Modernization Hub

Modernization and Improvement
Environment, development, and globalization

Environment, development, and globalization


♪ Music ♪ In this lecture, Dr. Andrew Jorgenson discusses comparative international work that looks at patterns and environmental change, development, and globalization. He overview several theories of social and economic development and globalization and then explains the use of longitudinal methods to characterize global change. He reviews several dependent variables that are often used to characterize macro level global change and uses the example of the relationships between greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth to demonstrate analyses of longitudinal trends. Finally, he applies several theories from environmental sociology to the example to highlight how to use theory to interpret empirical patterns. Hello everyone, again. It’s great to be here, this has been terrific. I’m Andrew Jorgenson, professor of sociology and environmental studies at Boston College and today what I’m going to do you is I’m going to do something a little different in a sense from what the earlier presenters did this morning which gave incredible talks and it’s really hard to follow up both of them, but I’m going to do my best. Rather than going into great depth into one or two studies, I’m going to give you a bit of an overview of a few slices of sociological research on environment, development, globalization and they’re going to be pretty narrow slices and what I’m going to specifically do is I’m going to focus on work that uses longitudinal statistical modeling techniques where we’re doing comparative international research, so the unit of analysis in most of this work is a nation state and one of the things I’d like to emphasize to is we’re not a huge community of sociologists that do this particular type of environmental sociology, but we’re a growing community, but I do think that we have an important role to play in doing sociological work on environment, development, globalization, but also I think we have some things that we contribute to broader multi-disciplinary work on these sorts of socio-environmental questions and so most of the work I’m going to focus on today is really sort of sociologically grounded and published in sociology journals, but I want to give you an idea of how we ask these sorts of questions and some of the ways we try to come up with some tentative answers to some of these questions, so I’ll talk a little bit about development and globalization. Folks yesterday did excellent summaries of the theories that I’m going to gauge that I can skip over a lot of that which is terrific thank you for that yesterday, and now that, the title that was in the program is a little misleading; I’m not going to spend a lot of time talking about multi-level studies because I don’t want to give it away, I’m going to talk about multi-level analysis in the context of this work at the very end, so I’m going to really focus on longitudinal work, that before I do that though I do want to focus on some relatively new work that’s being done that sort of merges these different ideas together and it’s sociologically sort of grounded, but it’s work that I and my colleagues are really trying to sort of engage in the broader sustainability science community with this new work that we’re doing on sustainability that focuses on relationships between environmental impacts or environmental resource use relative to human well-being and how socio-economic processes might shape that kind of sustainability dynamic. Okay, so a lot of this research though is sort of interested in search of broad dynamics and this is, I’m embarrassed to put up this map up after we saw these incredible maps earlier today, but this was my one and only attempt at making a map about, well over 10 years ago and this is just looking at this idea, there’s this sort of long standing argument out there about these ideas about environmental load displacement or these sorts of consumption environment degradation paradoxes when we look at these relationships between higher consuming, more affluent nations relative to environmental impacts within their borders and so this is just looking at, you know, sort of spatially this general pattern, a very simplified way of, in general as you probably know, if we look at something like the ecological footprint per capita of nations which are really highly correlated with their levels of economic development there tends to be a negative correlation between that and deforestation within the borders of those nations simultaneously and so this sort of is an example of these kind of inverse relationships that raised a series of questions. First though, what is development? Now I could spend all day long talking about this; I’m part of also this sociology of development community which there’s been kind of a revitalization within sociology of development in recent years which is pretty exciting and, you know, like other disciplines that study development and other things were involved in these, you know, big discussions about well, what we do we mean by development what is development conceptually how do we measure this and well it’s controversial and there’s a lot of different ways in which you can conceptualize what development is and how we can operationalize a development. Take this concept and quantify it somehow and, you know, the typical way that most folks do it in research is by using measures of economic development and so a lot of the work that I’m going to present today, that’s what we do, but it’s important to recognize that development is a sort of multifaceted kind of construct and we can look at things like human well-being measures as a metric of development or some of these indices like the Human Development Index as well and some of you are probably familiar with some of these from different disciplinary perspectives some of the other sorts of definitions of what development is and I highly recommend this, it, this is in the new issue of the Annual Review of Sociology that Jocelyn Viterna, and one of her graduate students that has this excellent annual review piece on the sociology of development and they really get into sort of the history of this field, which I think overlaps quite a bit with environmental sociology. Now structural globalization or globalization, specifically structural globalization we’ve talked about a bit yesterday, the work that I’m going to talk about, the empirical work is really trying to sort of link these ideas are structural globalization with environmental outcomes because like the development literature globalization is a very fuzzy concept, it drives some of us nuts like what in the heck do you mean by globalization in the first place and I really, truthfully, and I’m inspired by the work of Chris Chase-Dunn and Charles Tilly who’s a brilliant sociologist or was a brilliant sociologist and others that try to think of it from a structural sense and to think about, it goes back to this, I think you used interaction networks yesterday ecological interaction networks was brought up yesterday, but from a sociological perspective and we’re talking about structural globalization, we’re talking about kinds of social interaction networks and the way that we try to operationalize is whether we’re talking about economic globalization or political globalization or some form of cultural globalization is if they’re more social interactions between let’s say nation states relative to within nation states and that means that globalization is increasing, but if interactions within a society are increasing at the same rate as interactions between societies the doesn’t mean that there’s an increase within globalization, this allows us to try to operationalize this using quantitative measures. You saw this slide yesterday, I’m going to throw it up there again cause this is a very pathbreaking analysis in sociology employing this idea of structural globalization looking at trade globalization historically and we see that there appears to be a long-term trend surprise, surprise of the globalization of trade which overlaps quite a bit if we look at the same sort of process looking at the globalization of production using other kinds of economic indicators. So this has also been done to look at, let’s say if using foreign investment flows as sort of a proxy for the globalization of production or just investment globalization and if you do that you see a very similar sort of process where there’s somewhat of a cycle, but there’s a long-term trend that really shoots up and this is also tied to, I should mention this long standing debate within sociology about is some, is this globalization thing something new or like an ongoing historical process and this sort of research would suggest that, well it’s both, there’s something that’s qualitatively and quantitatively new to it, but it is also at the same time part of the sort of long-term sort of unfolding processes as well. This is a study out of the world society tradition and I’m lumping this into a, as a global or globalization kind of theory, but looking at these sorts of through time the cumulative numbers in emergences of these different kinds of governmental or civil society groups and other sorts of related processes and, you know, the lines going up, all these lines are going up, so this suggests, well some would suggest that this is reflective of this sort of emerging world environmental regime that’s consistent with this sort of emergent world society dynamic. Now I’m not advocating for these measures, I’m not suggesting these measures are great, but this is an example of how sociologists have attempted to try to quantify these sorts of processes and one of the take-home points that I want you to get from this is, this is not easy to do and we’re still trying to figure out how to do this better and perhaps these are not, you know, getting back to some things I said yesterday, there’re, perhaps there’re some pretty strong limitations in using quantitative methods to try to study something like globalization, you know, there are some limitations to this, but at the same time, you know, we think that they can provide some important contributions. So a little bit about longitudinal methods, I’m not going to do the dance again like I did yesterday to try to sell you on longitudinal methods, but why longitudinal methods when you’re studying these sorts of interrelationships, well development is it’s a process, right, it’s not static; these forms of globalization again are not static and environmental change really isn’t static either and so ideally in order to study these interrelationships we want to have a repeated observations on the same cases for particular units of analyses and so yeah if you needed to be convinced as to why we might want to employ longitudinal methods well here you go, but there’s also some particular methodological reasons that I think are really important in terms of allowing us to do more rigorous hypothesis testing since we’re not using experimental methods, you know, we’re analyzing secondary data we’re using inferential statistics and so by using longitudinal data we’re allow, we’re able to better account for really omitted variable bias, this notion of heterogeneity bias, things that either we do, we might know that we’re missing that we don’t have measures for, or things that we don’t know about yet, you know, this is this process of using different kinds of fixed effects in these models and so in simple terms when we’re doing something like a two-way fixed effects model in a cross-national study where we have repeated observations on many nations, this means that in our fancy regression model, we have a dummy variable for every country as well as a dummy variable for every time point, okay, to account for these things that are unique to each let’s say country that don’t vary through time as well as unobservable factors that are unique to each time point that don’t vary across cases, okay. Now arguably that is going to explain a notable amount of variation in your dependent variable which is going to lead to perhaps more conservative estimates of the effects of your independent variables on your dependent variable. There’s a lot of arguments within the methodological literature about all of this, but I think that this is an important thing to keep in mind from my point of view, you know, early on in my career that goes back about 15 years, I started out doing all cross-sectional stuff and then it got to a point where I could do more longitudinal research and from my point of view I thought well this allows me to be more conservative in my hypothesis testing, asking similar sorts of questions, but being able to do the research more rigorously and more conservatively cause the last thing I want to do is commit a type one error, yeah, falsely rejecting the null hypothesis that’s the last thing I want to do and I think that using these methods helps me to lessen the likelihood of committing a type one error, again it’s debatable I realize, but that’s one of the, my selling points on why I think these methods are important. Okay, so in this literature though on environment development globalization at the comparative international level, these are some of the common dependent variables in this emerging area of literature and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions especially anthropogenic carbon emissions from the man, from the burning of fossil fuels and manufacturer of cement and there’s also a difference between production-based emissions versus consumption-based emissions too as well, but a lot of us are analyzing CO2 data because they tend to be more reliable for comparisons between nations as well as comparisons through time, we’re also looking at other kinds of composite indicators like the ecological footprint, there’s a tradition in the environmental social sciences to use ecological footprint for hypothesis testing, there’s also a huge literature debating the methodology of the ecological footprint and I think that that literature on the methodology suggests that we should be really, really cautious when we’re using ecological footprint for hypothesis testing because it’s this big kitchen sink sustainability index that lumps a ton of stuff together and if you haven’t ever looked at it before spend some time reading all of the fine print it’s really impressive, but it lumps together a lot of stuff and I’m personally not all that comfortable anymore in using these very lumped together measures, I’d rather use these more direct measures like CO2 or other air pollutants, industrial water pollution has been studied, the, and specifically industrial organic water pollution by, measure by biochemical oxygen demand, some folks have done some research on synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use and there’s also been a tradition of work within sociology that Tom has contributed to greatly on deforestation and this one’s tricky to do longitudinal research cross-nationally on deforestation because from a measurement perspective the ways in which we measure forest cover at this level of aggregation changes through time and also varies by nation, so it’s really tricky and challenging and really difficult to do longitudinal research on deforestation, but we try, some of us have tried to do it. A little bit more about measurement though, actually about some of the CO2 data, I usually spend a whole lecture with this slide up when I teach undergraduate courses in environmental studies to talk about a lot of things, but one of them though is the importance in how you can operationalize and measure an outcome in let’s see three different ways it’s commonly done to tell us very different things and so these are three figures of looking at national level anthropogenic emissions, total emissions annually per capita emissions and emissions per unit of GDP and this is just time series data, annual time series data for foreign nations – Brazil, China, India, and the U.S. I think the figures speak for themselves that the time trends look different for the three, for the four nations across these three measures. There are important theoretical distinctions it, with, from a sociological perspective in terms of why you might want to use one or another of these as a dependent variable. A lot of inequality, international inequality scholars within sociology are very interested in per capita measures as a dependent variable, but from, really from a climate change mitigation perspective this is the most important one, if you think about it total emissions, or arguably cumulative emissions is even more important than this and so I’m going to show you some examples of different studies that use these different outcomes and I know that the reading that I’d suggested that you read and I’m sorry it’s really long, if you tried to read the whole thing, but in that particular study we employ all three of these as dependent variables to try to do a very sort of objective systematic analysis of testing competing hypotheses between those theories that you heard about yesterday – ecological modernization theory and treadmill production theory. And then again, if you use a standard measure of development I think this is something that most of us are familiar with and these are adjusted for inflation, these GDP per capita data. Some would argue that this is illustrative, this growing gap between the Global North and the Global South, but the scale of this also hides the fact that the GDP per capita of some of these nations are going up as well. I’m a little biased cause I’m a sociologist, so I like the per capita measures, but sort of peering in more closely on per capita CO2 and this is just looking at something that you’re probably familiar with, but to further, to kind of underscore the point that if we look at average per capita CO2 let’s say for the kind of the Global North versus the Global South through time, we see that there is kind of a growing gap in per capita carbon emissions and, you know, this is the sort of dynamic that really motivates a lot of the research that I and my colleagues do to try to understand look there’s this growing gap, but at the same time per capita emissions is going up on average and there’s a lot of variation; this is just a measure of central tendency and there’s a ton of variation, but we hear a lot about this type of growing gap dynamic and also there’s a lot of sociological research that shows that the climate change sort of, the gridlock that takes place in climate change negotiations is largely tied to these notions of inequality between the Global North and the Global South in terms of responsibility for emissions, well I’ll talk about this later cause there’s other inequality dynamics that contribute to climate change challenges in the different meetings. Okay, so environment and development theories, I’m not going to say too much about this cause you heard a lot about them yesterday, but one of the things that some of us have been trying to do within environmental sociology is we’ve been trying to take these two rich theoretical traditions that you heard a lot about yesterday and see if we can sort of formalize hypotheses from these allegedly competing theories to then test using these sorts of quantitative measures. And so early on a lot of cross-sectional research tried to do this and I think it did it and I did this as well where again if you’re looking at a snapshot, you’re really looking at correlations between development and some sort of environmental outcome and how can that really allow you to in any way test either of these perspectives, it really can’t. And what would happen a lot of the earlier work is you’d have these studies including work that I had done that would report, okay, here’s a positive correlation between some environmental bad in development, treadmill of production wins ecological modernization loses the end and then another study comes about. Well, I mean you heard a lot yesterday about that’s not what these theories at all suggest. Ecological modernization theory has not suggested that there would be a negative correlation between carbon emissions and development; the idea is that through time it’s possible through all these different pathways that you heard about that overall through time development might somehow decouple with environmental bads or relative decoupling; it’s not that development is going to be beneficial for the environment, but overall development is going to have reduced environmental impacts through time whereas a perspective like treadmill of production theory would perhaps suggest the opposite, it, the environmental impacts of development through time are going to continue to be pretty strong and perhaps might even increase in magnitude through time. Now I realize that some of you may not agree with how my colleagues and I and other folks are operationalizing or formalizing these theories to do this kind of hypothesis testing and it’s still an ongoing debate, I suppose. Just a small slice of that paper that some of you might have taken a look at where we use the longitudinal methods and we look at the relationship between development and per capita carbon emissions, well this is the per captia carbon emissions analyses where we separate and look at sort of a group of developed nations the Global North in a larger sample of nations within the Global South and we assess the extent to which the effects of development on per capita carbon emissions might change through time and I’ll be honest with you, these findings surprised the heck out of us and one of the things that really surprised me was how incredibly stable the estimated effect of development is on per capita carbon emissions through time for high-income nations; this freaked me out, freaked out my colleagues. It’s been about two years making sure that I had done some sort of silly or not so silly methodological mistake, but based upon tests of statistical significance these findings hold across a whole lot of different kinds of, sensitivity analyses these findings were quite consistent, so we see here that on the one hand these are elasticity coefficients, so this number .757 means that 1 percent increase of per capita GDP lead to a .757 percent increase in per capita carbon emissions while taking into account all this other stuff in the model and there’s a ton of other stuff in the model. But you see that it’s relatively stable, so the effect isn’t increasing, but it’s not decreasing, it’s also a lot bigger than it is in this other sample of nations, but if you look at nations within the Global South, we see that the estimated effect of development on per capita carbon emissions has, to some extent, increased through time. The elasticity coefficient increased from .388 to .471 over this, this time period. Now our cut-off point here was 2005, a lot has happened perhaps since 2005, maybe, maybe not those are important empirical questions and I have some graduate students and colleagues that are kind of updating this kind of analysis to ask some important questions about well, what happened with the world economic recession when you look at relationships between development and environmental impacts pre, during, and perhaps post recent recession. Okay, so what does this tell us about that theoretical debate? I don’t know, I think it tell, I’ll let you all chew on that. Okay, another study though that I think is really interesting and this is an example of sociological research published in a science venueNatureClimate Change, so this is a study, have any of you seen this study that Richard York published a few years ago inNature Climate Change? And so what he did is he asks a related, but different question than we did in our decoupling paper. Where he looked at whether or not, well he calls it, called it the asymmetric effects of growth and decline on CO2 emissions and sort of using similar methods and longitudinal data he found that he looked at situations in which there’s like a year of economic growth and also situations in which, during a year there’s a decline in GDP per capita and to ask, well are the effects symmetrical in terms of the effective growth on CO2 versus decline and growth on CO2? And he found that they’re not, he found that for, well I have highlighted in bold here for each 1 percent of growth in GDP per capita CO2 emissions per capita grew by .733 and this is for a, sort of a global sample of nations and this wasn’t separating nations into different categories, but on the flip side though he found that for, in situations where there was an average 1 percent decline in GDP per capita emissions per capita declined by only .430 percent, so there’s not sort of a symmetry in this in terms of growth and decline. I think this raises a lot more questions than answers that it provides, but I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, I’m sure Richard would as well. I guess I did throw up one analysis of a state-level analysis looking at similar types of relationships, so this is one state-level analysis and I also wanted to promote these folks, these are graduate students and they did an awesome study, they were not my graduate students, I wish they were, but I thought this was really neat because they were able to obtain U.S. state-level data of the same sorts of relationships and looked at an anal-, a longitudinal analysis of state-level fossil fuel energy use and looking at really a variety of explanatory variables using the same methodology and the environmental Kuznets curve came up yesterday and so they were focusing also on this notion of environmental Kuznets curve and what they found is no evidence for environmental Kuznets curve when you adjust for energy prices, which I thought was pretty interesting and I just wanted to throw this up there because this is suggestive that you, these are scalable questions and there is sort of a growing tradition within environmental sociology, especially of younger generation scholars that are doing these kinds of analyses at smaller scales, which I think is really, really exciting and there’s sort of an emergence and more state level data available on these sorts of things. Okay, so let me move on a little bit to some of these global theories. I want to spend a little time talking about, thank you Tom yesterday for doing a really wonderful job of introducing kind of this stuff up here and thank you very much Dana for introducing us too, so I won’t spend a lot of time talking about these, but what I am going to do is I’m going to show how some folks have tried to operational, operationalize these theories and assess the extent to which they do or do not impact the environment, okay, so this sort of idea of environmental load displacements of different types which is something that’s talked about across disciplines. A lot of folks in ecological economics are talking about this, this is a big deal in political ecology, I mean this is an idea that’s been around for a long time and we have different terms for defining this thing, but it’s really about environmental inequality, kind of global or international environmental inequality between the Global North and the Global South and so, you know, I wasn’t trained in environmental sociology I was trained in international political economy by folks that study the structure of the world economy and so these are things that I’ve been interested in for a long time and trying to understand how the structure of the world economy might to some extent facilitate and maintain these kinds of environmental load displacements or environmental inequalities between the Global North and the Global South and so one of these or these two sort of perspectives that are interrelated that sociologists have been contributing to are ecological unequal exchange and the transnational organization of production; they both really sort of focus on how global production and trade networks might sort of facilitate or maintain these kinds of environmental load displacements and Tom yesterday mentioned vertical trade, thank you, cause the ecological unequal exchange stuff is largely focusing on this idea of the vertical trade of particular types of exports from the Global South to the Global North, so it’s not necessarily how much you’re trading, but it also matters where the stuff is coming from and where it’s going, to some extent, from this perspective, but it’s an important empirical question. The transnational organization of production stuff I mean you’ve probably heard about this if you’ve ever watched The Story of Stuff video, you know, on the internet this idea of transnational corporations and that kind of stuff and so that sort of tied to this, this idea and this is also tied to a longstanding debate across disciplines trying to understand the environmental impacts of foreign direct investment which is a highly contentious debate that has existed in environmental economics for quite some time and it’s also existed within sociology and so one of the ways in which we try to understand or assess the extent to which this facilitates environmental load displacement is by looking at how foreign investment in different economic sectors within especially developing nations might contribute to domestic levels of environmental degradation. Because it’s been shown in a lot of research on foreign investment as a dependent variable that not all, but a non-trivial chunk of foreign investment in the developing world comes from the Global North not in a, you know, sort of in relative terms, but also it’s important to recognize that this is changing through time, it’s not so simple anymore, this isn’t necessarily a core-periphery type of relationship, this is much more complicated than that and that’s touched upon increasingly so in this literature by focusing on the horizontal and vertical sorts of linkages in global commodity production and trade networks too, and we’re still trying to figure out how to bring all of that in to these kinds of macro-level quantitative studies. Okay, the world society stuff, you heard about this yesterday, you’ve probably read this slide already, but this is, some would argue, another kind of globalization theory and what I think is interesting about this, and this came up in discussions yesterday, that early on world society scholars that started focusing on the world environmental regime looking at this sort of stuff, their dependent variable wasn’t whether or not this was having any impact on the environment; they were studying this process, but then environmental sociologists like Buttel said hey, that’s really interesting, but we’re kind of curious whether or not this has any observable impacts on the environment and so in recent years world society scholars have tried to answer that critique and so I’ll show you how they’ve tried to deal with it. First though in terms of the ecological unequal exchange and environmental load displacement stuff, I wanted to show you this slide because this is based upon a study that I did a few years ago looking at this process of the vertical flow of exports from the Global South to the Global North and how it might contribute to growth in per capita carbon emissions in developing nations. Now that might change through time; in a nutshell we see that during a, you know, a pretty large range of time we see that there appears to be a growing effect of the vertical flow of exports on growth in per capita carbon emissions within developing nations. I want to quickly, I ask that you sort of look at this trend and look at these time points and then let me just back up to this really fast and notice this time trend; I, we think that they’re pretty interrelated. We think that this kind of global trade network, production network dynamic is also partly explains the increase in effective development on per capita carbon emissions in developing nations; we don’t think that these are separate dynamics because we know that global production and trade sorts of dynamics contribute to economic development, they do, I mean there’s a lot of empirical evidence, but this suggests that perhaps it contributes to environmentally, overall environmentally harmful forms of economic development; it doesn’t have to, it looks like this at this level of aggregation, that’s a little bit of a defense, in defense of ecological modernization, things could occur a little differently in particular sectors or particular facilities and I wanted to bring up this example cause I think it’s very interesting, this is from a book co-authored by Timmons Roberts who’s a sociologist and Bradley Parks, who I believe is an applied economist now working in the public sector; I can’t believe it’s already been almost 10 years since this book came out, this is, I highly recommend this book because they focus on climate change, mitigation, adaptation, and responsibility like who’s most vulnerable, who’s most responsible, and who’s most willing to do something about it from a, sort of a critical sociological perspective and also they do some stuff on risk too on climate-related risks too which I think is pretty interesting. But what they find too is they do a lot of things in their work on looking at sort of drivers of emissions and they look at a variety of emissions including cumulative emissions through time which a lot of folks think is really important, so lumping together cumulative emissions for nations like over a 50-year time period as well as those three other measures that I talked about and they find that a really interesting finding in terms of trade that applies to all four of these CO2 measures and this is something that I think is overlooked in their study; I think it’s because it’s the bottom of their table in the book partly, and I’ve asked Timmons about this and he even is like oh I forgot we did that; I’m like, but it’s so interesting because they find though that in general and how they did this, this is just looking at the amount of trade relative to the size of GDP of nations, but they use some interactions and they find that poor nations that participate more in international trade this is sort of correlated with more CO2 across these different ways of measuring CO2 while wealthier nations that trade more emit less than those who traded less. If we look at measures of foreign investment in different sectors, let’s say the secondary sectors manufacturing foreign investment and this is something also that is sort of a, it might seem trivial to you, but it’s kind of a big deal in the sociology of development literature more broadly looking at the impacts of foreign investment where there’s a long tradition in sociology doing this, it goes back to the dependency school that Tom Rudel talked about yesterday where there’s a huge debate looking at whether or not foreign investment is good for economic development, is it good for enhancing human well-being, it’s this big ongoing debate and it got really ugly and the results were well it depends, you know, it depends on a lot of stuff. Well one of the things though that I think is important in looking at relation, the environmental impacts of foreign investment though that also is a limitation of all that prior work is well, if we’re going to look at different environmental impacts of foreign investment, we probably need to disaggregate foreign investment, investment in different things like different sectors of the economy eh, which is pretty difficult to obtain data on this to do this type of longitudinal large-scale analysis, but if we do that though we see that if we look at let’s say foreign investment and manufacturing, it appears to have a non-trivial effect on growth in carbon emissions in developing nations and a non-trivial effect on growth in industrial organic water pollution as two examples that are things that are tied to manufacturing sector activities. That doesn’t mean it has to be that way, this is just sort of an overall observable empirical relationship that we see across different model estimation techniques. Now if we turn the page though and look at the primary sector and if we look at primary sector foreign investment, so this is investment in agriculture, mining, logging, forestry, etc. and then we also look at the same time the vertical flow of primary sector exports from developing nations to developed nations and this is from an analysis of deforestation from 1995 to 2005 we see that both of these things, these are standardized regression coefficients, so you can compare the relative magnitude effects that both foreign investment and the primary sector and also the vertical flow of primary sector exports appear to have non-trivial observable effects on deforestation using these data that Tom has a lot of concerns about as he should, but they’re the best data we have to do this kind of analysis, but what’s interesting though is this is while taking into account how much you’re exporting the primary sector, also how large your primary sector is relative to the size of your economy, so this emphasizes though these sort of relational dynamics of trade and production and extraction we think. Okay, world society it’s like I’m not trying to ignore them, but I’m running out of time, but this is, in recent years, a lot of world society, newer, younger generation of world society scholars like students of Frank and Schofer and Hironaka back from that fame in 2000 ASR piece. I’ve sort of answered the call and said, okay, well let’s try to figure out ways in which we can assess whether or not this emerging world environmental regime has any observable environmental benefits; this work drives some folks nuts. I and I want to throw that out there; I have a very good colleague in my department, hi Brian Gareau, who is very, who actually does environment and development from more of an anthropological perspective and so he does very in-depth ethnographic work looking at how in these sorts of world society dynamics on the ground, well it’s a long story, but he’s critical of this sort of stuff, but this sort of research though what they do is they either use these composite measures of world environmental regime, penetration where they lump together and I don’t mean that in a flippant way, but they sort of add together these different measures of environmental INGO presence, environmental IGOs and these other sorts of things or they use just one component of that like how many environmental INGOs have members within a given society and some of you prob-, I can tell from the body language you’re going huh, now the thing is is I want to give them credit for trying to figure this out and I think that there’s still some work to be done to figure this out, but when you look at those sorts of measures arguably as a form of political or cultural or civil society globalization however you want to conceptualize this world society perspective, they do see actually Schofer and Hironaka found if they looked at carbon emissions and deforestation for large samples of nations, they found that this sort of emer-, if, the more penetrated or embedded a nation is penetrated, embedded in the world environmental regime, that appears to be negatively correlated with growth in carbon emissions and negatively correlated with deforestation and they suggest well this is suggestive of the notion that becoming more embedded in the world environmental regime can have observable environmental impacts and their explanation for this is incredibly complex, these different sorts of pathways, right. Now another recent study done by one of their former students sort of spins this on its head and says, well let’s look at whether or not world environmental regimes environmental impacts vary by whether a country is in the core, the semi periphery, or the periphery, which I think is a pretty interesting thing ironically mentioned yesterday that world society, father, the father of world society theory also trained a lot of world system scholars, and now they’re sort of coming together which I like to see, but Kristen, this is a very interesting study, so she finds that the effects of world society immigration on synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use varies by whether or not a nation is in a core, semi periphery or periphery and that it’s more beneficial in the core and less beneficial in the periphery which I think raises a lot of interesting implications. So I wanted to leave on a sort of, I thought this was an area of emerging literature that you might find interesting, hopefully you found this other stuff interesting too, somewhat interesting. So and this is something that is sort of a new area of sociological work that is really multidisciplinary, but it’s sociologists trying to contribute to these broader questions about sustainability, but one of the things that’s neat about this though is this is sort of going back to full circle, some work that was done by sociologists, I’m really proud to say some sociologists got published inScienceback in the year I was born and so Mazur and Rosa in this article inScienceback in 1974 during this period of time said, this is really interesting, they were looking at levels of energy used versus measures of human well-being across nations and they made a really interesting point that was considered very controversial at that time that hey folks, nations don’t have to overall consume a lot of energy to maintain a relatively high level of human well-being for their population, you don’t need a lot of energy to live well folks. In 1974, that freaked a lot of people out and it was pretty controversial and there’s a lot of debate about this back then and then this sort of fell off of the radar of sociologists and Mazur and Rosa didn’t do much work on this for quite a while, but in recent years though, some of us have been sort of asking these questions again and trying to operationalize this a little bit differently and use some updated methods and this is really looking at these measures of the carbon intensity well-being or the ecological intensity well-being and this is really a ratio between some sort of environmental impact versus some sort of objective or subjective measure of human well-being and so you can sort of see here what this could look like and some initial questions we’re asking is, well if reducing this ecological or carbon intensity well-being is a pathway towards enhancing sustainability broadly defined, how can societies get there? Is development one way to do it? And one interesting study that was done a few years ago by Tom Dietz, who’s an ecologist by training, but hangs out with all of us sociologists and is in a sociology department; they published an article inApplied Geographya few years ago and he was a longstanding friend and collaborator with Gene Rosa who passed a few years ago, but they asked this question though and they engaged the environmental Kuznets curve tradition; they said is there a Kuznets curve dynamic here, they found the opposite, that there is no Kuznets curve when you look at development and the ecological intensity well-being rather than seeing this frowny face that you would expect with the Kuznets curve, they saw a smiley face sort of dynamic which is they suggested the opposite, so this is your fancy statistical analysis and this is a really hard to figure out figured looking at the correlation between the two, but it does sort of look like a smiley face. And related to that though and sort of going back to some methods that I talked about earlier using longitudinal methods to assess whether or not the effects of development on outcomes change through time and a study that I did 2 years ago inNature Climate Change, I asked this question well, what about the effect of development on the carbon intensity well-being? What is it? Does it vary by region, regional context? And does it change through time? And so this sort of graphs the findings and we see that yeah there’s some big regional differences and these relationships also changed through time from a sustainability perspective in the wealthiest nations, well economic development does not appear to be a pathway to reducing the carbon intensity well-being. The effect isn’t getting bigger, but it’s not getting smaller and nations in Latin America and in Asia where these are among the most rapidly developing nations that from a sustainability perspective this trend is problematic, defining things this way and nations within Africa we see this sort of stable flat effect and then the trend starting to go up a little bit which I think again like other things that I put up here, I think that this raises a lot more questions than it provides answers about what might be explaining some of these sorts of regional level dynamics, but this is an emerging area of sociological research where we’re really trying to contribute to broader sustainability science discussions, bringing in sociological theories and methods that we’re using in our work; the last thing I wanted to say is multi-level analysis cause I’ve been talking about longitudinal analysis because something that some, a lot of folks in our discipline advocate for is that if we’re going to study environmental bads, arguably we should be doing this at the nation-state level, arguably our dependent variable should be at smaller scales and for studying something like pollution or carbon emissions, arguably we’d want to look at things at the city or state or province levels within nations or you’d want to look at facility level outcomes as a dependent variable where we’re taking into account broader, contextual factors at these higher levels of aggregation. You might be asking yourselves well Andrew, how come you folks haven’t been doing this? Well the shorter answer is we haven’t had the data to really do this kind of work this way across many nat-, facilities across many nations. The ni-, the take home point and this is sort of a primer for something I’ll talk about tomorrow, some of us are now being able to obtain data to do this at least looking at facility level outcomes across thousands of facilities nested within over a hundred nations around the world, so I’ll talk about some of this tentative work tomorrow in my lightning talk thing. Plug for theSociology of DevelopmentJournal, it’s been out for a year now that I am the co-editor of, I promised I’d plug this, it’s a sociology journal, but highly multi-disciplinary, we’re very interested in sustainability research, the kinds of work that a lot of you are doing and it’s published by University of California Press. Please check it out and please consider submitting your work to us. Thanks so much. ♪ Music ♪

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *