Mariko Frame: A Study of Ecological Imperialism from the Perspective of World-Systems Theory
I. Introduction As the global ecological crisis escalates, the scramble for resources among developed Western nations has intensified, and the ubiquitous phenomenon of socio-ecological injustice has gone from bad to worse. Environmental crises are often intertwined with the seizure of land, the deprivation of livelihoods, and violence against the rights of indigenous peoples, small-scale farmers, and the urban poor. Behind these phenomena of dispossession, there often exists an alliance formed through the collusion of corrupt officials, domestic elites, international financial institutions, and multinational corporations, whose wealth and political power are directly linked to environmental degradation. However, the core crux of socio-ecological crises lies in the fact that they can neither be attributed in isolation to a specific practice, a specific economic policy, or the actions of a specific country, nor can they be reduced to a lack of ecological initiatives in a particular sector, such as mining or industrial agriculture.
Orthodox development theories can explain neither the continuous deterioration of the global ecological crisis nor the socio-ecological relations that induce global environmental injustice. For decades, theorists of ecological modernization and other techno-optimists have argued that economic and technological progress achieved through market incentives helps facilitate efficient resource utilization and environmental protection, allowing GDP growth to decouple from resource dependence. Based on this, "green growth" and the "Sustainable Development Goals" (SDGs)—unanimously adopted by all UN member states in 2015—have been promoted as core policy systems.
For the Global South, economic growth realized through the division of labor and free trade can provide governments with tax revenue, helping to improve the quality of life in impoverished countries and consolidate environmental achievements. However, these views are fundamentally problematic. Climate, biodiversity, and other crises are intensifying rather than slowing down. This is unsurprising, as global economic growth has not "decoupled" from resource use or environmental impact in any sustained or significant way. More importantly, the level of economic development and consumption in the Global North has been, and continues to be, largely built upon the ecological exploitation of the Global South via the mechanisms of global economic integration; this is precisely what this article seeks to demonstrate.
The author of this article argues in the book Ecological Imperialism, Development, and the Capitalist World-System: Cases from Africa and Asia that the ecological crisis of the 21st century is ultimately intertwined with the development of industrial capitalism and its global expansion. This book explores the complex relationship between the global ecological crisis and ecological imperialism through three key perspectives: world-systems theory, neoliberal globalization, and neoliberal development policies. This article elucidates several important arguments from that book, which are grounded in world-systems theory and expand the understanding of imperialism across historical foundations and ecological dimensions. This theoretical contribution can provide the vital political, economic, and historical context to understand how the appropriation and exploitation of the global ecological commons [1] under the neoliberal framework has degenerated into a field of contention for global capital.
Furthermore, research on ecological imperialism based on world-systems theory provides a context for critically explaining the integration of the Global South into neoliberal globalization. Over the past forty to fifty years, neoliberal globalization has advanced progressively through established development programs, which have often brought disastrous ecological impacts. With the dismantling of traditional colonialism, development models subsequently underwent a transformation, as relations of production based on markets and private property replaced traditional modes of development, while simultaneously placing greater emphasis on export-oriented growth. Development programs advocating industrialization, urbanization, and agricultural modernization have led to the over-exploitation of resources and environmental degradation.
For the impoverished and marginalized groups of the Global South, this developmental trend is a manifestation of contemporary ecological imperialism, wherein local indigenous groups lose their land and livelihoods due to environmental degradation. Laissez-faire globalization and neoliberal development policies—with international trade, international investment, and international finance as their three pillars—have created a global economy dominated by large multinational corporations and transnational financial firms. Within the capitalist world-system, the resources of the Global South flow into the Global North in the form of consumer goods through a process of "ecologically unequal exchange," while profits are cannibalized by multinational corporations and their shareholders.
II. Ecological Interpretations of World-Systems and Dependency Theory In the 1960s, world-systems and dependency theory emerged as a radical critique of orthodox development theory, particularly modernization theory. Modernization theory posits that engagement with Western capitalist countries is the source of economic growth and development for poor countries. However, theorists ranging from Samir Amin and Arghiri Emmanuel to Walter Rodney reached a basic consensus: capitalism must be viewed as a hierarchical world-system. In the capitalist world-system, core regions (or metropolises) dominate peripheral regions that occupy a subordinate or dependent position. The development of the core is predicated on the underdevelopment of the periphery. Scholars such as Raúl Prebisch sought to reveal the structural inequalities in the world economy, such as the deteriorating terms of trade for primary commodity producers. Building on this, Immanuel Wallerstein argued that the capitalist world-system consists of three parts: the core, the semi-periphery, and the periphery.
