Immanuel . 2011. “Prologue to the 2011 Edition.” In The Capitalist World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, xvii–xxx. Berkeley: University of California Press.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 658 | 47 | 1 |
Full Text Views | 262 | 10 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 138 | 21 | 0 |
This article examines the potentials of world-systems analysis (WSA) and uneven and combined development (UCD) for the history of nineteenth-century Habsburg Monarchy by critically engaging with Andrea Komlosy’s account of the Monarchy, written from the perspective of WSA. It argues that Komlosy does not provide a consistent WSA interpretation of the Monarchy’s history by trying to analyze the Monarchy as a world-economy in its own right, thus excluding geopolitical dynamics and the world-economy. Furthermore, core-periphery relations within the Monarchy are dealt with in a contradictory fashion. Crucially, the quite anomalous state formation is not accounted for. The problematic account of state formation, it is argued, is due to the limitations of WSA. By taking a closer look at the genesis of the Austro–Hungarian Compromise, the article claims that UCD is better suited for explaining state formation in the Monarchy.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 658 | 47 | 1 |
Full Text Views | 262 | 10 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 138 | 21 | 0 |