World-Systems Theory

Immanuel Wallerstein (1974)

Excerpt taken from my research proposal, pages 34-60.

*Minor adjustments have been made for formatting and readability purposes.

---

Theoretical Foundation

Many theorists and social scientists have offered various approaches to understanding the complex international relations that dictate today’s modernized, yet very delicate, global market. However, Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems theory (1974) provides insights as to how historical events have created a single, intricate transnational framework made up of core, periphery, and semi-periphery nations that are all interconnected.

More specifically, Wallerstein focuses on the growth of capitalism and how the division of labor over time has shaped societies today. Wallerstein’s The Modern World-System I - Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (1974) introduced world-systems theory and discussed the emergence of capitalism and the role of nation-states as the foundation for today’s global social and economic systems. This foundational text explains the natural connection between imperialism and capitalism.

There are specific historical events that shaped Wallerstein’s perception of the modernized world. Having experienced the end of WWII and then the development and progression of the Cold War, Wallerstein believed “the most important thing happening in the twentieth century was the struggle to overcome the control by the West of the rest of the world,” (Calhoun, 2023, p. 259). According to Wallerstein (2014), by 1945 the U.S. had accumulated economic, political, cultural, and military strength which was used to further expand American influence and elevate the nation as a global power.

During wartime, the U.S. increased their production capacities, and after the war sought new customers in reconstructed western Europe and Japan (Wallerstein, 2014). During this time period, it was common for scholars to promote developmentalism, or the idea that all states were in a phase of ‘developing’ and could successfully become developed if they followed the model of other developed countries, such as the U.S. (Wallerstein, 2010). In contrast, world-systems theory suggests that many nations remain in a perpetual cycle of dependency on more powerful nations (Osman, 2024; Wallerstein, 2005).

Furthermore, depending on their place in the global capitalist market, they may never transcend their current status (Pennaforte, 2023; Wallerstein, 2011a). Despite the many historical components of world-systems theory, for the purposes of this study, I will focus on how the development of the global capitalistic market post-WWII has affected opportunities for women in the FAS.

Several elements underpin the major themes of world-systems theory. To begin, world-systems theory is influenced by concepts from both Marxism and dependency theory (Calhoun, 2023; Ruvalcaba, 2024). From Marxism, Wallerstein acknowledged in his own theory the existence of social conflicts between groups and the class struggles that result from the accumulation of capital (Pennaforte, 2023). He advanced this notion by applying the idea of capitalism and class struggle to a global degree, emphasizing the existence of a singular world system and the exploitation of less-developed nations (Frame, 2022; Williams, 2015).

He considered Karl Marx to be a “significant thinker of the nineteenth century” (Williams, 2015, p. 204), noting that at one point in time being a Marxist, in Europe especially, “was virtually the only respectable position” (Williams, 2015, p. 204). In his works, Wallerstein recognized the contribution of Marxism to the discourse among scholars of his time and its influence on the concepts of social class, conflict, and exploitation.

World-systems theory shares some of the same foundational arguments of dependency theory. Developed by economists and sociologists in Latin America during the 1970s, dependency theory proposed an explanation for the post-colonial disparities in the global south (Ruvalcaba, 2024). Dependency theorists opposed the idea of modernization. Instead, they suggested that underdeveloped nations were perpetually dependent on industrialized, developed nations because of exploitative, capitalistic systems and practices (Osman, 2024; Wallerstein, 2005).

They argued that the global economic system was composed of core (developed) economies and peripheral (underdeveloped) economies, and that the system worked to benefit the former at the expense of the latter (Osman, 2024). Like these theorists, Wallerstein also believed that developed nations, driven by capitalism, exploited underdeveloped nations. In his view, if the endless accumulation of capital is the primary goal, unequal distribution of such capital is necessary in order for profits to even exist (Hopkins & Wallerstein, 1996).

He further explains that this economic inequality was integral in shaping the world labor force, as those who experienced industrial growth and high profit levels became dependent on access to cheap labor markets. He believed that core nations, in the quest for continuous capital gains, have an interest in maintaining the underdevelopment of the periphery to preserve access to low-cost raw materials and laborers (Osman, 2024).

Both world-systems theory and dependency theory acknowledge the existence of global core-periphery relationships and contend that the world-economy works to benefit developed nations at the expense of underdeveloped nations.

Despite evident similarities, there are some notable differences between these theories that should be acknowledged. To begin, Wallerstein (2011a) denied the traditional Marxist descriptions of political and economic boundaries being limited by national borders, and offered instead, that state economies and classes were part of a larger world-system. He also rejected the idea of inevitable progress, something he considered a classical part of Marxist thinking (Williams, 2015). Although he thought advancement was possible, he believed that mobility in the global system could only happen if peripheral nations implemented policies that took advantage of the capitalistic market (Calhoun, 2023).

Another difference between Marxism and world-systems theory is that Wallerstein traced capitalism back to the sixteenth century, emphasizing the continuity of it as a global system instead of a production stage that followed feudalism (Wallerstein, 2011a). In summary, Marxism explains inequality through class-struggle within societies while world-systems theory explains it through the structure of the global capitalist economy.

