The article argues that the erosion of the postwar rules-based order is giving rise to a new, networked form of colonialism, characterized by extraction, asymmetry, and transactional power. Unlike classical empire, this “new colonialism” operates through digital infrastructures, financial systems, and geopolitical influence rather than direct territorial control. The authors interpret these dynamics as a pathological concentration of agency that undermines human flourishing. They propose “recoupling” collective capacities with collective challenges—through distributed agency, coalition-based governance, and multidimensional wellbeing metrics—as a pathway toward a more inclusive, post-colonial global order.

The post-World War 2 international order is fraying. The Bretton Woods institutions, international frameworks, and norms that, in principle, constrained territorial conquest, protected sovereign equality, and upheld multilateral cooperation are weakening. In their place, a harsher logic is emerging: power is increasingly and explicitly exercised through coercion, extraction, and hierarchical spheres of influence. Russia’s war against Ukraine, America’s recent military incursions (in Venezuela and Iran) and military threats (to Greenland and Cuba), the increasing visibility of fascistic entities in the Global North, and the resurgence of expansionist rhetoric signal a shift away from rule-based principles and governance systems toward transactional power and domination. The question is no longer whether the old order is eroding, but what is replacing it. One plausible answer is unsettling: the world may be entering a new iteration of colonialism.

This is not a simple return to the colonial empires that preceded the twentieth century or the neocolonialism (Garfolo and L’Huillier, 2014) of the twenty first century. Yet the underlying logic of colonialism—subordination, extraction, and asymmetric control—has re-emerged in new institutional forms in concert with the foundational elements of traditional colonialism and neocolonialism (Robinson and Acemoglu, 2017; Fenske, et al., 2025). For example, a defining feature of extraction in the current iteration relates to digital data, termed the new ‘oil’ by some purveyors – a resource “from which economic value can be extracted by capital” (Couldry and Meijas, 2019).

Classical colonialism involved the conquest and governance of territories for the benefit of distant powers, justified by civilizational claims and sustained through political and economic domination (Kohn and Reddy, 2024). As interpreted by Garfolo and L’Huillier (2014),  neocolonialism is motivated solely by economics “to control a country in lieu of direct military or political control.” The current iteration may appear less formal and more transactional but it is no less consequential.

A New Colonial Logic

Contemporary colonialism operates through a combination of military force, economic leverage, technological dependence, and institutional asymmetry. Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory illustrates the persistence of classical features: territorial conquest, administrative incorporation, and resource extraction. Occupied regions are being integrated into Russian economic and logistical systems, with infrastructure, governance, and natural resources redirected toward the interests of the occupying power (Reuters, 2026; United Nations, 2025).

Beyond such overt cases, a broader pattern is visible. International politics is increasingly organized around spheres of influence, where powerful entities and states assert privileged rights over weaker parties and states. This shift is accompanied by a more openly transactional approach to diplomacy, in which security guarantees, market access, financial and natural resource assets, human and health security, and political recognition are treated as bargaining chips in transactions that are not grounded in shared rules. Expansionist rhetoric—whether in Eastern Europe or the Western Hemisphere—reflects a willingness to redefine borders of influence in ways reminiscent of earlier imperial eras (Reuters, 2025a; Reuters, 2025b).

At the same time, the mechanisms of control have evolved. Contemporary domination is often indirect and networked, operating through control over financial systems, supply chains, digital infrastructure, regulatory standards, and health security. The rise of “digital colonialism,” for example, highlights how control over data, platforms, and information flows can reproduce hierarchical relationships between countries without formal political rule (Nothias, 2025). Similarly, economic dependence—whether through debt, trade asymmetries, or technological lock-in—can constrain the policy autonomy of weaker states.

In this sense, the new colonialism is characterized by five features.

First, it is insidious rather than explicitly territorial. While territorial conquest persists, domination more often operates through explicit social, economic, and political mechanisms without direct rule.

Second, it is extractive, encompassing not only natural resources but also digital resources (Mejias and Couldry, 2024), infrastructure, and institutional leverage.

Third, it is justified through security and necessity, and where convenient, various combinations of social, religious, and cultural imperatives that approximate traditional explicit civilizational claims.

Fourth, it is network-based and transactional, embedded in global systems of finance, technology, trade, and communication.

Fifth, it is openly transactional, reflecting a decline in universal norms and a rise in power-based bargaining.

How it Differs from the Past

Important differences distinguish the new iteration of colonialism from its historical predecessors.

