From extractivism to neo-extractivism in ArgentinaAnalysis of the evolution of environmental impact and external dependence (1990-2017)

  1. ALONSO-FERNANDEZ, Pablo 1
  2. REGUEIRO-FERREIRA Rosa-Maria 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
    info

    Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

    Santiago de Compostela, España

    ROR https://ror.org/030eybx10

Revista:
Estudios Economicos Regionales y Sectoriales : EERS: Regional and sectoral economic studies : RSES

ISSN: 1578-4460

Ano de publicación: 2021

Volume: 21

Número: 1

Páxinas: 17-32

Tipo: Artigo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Estudios Economicos Regionales y Sectoriales : EERS: Regional and sectoral economic studies : RSES

Resumo

this paper analyses the evolution of Argentina's environmental impact in the period 1990-2017, which allows us to study the differences between the extractivist and neo-extractivist phases of the Argentinean economy. To do so, we use material consumption indicators obtained through the Material Flow Analysis methodology, combined with monetary indicators, which allows for a secondary analysis of external dependence. The results show that the environmental impact has not stopped growing throughout the period, so that the differences between the two models are not significant in environmental terms. Furthermore, Argentina has problems balancing its monetary trade balance when commodity prices are not favourable, while maintaining a net export position in physical terms. This makes inter-sectoral economic diversification difficult and forces Argentina to maintain an economic model that leads to the absorption of a significant environmental impact from the rest of the world.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Acosta, A. (2013). Extractivism and neoextractivism: Two sides of the same curse. In Beyond development. Alternative visions from Latin America (1st ed., pp. 61– 86). Fundación Rosa Luxemburg. https://www.tni.org/files/download/beyonddevelopment_complete.pdf
  • Alonso-Fernández, P., & Regueiro-Ferreira, R. M. (2021). An Approximation to the Environmental Impact of Economic Growth Using the Material Flow Analysis: Differences between Production and Consumption Methods, Applied to China, United Kingdom and USA (1990–2017). Sustainability, 13(10), 5489. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105489
  • Arto, I., Roca, J., & Serrano, M. (2012). Emisiones territoriales y fuga de emisiones. Análisis del caso español. Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, 18, 73–87.
  • Ayres, R. U., & Ayres, L. (1998). Accounting for Resources: Economy-wide applications of mass-balance principles to materials and waste. Edward Elgar.
  • Ayres, R. U., & Kneese, A. V. (1969). Production, Consumption, and Externalities. The American Economic Review, 59(3), 282–297.
  • Ayres, R. U., & Simonis, U. E. (1994). Industrial metabolism: Restructuring for sustainable development. United Nations University Press.
  • Baletti, B. (2014). Saving the Amazon? Sustainable Soy and the New Extractivism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45241
  • Bunker, S. G. (1984). Modes of extraction, unequal exchange, and the progressive underdevelopment of an extreme periphery: The Brazilian Amazon, 1600- 1980. American Journal of Sociology, 89(5), 1017–1064. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1086/227983
  • Carpintero, Ó. (2015). El metabolismo económico regional español: Glosario de términos. FUHEM Ecosocial.
  • Daniels, P. L. (2002). Approaches for Quantifying the Metabolism of Physical Economies: A Comparative Survey: Part II: Review of Individual Approaches. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(1), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819802320971641
  • Daniels, P. L., & Moore, S. (2001). Approaches for Quantifying the Metabolism of Physical Economies: Part I: Methodological Overview. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(4), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1162/10881980160084042
  • Dorninger, C., & Eisenmenger, N. (2016). South America’s biophysical involvement in international trade: The physical trade balances of Argentina, Bolivia, and Brazil in the light of ecologically unequal exchange. Journal of Political Ecology, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.2458/v23i1.20240
  • Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Marques, A., Theurl, M., Pereira, H., & Tukker, A. (2016). Towards a Conceptual Framework for Social-Ecological Systems Integrating Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services with Resource Efficiency Indicators. Sustainability, 8(3), 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8030201
  • Emmanuel, A. (1972). Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. Monthly Review Press.
  • EUROSTAT. (2018). Economy-wide material flow accounts handbook: 2018 edition. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2785/158567
  • Fischer‐Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (1998). Sustainable development: Socio‐economic metabolism and colonization of nature. International Social Science Journal, 50(158), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00169
  • Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (2015). Social metabolism: A metric for biophysical growth and degrowth. In Handbook of Ecological Economics (pp. 100–138). Edward Elgard. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471416
  • Fischer‐Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Giljum, S., Lutter, S., Mayer, A., Bringezu, S., Moriguchi, Y., Schütz, H., Schandl, H., & Weisz, H. (2011). Methodology and Indicators of Economy-wide Material Flow Accounting. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15(6), 855–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00366.x
  • Fischer‐Kowalski, M., & Weisz, H. (1999). Society as hybrid between material and symbolic realms: Toward a theoretical framework of society-nature interaction. Advances in Human Ecology, 8, 215–251.
  • Frechero, J. I. (2013). Extractivismo en la economía argentina. Categorías, etapas históricas y presente. Estudios Críticos del Desarrollo, 3(4), 45–82. https://doi.org/10.35533/ecd.0304.jif
  • Giljum, S., Hak, T., Hinterberger, F., & Kovanda, J. (2005). Environmental governance in the European Union: Strategies and instruments for absolute decoupling. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1/2), 31. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2005.007373
  • Gómez-Lende, S. (2019). Modelo extractivo en Argentina (1990-2016): ¿del extractivismo clásico neoliberal al neoextractivismo progresista? Tres estudios de caso1. Sociedad y Economía, 36, 82–105. https://doi.org/10.25100/sye.v0i36.7458
  • Gudynas, E. (2009). Diez tesis urgentes sobre el nuevo extractivismo. Contextos y demandas bajo el progresismo sudamericano actual. (pp. 187–225).
  • Gudynas, E. (2011). Más allá del nuevo extractivismo: Transiciones sostenibles y alternativas al desarrollo. In El desarrollo en cuestión. Reflexiones desde América Latina (p. 32). Oxfam y CIDES UMSA. http://www.iisec.ucb.edu.bo/assets_iisec/publicacion/Desarrollo_en_cuestion.p df
  • Gudynas, E. (2012). Desarrollo, extractivismo y post-extractivismo. Transiciones, postextractivismo y alternativas al extractivismo en los países andinos. http://www.redge.org.pe/sites/default/files/DesarrolloExtractivismoPostExtract ivismo-EGudynas%20curso%20andino.pdf
  • Guerreiro, L. G., & Wahren, J. (2016). Seguridad Alimentaria vs. Soberanía Alimentaria: La cuestión alimentaria y el modelo del agronegocio en la Argentina. Trabajo y sociedad: Indagaciones sobre el empleo, la cultura y las prácticas políticas en sociedades segmentadas, 26, 327–340.
  • Infante-Amate, J., & Krausmann, F. (2019). Trade, Ecologically Unequal Exchange and Colonial Legacy: The Case of France and its Former Colonies (1962–2015). Ecological Economics, 156, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.09.013
  • Jaramillo, P., Lehmann, S., & Moreno, D. (2009). CHINA, PRECIOS DE COMMODITIES Y DESEMPEÑO DE AMÉRICA LATINA: ALGUNOS HECHOS ESTILIZADOS. Cuadernos de Economía, 46(133), 67–105. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-68212009000100004
  • Krausmann, F., Schandl, H., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., & Jackson, T. (2017). Material Flow Accounting: Measuring Global Material Use for Sustainable Development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42(1), 647–675. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060726
  • Martínez-Alier, J. (2004). Los conflictos ecológico-distributivos y los indicadores de sustentabilidad. Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, 1, 21–30.
  • Mora, A., Piccolo, P., Peinado, G., & Ganem, J. E. (2021). La Deuda Externa y la Deuda Ecológica, dos caras de la misma moneda: El intercambio ecológicamente desigual entre Argentina y el resto del mundo. Cuadernos de Economía Crítica, 7(13), 39–64.
  • Muñoz, P., Giljum, S., & Roca, J. (2009). The Raw Material Equivalents of International Trade. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(6), 881–897. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00154.x
  • Muñoz, P., Strohmaier, R., & Roca, J. (2011). On the North–South trade in the Americas and its ecological asymmetries. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1981–1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.012
  • Nieto, A. M., & Reyes, G. E. (2019). Seguridad alimentaria e importación de alimentos en América Latina y el Caribe entre 1992 y 2016. Espacios, 40(38), 1.
  • Oviedo, E. D. (2015). El ascenso de China y sus efectos en la relación con Argentina. Estudios Internacionales (Santiago), 47(180), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-3769.2015.36432
  • Perrone, G., & Santarcángelo, J. E. (2018). Restricción externa y la sustitución de importaciones en Argentina: Análisis de la historia reciente. Ensayos de economía, 28(52), 31–61.
  • Piñero, P., Bruckner, M., Wieland, H., Pongrácz, E., & Giljum, S. (2019). The raw material basis of global value chains: Allocating environmental responsibility based on value generation. Economic Systems Research, 31(2), 206–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2018.1536038
  • Portillo, L. H. (2014). Extractivismo clásico y neoextractivismo, ¿Dos tipos de extractivismos diferentes? Tendencias, 15(2), 11. https://doi.org/10.22267/rtend.141502.40
  • Prebisch, R. (1950). The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems. https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/29973
  • Roache, S. K. (2012). China’s Impacton World Commodity Markets. IMF Working Papers, 12(115), 1. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781475503364.001
  • Ruffing, K. (2007). Indicators to measure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth. In Sustainability Indicators: A Scientific Assessment (pp. 221–223). SCOPE.
  • Samaniego, P., Vallejo, M. C., & Martínez-Alier, J. (2017). Commercial and biophysical deficits in South America, 1990–2013. Ecological Economics, 133, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.012
  • Schaffartzik, A., Wiedenhofer, D., & Eisenmenger, N. (2015). Raw Material Equivalents: The Challenges of Accounting for Sustainability in a Globalized World. Sustainability, 7(5), 5345–5370. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055345
  • Schandl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., West, J., Giljum, S., Dittrich, M., Eisenmenger, N., Geschke, A., Lieber, M., Wieland, H., Schaffartzik, A., Krausmann, F., Gierlinger, S., Hosking, K., Lenzen, M., Tanikawa, H., Miatto, A., & Fishman, T. (2016). Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity, Assessment Study for the UNEP International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment Programme.
  • Schandl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., West, J., Giljum, S., Dittrich, M., Eisenmenger, N., Geschke, A., Lieber, M., Wieland, H., Schaffartzik, A., Krausmann, F., Gierlinger, S., Hosking, K., Lenzen, M., Tanikawa, H., Miatto, A., & Fishman, T. (2018). y: Forty Years of Evidence: Global Material Flows and Resource Productivity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(4), 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12626
  • Slipak, A. M. (2014). América Latina y China: ¿cooperación sur-sur o consenso de Beijing? https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/92337
  • Svampa, M. (2012). Consenso de los commodities, giro ecoterritorial y pensamiento crítico en América Latina. Osal, 13(32), 15–38.
  • UNEP. (2010). Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(4), ijshe.2010.24911daf.001. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe.2010.24911daf.001
  • UNEP (Ed.). (2011). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth.
  • UNEP. (2018). Global Material Flows Database. https://www.resourcepanel.org/global-material-flows-database
  • Villafañe, V. L. (2012). Estados Unidos en Asia y China en América Latina. Los cambios del nuevo mapa hegemónico mundial. Apuntes. Revista de ciencias sociales, 135–160. https://doi.org/10.21678/apuntes.71.663
  • Wallerstein, I. (2011). The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. University of California Press.
  • Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., & Kanemoto, K. (2015). The material footprint of nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(20), 6271–6276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220362110
Fonte de datos: Dialnet