An important difference between dependency theory and world-systems theory is Wallerstein’s introduction of the semiperiphery. While dependency theorists only distinguished between core and periphery nations, world-systems theory also included a third category: semiperiphery nations (Ruvalcaba, 2024).

These semiperiphery nations, which demonstrate a wide range of economic strengths and political histories, are seen as both exploiters and also being exploited (Calhoun, 2023; Ruvalcaba, 2024; Wallerstein, 2011a). They embody characteristics of core and peripheral nations while facing complex and conflicting pressures specific to middle-income countries with emerging economies (Frame, 2022; Jacinto, 2023). The distinction of the semiperiphery allows for more fluidity in analyzing economic positions in the world-system.

In the following pages, I will discuss these tenets in greater detail. I will provide a thorough discussion of capitalism on a global scale, the division of labor and gender roles in society, the functions of core, semiperiphery, and periphery nations, and U.S. hegemony according to Wallerstein and world-systems theory. I aim to show that world-systems theory aids in understanding how the political, social, and economic conditions in the FAS developed, post-WWII, and how these conditions ultimately impact the academic achievements of women living there.

Capitalism

Capitalism is the principal component of world-systems theory. According to Wallerstein (1983), capitalism is a social system that developed in the sixteenth century as a result of the desire for self-expansion, primitive accumulation, and colonialism (Calhoun, 2023). Wallerstein believed that the defining features of capitalism are the endless pursuit of capital and the constant drive to maximize profits (Pennaforte, 2023).

He described capitalism as successful in both its ability to ensure the continuous accumulation of capital against all odds, and in creating political structures that are powerful enough to support the system (Wallerstein, 2005). He also believed capitalism to be successful in “preserving great inequality in the name of establishing equality” (Williams, 2015, p. 208). It is these successes that have consequently shaped the social, political, and economic dynamics of the world-system we know today.

As proposed by world-systems theory, for capitalism to thrive it is dependent on the exploitative relationships that exist between nations. That is, core nations practice institutional power to enforce trade rules, patents, investments, and regulations that normalize and reinforce the exploitation of peripheral and semiperipheral nations (Frame, 2022; Wallerstein, 2011a). This power projection occurs through political, military, economic, cultural, and communication tools used to control the exploited (Osman, 2024). Additionally, he thought of capitalism as a global system based on an international division of labor (Calhoun, 2023). He further explained that the unequal exchange of raw materials and labor between nations supported exploitation because core nations continuously rely on the extraction of value from peripheral nations (Wallerstein, 2011a).

This capitalist system, as he saw it, inherently generates inequalities and instabilities that lead to social unrest and economic crises, which he considered essential functions of the systems and its survival (Wallerstein, 2005). Although challenges to the system have seemingly been subdued, tensions can accumulate over time and eventually threaten its stability and effectiveness.

Ultimately, Wallerstein believed that contradictions within the capitalist system will cause it to collapse and be replaced by a new system. He argued that the pressures of social movements and the resistance of the exploited can no longer be mitigated without threatening the fundamental requirement of maximizing profits (Williams, 2015). He claimed that capitalism itself is imploding; that the practice of endlessly accumulating capital and the political structures meant to keep the system running are failing simultaneously (Calhoun, 2023; Wallerstein, 2005).

To Wallerstein, the bifurcation of capitalism presents a distinctive opportunity for humans to affect the future. He viewed periods of stability as offering little ability for transformation but instead, considered a capitalist world-system in turmoil as a chance for individuals to determine what will replace it (Williams, 2015). Today, although he considered capitalism to be in a structural crisis, he believed individuals and communities alike are in a unique position to influence the development of the next economic world-system.

Division of Labor and Gender Roles

The global division of labor and the subsequent gender roles that have been instituted in today’s capitalist system are best explained using world-systems theory. Wallerstein (1983; 2011a) considered the inequitable expansion of the economy a necessary component of capitalism. The result of this unequal growth, in turn, established the international division of labor (Ruvalcaba, 2024; Wallerstein, 2011c). This ongoing, axial division of labor distributed production by hierarchy which led to the creation of core, semiperiphery, and periphery zones in the world-economy (Frame, 2022; Wallerstein, 2011a; 2011c).

Whereas the periphery provides low-cost labor and materials, core nations offer high-value, industrialized products in exchange. This system, in effect, perpetuates the cycles of economic inequality and dependency between nations (Frame, 2022; Pennaforte, 2023; Wallerstein, 2011a). However, it is within this economic division of labor that parallel groups of producers began to unify both culturally and politically (Wallerstein, 2010). Furthermore, in the late nineteenth century, universal male suffrage throughout Europe was established and workers’ unions formed to appease the lower classes via enhanced political participation (Wallerstein, 2011c).

As a result, adult males who were granted full citizenship to their respective nations simultaneously became more intertwined with their political systems, setting the foundation for gender roles and expectations in the labor force (Miraj, 2022). It is in this process that women’s roles as unpaid laborers were structurally established as an essential function of the world-system.

Although gender is not a substantial focus of Wallerstein’s theory, it is still recognized as an element of the capitalist world-economy. Using the analytical framework of world-systems theory, the division of labor under capitalism became correlated with the valuation of work, and consequently, the function of women as laborers was determined to be necessary for survival of the household yet non-productive in the economic market (Wallerstein, 1983).

Wallerstein explained that in a capitalist system, adult male wage-earners were seen as part of the economically active labor force while adult female home-workers were seen as necessary only to sustain the household at its minimal level. To compound this, as democracy expanded globally throughout the twentieth century, those in power sought to contain popular sovereignty by limiting citizenship to “active” citizens, or those who contributed to the economic system (Miraj, 2022; Wallerstein, 2012). “Passive” citizens who did not contribute to the economy, including women, were thought of as incapable of exercising political rights. Moreover, the role of women as unpaid workers had been steadily devalued, leading to greater social and legal gender distinctions and discriminations (Miraj, 2022; Wallerstein, 1983).

Despite gender roles having long existed, the traditionalist mindset associated with anti-colonial movements and the growth of the capitalist world-system both established and reinforced male dominance in societies and in the workplace (Miraj, 2022; Williams, 2015). When using world-systems theory to better understand gender roles in society, it is clear that these roles are constructed by the structural and operational demands of the capitalist world-economy and strengthened by social practices and political policies.

Core, Semiperiphery, and Periphery Nations

Global inequalities have long been a topic of discussion for scholars in the social sciences fields. World-systems theory was influenced by dependency theorist Raúl Prebisch (1950), who coined the terms “core” and “periphery” to distinguish between industrialized, developed nations (the core) and rural, underdeveloped nations (the periphery) within the world-economy (Wallerstein, 2011c). Additionally, Andre Gunder Frank’s (1966) concept of “the development of underdevelopment” (Calhoun, 2023, p. 270), or the idea that the advancement of core nations depends on the sustained underdevelopment of peripheral nations, also contributed to Wallerstein’s views (Frame, 2022).

In the modern world-system, core nations maintain their dominant status by exploiting and impoverishing peripheral nations (Osman, 2024). Furthermore, acculturation imposed by core countries socializes the periphery into accepting their value relative to their productivity, and therefore reinforcing the unequal distribution of capital (Niblett, 2021). Although the core and periphery represent the most polarized ends of the global market, Wallerstein also recognized the developing role of intermediary countries in the capitalist world-economy.

Globalization in the twentieth century had a significant effect on the world-system and the development of emerging economies. As capitalism grew to encompass global production, multinational corporations in search of cheaper labor began outsourcing manufacturing jobs (Frame, 2022). This prompted industrialization and economic advancements in what were once colonized nations and generated middle-income countries from the peripheral regions. These nations demonstrated a combination of core and periphery activities, represented a wide range of economic and political structures, served important roles as mediators in the transferring of resources, and provided both low- and high-skilled laborers (Anastasi, 2023; Calhoun, 2023; Denemark, 2021; Frame, 2022; Jacinto, 2023; Noronha, 2023; Ruvalcaba, 2024; Wallerstein, 2011a).

Brazil and Mexico, for example, steadily improved their economies after decolonization and by the 1970’s, Wallerstein affirmed their transition to the semiperiphery despite other Latin American countries remaining in the periphery (Ruvalcaba, 2024; Wallerstein, 2005). However, despite the advancements of developing countries, neocolonial practices upheld the persistent economic, political, and technological dependencies of formerly colonized nations as core nations worked to maintain control of an increasingly complex global market (Frame, 2022). When viewed through the lens of world-systems theory, it becomes clear that inequalities between nations are structurally embedded within a capitalist world-system that inherently favors the core. In summary, there are several important points to consider relative to the hierarchal classification of nations in the world-system.

First, it is important to note Wallerstein’s belief that the global division of labor is what determines the core, semiperiphery, and periphery zones in the world-economy (Wallerstein, 2011a; 2011c). Second, he makes the argument that capitalism determines the global division of labor, which in turn prevents semiperipheral and peripheral nations from advancing economically and ensures the continuous success of core nations in the world-market (Anastasi, 2023). This system is hierarchal and inherently favors the core (Wallerstein, 2011a).

By extension, in an economic system, the periphery becomes the losing zone, and the core becomes the winning zone, therefore reflecting the geographical structure of the flow of capital (Pennaforte, 2023; Wallerstein, 1983). These unequal relationships are reinforced through exploitation, dependency, and cultural domination, which ultimately sustain the marginalization of underdeveloped nations.

And finally, according to Wallerstein, for the global market to exist, it is necessary for powerful nations to guide state policies in favor of both merchant and industrial interests (Chirot, 2012; Wallerstein, 2011b). It is in this practice that U.S. hegemony emerged in the post-WWII era of anti-colonialism and democratic expansion. 

U.S. Hegemony

Another key concept of world-systems theory is the existence of hegemonic powers in the world-economy. As Wallerstein (2011b) explains, the world-economy is composed of sovereign nations that make up an interstate system, and a hegemonic power is considered significantly more powerful than the other strong nations in the system. The existence of a hegemonic power means that one nation has certain advantages, usually obtained through political pressures, which enable it to construct rules for the system it believes to be best.