Most notably, it unfolds in spite of the post World War 2 global frameworks, charters, and guarantees of human rights (United Nations, 1948), and sovereign equality. In principle, the norms of the UN Charter and the legacy of decolonization make overt empire less legitimate. As a result, domination is often disguised through legal fictions, proxy arrangements, or economic partnerships that mask underlying asymmetries (United Nations, 2025).

Second, contemporary colonialism is embedded in the structural foundations of global governance, politics, economics, environment, and power. These foundations serve to assure an encompassing and unevenly-yoked interdependence. Unlike earlier empires, which governed relatively separate territories, today’s forms of domination operate within tightly interconnected global systems. Where convenient, this allows control to be exercised without overt political absorption, but also makes it more pervasive.

Third, the new colonialism is multipolar and unstable. There is no apparent, single imperial center. Instead, multiple powers compete across overlapping domains—military, economic, digital, environmental, and ideological. This redefines and transforms the traditional, fixed, imperial hierarchy into a fluid and adaptive form of domination driven by coalitions of self-interested power blocs.

These differences suggest that what is emerging is not a restoration of empire, but a transformation: a shift from traditional colonialism and neocolonialism to a more diffuse and networked system of hierarchical control by different power blocs.

A Multilevel Diagnosis

To understand this transformation—and how to respond to it—the multilevel paradigm of economics provides a useful prism of the faulty, underlying assumptions of modern economic thought – homogeneous and equal actors modelled on a subset of economic actors from the Global North. This subset does not reflect the heterogeneity of humanity and history. Rather than viewing the economy and polity as machine-like systems governed by fixed rules, the multilevel paradigm conceives them as living, adaptive systems embedded in social, political, and environmental contexts (Snower and Wilson, 2026). This prism attempts to address the central question of how economic and political systems are functionally organized to address collective challenges. Therefore, it is important that perspectives from the global majority be included.

Colonialism—old or new—represents a pathological form of functional organization. It is a system in which agency, resources, and decision-making power are systematically concentrated in dominant actors, while subordinate groups are deprived of the capacity to shape their own futures. Such systems may generate material gains for the powerful, but they undermine broader human flourishing by eroding solidarity, agency, human security, and environmental sustainability.

The multilevel paradigm also emphasizes that economic activity is embedded across domains. Colonial relations cannot be understood solely in economic or military terms; they are configurations of power that span political institutions, economic systems, social structures and systems, norms, and ecological systems. This implies that overcoming colonialism requires identification, amelioration, and inclusive work to develop and implement integrated responses across these domains, rather than isolated policy interventions (Snower and Wilson, 2026). The band-aid approach may be expedient but costly and relatively ineffective over the long term.

A further insight concerns distributed agency. Colonial systems function by centralizing agency in imperial centers while hollowing it out elsewhere. By contrast, the multilevel paradigm highlights the importance of enabling individuals, communities, and institutions to exercise agency at multiple levels. This requires institutional arrangements that assure meaningful participation, accountability, and decision-making across local, national, and international contexts.

Recoupling Capacities to Challenges

The concept of recoupling—aligning collective capacities with collective challenges—provides a concrete policy orientation (Snower, 2024). In a colonial system, the concentration of power in the interest of the powerful systematically infringes on agency, capacities, and opportunities, and it shapes the institutional and organizational structure to serve the interests of the colonizers. Within the colonial structure and at every level, decision making authority, enforcement actions, protections, and access to opportunities are assigned to narrowly circumscribed,  eligible actors. As a result, these actors are systematically decoupled from the needs of those affected. Recoupling requires re-engineering and realignment of systems, permissions, capacities, and accountabilities so that they collectively correspond to the scale and scope of the challenges at hand.

This involves several elements.

First, strengthening local and national capacities to reduce dependence on external powers in critical domains such as energy, food, finance, and digital infrastructure.

Second, building regional and global coalitions that can provide alternatives to unilateral domination. In a multipolar world, coalition-based governance offers a way to balance power without reverting to rigid universalism.

Third, mobilizing civil society alongside states and markets. As the recoupling framework emphasizes, neither markets nor governments alone are sufficient to address collective challenges. Effective responses require the engagement of social groups, norms, and narratives that sustain cooperation and collaboration (Snower, 2024).

Fourth, evaluating international arrangements through multidimensional metrics of wellbeing, such as solidarity, agency, material gain, and environmental sustainability (Lima de Miranda & Snower, 2020, 2022; Ortega & Snower, 2026). These criteria help distinguish between genuinely developmental relationships and those that reproduce extractive hierarchies.

