The use of this new concept has enabled Fatton to offer a trenchant analysis of the causes and consequences of Haiti’s position in the lowest echelon of the capitalist world-system, but his analysis raises an important question about the concept itself. As he has shown, the descent into the outer periphery by formerly peripheral countries like Haiti results from the interaction between domestic actors (the business and political classes) and the imperial powers to which they are subservient and whose policies they embrace despite their detrimental effects. The existence of the outer periphery as a source of extra-cheap labor for foreign investors and their domestic collaborators is clearly advantageous to them, but is the outer periphery a permanent and essential substratum of the world-system, as the periphery is for Wallerstein? Put differently, if the countries that Fatton identifies as belonging to the outer periphery were to pursue reforms that allowed them to climb back into the periphery, what effect would this have on the functioning of the world-system? Or does he envision that the outer peripheral countries must, as Wallerstein (2006: 29) has argued for the peripheral countries, simply “accept the lot that has been given to them”?

中文翻译：

---

调整智利政治 60 年的规模：小行动、草根运动和个人责任

使用这个新概念使法顿能够对海地处于资本主义世界体系最低层的原因和后果进行敏锐的分析，但他的分析提出了一个关于概念本身的重要问题。正如他所表明的，海地等原先边缘国家进入外围国家的原因是国内行为体（商业和政治阶层）与帝国权力之间的相互作用，他们屈从于帝国权力，尽管他们的政策具有不利影响，但他们仍奉行。外围作为外国投资者及其国内合作者的超廉价劳动力来源的存在显然对他们有利，但外围是否是世界体系的永久和必不可少的基础，就像外围对沃勒斯坦而言一样？换种说法，如果法顿认为属于外围的国家进行改革，使其重返外围，这将对世界体系的运作产生什么影响？或者他是否设想外围国家必须像沃勒斯坦（Wallerstein，2006：29）为外围国家所论证的那样，简单地“接受给予他们的命运”？