Currently, scholars resonance with world-systems and dependency theory are attempting to analyze contemporary socio-ecological issues by expanding these arguments. "Ecologically unequal exchange" is a concept that has received significant attention over the past decade and is one of the core characteristics of ecological imperialism. Although the concept of ecologically unequal exchange is constantly evolving and subject to varying interpretations, scholars engaged in related research have made important progress in the interdisciplinary field of world-systems/dependency theory and ecology, conducting extensive empirical studies. The concept of ecologically unequal exchange draws critically on the concept of unequal exchange proposed by Emmanuel. Emmanuel argued that the wage gap between different countries produces "trade imperialism" in the sense of an unequal exchange of labor time. Alf Hornborg, a scholar of ecologically unequal exchange theory, argues that the industrial metabolism of core economies requires the appropriation of resources from peripheral hinterlands and the reduction of their ecological carrying capacity. Therefore, ecologically unequal exchange theory posits that an asymmetric transfer of resources occurs between core and peripheral economies through trade—a transfer that may appear fair in monetary terms but is not so in ecological terms.
Stephen Bunker was one of the first theorists to systematically link the concept of underdevelopment with ecology. He argued that market transactions between peripheral and core economies lead to a systemic deterioration of the ecological conditions in the periphery, from which the core economies benefit. During the period of neoliberal development, especially in the last decade, as socio-ecological data have become more comprehensive and refined, scholars of ecologically unequal exchange have conducted a large number of empirical studies. They have strongly questioned the basic premises of ecological modernization theory, arguing that developed countries have slowed their own environmental degradation by shifting the consequences of that degradation to other countries. At the same time, they have analyzed other key issues in world-systems and dependency theory—such as the impact of foreign investment, the impact of deteriorating terms of trade for primary producers, and the impact of external debt—from the perspective of environmental issues. However, all forms of ecologically unequal exchange take place within the broader political-economic context of ecological imperialism.
III. Five Essential Characteristics of Ecological Imperialism According to the simplest definition, imperialism refers to a system in which a dominant power controls the trade, investment, labor, and natural resources of other countries or regions. Both classical and modern theories of imperialism have always acknowledged the important role of natural resources in global capital accumulation. Alfred Crosby discussed imperialism from an ecological perspective, but scholars of world-systems theory focus more on the political-economic perspective. From this theoretical viewpoint, ecological imperialism possesses five essential characteristics.
The first characteristic of ecological imperialism is its root in the unceasing drive for capital accumulation and capitalist relations of production. Expansiveness is an inherent necessity for the normal functioning of capitalism, enabling it to find new markets, resources, and investment channels for over-accumulated capital. Simultaneously, expansiveness is a response to its own internal contradictions and crises. As many scholars have pointed out, this innate expansiveness of capitalism is highly destructive to an Earth with limited resources and ecological fragility. From the origins of colonialism to the era of neo-colonialism, and now to neoliberal globalization, this dynamic has underpinned the historical development of capitalism.
The second characteristic of ecological imperialism is the inequality of power (economic, political, military, and ideological) between states within the hierarchical international division of labor of the capitalist world-system. Because capitalism must continuously obtain cheap resources, it must create political-economic conditions similar to those that guarantee the exploitation of labor to ensure the smooth extraction of resources. Since the 1980s, the political-economic landscape has largely continued the trend of neoliberal globalization and the consequent intensification of the commodification of the global environment.
The third characteristic of ecological imperialism is the negative socio-ecological impacts, ecological debt, or ecologically unequal exchange it brings to peripheral countries—infringements for which true compensation cannot be obtained at the monetary level. Ecological debt is a multidimensional concept; in research on environmental injustice, it is intertwined with many other issues, ranging from the overt plunder and exploitation of Global South labor and natural resources by the Global North under colonial rule to various forms of underpayment in today's global economy. As mentioned above, ecologically unequal exchange is one of the core characteristics of ecological imperialism.
The fourth characteristic of ecological imperialism is that the forms it takes are a counter-response to social protest movements. Ecological imperialism needs to establish a favorable political-economic environment within "subjected" nations. However, such practices are resisted from time to time. The price of natural resources in peripheral countries depends not only on market supply and demand and land rent [2], but also on class struggle, anti-imperialism, and environmental struggles. By tracing the history of anti-imperialist movements and economic nationalist positions in the Global South, this article argues that the neoliberal economic policies regarding trade, foreign investment, and international finance we see today are, in essence, a counter-response to the aforementioned protest movements.