Finally, the multilevel paradigm underscores the importance of cognidiversity under shared purpose. In a world of radical uncertainty, effective governance requires diverse perspectives that are anchored in the principles of mutual vulnerabilities (Neff, 1999) the guarantees of human security and agency, and the common goals of all stakeholders. This stands in contrast to colonial systems, which impose unilateral narratives, appropriate resources and culture, and suppress alternative viewpoints, solely for the economic benefit of the colonizers.

Toward a Post-Colonial Future

The erosion of the rule-based international order does not inevitably lead to a world of domination. But it does create the conditions under which new forms of colonialism can emerge. Recognizing these dynamics is the first step toward resisting them.

The challenge is not to restore a bygone order, but to build a new one: an order that reflects the realities of a multipolar world while avoiding the hierarchies of empire. The multilevel paradigm offers a guide. By focusing on functional organization, distributed agency, and the recoupling of capacities to challenges, it points toward a form of governance that is adaptive, inclusive, and oriented toward human flourishing.

Whether the emerging world order becomes a new age of colonialism—or a more equal, cooperative, and pluralistic system—will depend on how these principles are translated into practice.

 

References

Couldry, N. & U. Mejias, (2019). Making data colonialism liveable: how might data’s social order be regulated? Internet Policy Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.2.1411

Fenske, J., Gupta, B., and Mukhopadhyay, A. (2025), “Colonial Persistence,” CEPR Discussion Paper. https://cepr.org/publications/dp20135

Garfolo, B., & B. L’Huillier (2014). “Economic Colonialism: The New Empire Building of the 21^st Century.” Academy of Business Journal, Vol 1;1, pp 48.

Kohn, M., and Reddy, K. (2024). Colonialism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/

Lima de Miranda, K., & Snower, D. J. (2020). “Recoupling Economic and Social Prosperity,” Global Perspectives, 1(1), 1-30. https://content.ucpress.edu/journals/11867_recoupling_economic_and_social_prosperity.pdf

Lima de Miranda, K., & Snower, D. J. (2022). “The societal responses to COVID-19: Evidence from the G7 countries,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 119(25). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2117155119

Nef, J. (1999). Human Security and Mutual Vulnerability. IDRC, Ottawa.
https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/items/be9ffdd4-7c32-4af3-be8e-967339973b5a

Meijas, U.A. & N. Couldry (2024). Data Grab: The New Colonialism of Big Tech and How to Fight Back. University of Chicago Press.

Nothias, T. (2025). “An Intellectual History of Digital Colonialism.” Journal of Communication, 75(5), 385–404.
https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/75/5/385/8078024

Ortega, F., and Snower, D.J. (2026), “The Dark Side of Escaping the Middle Income Trap: A SAGE Study of High-Income Countries,” in Navigating Asia’s Path to a High-Income and Sustainable Future, edited by S. Ma, D.B. Rahut, T. Sonobe, and D. Suryadarma, Tokyo: ADBInstitute. https://doi.org/10.56506/JSHL1221

Reuters (2025a). “Trump Looks to Greenland to Cement His Legacy and Expand Sphere of U.S. Influence.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-looks-greenland-cement-his-legacy-expand-sphere-us-influence-2025-01-09/

Reuters (2025b). “Trump’s First 100 Days: America First President Is Overturning World Order.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-first-100-days-america-first-president-is-overturning-world-order-2025-04-27/

Reuters (2026). “Welcome to ‘New Russia’: How the Kremlin Is Remaking Occupied Ukraine.”
https://www.reuters.com/investigations/welcome-new-russia-how-kremlin-is-remaking-occupied-ukraine-2026-03-26/

Robinson, J.A., and Acemoglu, D. (2017), “The Economic Impact of Colonialism,” VoxEU, 30 January. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/economic-impact-colonialism

Snower, D. J. (2024). “Recoupling: The Driver of Human Success.” In The Nature and Dynamics of Collaboration. MIT Press.
https://esforum.de/publications/PDFs/sfr34/SFR34_13_Snower.pdf

Snower, D. J., and Wilson, D. S. (2026). Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Economics II: Core Themes of the Multilevel Paradigm.
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/econ-2025-0133/html

United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

United Nations (2025). Resolution A/RES/ES-11/8: Territorial Integrity of Ukraine.
https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/ES-11/8

Featured image: Photo by Getty images on unsplash.