Rashka Travel on In 1937, Jacob Viner summed up the development of such debates when he wrote: in the analysis of gain from trade, attention was definitely centered upon particular boundaries, enclosing areas of community of interest, and these areas were also generally countries or nations (Viner 1965, 599). The deepening of the meaning of the core-periphery divide for the international division of labor was left in the following decades to (mainstream and critical) debates on development, underdevelopment, uneven exchange, and dependency. In the shadow of stable borders between nations and a clear-cut separation between core and periphery, labor was considered to be spatially divided into homogeneous units and concentrated according to processes of functional specialization of production. The prevalence of industrial production signified development, while primary production was considered an unmistakable sign of underdevelopment. Transitions of Capitalism To ask whether the international division of labor is an analytical concept that reflected the.shape of capital’s global operations for a certain period or a heuristic that informed attempts to manipulate aggregate economic forces so as to mold these operations in the image of the nation-state is to enter a vicious circle. International divisions never coincided perfectly with what we call the frontiers of capital. Rashka Travel 2016.