The fifth characteristic of ecological imperialism is the continuous accumulation of capital by imperialist states, which is the result of the combined effect of all the factors mentioned above. For imperialist nations, ecological imperialism ensures they profit from environmental destruction and achieve the preemptive seizure of the Earth's resources. The ecological wealth of the planet flows from regions targeted by ecological imperialism toward imperialist nations.
Ultimately, when we discuss ecological imperialism, we are focusing on the ecological aspects of imperialism and the global expansionist tendency of capitalism. This expansionism requires a comprehensive realignment of socio-ecological relations between humanity and nature on a global scale. From traditional colonialism to neoliberal development and neoliberal globalization, this expansionism has forced the Global South to adjust its economic, political, and social systems to accommodate the needs of capital accumulation in the Global North.
IV. The Dynamics of Ecological Imperialism in the Capitalist World-System Ecological imperialism arises within a global economy that operates as an integrated system, which has always been a hierarchical system of the international division of labor. Colonialism gave birth to the integrated capitalist world-system, serving as the "underlying hue" [3] of today’s globalization. The world is divided into a wealthy Global North and a poor Global South, as well as core industrialized economies and peripheral economies dependent on natural resource extraction and export. World-systems theory views the global economy as a hierarchy of interconnected economies. In this system, different geographical regions undertake different economic tasks, while certain countries maintain total hegemony through the international division of labor. Theorists of world-systems and dependency theory, such as Johan Galtung and Emmanuel, long ago recognized the importance of the capitalist world-system to imperialism.
Within the world-system—comprising core, semi-periphery, and periphery—the first fundamental relationship upon which ecological imperialism relies is the severe inequality caused by the core's continuous exploitation of the periphery. This originated in colonialism, when the peripheral economies of Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia were restructured as exporters of natural resources to satisfy the industrial demands of European colonizers. Many leaders of post-colonial nations have referred to this division of labor, which persisted after colonial independence, as "neo-colonialism" to denote that peripheral countries remain economically, politically, and technologically dependent on their former colonial metropoles.
Although the global economy has become increasingly complex, many economic tasks still follow the geographic logic of core and periphery distribution due to developed countries outsourcing manufacturing to certain developing nations. Core countries are characterized by highly developed productive forces, including capital-intensive production and high-tech industries. Peripheral countries are characterized by low levels of productive forces, including cheap labor and labor-intensive production. Geographically, the core consists of developed industrial nations such as Europe, North America, and Japan; the periphery consists of most of Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and certain Asian countries.
There are two primary ways in which ecological imperialism invades peripheral countries. First, within the international division of labor in the world-system, the economies of peripheral countries are based on natural resource exports, leading to ecologically unequal exchange and ecological debt. This unequal status produces a structure of dependency, making peripheral countries more vulnerable to various socio-ecological crises. For example, the deterioration of terms of trade for primary products forces peripheral countries to increase their levels of natural resource exports, which exacerbates deforestation and mining exports. Some studies link the deterioration of terms of trade to ecologically unequal exchange and environmental degradation in Latin America. In addition to the factor of declining primary product prices, the impact of external debt has also been integrated into research. Through a cross-national model of 62 poor countries from 1990 to 2005, scholars such as John M. Shandra found that external debt and structural adjustment exacerbated deforestation. Both factors appear to drive peripheral countries to increase export revenues in order to pay interest and principal.
The second way is that in some regions, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, international trade is primarily controlled by multinational corporations. Tax rates in host countries are very low, especially in the mining and agricultural sectors. Consequently, resources and profits flow overseas. For example, among the top 25 mining companies listed on the Association of African Miners website, 16 are from Canada, Australia, and Europe. This trend is referred to by some as "regional sub-imperialism." African governments hold only a small fraction of equity in foreign investments, typically 5%–20%. A 2016 report by the organization "War on Want" showed that 101 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange control $1.05 trillion worth of African resources, involving just five major commodities—oil, gold, diamonds, coal, and platinum. These 101 companies have mining operations in 37 African countries, and 59 of them are incorporated in the UK. Because tax rates are far below international standards, even during the peak of the commodity boom in the early 21st century, the revenues gained by African governments from mineral exports were negligible.
For a long time, scholars have argued that these underdeveloped economies are plagued by uneven development. Within these economies, there usually exist comprador [4] elites whose interests align with those of foreign investors and who are associated with resource extraction. One report noted that from 1970 to 2018, 30 African countries lost approximately $2 trillion due to capital flight, with net mis-invoicing in imports and exports accounting for $588 billion.
However, important changes have occurred in the capitalist world-system in recent decades. One of the most significant changes over the past half-century is the intensification of capitalist relations of production on a global scale. This process has been driven by multinational corporations, which began outsourcing manufacturing around the 1960s, objectively driving the economic growth and industrialization of emerging semi-peripheral economies. In the pursuit of cheap labor, neoliberal globalization has transnationalized every link in the chains of production and value creation; thus, some scholars believe this trend has led to a new international division of labor.
Compared to previous eras of imperialism, the world-system today is connected by billions of commodity chains and triggers corresponding environmental consequences globally. The international division of labor has undergone a marked shift: on one hand, many formerly non-industrial economies now possess substantial manufacturing sectors; on the other hand, the proportion of manufacturing employment in the total employment of high-income countries has declined, while service sector employment in high-income countries has continuously risen.
The rise of industrialized semi-peripheral countries has had a major impact on the operation of ecological imperialism and the distribution of ecologically unequal exchange and ecological debt within the world-system. The rise of "South-South Cooperation" has sparked different interpretations: some scholars praise the economic development of the Global South and its potential to escape the dominance of the Global North; conversely, other scholars believe the success of the Global South will ultimately be subsumed into the existing paradigm of global capitalist development. However, despite the changes in the world-system, they are insufficient to prove that industrializing semi-peripheral countries are exempt from imperialism and ecologically unequal exchange. In many cases, semi-peripheral economies serve as suppliers and subcontractors for Global North firms, and many of their exports are ultimately still consumed in the Global North.
V. How Ecological Imperialism Forms in the World-System
From the perspective of world-systems theory, neoliberal international trade, foreign investment, international finance, and the development policies that support them constitute the latest stage of ecological imperialism in the 21st century. Based on what this article considers the major changes in core-periphery relations and the specific socio-ecological impacts of capital accumulation in peripheral and core regions, three stages of the evolution of ecological imperialism in the contemporary capitalist world-system can be identified.
(1) Colonialism: 1492 to the 1960s
The historical roots of the ecological imperialism and global ecological crisis faced by humanity in the 21st century lie in European colonialism. European colonialism began with Columbus's exploration of the Americas in 1492 and continued in various forms until the decolonization movements of the late 20th century. Colonialism is a practice that severely damages the ecological environment. As parts of Asia, Africa, and the Americas fell under the control of European capitalist states, colonialism both impoverished the colonized regions and destroyed their ecologies. To satisfy colonial needs, European colonizers, in the process of plundering colonized regions, not only seized their resources but also restructured the entire society, economy, and the relationship between indigenous peoples and nature. It can be said that these impacts remain deeply rooted today. Under Spanish and Portuguese colonial rule, resources such as gold and silver in the Americas were plundered, causing a severe demographic crisis in which as many as 45 to 90 million indigenous inhabitants died from overwork, disease, or conflict with colonizers.
With the development of colonialism and the introduction of capitalist relations of production, the economic systems of the colonies were restructured accordingly. Before the imposition of colonialism, most indigenous inhabitants could be self-sufficient by relying on local ecosystems. However, with the restructuring of economic systems, pre-colonial food systems were replaced by single crops (monocultures) required by the European Industrial Revolution and specifically designated for export. The transition to monoculture triggered a series of environmental problems, including the over-exploitation of land in peripheral regions, soil depletion, and ultimately a sharp reduction in yields. Through colonial expansion, the initial impetus for capitalist industrialization was formed. Driven by the logic of profit maximization, nature was decomposed into specific components and exploited as "natural capital" during the production process. Colonizers also introduced the logic of primitive accumulation—the enclosure, privatization, and exploitation of the ecological commons.
Colonialism also laid the foundation for the initial accumulation of capital in the Global North. Colonial profits not only triggered a massive flow of resources but also led to a massive flow of capital from the colonies to the metropoles of the suzerain states. Importantly, colonialism provided external markets for the colonizers' product exports; while this constituted another key expansionary drive for capitalism, it also destroyed the indigenous industries of the colonies.
