Remember in the last post I mentioned how unequal ecological exchange is largely conceptual and lacks sufficient empirical evidence? I just came across this journal article which explores whether an unequal ecological exchange is really occurring.

 

 According to the article, these are the three hypotheses that should be true for unequal ecological exchange to be true:

 [1] The inter-regional balance of trade in biophysical terms is disproportional to the balance of trade in financial terms

 [2] Exports from developing nations are more ecologically intensive than those from developed nations.

 [3] High-income nations disproportionately exert ecological impacts in lower-income nations.

Interestingly, the authors found that while [1] and [2] are true, [3] is not. High-income nations (the core) are not exerting greater ecological impacts on lower-income countries (semi/periphery) as they are mostly exporters (not importers) of biophysical resources. 

Here is a summary of the findings:

Table description: From left to right, the first column states the hypothesis and the results of the finding, the second column elaborates on the findings, the third column presents key analysis from the paper, the last column points out the main critique points from me based on the paper. 

All in all, the paper was proposing how different methods of calculating ecological unequal exchange can bring about different conclusions. Moreover, it is too quick to assume that if one of the hypotheses fails, the unequal ecological exchange does not occur. This is because there are limitations involved in the hypothesis and its respective findings. For instance, even though [1] is true, it is not a good measure of unequal ecological exchange because the imbalance could be caused by non-ecological factors such as export quantity. As for  [2], the paper does not consider how factors such as the timeline of data collection and the differences in accuracy of biophysical data between lower-income and higher-income countries obtained from the Eora global supply chain database could affect the results (EORA FAQ, n.d.). 

However, to be honest, the findings for [3] took me aback. It was hard to believe [3] was false because many studies on unequal ecological exchange talked about how poorer nations export large quantities of under-priced products whose value does not include the environmental (and social) costs of their extraction, processing, or shipping (Dorninger et al., 2020; Mutsaers, 2015). As a result, I assumed that higher-income countries did not export natural resources and instead solely relied on lower-income countries for a cheap supply of natural resources. However, that is not the case as higher-income countries export a greater volume of natural resources as compared to lower-income countries (Moran et. al, 2013). 

However, is comparing absolute biophysical exchange the best way to determine if high-income countries are disproportionately exerting ecological impacts on lower-income countries? I think it is better to look at biophysical exchange in relative terms because that better reveals the ecological burden lower-income countries face. This is because exports from lower-income countries are more ecologically intensive since they do not have the level of technology to produce cleaner, more efficient exports like higher-income countries do (Moran et. al, 2013). Moreover, even though higher-income countries export more than lower-income countries, it does not negate the fact that these higher-income countries still continue to exploit natural resources from lower-income countries at a low price (i.e. hypothesis [2]). In fact, the lower-income countries are at a disadvantage because they do not receive the right price for their natural resource exports and are more economically dependent on their exports compared to higher-income countries (Roe & Dodd, 2016). This situation has not gotten any better. According to Roe and Dodd (2016), at least 63 low and middle-income countries have experienced an increase in their dependence on extractive resources from 1996 to 2012. 

All in all, this paper is very helpful in better understanding how the current empirical findings are aligned with the concept of unequal ecological exchange. There is definitely a need for more research in this area for better understanding. 

Till then, keep looking! 

Komal

 

References:

Dorninger, C., Hornborg, A., Abson, D. J., von Wehrden, H., Schaffartzik, A., Giljum, S., Engler, J.-O., Feller, R. L., Hubacek, K., & Wieland, H. (2020). Global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange: Implications for sustainability in the 21st Century. Ecological Economics, 179, 106824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106824

Eora FAQ. (n.d.). Retrieved March 29, 2022, from https://worldmrio.com/documentation/faq.jsp#faq_28

Moran, D. D., Lenzen, M., Kanemoto, K., & Geschke, A. (2013). Does ecologically unequal exchange occur? Ecological Economics, 89, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.02.013

Mutsaers, J. (2015). Environmental concern in global perspective: Exploring relations between core-periphery, vulnerability, environmental problems, post-materialism and environmental concern. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1371.2481.

Roe, A. R., & Dodd, S. (2016, June). Unu-wider : Blog : Like it or not, poor countries are increasingly dependent on mining and oil & gas. United Nations University UNU-Wider. Retrieved March 29, 2022, from https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/it-or-not-poor-countries-are-increasingly-dependent-mining-and-oil-gas