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.

中文翻译：

---

托洛茨基还是沃勒斯坦？

本文通过批判性地参与 Andrea Komlosy 从 WSA 的角度撰写的对君主制的描述，研究了世界体系分析 (WSA) 和不平衡和联合发展 (UCD) 对 19 世纪哈布斯堡君主制历史的潜力。它认为，Komlosy 并没有通过试图将君主制本身分析为世界经济体，从而排除地缘政治动态和世界经济体来提供对君主制历史的一致的 WSA 解释。此外，君主制内部的核心-外围关系以一种矛盾的方式处理。至关重要的是，相当异常的状态形成没有被考虑在内。有人认为，对状态形成的有问题的解释是由于 WSA 的局限性。通过仔细研究奥匈妥协的起源，