Environmental Economic Geography (Excerpt) Khalil Tian Shahyd
[email protected]
Economic Geography is an integrative socio-spatial research
approach that attempts to
explain the persistence of uneven spatial development and
suggest correctives to alleviate it
(McGrew and Monroe 2009, Combes et al 2008). Economic
globalization and increased
integration of national economies has given rise to heightened
concerns of spatial inequalities.
Recently these concerns have been directed toward analysis of
regional disparities in living
standards (Kanbur et al 2006). Spatial inequalities are
important for a number of reasons. First,
as economies grow and become more integrated, the tendency
toward clustering and
agglomeration may generate negative outcomes in the peripheries
(Kanbur and Venables 2005).
Second when spatial inequalities correspond with geographic
divisions political and ethnic
tension they can undermine stability and lead to conflict.
Environmental Economic Geography [EEG] is an emerging subfield
of Economic
Geography still in its infancy (Rauscher 2009, Soyez and Schulz
2008, Bridge 2008, Hayter 2008,
Gibbs 2006, Bridge 2002, Angel 2000, Hanink 1995). It begins
with an appreciation of how social
and spatial inequalities limit the impact of environmental
governance systems allowing
environmental degradation to increase and persist (Boyce 2003,
2007, Pellow 2005, Agyeman
2005). EEG integrates environmental issues within economic
geography research to uncover how
economic processes influence environmental outcomes and how
environmental realities shape
economic possibilities. However, questions remain as to the
primary motivations and mode of
inquiry EEG should incorporate. For instance, Bridge (2008)
questions whether EEG will take a
default agenda and follow the approach initiated by
environmental economics by simply
economizing the environment; or whether engagement with
environment challenges
initiates a reworking of the core concepts of economic geography
in a manner that understands
economic processes as embedded within ecosystems.
While EEG researchers acknowledge the long standing neglect of
the environment by
Economic Geography, a paramount question yet to be answered is,
what type of environment
and for whom? To date, there has been little discussion by
economic geographers about an
explicit theory of environment within EEG research (ibid).
Leaving these questions undressed,
we miss an opportunity to explore contested theories and
approaches to human/environment
relations and how each influences the direction of EEG
research.
Debates over the meaning of environment often hinge on two
general poles of discussion.
First, are conflicts over what can be termed realist and
relativist approaches to environmental
science (Forsyth 2003). Proponents of realist approaches to the
environment claim that
environmental science can understand the biophysical natural
world in an objective fashion void
of political or cultural influences. Environmental relativist
employing methods from critical social
theory argue for an understanding of nature as socially
constructed, culturally and politically
relative to local context. Related to the realist/relativist
debate are equally contentious
discussions over the merits of anthropocentric and ecocentric
interpretations of environmental
values (Whiteside 2002). However there is a third approach to
the environment that is perhaps
Environmental Economic Geography (Excerpt) Khalil Tian Shahyd
[email protected]
a de-centered approach that tends to focus on how concepts
nature and human identity interact
in the production of livelihoods (Whiteside 2002). This third
approach, studied by political
ecology refers to as the environmentalism of the poor,
livelihood ecology or environmental
justice arises when human activities threaten to negatively
alter the interaction of people and
nature in a manner that disrupts the security of livelihoods
(Martinez-Alier 2002). Often
environmental threats and burdens are unevenly distributed
creating a context of conflict and
injustice that can be exacerbated by eco-modernization resource
management schemes that
privilege dominant market actors, failing to correct for
existing inequalities.
In the existing EEG research, the integration of ecological
modernization theory with the
methodological approaches found in economic geography seem the
favored approach to
developing EEG (Hayter 2008, Gibbs 2006, Angel 2000, Hanink
1995). To some degree, this is due
to the real or perceived conflation of economic geography with
its sub-field, industrial
geography and the latters emphasis on firm location and the
regulation of corporate production
activities. Study of location decisions by firms has long been a
central plank of the discipline (Isard
1959, Barnes 2011) and is evidence of a widespread belief that
these actors are the primary
agents influencing the spatial patterns of economic activity.
The aim is to explain why industries
and firms cluster in particular regions in order to propose
polices for enhancing the growth
outcomes of peripheral districts. However, limiting our research
to these areas has the effect of
restricting the scope of economic geography to the study of
elite industrial regions and economic
winners while peripheral regions remain under examined.
Broadening the scope to the study of
peripheral regions can provide important insights to
understanding the operation of the real
economy that singular focus on high growth regions cant provide
(Hayter et al 2003). This
includes a deeper analysis of the often asymmetrical and uneven
relationships between core and
peripheral regions that preclude extrapolating the experience of
high growth areas onto lagging
regions (ibid).
Core regions are defined as places that attract capital and high
skilled workers; while
peripheral regions are devalued both as research subjects, as
locations for political mobilization
and ultimately by capital markets while being characterized as
backward, unstable, idiosyncratic
and unattractive to investment (Hayter et al. 2003).
Agricultural and resource regions are literally
confined to darkness by the new emphasis on high growth urban
mega-regions despite the fact
that the former act as extractive resource pools or waste sinks
for the very industrial regions
under study (ibid). These are important omissions and concerns
within the core of economic
geography that must be addressed if meaningful contributions to
environmental research are to
be made. Further, considering the growth of mega-regions in the
context of globalization requires
careful attention to how new institutional and governance
regimes designed to influence their
growth will lead to new pressures on resource rich ecosystems
intensifying spatial inequality and
uneven development.