Hegemony is not a structure, but rather a process in time that marks the cyclic patterns of the world-economy and serves as necessary mechanism of capitalism. Furthermore, it requires the existence of political, cultural, and military strength combined with an immense economic advantage (Wallerstein, 2014). Historically, Wallerstein (1983; 2011b) acknowledged three hegemonic powers - the United Provinces from 1648 to the 1660s, the United Kingdom (U.K.) from 1815 to 1848, and the U.S. from 1945 to 1967/1973. According to world-systems theory, hegemonic powers were an essential element in shaping today’s global institutions and cultural ideologies.

There were several factors that contributed to the rise of the U.S. as a hegemonic power. To begin, pre-existing relationships between the U.S., Europe, and Latin America in the interwar period (1918-1939) established trade markets that gave U.S. capitalists an economic advantage (Quijano & Wallerstein, 1992). In addition, these alliances freed the U.S. from military expenditures prior to 1941 and encouraged instead, the development of production and technological innovation (Wallerstein, 1995).

During WWII however, the U.S. generously reallocated funds to wartime manufacturing and mastered productive efficiency, propelling the country forward as an industrial power (Wallerstein, 1995; 2014). Furthermore, while Eurasia experienced extreme physical and economic destructions during the war, infrastructure in the U.S. remained intact and therefore gave the U.S. an overwhelming global advantage (Wallerstein, 1995). By the end of the war, as the only remaining industrial nation in the world, the U.S. became a hegemonic power.

The U.S. officially entered its hegemonic period following the conclusion of WWII. By using its newfound superiority and increased territorial oversight to construct a new world order, the U.S. established a quasi-monopoly of geopolitical strength that guaranteed its predominance in the world-economy (Wallerstein, 1996; 2014). Reconstruction in Europe and Japan yielded new markets to American capitalists, and U.S.-based quasi-monopolies took active political roles in protecting their global investments (Wallerstein, 1995; 2014). In addition, the Cold War provided further justification for the U.S. to become politically involved with dictatorial states, especially in regions that fell within their sphere of influence (Wallerstein, 1995).

Accordingly, the U.S. consistently supported decolonization throughout Latin America, Asia, and the Middle East while simultaneously utilizing their power to ensure that newly installed democratic regimes were pro-American. As underdeveloped nations fought for modernity and civil equality, American cultural and social influences in these regions grew (Quijano & Wallerstein, 1992). Subsequently, economic disparities between nations post-WWII and the idea of American exceptionalism in underdeveloped nations assisted the U.S. in garnering global support for trade laws and socioeconomic policies that supported its own capitalist interests and privileges (Calhoun, 2023; Wallerstein, 1983; 1995). At the time, the system both supported U.S. hegemony while also prescribing its demise.

The end of WWII marked the beginning of undeniable U.S. hegemony in the world-system, and also the beginning of its end. In the decades that followed there were significant social, cultural, and economic events that challenged the U.S. hegemonic structure (Wallerstein, 1995). American support for financing the military was concurrently beginning to wane and social movements throughout the country opposing the Vietnam War strongly reflected that sentiment (Wallerstein, 2014). To Wallerstein, this was a considerable factor in the inevitable downfall of U.S. hegemony as it contradicted the obligation of a hegemonic power to maintain its global militaristic dominance.

Meanwhile, U.S. capitalists were concurrently losing their quasi-monopoly of production as periphery nations industrialized, independent governments replaced colonization, and Europe and Japan renewed their economies (Wallerstein, 1995; 2014). During this time, a series of interconnected movements around the world disputed the existing political, economic, and cultural systems. Anti-imperialism, civil rights struggles, and anti-establishment attitudes drove the revolutions of 1968 and demonstrated a global resistance to U.S. hegemony and the Soviet’s compliance with it. To Wallerstein, this indicated a period of instability and consequently, an opportunity for transformation (Calhoun, 2023; Noronha, 2023; Williams, 2015). It was, in fact, the world-wide revolutions of 1968 that both weakened U.S. legitimacy and served as a turning point in the world-system.

The rise and fall of the U.S. as a global power can be clearly explained using world-systems theory. Wallerstein (2011a) illuminated the historical events that led to the development of the world-economy and the processes that established and supported U.S. hegemony. Through the lens of world-systems theory, the position of the U.S. in the world-economy today is visibly, slowly collapsing and competition for a new hegemonic power has begun (Jacinto, 2023; Noronha, 2023; Wallerstein, 1995).

Wallerstein (2011b) believed the downfall of American domination will inevitably upset the international balance of power and create an opportunity for China to rise as a global capitalist leader. Whether this occurs, according to Wallerstein’s theory, this impending shift is the beginning of a new chapter in the ongoing struggle for dominance in the world-system.

Application of World-Systems Theory in Existing Literature

A review of existing literature revealed multiple studies in which Wallerstein’s world-systems theory was applied to analyze global inequalities, economic dependencies, and political power structures. These studies parallel the objectives of my research, as they explore how historical and structural forces influence the distribution of resources and opportunities. In this section, I will highlight selected works that use world-systems theory as the foundation for analyzing socioeconomic and political conditions in various regions and populations. These examples illustrate the theory’s versatility and provide context for situating my study within the broader scholarly conversation.

