tdaxp

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp's SummerBlog '06

The CSV output file. Boring, I know. But makes it easier to run your own tests if you disagree.

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp's SummerBlog '06

Below is the perl code I used for data smoothing.

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp's SummerBlog '06

Below is the bibliography for this project. Many of the documents cited can be obtained from JSTOR.

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp's SummerBlog '06

Nation	Brutal	Nasty	Poor	Sol.	Short	IV
OCNCG	-0.16	0.47	0.73	0.64	0.43	0.65
CG	-0.14	0.46	0.68	0.56	0.41	0.61
G77	-0.04	0.52	0.5	0.45	0.51	0.65
G2277	-0.09	0.48	0.47	0.42	0.51	0.61
AfroIslam	0.05	0.6	0.34	0.31	0.63	0.67
Nalign – 2	0.01	0.58	0.43	0.4	0.55	0.67
Nalign – 3	0.001	0.57	0.41	0.38	0.56	0.66
LDC – 2	-0.08	0.31	0.55	0.44	0.41	0.49
LDC – 3	-0.08	0.38	0.54	0.4	0.62	0.59
Worlds	-0.14	0.42	0.7	0.59	0.48	0.64

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp's SummerBlog '06

Halford Mackinder said that “every century has its own geographical perspective,” and it may even be true that “every century has its own geographical stereotype” (Meinig 1956:553). Geopolitical analysis is necessarily limited to some conception of the world. This research design seeks to test a geopolitical view of the present world. It is not a test throughout time. It makes no claim to be. That makes this study no less valuable.

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp's SummerBlog '06

Poverty will be measured by GDP per capita, measured by purchasing power parity (CIA 2006c). Estimates are recent, with most being from 2004 or 2005. The information is listed in US Dollars. My study will scale GDP per capita so that poorest value is 0 and the richest value is 1. For each state, it's value will be calculated by taking the difference between that state's value and the lowest state's value, divided by the difference between the highest state's value and the lowest state's value. The logic to read in and scale this data is included in the appendix, particularly in the function scaleData().

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp's SummerBlog '06

Yet in spite of the potential consequences of Barnett's work, little has been done to test it. For instance, do the measures he gives for the “Gap” actually correlate with being in the Gap? Does another accepted model work better?

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp's SummerBlog '06

Thomas P.M. Barnett defines the "non-integrating gap" as those "regions of the world that are largely disconnected from the global economy and the rule set that defines its stability" (T. Barnett 2004:xvii-xviii). Immediately he gives it a geographic description, "today, the non-integrating gap is made up of the Caribbean Rim, Andean South America, virtually all of Africa, portions of the Balkans the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, and most of Southeast Asia." Barnett writes that the "Gap" will be "the expeditionary theater for the U.S. military in the 21st century" (T Barnett 2003) of "failed states and feral cities" (T. Barnett 2004:151). The rest of the world, the “Functioning Core,” is in turn split “into the Old Core, anchored by America, Europe, and Japan; and the New Core, whose leading pillars are China, India, Brazil and Russia” (T. Barnett 2005:32).

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp's SummerBlog '06

In the early 1990s, the political tilt of Global South discussions led to the emergence of critical geopolitics (Dodds 1994:275). While some have criticized the theory as appearing too soon for a valid “contexualization” of geography (C. Barnett 1995:417) others view critical geopolitics as necessary for explaining the contemporary world (Tuathail and Luke 1994:381).

Note: This is a selection from Redefining the Gap, part of tdaxp's SummerBlog '06

The theory of the Global North and Global South is a new geopolitical perspective. It is a new perspective that divides “the world into two blocs – the industrialized countries of the global North and the poor countries of the South” on the global level of analysis (Goldstein, Huang, and Akan 1997:242). While “Global South” is sometimes used as a synonym for the more familiar “Third World” (Hayes 1975:1261), the end of the Cold War has seen the term “Third World” and the politics behind it fall into disfavor (Pletsch 1981:569).