Global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange: Implications for sustainability in the 21st century

Abstract

Ecologically unequal exchange theory posits asymmetric net flows of biophysical resources from poorer to richer countries. To date, empirical evidence to support this theoretical notion as a systemic aspect of the global economy is largely lacking. Through environmentally-extended multi-regional input-output modelling, we provide empirical evidence for ecologically unequal exchange as a persistent feature of the global economy from 1990 to 2015. We identify the regions of origin and final consumption for four resource groups: materials, energy, land, and labor. By comparing the monetary exchange value of resources embodied in trade, we find significant international disparities in how resource provision is compensated. Value added per ton of raw material embodied in exports is 11 times higher in high-income countries than in those with the lowest income, and 28 times higher per unit of embodied labor. With the exception of embodied land for China and India, all other world regions serve as net exporters of all types of embodied resources to high-income countries across the 1990-2015 time period. On aggregate, ecologically unequal exchange allows high-income countries to simultaneously appropriate resources and to generate a monetary surplus through international trade. This has far-reaching implications for global sustainability and for the economic growth prospects of nations. High-income nations (the 'core' of the global economic system)

Tourism, technology and ICT: a critical review of affordances and concessions

“…As noted by Hughes and Moscardo (2019: 237), "The existing discussion of ICT and tourism has mostly focused on ways in which new technologies can automate or make existing tasks more efficient (doing old things better) or ways that expand and alter existing tasks (doing old things in new ways)". In other words, the wider implications of technology and ICT innovations have not been sufficiently studied, specifically in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the need to transform economic models (Dorninger et al, 2021).…”

Greening the international monetary system? Not without addressing the political ecology of global imbalances

“…A sober and scientifically-grounded assessment of the current situation should therefore acknowledge that there is limited remaining ecological space for global economic growth without putting Earth's ecosystems and the future of humanity at risk (Ripple et al, 2017), and that such a space has been overwhelmingly occupied by Core countries (Hickel, 2020). What is at stake, then, is not so much the rise of China discussed in the previous section, as the culturally dominant and "imperial mode of living" (Brand & Wissen, 2013 and development which valorizes the pursuit of unlimited economic growth and its associated consumer-lifestyles, and the related illusion according to which Peripheral countries can simply catchup with the Center (Dorninger et al, 2021).…”

“…These two patterns have, until now, been assessed almost completely in isolation from one another. For instance, scholars who aim to explain the causes of ecologically unequal exchange consider variables such as economic, technological, military and natural resource endowment (Dorninger et al, 2021) without even hinting at the potential role of currency hierarchies. In contrast, the ability of a currency to exert dominance over others is often assessed through the institutional confidence it generates or through the international division of labor (see Vernengo, 2006), without much awareness of the ecological materiality of the world economy.…”

“…The Center's privileged monetary status not only limits the possibilities for Peripheral development, it also enables Core countries to engage in an "imperial mode of living" (Brand & Wissen, 2013, i.e. to rely on an unlimited appropriation of resources and a disproportionate claim on global and local ecosystems and sinks, although the latter generates mounting socio-ecological consequences throughout the world, particularly in Peripheral countries (Dorninger et al, 2021;Moore, 2015).…”

Integrating Environmental Justice into EU Policymaking

“…In a recent and solid article (Dorninger et al 2021), various experts provide evidence to support the theory of ecologically unequal exchange. They state: 'On aggregate, ecologically unequal exchange allows highincome countries to simultaneously appropriate resources and to generate a monetary surplus through international trade.…”