(2) Economic Nationalism and Resource Sovereignty: 1940s to the late 1970s
The 1970s marked the peak of Third World economic nationalism, as post-colonial states sought to exercise stricter regulation over multinational corporations operating within their borders, demanding improved terms of trade for primary products, forming primary product cartels like OPEC, and seeking colonial reparations through platforms such as the United Nations' "New International Economic Order" (NIEO). During this period, the neo-colonial world order in which post-colonial states found themselves faced numerous challenges. The writings of post-colonial African leaders, social activists, and intellectuals reflected the dynamics and dangers of neo-colonialism—namely, the fragile state of dependence on primary products and the continuous control of key African economic sectors by multinational corporations. Crucially, many of these attempts, though not explicitly expressed in environmental terms, formed a challenge to ecological imperialism, as much of the Third World's resistance to neo-colonialism had the reclaiming of resource sovereignty as its fundamental goal.
However, major events in both the First and Third Worlds soon led to the collapse of economic nationalism. Of particular importance was the West's categorical rejection of the Third World's demands to adjust the international economic order, which heralded the arrival of a new stage of aggressive "anti-Third Worldism," as described by Samir Amin. First, these demands diverged sharply from neoliberal and neoconservative propositions and threatened the international economic system based on the "free market." "Neoliberalism," following the free-market line, replaced economic nationalism. As the debt crisis intensified, many developing countries were unable to obtain further private loans and turned to the IMF and the World Bank for credit. These economic organizations imposed a series of conditions on recipient countries, including domestic austerity policies and deep-seated economic policy adjustments known as structural adjustment. In developing countries, these neoliberal policies manifested as a massive pushback against economic nationalism.
(3) Debt, the Collapse of Economic Nationalism, and the Neoliberal Turn: Early 1980s to the Present
Due to the Third World debt crisis and subsequent structural adjustment policies, economic nationalism in most countries of the Third World departed from the historical stage in the 1980s. Third World countries underwent a series of radical structural adjustments, reorienting Global South economies according to the principles of liberal capitalism, comparative advantage, and intensified external integration. This change was reflected in the "Washington Consensus" series of economic policies, which encouraged market-led, outward-oriented export economies and advocated for privatization, trade liberalization, minimized state regulation, and limited national budget deficits. It primarily comprises the following three pillars.
The first pillar: international trade. The aforementioned changes led to severe socio-ecological consequences, which became the hallmark of the neoliberal stage of ecological imperialism. The formation of the first pillar is closely related to international trade development policies. In the view of Western-led institutions such as the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank, trade liberalization, specialized division of labor, and export-oriented development meant that peripheral countries in Latin America and Africa had to specialize in the export of natural resources. For Africa, these policies largely repeated the neo-colonial international division of labor, accelerating the disconnection of its internal socio-economic development and deepening its ecologically unequal exchange with the rest of the world. Research by Thomas O. Wiedmann shows that through international trade, developed countries are able to shift their environmental burdens onto developing countries, thereby maintaining a "draining-the-pond-to-catch-the-fish" [5] style of consumption. Meanwhile, the unequal consumption of global resources by developed countries through trade mechanisms is also reflected in greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water resource usage. Similarly, the consumption of specific commodities by developed countries poses a threat to biodiversity.
The second pillar: preferential policies for foreign investors. It can be argued that transnational corporations (TNCs) and their supply chains are the organizational structures upon which any form of imperialism relies for its survival. Consequently, during the neoliberal stage, the second pillar of ecological imperialism was formed through development policies that vigorously supported the rights of foreign investors. In recent decades, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the OECD have maintained that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is the key to increasing foreign exchange in low-income countries and avoiding debt accumulation. Therefore, neoliberal structural adjustment programs [6] pushed developing countries to open their doors through privatization and various incentives, including prohibitions on nationalization, tax reductions for foreign investors, and the elimination of barriers to profit repatriation; simultaneously, these measures created favorable conditions for TNCs.
Furthermore, trade treaties include substantive protections for investors in the form of the "Investor-State Dispute Settlement" (ISDS) mechanism. ISDS is an arbitration procedure that assesses whether changes in government policy have harmed an investor. If harm has occurred, the procedure mandates the local government to compensate the investor for the corresponding economic losses. It can be said that ISDS has become another coercive mechanism of ecological imperialism. Companies in the natural resource sector (primarily headquartered in the Global North) are the most likely to initiate ISDS proceedings (primarily targeting governments in the Global South). Finally, while protecting investors in multilateral and bilateral trade treaties, the IMF and the World Bank have promulgated a series of reform measures applicable to fields such as mining and land.
The re-formulation of laws and regulations concerning large-scale land investment to attract foreign investors is fundamental to understanding the emergence of a series of socio-ecological problems in the Global South. Numerous large-sample empirical studies link foreign investment and its supply chains to environmental degradation, ranging from deforestation associated with industrial agriculture to the pollution and waste associated with manufacturing outsourcing.
The third pillar: international financial liberalization. International financial liberalization constitutes the third pillar connecting neoliberal globalization, global development, and ecological imperialism. In recent decades, the liberalization of financial markets and global financial capital have developed rapidly, characterized by the rise of a financial hegemon class and the over-accumulation of capital in the financial sector. While trade and investment policies created the necessary conditions for the enclosure of land, privatization, and the continuous accumulation of foreign capital, liberalization liberated financial capital from the constraints of the state. Importantly, global capital can easily access resources in peripheral regions because these resources have been opened to foreign investors following decades of structural adjustment.
The first key point linking international financial capital, ecological imperialism, and the capitalist world-system is that financial capital seeks the highest rate of return with little consideration for socio-ecological impacts. Therefore, financial capital is both the financial lifeblood of the global economy and the originator of the global ecological crisis. For example, recent research shows that despite the temperature control targets set by the Paris Agreement, financial capital continues to fund the two most dangerous activities threatening the global environment, which lead to biodiversity loss and climate change.
The second key point linking international financial capital, ecological imperialism, and the capitalist world-system is that international finance itself reflects the hierarchy of the capitalist world-system, as it is primarily concentrated in the core countries of the Global North. Managers in North America control 58.1% of assets, fund managers in Europe manage 31.8%, and fund managers in Japan manage 4.8%, while the rest of the world controls only 5.2%. Most of the world's 50 largest banks are located in Europe, the United States, and Japan.
Investment profits from the resource sector flow into the global financial sector in the form of interest and dividends, representing—at least in part—the ecological surplus brought about by the enclosure and exploitation of the ecological commons in the Global South. For example, the American investment management company Vanguard Group is the sponsor of the world's largest mutual funds. From 2013 to 2021, Vanguard invested approximately $1.894 billion in the sectors of palm oil, rubber, timber, beef, pulp and paper, and soybeans in Southeast Asia, Brazil, Central Africa, and West Africa—all industries closely associated with deforestation and habitat destruction. The case of Vanguard clearly demonstrates that the surplus from the capitalization of nature in the peripheral and semi-peripheral regions is transferred to the core, or more specifically, flows to the elites of the Global North. For instance, the wealthiest 10% of people in the United States own over 90% of stocks and mutual funds.
In summary, neoliberal development policies have, on the one hand, restructured the economies of developing countries to ensure that debts to First World banks and other financial institutions can be repaid; on the other hand, under the influence of economic nationalism, post-colonial states once regarded sovereignty over natural resources and the power to regulate TNCs as the key to economic independence and ending neo-colonialism. During the process of neoliberal reform, the ecological resources of the Third World and their profits were once again harnessed by capital accumulation. Against the dual background of economic and political crises, the economic nationalist movements—which originated from the contradictions in the expansion of the capitalist world-system—were replaced by the neoliberal counter-revolution [7], namely the stage of ecological imperialism.
VI. Conclusion
As the global ecological crisis intensifies in the 21st century, there is increasing recognition that consumption patterns in the Global North are largely to blame. However, what is less understood is exactly what kind of political and economic system allows this unsustainable consumption to persist while concentrating most capital in the Global North. Research on ecological imperialism based on world-system theory helps to observe these issues. Ecological imperialism requires a large-scale realignment of socio-ecological relations between humanity and nature, and control over the political, economic, and institutional structures of the Global South. Based on world-system theory, this article explains how ecological imperialism operates within the hierarchy of the capitalist world-system. The perspective of world-system theory elucidates the fragility and dependency of the global economic structure, which continue to plague peripheral regions and bring about disastrous socio-ecological impacts, including plunder, foreign debt, the dominance of TNCs, and the deterioration of terms of trade. Finally, the world-system perspective, grounded in historical facts, views today's neoliberal globalization and the development policies that support it as the latest form of ecological imperialism.