There's a book I read around the same time that I often recommend, "The Political Economy of Third World Intervention" by David Gibbs, which cites Wallerstein. It proposes a "business conflict model" of warmongering, and analyzes a shift in US military policy toward the Congo between the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. Basically the thesis is that war is no longer country versus country, but Multinational Corporate Conglomorate vs (MNC), and countries sway in alliance to various MNCs.
Its a good read from the perspective of the "World System", the definition of which is a (global) economic system which transcends localized political systems. Prior to the 1500's, most economic trade took place within a common nation/political regime, but starting around then, the "modern" world became a place of extensive economic trade across political boundaries.
I actually find the theory, and its focus on production networks vs. trade networks to be rather intriguing. Wallerstein's 1974 publication "The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System" definitely seems to use the World-Systems viewpoint to predict (in a loose sense of the word) the economic shifts ongoing since that time, but I'd have to do more reading to have any idea as to whether he was merely stating the obvious to back up his outlook.
The movement of the English-speaking people's power center from London to Washington thus took 150 years, longer than the ongoing Russian move from St Petersburg to Moscow, but shorter than the Song move from Xian to Hangzhou.
Has there been more than one world hegemon at all?
"Multiple divisions of labor" would mean that each nation maintains its own, sovereign hierarchy of labor. It describes economies prior to globalization, when nation-states tended to do most of their trade internally, rather than across huge geographic distances and political lines.