Aneivas and Nişancıoğlu’s provocative book, How the West Came to Rule, attempts to provide an alternative account of the origins of capitalism to both ‘Political Marxism’ and ‘World-Systems Theory’. By making uneven and combined development a universal dynamic of human history and by utilising a flawed concept of ‘Eurocentrism’, however, they introduce a high degree of causal pluralism into their analysis. Despite important insights into the specific dynamics of different pre-capitalist forms of social labour, their account of the origins of capitalism in How the West Came to Rule suffers from causal indeterminacy and historical inaccuracies.
CallinicosAlex and JustinRosenberg2008‘Uneven and Combined Development: The Socio-Relational Substratum of “the International”? An Exchange of Letters’Cambridge Review of International Affairs211: 77–112<https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570701828600>.
RiouxSébastien2015‘Mind the (Theoretical) Gap: On the Poverty of International Relations Theorising of Uneven and Combined Development’Global Society294: 481–509<https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2014.983047>.
WeberMax1958The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: The Relationship between Religion and the Economic and Social Life in Modern Culture translated by TalcottParsonsNew York: Charles Scribner and Sons.