ISSN (print) - 0131-7652

ISSN (online) - 2686-7605

Vol. 51 No. 9 (2021)
ECOLOGY AND ECONOMY

Problems of Environmentally Unequal Exchange in the 21St Century

PDF (Русский)
  • I. Glazyrina
I. Glazyrina
Institute of Natural Resources, Ecology and Cryology SB RAS; Trans-Baikal State University, Chita
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30680/ECO0131-7652-2021-9-94-124

Published 2021-08-27

Keywords

  • center and periphery,
  • environmental debt,
  • raw materials,
  • environmental services,
  • Paris Agreement,
  • «carbon tax»,
  • unequal exchange
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

1.
Glazyrina И. Problems of Environmentally Unequal Exchange in the 21St Century. ECO [Internet]. 2021 Aug. 27 [cited 2024 Nov. 28];51(9):94-124. Available from: https://ecotrends.ru/index.php/eco/article/view/4312

Abstract

The article presents an overview of Russian and foreign publications devoted to the theory of environmentally unequal exchange. Most foreign studies confirm the main hypothesis: international trade is structurally organized in such a way that allows for the «net exchange» of resources and ecosystem services from developing (peripheral) countries to the main industrialized countries «in favor» of the latter. The main methodological approaches to the development of tools for the quantitative assessment of environmentally unequal exchange are considered. The issues that have come to the fore in connection with the updating of the climate agenda and the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement are being discussed. The article presents Russian works on topics close to the theory of environmentally unequal exchange, including within the framework of the concept of environmental debt. The narrative of many of them testifies to the manifestation of the factor of environmentally unequal exchange. According to the author, the quantitative estimates for Russian regions can make a significant contribution to ensuring the sustainable development of territories, since in addition to strengthening environmental institutions, significant changes in tax and budget policy are needed in Russia.
PDF (Русский)

References

  1. Бобылев С. Н., Зубаревич Н. В., Соловьева С. В. Вызовы кризиса: как измерять устойчивость развития? // Вопросы экономики. 2015. № 1. С. 147–160. Doi: 10.32609/0042–8736–2015–1–147–160
  2. Боев П. А. Экологический след города Москвы // Использование и охрана природных ресурсов в России. 2015. № 1 (139). С. 95–97.
  3. Глазырина И. П., Симонов Е. А. «Экологическая цивилизация» Китая: новые вызовы или новые перспективы для России? // ЭКО. 2015. № 7 (493). C. 52–72.
  4. Глазырина И. П., Филатова Т. В. Экологический след как индикатор качества экономического роста // Экономика природопользования. 2004. № 2. С. 60–76.
  5. Глазырина И. П., Яковлева К. А., Жадина Н. В. Социально-экономическая эффективность лесопользования в регионах России // Регионалистика. 2015. Т. 2. № 5–6. С. 18–33.
  6. Глазырина И. П., Глазырин В. В. Экологический долг и информационная поддержка процедур принятия решений // Экономика и математические методы. 2000. Т. 36. № 1. С. 47–57.
  7. Глазырина И. П., Михеев И. Е., Элоян А. Ю. О согласовании экологических и экономических интересов при добыче россыпного золота // География и природные ресурсы. 2017. № 3. С. 139–146. Doi: 10.21782/GIPR0206–1619–2017–3(139–146)
  8. Глазырина И. П., Фалейчик Л. М., Фалейчик А. А. Инвестиции и трансграничная кооперация на Востоке России // Регион: экономика и социология. 2020. № 4 (108). С. 202–234. DOI: 10.15372/REG20200409.
  9. Гофман К. Г., Рюмина Е. В. «Кредитные отношения» общества и природы // Экономика и математические методы. 1994. Т. 30. № 1. С. 17–32.
  10. Ермаков Д. С. Экологический след – индикатор устойчивого развития // Вестник экологического образования в России. 2013. Т. 1. № 67. С. 16–19.
  11. Забелина И. А., Делюга А. В. Геоэкологические индикаторы устойчивого развития: пространственный анализ // Устойчивое развитие горных территорий. 2019. Т. 11. № 1 (39). С. 15–25. Doi: 10.21177/1998–4502–2019–11–1–15–25
  12. Клевакина Е. А., Забелина И. А. Межрегиональное неравенство в России: экологический аспект // Регион: экономика и социология. 2012. № 3 (75). С. 203–213.
  13. Кулясов И. П. Экологический след: возможные перспективы развития в XXI веке // Социосфера. 2014. № 4. С. 131–136.
  14. Мекуш Г. Е. Экономическая оценка ущерба экономике Кемеровской области от заболеваемости населения // Горный информационно-аналитический бюллетень (научно-технический журнал). 2011. № 12. С. 191–195.
  15. Минакир П. А., Прокапало О. М. Дальневосточный приоритет: инвестиционно-институциональные комбинации // Журнал Новой экономической ассоциации. 2018. № 2 (38). С. 146–155. Doi: 10.31737/2221–2264–2С018–38–2–7
  16. Мустафаев К. Ж., Маймеков З. К. «Экологический след» основа для оценки экологической емкости природной системы Казахстана // Гидрометеорология и экология. 2015. № 3. С. 127–136.
  17. Природный капитал региона и российско-китайские трансграничные отношения: перспективы и риски / Под. ред. Глазырина И. П., Фалейчик Л. М. Чита: ЗабГУ, 2014. 527 с.
  18. Рюмина Е. В. Экологические аспекты оценки качества жизни // Экономика региона. 2016. Т. 12. № 4. С. 1113–1122. Doi: 10.17059/2016–4–13
  19. Саушева О. С., Горин В. А. Экологический долг как форма проявления природоистощающего общественного воспроизводства // Отходы и ресурсы. 2020. Т. 7. № 4. С. 3. Doi: 10.15862/03ECOR420
  20. Сырцова Е. А., Пыжев А. И., Зандер Е. В. Истинные сбережения регионов Сибири: новые оценки, старые проблемы // ЭКО. 2016. № 6 (504). С. 109–129.
  21. Титова Г. Д. Концепция экологического долга: развитие и возможные направления применения на практике // Региональная экология. 2016. № 1 (43). С. 7–14.
  22. Экологические индикаторы качества роста региональной экономики / Под. ред. Глазыриной И. П., Потравного И. М. М.: НИА-Природа, 2005. 306 с.
  23. Экологический след субъектов Российской Федерации / Шварц Е. А., Книжников А. Ю., Воропаев А. И. и др.; под общ. ред. Боева П. А. М.: WWF России, 2014. 88 с. URL: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/article_uploads/russia_footprint_report.pdf (дата обращения 03.06.2021)
  24. Arezki R., Hadri K., Loungani P., Rao Y. Testing the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis since 1650: evidence from panel techniques that allow for multiple breaks // Journal of International Money and Finance. 2014. Vol. 42. Pp. 208–223. Doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2013.08.012
  25. Austin K. Coffee exports as ecological, social, and physical unequal exchange: a cross-national investigation of the java trade // International Journal of Comparative Sociology. 2012. Vol. 53. No. 3. Pp. 155–180. Doi: 10.1177%2F0020715212455350
  26. Bunker S. G. Modes of extraction, unequal exchange, and the progressive underdevelopment of an extreme periphery: the Brazilian Amazon, 1600–1980 // American Journal of Sociology. 1984. Vol. 89. No. 5. Pp. 1017–1064.
  27. Bunker S. G. Underdeveloping the Amazon: extraction, unequal exchange, and the failure of the modern state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. 279 p.
  28. Daly H. E., Farley J. Ecological economics: principles and applications. Washington: Island Press, 2003. 511 p.
  29. Dorninger C., Hornborg A. Can EEMRIO analyses establish the occurrence of ecologically unequal exchange? // Ecological Economics. 2015. Vol. 119. Pp. 414–418. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.08.009
  30. Dorninger C., Hornborg A., Abson D. J., Wehrden H., Schaffartzik A., Giljum S., Engler J., Feller R. L., Hubacek K., Wieland H. Global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange: Implications for sustainability in the 21st century // Ecological Economics. 2021. Vol. 179. Pp. 1–14. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106824
  31. Emmanuel А. Unequal exchange: a study of the imperialism of trade. New York: The Monthly Review Press, 1972. 453 p.
  32. Giljum S., Eisenmenger N. North-South trade and the distribution of environmental goods and burdens: a biophysical perspective // The Journal of Environment & Development. 2004. Vol. 13. No. 1. Pp. 73–100. Doi: 10.1177%2F1070496503260974
  33. Glazyrina I. P., Zabelina I. A. Spatial heterogeneity of Russia in the light of the concept of a green economy: social context // Geography and Natural Resources. 2018. Vol. 39 (2). Pp. 103–110. Doi: 10.1134/S1875372818020026
  34. Harvey D. I., Kellard N. M., Madsen J. B., Wohar M. E. The Prebisch–Singer hypothesis: four centuries of evidence // The Review of Economics and Statistics. 2010. Vol. 92. No. 2. Pp. 367–377. Doi: 10.1162/rest.2010.12184
  35. Hornborg A. Towards an ecological theory of unequal exchange: articulating world system theory and ecological economics // Ecological Economics. 1998. Vol. 25. No. 1. Pp. 127–136. Doi: 10.1016/S0921–8009(97)00100–6
  36. Hornborg A. The power of the machine: global inequalities of economy, technology, and environment. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 2001. 288 p.
  37. Hornborg A. Footprints in the cotton fields: the Industrial Revolution as time-space appropriation and environmental load displacement // Ecological Economics. 2006. Vol. 59. No. 1. Pp. 74–81. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.10.009
  38. Hornborg A. Zero-sum world: challenges in conceptualizing environmental load displacement and ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system // International Journal of Comparative Sociology. 2009. Vol. 50. No.3–4. Pp. 237–262. Doi: 10.1177%2F0020715209105141
  39. Hornborg A. Ecological economics, Marxism, and technological progress: some explorations of the conceptual foundations of theories of ecologically unequal exchange // Ecological Economics. 2014. Vol. 105. Pp. 11–18. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.015
  40. Infante-Amate J., Krausmann F. Trade, ecologically unequal exchange and colonial legacy: the case of France and its former colonies (1962–2015) // Ecological Economics. 2019. Vol. 156. Pp. 98–109. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.09.013
  41. Jorgenson A. K. Unequal ecological exchange and environmental degradation: a theoretical proposition and cross-national study of deforestation, 1990–2000 // Rural Sociology. 2006. Vol. 71. No. 4. Pp. 685–712. Doi: 10.1526/003601106781262016
  42. Jorgenson A. K. The sociology of unequal exchange in ecological context: a panel study of lower-income countries, 1975–2000 // Sociological Forum. 2009. Vol. 24. No. 1. Pp. 22–46. Doi: 10.1111/j.1573–7861.2008.01085.x
  43. Jorgenson A. K., Austin K., Dick C. Ecologically unequal exchange and the resource consumption/environmental degradation paradox: a panel study of less-developed countries, 1970–2000 // International Journal of Comparative Sociology. 2009. Vol. 50. No. 3–4. Pp. 263–284. Doi: 10.1177/0020715209105142
  44. Jorgenson A. K. World-economic integration, supply depots, and environmental degradation: a study of ecologically unequal exchange, foreign investment dependence, and deforestation in less-developed countries // Critical Sociology. 2010. Vol. 36. No. 3. Pp. 453–477. Doi: 10.1177%2F0896920510365204
  45. Jorgenson A. K. The sociology of ecologically unequal exchange and carbon dioxide emissions, 1960–2005 // Social Science Research. 2012. Vol. 41. No. 2. Pp. 242–252. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.11.011
  46. Jorgenson A. K. The sociology of ecologically unequal exchange, foreign investment dependence and environmental load displacement: summary of the literature and implications for sustainability // Journal of Political Ecology. 2016. Vol. 23. No. 1. Pp. 334–349. Doi: 10.2458/v23i1.20221
  47. Living Planet Report 2000. Switzerland: World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 2000. 36 p. https://www.wwf.fr/sites/default/files/doc-2018–10/lpr_living_planet_report_2000.pdf (дата обращения 03.06.2021)
  48. Living Planet Report 2002. Switzerland: World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 2002. 39 p. https://www.wwf.fr/sites/default/files/doc-2018–10/lpr_living_planet_report_2002.pdf (дата обращения 03.06.2021)
  49. Living Planet Report 2004. Switzerland: World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), 2004. 44 p. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_living_planet_report_2004.pdf (дата обращения 03.06.2021)
  50. Martinez-Alier J. The environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2002. 311 p.
  51. Martinez-Alier J., Kallis G., Veuthey S., Walter M., Temper L. Social metabolism, ecological distribution conflicts and valuation languages // Ecological Economics. 2010. Vol. 70. No. 2. Pp. 153–158. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.024
  52. Oulu M. The unequal exchange of Dutch cheese and Kenyan roses: Introducing and testing an LCA-based methodology for estimating ecologically unequal exchange // Ecological Economics. 2015. Vol. 119. Pp. 372–383. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.09.022
  53. Pérez-Rincón M. A. Colombian international trade from a physical perspective: towards an ecological «Prebisch thesis» // Ecological Economics. 2006. Vol. 59. No. 4. Pp. 519–529. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.013
  54. Rees W. E. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out // Urbanisation. 2017. Vol. 2. No. 1. Pp. 66–77. Doi: 10.1177%2F2455747117699722
  55. Rice J. Ecological unequal exchange: international trade and uneven utilization of environmental space in the world system // Social Forces. 2007. Vol. 85. No. 3. Pp. 1369–1392. Doi: 10.1353/sof.2007.0054
  56. Rice J. North-South relations and the ecological debt: asserting a counter-hegemonic discourse // Critical Sociology. 2009. Vol. 35 (2). Pp. 225–252. Doi: 10.1177%2F0896920508099193
  57. Shandra J. M., Leckband C., London B. Ecologically unequal exchange and deforestation: a cross-national analysis of forestry export flows // Organization & Environment. 2009. Vol. 22. No. 3. Pp. 293–310. Doi: 10.1177%2F1086026609343097
  58. Singer H. The terms of trade fifty years later – convergence and divergence. The South Letter, 1998.
  59. Vallejo M. C. Biophysical structure of the Ecuadorian economy, foreign trade, and policy implications // Ecological Economics. 2010. Vol. 70. No. 2. Pp. 159–169. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.006
  60. Wackernagel M. An evaluation of the ecological footprint // Ecological Economics. 1999. Vol. 31. No. 3. Pp. 317–318.
  61. Wackernagel M., Monfreda C., Deumling D. Ecological footprint of nations – November 2002 update: How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have? Oakland: Redefining Progress, 2002. www.redefiningprogress.org/publications/ef1999.pdf (дата обращения 03.06.2021)
  62. Wallerstein I. World-systems analysis: an introduction. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004. 128 p.
  63. Warlenius R., Pierce G., Ramasar V., Quistorp E., Martínez-Alier J., Rijnhout L., Yanez I. Ecological debt. History, meaning and relevance for environmental justice. 2015. EJOLT Report No. 18. 48 p. http://www.envjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/150112_Ecological-debt-final.pdf (дата обращения 03.06.2021)
  64. Warlenius R. Linking ecological debt and ecologically unequal exchange: stocks, flows, and unequal sink appropriation // Journal of Political Ecology. 2016. Vol. 23. No. 1. Pp 364–380. Doi: 10.2458/v23i1.20223

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>