Post-Fordist governance of nature: The internationalization of the state and the case of genetic resources – a Neo-Poulantzian perspective

Brand, Ulrich; Görg, Christoph

doi:10.1080/09692290802260647

Cited by 39 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a substantial debate around how to define neoliberalism itself and the meanings and practices of neoliberalising nature, which has obvious implications for how we think about why nature based tourism might be considered as an expression or driver of it (for debates on neoliberalising nature see Castree, 2009;2008a;and 2008b;Bakker, 2010;McCarthy and Prudham, 2004: 275-277;Heynen and Robbins, 2005;Peck and Tickell, 2002;Liverman, 2004;Heynen et al, 2007;Brand and Gorg, 2008). Briefly, the commodification, regulation and appropriation of a range of non-human phenomena are central elements of the extension and intensification of market logics (Zeller, 2008: 91).…”

Section: Neoliberalising Naturementioning

confidence: 99%

Nature-based tourism and neoliberalism: concealing contradictions

Duffy

2015

Tourism Geographies

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper demonstrates how tourism, including nature based tourism, simultaneously produces and conceals the contradictions of capitalism; this is because it relies on creating attractions, or new sources of accumulation from the very crises it produces. Nature-based tourism is promoted as a 'win-win' that can resolve the contradiction between continual economic growth and finite natural resources (Fletcher, 2011;O'Connor, 1988). This is made possible via a process of neoliberalising nature, which cuts the threads that bind ecosystems together, so that the constituent parts can be transformed into new commodities (Büscher et al, 2012;Castree, 2009;Heynen et al, 2007; McCarthy and Prudham, 2004: 275-277;Peck and Theodore, 2007). To draw out these broad arguments, this paper firstly examines the claims around tourism as 'Green Economy' -which proponents claim can produce environmentally sustainable economic growth -a benefit also associated with nature-based tourism. I also show that this can be regarded as simply the latest version of an existing debate rather than offering a new intepretation. This is explored further via a comparative analysis of how tourism neoliberalises nature at the scales of the individual animal (elephant trekking in Thailand) and the landscape (by global networks of NGOs operating in Madagascar). In the case of neoliberalisation of nature at the individual animal scale, the notion of bodily fix is also important. It is not just the elephants that are primed for commodity capture, it is the emotional experience of close interactions with elephants which is commodified (Fletcher, 2014: 185; Fletcher and Neves, 2013). Such changes reshape societal relations with nature, but in uneven and incomplete ways. This is underlined by a discussion of the case of the Durban Vision Initiative in Madagascar -which reveals how neoliberalisation was incomplete as a result of its encounter with local level materialities.

show abstract

Section: Neoliberalising Naturementioning

confidence: 99%

Nature-based tourism and neoliberalism: concealing contradictions

Duffy

2015

Tourism Geographies

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Historical-materialist social, state and governance theory made important contributions to PE (for historical-materialist state theory in general see [80][81][82][83][84]; for the linking with PE see [37,52,78,[85][86][87][88][89][90][91]). The analytical challenge is to conceptualise the state not only as a potential motor of sustainability transformations-this is important enough and dealt with in literature on the "green state" [92] or "environmental state" [93,94].…”

Section: Political Dimensions Of Social-ecological Transformationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of utmost importance for a political-strategic transformation perspective is the fact that the state as a materialised institution develops contradictions, tensions, and explicit struggles between societal forces-within the power bloc or beyond-it also takes the form of contradictions between different apparatuses and branches [84]. Bob Jessop [96] (p. 364) proposed that societal practices and forces need to be able to develop and pursue hegemonic projects that potentially become state projects.…”

Section: Political Dimensions Of Social-ecological Transformationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges for Social-Ecological Transformations: Contributions from Social and Political Ecology

