Conclusion

  • Alexei D. Voskressenski
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

The Conclusion to this book shows that synthesizing the structural, qualitative, quantitative, cartographic and interpretational methods within a coherent framework of World Regional Studies allows for the elaboration of a theory that relies on analytical generalizations and that can by empirically assessed with a historical-comparative method that helps us to understand coexisting but still different modernities. Theories elaborated with this approach will be impossible to divide typologically into Western or non-Western. Yet, the construction and application of such theories requires both training for new unbiased specialists in the West and the non-West and the elaboration of a more refined theoretical apparatus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. 2010. In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia, eds. A. Acharya and B. Buzan. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Amin, Samir. 2001. ‘Gosudarstvo I Razvitiye’ (State and Development). In Sovremennaya Politicheskaya Teoriya (Modern Political Theory), ed. D. Held, Trans. V. Danilenko, 429–461. Moscow: Nota Bene.Google Scholar
  3. Baur, Nina, Linda Hering, Anna Laura Raschke, and Cornelia Thierbach. 2014. Theory and Methods in Spatial Analysis. Toward Integrating Qualitative, Quantitative and Carthographic Approaches in the Social Sciences and Humanities. In Spatial Analysis in the Social Sciences and Humanities, eds. Thierbach, Cornelia, Anna Laura Raschke, Linda Hering & Nina Bauer. Historical Social Research. Special Issue 39(2): 7–50.Google Scholar
  4. Boas, M., M. Marchand, and T.M. Shaw. (eds.). 2005. Political Economy of Region and Regionalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Capello, R., and T.P. Dentinho. (eds.). 2012. Globalization Trends and Regional Development. Cheltenham, Glos.: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. De Goede, M. 2006. International Political Economy and Poststructural Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. George, Alexander L. 1993. Bridging the Gap: Theory and Practice in Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  8. George, Alexander L., and A. Bennet. 2005. Case Studies and Theory of Development in Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Grigoriev, Oleg. 2014. Epokha Rosta. Lektsii po Neoekonomike. Rastsvet I Upadok Mirovoi Ekonomicheskoi Systemi (The Growth Époque. Lectures on New Economics. Rise and Fall of World Economic System). Moscow: Kariera Press.Google Scholar
  10. O’Brien, Robert, and Marc Williams. 2010. Global Political Economy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Rozov, Nikolai S. 2009. Istoricheskaya Makrosotsiologiya: Methodologiya i Metodi (Historical Macrosociology; Methodology and Methods). Novosibirsk: Novosobirsk State University Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. (ed.). 2005. Razrabotka I Aprobatsiya Metoda Teoreticheskoi Istorii (Method of Theoretical History and its Application). Novosibirsk: Nauka, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. Thierbach, Cornelia, Anna Laura Raschke, Linda Hering, and Nina Baur. (eds.). 2014. Spatial Analysis in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Historical Social Research. Special Issue 39 (2).Google Scholar
  14. Voskressenski, Alexei D. 2003. Russia and China. A Theory of Inter-State Relations. London & New York: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
  15. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World System, Vol. 1. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origin of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexei D. Voskressenski
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Political AffairsMGIMO UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations