Advertisement

The Role of the Semi-Periphery in Ecologically Unequal Exchange: A Case Study of Land Investments in Cambodia

  • Mariko Frame
Chapter

Abstract

Ecologically unequal exchange (EUE) and the closely related concept of ecological imperialism emphasize the deep inequalities of the global economic system that allow the exploitation of peripheral natures by core countries. However, in the case of land grabbing in Cambodia discussed in this chapter, emerging or semi-peripheral economies are increasingly engaging in overseas economic activities that are arguably as exploitative. What is needed is greater theoretical conceptual clarity of the role of semi-peripheral countries in the global ecology/capitalist economy. To begin with, even as semi-peripheral countries are engaging in forms of ecological imperialism with peripheral countries, this chapter outlines the key ways in which they remain subordinate to core economies. Second, the dynamics driving ecological imperialism or EUE from the semi-periphery to their peripheral neighbors are distinct. Specifically, such countries face an intense, upward competition in a hierarchical capitalist global economy that pressures them to industrialize rapidly. In addition, such countries continue to engage in peripheral activities that are centered on the extraction and export of primary commodities. All these dynamics result in domestic environmental degradation. Coupled with increasing levels of consumption resulting from economic growth, these emerging economies are increasingly driven to externally secure land and resources while facing environmental crises at home.