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transformation has become a major topic of sustainability research. This opens up new perspectives, but at the same time, runs the danger to convert into a new critical orthodoxy which narrows down analytical perspectives. Most research is committed towards a political-strategic approach towards transformation. This focus, however, clashes with ongoing transformation processes towards un-sustainability. The paper presents cornerstones of an integrative approach to social-ecological transformations (SET), which builds upon empirical work and conceptual considerations from Social Ecology and Political Ecology. We argue that a critical understanding of the challenges for societal transformations can be advanced by focusing on the interdependencies between societies and the natural environment. This starting point provides a more realistic understanding of the societal and biophysical constraints of sustainability transformations by emphasising the crisis-driven and contested character of the appropriation of nature and the power relations involved. Moreover, it pursues a transdisciplinary mode of research, decisive for adequately understanding any strategy for transformations towards sustainability. Such a conceptual approach of SET is supposed to better integrate the analytical, normative and political-strategic dimension of transformation research. We use the examples of global land use patterns, neo-extractivism in Latin America and the global water crisis to clarify our approach.

show abstract

“…We propose here to enhance actor-oriented and institutionalist approaches by inquiring about the role of the state as a social structure and a social relation at different spatial scales. We refer to the literature on historical-materialist state theory and the recent diagnosis of the internationalization of the state, which intends to overcome the narrow binding of the concept of the state to the national scale (Poulantzas 2002(Poulantzas (1978(Poulantzas ), 2001(Poulantzas (1973, Cox 1987, Jessop 1990, Hirsch 2005, Sauer/Wöhl 2011, Robinson 2004, Demirović 2011, Bretthauer et al 2011, Brand/Görg 2008a, 2008b, Brand/Görg/Wissen 2011.…”

Section: Critical State Theory and The Internationalisation Of The Statementioning

confidence: 99%

“…the protection of intellectual property rights resulting from the use of genetic resources. Therefore, we talk about a 'post-Fordist governance of nature' (Brand/Görg 2008b). This articulates with hegemonic policy orientations in society reflective of ecological modernization and a liberal environmentalism, i.e.…”

Section: The Political Economy Of the (In-)effectiveness Of Global Enmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regimes in Global Environmental Governance and the Internationalization of the State: The Case of Biodiversity Politics

Brand¹,

Görg²

2013

International Journal of Social Science Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly debates on the relative (in-)effectiveness of global environmental governance increasingly focus on problems of cooperation across regime boundaries and on the missing knowledge base for such interlinkages. Global environmental change and related politics are increasingly seen as taking place in a complex field in which several ecological processes are interlinked -e.g. climate change, biodiversity, water, and land-use change -and these processes are deeply interconnected with societal processes, such as food supply and nutrition and the economic and financial crisis. We argue that institutionalist approaches have their merits but they are nevertheless inadequate because they do not seriously address questions concerning the root causes of problems, power, and domination. Furthermore, they do not critically scrutinise how the political institutions of current global environmental governance may in fact support broader socio-economic and political developments. This could effectively undermine the supposed goals of global environmental governance institutions and could seriously threaten other social or ecological processes. Informed by critical research on global environmental governance and adding to this literature insight from critical state theory, we develop an understanding of the internationalized state as well as its role and function in globalized capitalism. We illustrate our argument with recent developments in international biodiversity politics. We show that the predominant forms of politics are not very effective with respect to the ongoing erosion of biodiversity. However, the complicated and conflictive political processes within an apparatus of the internationalised state are mainly in line with hegemonic developments and dominant interest, i.e. the increasing valorization of biodiversity and especially of genetic resources.

show abstract

Post-Fordist governance of nature: The internationalization of the state and the case of genetic resources – a Neo-Poulantzian perspective

Cited by 39 publications

References 26 publications

Nature-based tourism and neoliberalism: concealing contradictions

Nature-based tourism and neoliberalism: concealing contradictions

Challenges for Social-Ecological Transformations: Contributions from Social and Political Ecology

Regimes in Global Environmental Governance and the Internationalization of the State: The Case of Biodiversity Politics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About