Ecologically unequal exchange: A theory of global environmental injustice

Abstract

In this article, we review the theory of ecologically unequal exchange and its relevance for global environmental injustice. According to this theory, global political–economic factors, especially the structure of international trade, shape the unequal distribution of environmental harms and human development; wealthier and more powerful Global North nations have disproportionate access to both natural resources and sink capacity for waste in Global South nations. We discuss how the theory has roots in multiple perspectives on development, world‐systems analysis, environmental sociology, and ecological economics. We detail research that tests hypotheses derived from ecological unequal exchange theory on several environmental harms, including deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, and water pollution as well as related human well‐being outcomes. We also discuss research on social forces that counter the harmful impacts of ecologically unequal exchange, including institutions, organizations, and environmental justice movements. We suggest that ecologically unequal exchange theory provides an important global political–economic approach for research in environmental sociology and other environmental social sciences as well as for sustainability studies more broadly.

India, Palm Oil, and Ecologically Unequal Exchange: A Cross-national Analysis of Forest Loss

“…The empirical research of ecologically unequal exchange theory has become quite popular with social scientists. Jennifer E. Givens, Xiaorui Huang, and Andrew K. Jorgenson (2019) published a review that discusses how ecologically unequal exchange has been applied to various outcomes. The first empirical study on forest loss carried out by Andrew K. Jorgenson (2006) finds that total export flows weighted by level of gross domestic product correspond with increased forest loss.…”

The strength of green ties: Massachusetts cranberry grower social networks and effects on climate change attitudes and action

“…However, when it comes to encouraging growers to consider climate change as a serious threat to their way of life—a threat calling for immediate action—their differing knowledge frames for now seem to prevent a deeper connection and interdependence with one another that could more consistently and forcefully convey what needs to be done about the impact of climate change on the cranberry industry. Climate change needs to be framed as a problem that is vast and socio-environmental (Givens et al 2019 ; Huang 2018 ), but also one with many tangible effects on specific, local processes (Adger 2003 ). By avoiding both social and natural reductionist thinking, this framing enables an understanding of climate change that allows the severity and complexity of the problem to be expressed, and acted upon (White et al 2016 , 2017 ).…”

Conservation and development: a cross-disciplinary overview

“…Thus, it is possible for a society to move towards the Brundtland Quadrat at the expense of another society, which can consequently move away from a sustainable development pathway. This process is described by the theory of ecologically unequal exchange (Givens et al 2019).…”