References

  1. Arrighi, Giovanni. 1990. “The Developmentalist Illusion: A Reconceptualization of the Semi-Periphery.” Pp. 11–42 in Semi-Peripheral States in the World-Economy, edited by W. G. Martin. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arrighi, Giovanni and Jessica Drangel. 1986. “The Stratification of the World-Economy: An Exploration of the Semiperipheral Zone.” Review (Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center) X(1):9–74.Google Scholar
  3. Arrighi, Giovanni, Beverly Silver, and Benjamin Brewer. 2003. “Industrial Convergence, Globalization and the Persistence of the North-South Divide.” Studies in Comparative International Development 38(1):3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borras, Saturnino, Jennifer Franco, Sergio Gomez, Christobal Kay, and Max Spoor. 2012. “Land Grabbing: Latin America and the Caribbean.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 39(3–4):845–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunker, Stephen G. 1985. Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Failure of the Modern State. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chase-Dunn, Christopher. 2005. “Contemporary Semi-Peripheral Development: The Regimes and the Movements.” Institute for Research on World-Systems, University of California-Riverside. Retrieved August 5, 2016 at https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows78/irows78.htm.
  7. Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Thomas Hall. 1997. Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ciccantell, Paul and David Smith. 2009. “Rethinking Global Commodity Chains: Integrating Extraction, Transport, and Manufacturing.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50(3–4):361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, Brett and John B. Foster. 2009. “Ecological Imperialism and the Global Metabolic Rift: Unequal Exchange and the Guano/Nitrates Trade.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50(3–4):311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, Kyle Frankel, Kailiang Yu, Maria Cristina Rulli, Lonn Pichdara, and Paolo D’Odorico. 2015. “Accelerated Deforestation Driven by Large-Scale Land Acquisitions in Cambodia.” Nature Geoscience 8:772–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster, John B., Brett Clark, and Richard York. 2011. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frame, Mariko. 2014. Foreign Investment in African Resources: The Ecological Aspect of Imperialism and Unequal Exchange. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2015. “The Neoliberalization of (African) Natures as the Current Phase of Ecological Imperialism.” Capitalism, Nature Socialism 27(1):87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2016. “Economic Integration in Tanzania (1970–2011): A Biophysical Assessment.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 20:1083–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gellert, Paul K. 2015. “Palm Oil Expansion in Indonesia: Land Grabbing as Accumulation by Dispossession.” Pp. 65–99 in States and Citizens: Accommodation, Facilitation and Resistance to Globalization, edited by Jon Shefner. New York: Emerald Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Global Witness. 2013. “Rubber Barons.” Retrieved February 15, 2016 at https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/land-deals/rubberbarons/.
  17. Hall, Derek. 2011. “Land Grabs, Land Control, and Southeast Asian Crop Booms.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 38(4):837–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2013. “Primitive Accumulation, Accumulation by Dispossession and the Global Land Grab.” Third World Quarterly 34(9):1582–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hornborg, Alf. 1998. “Ecosystems and World-Systems: Accumulation as an Ecological Process.” Journal of World-Systems Research 4(2):169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 2001. The Power of the Machine: Global Inequalities of Economy, Technology, and Environment. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2011. Global Ecology and Unequal Exchange: Fetishism in a Zero-sum World. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Index Mundi. 2017. Country Facts. Available at https://www.indexmundi.com.
  23. Jorgenson, Andrew. 2016. “Environment, Development and Ecologically Unequal Exchange.” Sustainability 8:227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klare, Michael. 2012. The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  25. Krechowicz, Dana and Hiranya Fernando. 2009. “Emerging Risks and Impacts of Key Environmental Trends in Emerging Asia.” World Resources Institute. Retrieved February 17, 2016 at http://www.wri.org/publication/emerging-risk.
  26. Land Matrix. 2017. Database available at http://landmatrix.org.
  27. Li, Minqi. 2003. “The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World-Economy: Exploring Historical Possibilities in the 21st Century.” Retrieved December 12, 2015 at http://www.networkideas.org/featart/mar2004/rise_of_china.pdf.
  28. LICADHO. 2014. “Year 2013 in Review: Land, a Country in Crisis.” Retrieved January 15, 2016 at http://www.licadho-cambodia.org/articles/20140321/142/index.html.
  29. Magdoff, Harry. 2003. Imperialism Without Colonies. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2013. “Twenty-First-Century Land Grabs: Accumulation by Agricultural Dispossession.” Monthly Review 45(6):1–18. Retrieved August 7, 2016 at http://monthlyreview.org/2013/11/01/twenty-first-century-land-grabs/.
  31. Moore, Jason W. 2001. “Marx’s Ecology and the Environmental History of World Capitalism.” Capitalism, Nature Socialism 23(3):134–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ———. 2003. “The Modern World-System as Environmental History? Ecology and the Rise of Capitalism.” Theory and Society 32(3):307–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 2011. “Transcending the Metabolic Rift: A Theory of Crises in the Capitalist World-Ecology.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 38(1):1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ———. 2012. “Cheap Food and Bad Money: Food, Frontiers, and Financialization in the Rise and Demise of Neoliberalism.” Review (Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center) 33(2–3):225–261.Google Scholar
  35. Muldavin, Joshua. 2012. “Land from the Tiller: China’s Role in Global Processes of Land Dispossession.” Conference paper, Land Deal Politics Initiative, Institute of Social Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  36. Oakland Institute. 2009. “The Great Land Grab Rush for the World’s Farmland Threatens Food Security for the Poor.” Retrieved August 5, 2016 at http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/LandGrab_final_web.pdf.
  37. ———. 2011. Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa: Country Report Tanzania. Oakland, CA: The Oakland Institute.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2013. “World Bank’s Bad Business in Cambodia.” Retrieved March 12, 2013 at http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/OurBiz_Fact_Sheet_Cambodia.pdf.
  39. Perez-Rincon, Mario Alejandro. 2006. “Colombian International Trade from a Physical Perspective: Towards an Ecological Prebisch Thesis.” Ecological Economics 59:519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peter, Zsombor and Aun Pheap. 2016. “Thai Firm: Sugar Farm Damage Assessment is Almost Finished.” Farmlandgrab.org. Retrieved June 3, 2016 at http://www.farmlandgrab.org/post/view/25763-thai-firm-sugar-farm-damage-assessment-is-almost-finished.
  41. Rice, James. 2009. “The Transnationalization of Production and Uneven Environmental Degradation and Change in the World-Economy.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50(3–4):215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ruvalcaba, Daniel Efrén Morales. 2013. “Inside the BRIC: Analysis of the Semi-Peripheral Character of Brazil, Russia, India, and China.” Austral: Brazilian Journal of Strategy & International Relations 2(4):141–173.Google Scholar
  43. Singh, Simron Jit and Nina Eisenmenger. 2010. “How Unequal is International Trade? An Ecological Perspective Using Material Flow Accounting.” Journal fur Entwicklungspolitik XXVI:57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, David A. and Matthew C. Mahutga. 2009. “Trading Up the Commodity Chain? The Impact of Extractive and Labor-Intensive Manufacturing Trade on World-Systems Inequalities.” Pp. 63–82 in Frontiers of Commodity Chain Research, edited by Jennifer Bair. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. United Nations. 2012. Economic Development in Africa Report 2012: Structural Transformation and Sustainable Development in Africa. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  46. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011. Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 2013. Resource Trends in Material Productivity in Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved May, 2014 at http://www.unep.org/pdf/RecentTrendsAP%28FinalFeb2013%29.pdf.
  48. Vallejo, M. 2010. “Biophysical Structure of the Ecuadorian Economy, Foreign Trade, and Policy Implication.” Ecological Economics 70:159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Visser, Oane, Natalia Mamonova, and Max Spoor. 2012. “Oligarchs, Megafarms, and Land Reserves: Understanding Land Grabbing in Russia.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 39(3–4):899–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  51. World Resources Institute (WRI). 2014. “Five Overlooked Deforestation Hotspots.” Retrieved August 5, 2016 at http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/03/5-overlooked-deforestation-hotspots.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariko Frame
    • 1
  1. 1.Global Studies, Politics and Justice ProgramWestminster CollegeSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations