From Area Studies to the Production of World Knowledge

In this issue, historians and political scientists focus on different world regions by analysing the
respective national situation of their fields in Great Britain, the USA, France, China, the Czech Re-
public, and Germany. Starting from different geographical focal points, the authors investigate
the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, Africa, the Maghreb, and the Caucasus, as well
as the respective national research landscapes in China and Germany. As a result, an enormous
diversity of historical path dependencies can be observed, along with current social and re-
search policy frameworks. It also becomes clear that there is an ongoing discussion about the
conceptual premises under which (world) regions should be studied and where their place is
within the respective academic system. The traditional concepts and knowledge orders regard-
ing regional studies and area studies come primarily from Europe and the USA. Over the past 35
years, however, a development has taken shape through intensified debates about globaliza-
tion, transregional comparisons, and global approaches to the production of world knowledge.

This article examines the production of world knowledge in Germany over the last 30 years,
based on area studies / regional studies, global studies, transregional studies and related fields
of research. We propose using the umbrella term ‘production of world knowledge’ for fields of
research that deal with world regions and global, transnational or transregional developments,
regardless of their denomination. In this context, the article traces the historical development
in Germany and analyses current structural changes and funding initiatives. It argues that a
mapping based on content-based methods rather than rigid disciplinary classifications enables
a more differentiated understanding of the dynamics and interrelationships of this and other
fields of research. The approach is intended as an invitation to analyse the production of world
knowledge in other national contexts as well.

This article examines the development of Maghreb studies in France since the 1960s, drawing
on the findings of the White Paper on Maghreb Studies (2023). Despite inheriting fragmented co-
lonial knowledge, these studies remain on the periphery of French academic institutions, even
though they now encompass an active community of over 400 researchers. The survey reveals
a paradox: the discipline’s dynamism – evident in the renewal of history, sociology, anthro-
pology, and political science after the 2000s and the 2011 uprisings – stands in stark contrast
to enduring structural weaknesses, such as inadequate proficiency in Arabic and Berber, poor
integration into university curricula, and limited partnerships with Maghreb universities. While
documentary resources and specialized journals are valuable assets, academic cooperation re-
mains fragile and asymmetrical. The article advocates for greater disciplinary and geographical
openness, increased investment in language learning, and enhanced Franco-Maghreb coop-
eration to better understand contemporary societies in the region.

The first part of the text summarizes the early phase of Czech African studies that took place
within the context of “colonial fantasies”, and aspirations to belong among the “civilized”, domi-
nating European nations. Subsequent developments in the second half of the twentieth cen-
tury evolved within the framework of the Cold War. The core of the article focuses on Czech Afri-
can studies after 1989. The end of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia/the Czech Republic
brought about a paradigmatic shift in academic work, as well as a sharp break with the previous
ways of approaching the “Third World” and its problems. Yet with respect to African studies,
these changes led to closing rather than opening of the horizons. The revival of this specific
branch of area studies in the past years must be understood in the broader political and cultural
context of the debates on the decolonization of European academia, as well as the changing
global political and economic entanglements. But the present-day situation of African studies
(and area studies in general) also relates to specific political and social debates within the Czech
Republic and the whole Central European region.

This article explores the particularly close relationship between area studies in the US and the
UK, in both of which we (like many of our colleagues) have each worked, over the first decades
of the twenty-first century. Drawing on a blend of firsthand experience and published research,
we find that area studies in the US has been shaped by geopolitical, especially defence, consid-
erations. Area studies in the UK has been more susceptible to market-related changes in higher
education provision, although these considerations too are affected by a range of geopoliti-
cal factors. In both cases, area studies has continued to be seen as intellectually incoherent at
best, as particularized in contrast to disciplines that produce “universally applicable” knowledge.
At worst, area studies has been dismissed as little more than the translation of great-power
geopolitics into the academic space. Amid this, though, we find encouraging signs that area
studies can help revitalize disciplines and rewrite how, why, and which “areas” (or relationships,
processes, etc.) can be considered salient in the first place. If we attend to what area studies
often does best – intimate engagement with plural local vantage points against the backdrop
of a globally connected world – then area studies, we find, can draw upon borderland ways of
thinking to remedy its own location in intellectual borderlands, just in the same way that geo-
political borderlands remake centres in real time.

This article examines the development background, driving forces, and process of paradigm
formation in China’s “Country and Region Studies” (CRS). Since CRS was designated as a first-lev-
el discipline in 2022, there has been significant progress in its institutionalization and develop-
ment. The study analyses both the internal and external drivers behind this progress, focusing
on the academic community’s efforts to build a “Chinese-characteristic” paradigm and the influ-
ence of national strategic needs. The article also reviews the evolution of the field from its early
stages to its current institutionalization and, through tools like VOSviewer, identifies the key re-
search topics and challenges in knowledge production today. The findings suggest that China’s
country and region studies are still in the nascent stage of discipline building. While there has
been notable development, further refinement of the academic structure and knowledge pro-
duction systems is essential to fully establish a “Chinese-characteristic” paradigm in this field.

Is regionalization the new globalization?
Or are the core analytical concepts as discussed here flawed? In her recent, slimmonograph, Shannon K. O’Neil argues
that the world is internationalized but has not actually been globalized. Rather, she claims that three world regions are the
main theatres of action, and processes of regionalization account for the most relevant global dynamics. The author is the vice president of studies and the Nelson and David Rockefeller senior fellow for Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations based in Washington, DC – one of the top US think tanks on foreign policy, established in 1921. She has also published “Two Nations Indivisible: Mexico, the United States, and the Road Ahead” (Oxford University Press, 2013). In this book, she looked at the political, economic, and social transformations of Mexico and how they relate to the United States. O’Neil holds a BA from Yale University, an MA in international relations from Yale University, and a PhD in government from Harvard University. In her book “The Globalization Myth”, O’Neil details the rise of three main global manufacturing and supply chain hubs: Europe, Asia, and North America. She also discusses how these supply chains relate to the economic interests and practices of the
USA. The main argument – regionalization or transnationalism matters – certainly is not new. The author’s understanding
of globalization is conventional and limited to economics, markets, and supply chains. Globalization is taken as a material
reality, diffusing from a global centre (the USA), and not captured as a floating signifier in academic debate. The relevant literature, which has pushed the boundaries of global studies and other disciplines in the past two decades or so, is largely ignored. The literature on regionalism, which has overflowed in the last two decades, has also not been taken note of. This book is simply a sleekly written and longer version of a popular policy brief that has managed to be marketed in academic disguise.