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.
Moodfoo on September 8th, 2020 at 11:19 UTC »
The central observation of the paper is that exports of high income countries have a much higher value per physical unit, be it tonnage of raw material or hours of labour than those of low income countries. The authors are basically observing that a truck containing a given quantity of materials is valued more than the same quantities of the same materials separately and take issues with that. In essence, the authors are arguing that the pricing according to added value is unfair and the things should be priced according to the number of hours and quantity of material they contain, with no regard to difficulty of the production process, the level of technology required, the skills required from the workers, actual demand for the goods... This kind of reasoning concerning value has been thoroughly debunked by economists for over century and is as scientific as miasma.
FusRoDawg on September 8th, 2020 at 08:46 UTC »
How much of this can be explained by capital improvements and disparities in productivity (I guess also aided by capital improvements)?
shitposterkatakuri on September 8th, 2020 at 00:41 UTC »
So if we just completely stopped trade between the global south and the developed world, would they develop faster than they are with our interference?