Several researchers used Wallerstein’s theory to explain the persistent socioeconomic and political conditions in countries considered peripheral or semiperipheral in the world-economy. For example, Ruvalcaba (2024) conducted a systematic literature review of research that examined the historical positioning of Latin America in the world-market. His study revealed a consensus regarding the existence of different degrees of peripheralization and semiperipheralization between countries within the region. Ruvalcaba found in ten sources, published between 1966 and 2015, that Latin American countries in the peripheral and semiperipheral zones demonstrated dynamic attributes that further separated them into subgroups based on their socioeconomic and political capacities. Additionally, this study reinforced Wallerstein’s notion of limited mobility between zones. While Ruvalcaba’s work emphasized the internal differentiation of the peripheral and semiperipheral zones, the following researcher focused on the semiperiphery and offered case-specific insights into the barriers to core advancement.

Anastasi (2023) used world-systems theory to explain why some countries fail to develop. Specifically, this researcher addressed the middle-income trap of the semiperiphery, using Mexico and South Korea as case studies. It was explained how low-income countries can develop their economies enough to improve their status to the semiperiphery however, due to the nature of the world-economy these countries are unable to secure enough surplus capital to make the investments in areas necessary for advancement to the core.

Anastasi argued that in addition, core nations do not benefit from the increased competition that comes with the advancement of countries from the peripheral to the core. Therefore, core nations exercise political, economic, and social controls to maintain the semiperiphery. In the case of South Korea, Anastasi observed that advancement from the semiperiphery to the core is indeed possible however, extremely difficult, and even more rare. Building on the discussion of structural stability in the world-economy, the next study examined how external shocks affect the progression of nations in hierarchy of the system. 

Jacinto (2023) grounded a quantitative study using Wallerstein’s theory to investigate how the 2008-2009 global economic crisis impacted the upward mobility of nations in the world-system. Jacinto used aggregate trade data between 2007 and 2017 to measure the structural positions of 191 economies before the crisis and to determine the existence of any mobility after the crisis. The results of this study confirmed the existence of a stable, persistent core-periphery structure. Furthermore, the hierarchy of this structure remained unchanged despite the economic downturn that resulted from the 2008-2009 crisis.

Likewise, these findings support Wallerstein’s assertion that while semiperiphery nations can experience faster growth during cycles of economic expansion and contraction, significant upward mobility is considered an exception. Of the economies studied, Jacinto discovered that only Vietnam, Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia were able to achieve noticeable advancement in the world-system. Together, these studies demonstrate the strength of the core-periphery hierarchy and the structural barriers to upward mobility. To expand on this discussion, the following articles address how the capitalist world-system has shaped environmental and social outcomes.

Recent scholars have utilized world-systems theory to ground research that examined the ecological and social effects of capitalism and global development. For example, Frame (2022) applied the concepts of world-systems theory to explore the relationships between global ecological crises and ecological imperialism. In this study, world-systems theory is used to explain how land, water, and the resources contained therein are systemically exploited to maintain the economic development and consumption levels of core nations.

Frame concluded that ecological imperialism is hierarchal and driven by the quest for the endless accumulation of capital. In addition, political and economic mechanisms have not only permitted exploitation of the environment to continue but also reinforced the structural vulnerabilities and dependencies of peripheral regions. This study illuminates how the expansionary nature of capitalism has led to significant ecological repercussions. Using China as an example, the author uses world-systems theory as the foundation for examining the environmental consequences of industrialization as transnational corporations in the core continually seek cheap labor and outsource manufacturing.

While environmental exploitation reflects one dimension of the inequalities embedded in the world-system, other research applies the framework to examine social and political resistance to imperial domination. Miraj (2022) expanded on the basic concepts of Wallerstein’s theory by incorporating a feminist lens to objectively analyze the historical role of women in revolutionary anti-colonial movements. This empirical case study analyzed published periodicals of the Ghadar Party, illustrating how gender is another dimension of the system’s inherent inequalities. The author argued that opposition to colonialism was determined by the world-system and bound by core-periphery aspects.

Furthermore, traditionalist attitudes consistently supported a patriarchal socio-politico system that legitimized the marginalization of women and undermined their advancement in favor of anti-systemic movements. By examining the Ghadar Party through a feminist world-systems lens, Miraj showed how historical capitalism influenced formal gender disparities in underdeveloped regions. In addition, these structural inequalities were perpetuated throughout the twentieth century by male-dominated liberal ideology.

Another example of scholarly work used world-systems theory as a foundation to examine factors that contributed to Portugal’s transition to democracy. More specifically, Norohna (2023) analyzed the Carnation Revolution of 1974-75 and Portugal’s subsequent political transition within the context of the semiperiphery of the capitalist world-system. As the author explained, Portugal experienced significant economic growth associated with industrialization, the provision of low-cost labor, and increased trade opportunities after WWII. However, by using existing capital to maintain its extensive colonial rule in Africa, the nation failed to invest in its own infrastructure and social programs.

Without these investments, Portugal solidified its semiperipheral status and its dependency on both the core and the periphery. Together, these circumstances determined the undertone of communal resistance to imperial rule. After the revolution, rapid decolonization reduced Portugal’s ability to exploit the periphery and forced a political and economic reorientation that supported European integration. Although this spurred eventual economic growth and social advancements, the author demonstrated that despite this, historical structural constraints of the world-system preserved Portugal’s semiperipheral status.

On the other hand, while Portugal’s post-revolution transformation illustrated gradual shifts within the semiperiphery, China’s recent trajectory has demonstrated how a nation can leverage its position to potentially challenge core dominance within the larger world-system. Denemark (2021) offered a thorough review of insights regarding China’s position in the semiperiphery using world-systems analysis to understand its rapid rise in the global market and accompanying economic success. According to the author’s assessment, China’s unique position in the system can be attributed to its “privilege of historic backwardness” (p. 331), or its low-cost production capacity that specialized in manufacturing for export.

This ability, in turn, attracted core-based transnational corporations and initiated large-scale investments in manufacturing and distribution (Denemark, 2021). In addition, China’s markets were premised on non-Western foundations, blending state-led economics with market-oriented reforms that allowed it to integrate into the system on its own terms. Denemark’s work defends the viewpoint that despite a notable difference in societal and economic models, China is dynamic enough to benefit from cyclic downturns in the global economy and is poised to contest the hierarchal structure of the capitalist world-system.

The application of world-systems theory across diverse contexts demonstrates its value as a comprehensive framework for analyzing structural inequalities, historical dependencies, and the persistence of core-periphery dynamics. Whether examining economic stagnation in the semiperiphery, environmental exploitation, gendered divisions of labor, or political transitions, scholars have proven the theory’s versatility in explaining how systemic forces shape national trajectories and individual opportunities. These studies also reveal the enduring stability of the global hierarchy and highlight the formidable barriers to upward mobility within the world-economy. Building on these insights, my study applies world-systems theory to the unique post-WWII conditions of the FAS, situating women’s educational outcomes within the broader historical, political, and economic forces that continue to define their position in the capitalist world-system today.

In the following pages, I will provide the rationale for selecting world-systems theory as the foundation for my study. As a preface, it is important to understand the historical context of the political and economic relationship between the U.S. and the FAS in the post-WWII era. It is also important to note that according to Wallerstein (1995), conditions leading up to the end of the war provided an opportunity for the U.S. to assume itself as a hegemonic power of the growing capitalist world-economy.

This transition occurred at the onset of U.S. control over the central Pacific region and further contributed to its long-term interests in the islands (Hunt, 2024). In addition, the Cold War era and the anti-colonial movements during that time continued to shape the dynamics of U.S. involvement in underdeveloped areas of the world (Wallerstein, 1995). As I describe below, these historical developments collectively worked to determine the structural conditions that continue to support regional inequalities today.

The political and economic relationships between the U.S. and the FAS have been greatly influenced by first, a neocolonial trusteeship following WWII, and then later by the COFA agreements that established the sovereignty of the island states. Initially, interest in the islands was strictly for military purposes, and the U.S. used its wartime successes and newfound political leverage to gain military and economic control the region, arguing that the geographical position of the islands was paramount to U.S. security (Cannon, 2021; Paskal, 2024). Designating this area “the world’s sole Strategic Trust Territory” (Paskal, 2024, p. 211), the UN appointed the U.S. to oversee the islands and the waters surrounding them (Paskal, 2024).

This validated the need for American maritime security against the potential of future threats from Asia. The resulting formation of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) (1947) officially gave the U.S. exclusive access to a significant oceanic region comparable in size to the U.S. itself (Hunt, 2024; Lum & Tupuola, 2024). It also gave the U.S. permission to equally fortify and isolate parts of the region at their discretion (Cannon, 2021). This was the beginning of decades of neocolonial rule specific to the Pacific islands that would eventually become the FAS.

In the decades that followed, the islands experienced various forms of U.S. dominance and exploitation, both before and after gaining independence. A strong example of this occurred during the escalation of the Cold War, which provoked the U.S. to use what is now known as the Marshall Islands as nuclear and ballistic missile testing sites (Cannon, 2021; Hunt, 2024). As tensions between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. grew between 1946 and 1958, the U.S. conducted sixty-seven nuclear weapons tests in the region (Bahng, 2020). This rendered islands there uninhabitable and caused the forced relocation of many natives living on the affected atolls (Bahng, 2020; Cannon, 2021).

During this time period, “the U.S. had adopted the ‘island chain strategy’” (Cannon, 2021, p. 245), setting up military bases from California to the Philippines to prevent competing governments, such as Russia and China, from gaining access to those locations (Hunt, 2024; Lum & Tupuola, 2024). It became evident that mitigating U.S. vulnerability in the Pacific required the development and preservation of intensive military and political controls in the Oceania region.

While the U.S. executed strategic governance of the TTPI and established its military presence, anti-colonial sentiment was growing in the Pacific Islands. In the 1960s, delegates from the TTPI formed the Congress of Micronesia and ultimately divided the islands into what is today (Paskal, 2024). Despite eventually achieving political sovereignty, the economies of the newly established nations were poorly developed and still heavily dependent on U.S. support (Puas & D’arcy, 2021). Furthermore, without their own armed forces, significant U.S. military presence throughout the region provided necessary security and protection for the small islands (Paskal, 2024). With these factors in mind, Micronesian leaders agreed to voluntarily participate in the COFA agreements (Puas & D’arcy, 2021).

Although the FAS assumed political independence through this process, the U.S. still maintained military control, economic supremacy, and political power over the islands (Hunt, 2024; Paskal, 2024). At the time COFA was established, the intention of U.S. support was to build the islands’ economies, protect them from further foreign invasion, and to promote self-sustainability throughout the region (Cannon, 2021; Paskal, 2024). However, since its implementation in the FSM and the RMI in 1986 and Palau in 1994, substantial economic assistance has only made the islands more dependent on U.S. support over time (Hunt, 2024; Lum & Tupuola, 2024; Paskal, 2024). The COFA agreements solidified the political dominance of the U.S. over the FAS and further strengthened the existing structural inequalities between the nations.

Besides its exploitative use of the military and political dominance throughout the region, the U.S. also used the FAS to support its position in the global market. The collapse of the U.S.S.R. and the end of the Cold War (1989-1991) aligned with rapid economic growth in Asia and in Australasia (Cannon, 2021). This reinforced the importance of the Pacific islands as a geographical link to U.S. partnerships in the region. In addition, American assimilation in the FAS had generated an almost exclusive market for U.S. businesses to sell to (Hunt, 2024).

Furthermore, under COFA, FAS citizens are free to live, work, and study in the U.S., as well as serve in the military without a visa (Cannon, 2021). FAS migrants are also eligible for U.S. federal programs including Pell Grants, Federal Work Study (FWS), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (Lum & Tupuola, 2024; U.S. Department of the Interior, 2025). These factors helped generate pro-American sentiment while further reinforcing the dependency of the FAS and its citizens on the U.S. and its resources (Puas & D’arcy, 2021). As researchers have shown, U.S. dominance and exploitation of the islands after WWII specifically supported both its military and capitalist interests in the region (Cannon, 2021; Hunt, 2024).

Since then, the islands have played a substantial role in supporting U.S. security presence in the Pacific and have served as an important oceanic highway for U.S. trade in the global market (Hunt, 2024; Lum & Tupuola, 2024). Together, these factors illustrate how the FAS became integral to sustaining U.S. hegemony in both the Pacific and the greater world-system.

Current conditions in the FAS illustrate how COFA and compact colonialism have reinforced patterns of dependency rather than fostering sustainable development. Today, despite decades of aid distribution and support from the U.S. via the COFA agreements, foreign financial support remains a substantial source of income for the FAS (Cannon, 2021). In addition to their fiscal dependency, the islands also continue to face significant limitations resulting from their remote locations, limited resources, small land areas, and vulnerability to climate change (Hunt, 2024; Puas & D’arcy, 2021).

Researchers agree that COFA has done little to build the necessary infrastructure and social programs to provide services that would encourage the advancement of the FAS’ economies and its citizens (Cannon, 2021; Hunt, 2024; Lum & Tupuola, 2024; Paskal, 2024). Although the COFA agreements remain intact, China’s influence in the FAS has increased extensively and poses a major threat to both democratic ideals in the Pacific and U.S. capitalism worldwide (Cannon, 2021; Puas & D’arcy, 2021). When viewed through the macro-level lens of world-systems theory, it is evident that the U.S. has a vested interest in maintaining its global capitalist interests and has historically used its dominance over the FAS to help maintain its position as a core nation in the world-system. 

By situating contemporary conditions within long-standing patterns of global inequality, Wallerstein’s world-systems theory aligns closely with this study’s aim to examine how post-WWII political and economic arrangements have shaped educational opportunities for women in the FAS. More specifically, the concepts of dependency and limited upward mobility in a capitalist society can be used to demonstrate how decades of U.S. control and influence have created enduring challenges in the FAS, which have ultimately impacted the educational opportunities for women living there.

While gender was not a central focus of Wallerstein’s work, his theory provides the framework for integrating the gendered division of labor into political and economic analysis. Furthermore, world-systems theory explains how women’s historic roles as unpaid workers has contributed to the development of structural inequalities and constraints that inhibit women from accessing educational opportunities today. In addition, the theory’s emphasis on post-WWII global capitalism correlates with the time frame of U.S. control over the FAS and supports the historical context of the study’s variables.

Finally, I will use world-systems theory as the analytical lens to guide my interpretation of the data and to objectively evaluate the results. This will enable me to better understand how the unique relationship between the U.S. and the FAS has affected the academic achievement of women living in the FAS.

The purpose of my study is to determine if socioeconomic status and perceived motivations and barriers to higher education are related to the academic achievement of women who attend a postsecondary institution in the FAS. My research question investigates women’s social and economic standing as well as how they view the factors that either encourage or discourage them from achieving academic success in higher education.

This directly relates to world-systems theory because it examines both the statuses of women in peripheral nations and investigates the long-term effects of persistent inequalities caused by the core-periphery relationship between the U.S. and the FAS. My study will build on this theory by connecting macro-level global patterns of inequity to individual-level experiences, showing how the FAS’s peripheral position shapes women’s experiences and ultimately, their academic achievement. Moreover, by using world-systems theory as the foundation, I can evaluate the results within the context of the historical geopolitical landscape as well as today’s global capitalist market.

Consequently, using this framework also supports my intention to distribute the study’s results in ways that will effectively address the SDOH of women living in the FAS and promote positive social change throughout the region. While this discussion so far has demonstrated the relevance and applicability of world-systems theory, in the literature review below I will describe the FAS and COFA in greater detail as well as provide an exhaustive review of the study’s independent and dependent variables.

---

References

Anastasi, A.W. (2023). Trapped in the semi-periphery: Understanding the middle-income trap from a world-systems theory perspective. Journal of World-Systems Research, 29(1), 174-192. https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2023.1119

Bahng, A. (2020). The Pacific proving grounds and the proliferation of settler environmentalism. Journal of Transnational American Studies, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.5070/T8112049580

Calhoun, C. (2023). Immanuel Wallerstein and the genesis of world-systems analysis. Journal of World-Systems Research, 29(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.5195/jwsr.2023.1197

Cannon, S.E. (2021). Climate change denial and the jeopardised interest of the United States in the Freely Associated States of Micronesia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 62(2), 242-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12295

Chirot, D. (2012). Revisiting the rise of the West. In: Special symposium on the modern world-system, vols. I-IV. American Sociological Association. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306111430786

Denemark, R.A. (2021). Uneven and combined development, international political economy, and world-systems analysis. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 34(2), 328-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2021.1889972

Frame, M. (2022). Ecological imperialism: A world-systems approach. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 81(3), 503-534. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ajes.12472

Hunt, E. (2024). Compact colonialism: U.S. neocolonialism in Micronesia in the early twenty-first century. Postcolonial Studies, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2023.2261705

Hopkins, T.K., & Wallerstein, I. (1996). The age of transition: Trajectory of the world-system, 1945-2025. Zed Books, Ltd.

Jacinto, M. (2023). Assessing the stability of the core/periphery structure and mobility in the post-2008 global crisis era: A world-systems analysis of the international trade network. Journal of World-Systems Research, 29(2), 401-430. https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2023.1148

Lum, T., & Tupuola, J. G. (2024). The Freely Associated States and issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service: Report, 1–18.

Miraj, U. (2022). For a revolutionary feminist world-systems analysis: The case of Ghadar. Journal of World-Systems Research, 28(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2022.1065

Niblett, M. (2021). The ‘catastrophic consciousness of backwardness’: Culture and dependency theory in Latin America. New Formations, (103), 113-133). https://doi.org/10.3898/NEWF:103.07.2021

Noronha, R. (2023). The political economy of the carnation revolution (1974-75): A world-systems analysis. Journal of World-Systems Research, 29, 351-376. https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2023.1207

Osman, O. (2024). Western domination, destructive governance, and the perpetual development crisis in the Arab region. World Review of Political Economy, 15(1), 82-122. https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.15.1.0082

Paskal, C. (2024). Protecting the corridor of freedom to America’s Asian border. Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, 7(4), 207-220.

Pennaforte, C. (2023). World-systems analysis: An introduction to the thinking of Immanuel Wallerstein. Pelotas.

Puas, G., & D’arcy, P. (2021). Micronesia and the rise of China: Realpolitik meets the reef. Journal of Pacific History, 56(3), 274-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223344.2021.1949780

Quijano, A., & Wallerstein, I. (1992). Americanity as a concept, or the Americas in the modern world-system. International Social Science Journal, 44(134), 549.

Ruvalcaba, D. M. (2024). Dependency/world-systems theories and structural position of Latin American countries. Social Change, 54(1), 86-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/00490857231221207

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2025). The Compacts of Free Association and living in the United States. https://www.doi.gov/oia/COFAinUS

Wallerstein, I. (2010). A world-system perspective on the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 61, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2009.01244.x

Wallerstein, I. (2005). After developmentalism and globalization, what? Social Forces (University of North Carolina Press), 83(3), 1263–1278. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2005.0049

Wallerstein, I. (1995). After liberalism. The New Press.

Wallerstein, I. (2014). Antisystemic movements, yesterday and today. Journal of World-Systems Research, 20(2), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2014.593

Wallerstein, I. (1983). Historical capitalism. Verso.

Wallerstein, I. (2012). Reflections on and intellectual adventure. In: Special symposium on the modern world-system, vols. I-IV. American Sociological Association. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306111430786

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. University of California Press.

Wallerstein, I. (2011a). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. University of California Press. Previously published in 1974 by Academic Press, Inc.

Wallerstein, I. (2011b). The modern world-system II: Mercantilism and the consolidation of the European world-economy, 1600-1750. University of California Press. Previously published in 1980 by Academic Press, Inc.

Wallerstein, I. (2011c). The modern world-system IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789-1914. University of California Press.

Williams, G.P. (2015). Special contribution: Interview with Immanuel Wallerstein retrospective on the origins of world-systems analysis. Journal of World-Systems Research, 19(2), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2013.491