IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v49y2016icp248-265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A geocybernetic analysis of the principles of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)

Author

Listed:
  • Phillips, Jason
  • Whiting, Kai

Abstract

Evaluations concerning the EITI's strategic contribution to sustainable development are extremely sparse to say the least. When such evaluations do occur, they use qualitative frameworks in determining sustainability outcomes. This has led to the use of reductionist and/or anthropocentric perspectives, such as the Brundtland Commission's definition of sustainable development. This fundamentally contradicts developments in sustainability science, which have strongly advocated the management of the coupled dynamic environment–human relationship at all spatial–temporal scales. Therefore, a quantitative-based evaluation of the EITI's contribution towards sustainable development, using a consistent holistic approach, represents a fundamental knowledge gap within the current literature. In order to address this knowledge gap, this paper conducts such an evaluation by using a new sustainability assessment tool called the Geocybernetic Assessment Matrix (GAM). The GAM applies the fundamental and complex paradigms found within geocybernetic theory through a semi-quantitative matrix approach. The GAM evaluates the 12 principles of the EITI framework in order to determine their contribution towards sustainable development. The results indicate that the EITI is strongly anthropocentric in nature, and does not significantly contribute towards sustainable development of national resource wealth. Furthermore, they indicate that the EITI is flawed in conception and implementation concerning how it contributes towards sustainable development. This is demonstrated by the EITI having no clear statement or commitment as to the need to maintain environmental resources or services for present or future generations. Therefore, there are legimate questions as to the actual value and capabilities of the EITI – both as a tool for the transparent and accountable management of national resource wealth, and as a means of contributing towards sustainable development.

Suggested Citation

  • Phillips, Jason & Whiting, Kai, 2016. "A geocybernetic analysis of the principles of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 248-265.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:49:y:2016:i:c:p:248-265
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.06.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420716301362
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.06.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    2. Phillips, Jason, 2010. "Evaluating the level and nature of sustainable development for a geothermal power plant," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(8), pages 2414-2425, October.
    3. Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff & Derick W. Brinkerhoff & Susan Ariel Aaronson, 2011. "Limited partnership: Business, government, civil society, and the public in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI)," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 31(1), pages 50-63, February.
    4. Unknown, 2013. "The Scramble for Natural Resources: More food, less land?," 2012: The Scramble for Natural Resources: More Food, Less Land?, 9-10 October 2012 152131, Crawford Fund.
    5. Johan Rockström & Will Steffen & Kevin Noone & Åsa Persson & F. Stuart Chapin & Eric F. Lambin & Timothy M. Lenton & Marten Scheffer & Carl Folke & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber & Björn Nykvist & Cynthia , 2009. "A safe operating space for humanity," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7263), pages 472-475, September.
    6. Hilson, Gavin, 2014. "The extractive industries and development in sub-Saharan Africa: An introduction," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-3.
    7. Iea, 2012. "A Policy Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage," IEA Energy Papers 2012/4, OECD Publishing.
    8. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Andrews, Nathan, 2015. "Does transparency matter? Evaluating the governance impacts of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Azerbaijan and Liberia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 183-192.
    9. Yang, Jian-Bo, 2001. "Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 31-61, May.
    10. POPA Ion & CICEA Claudiu & DOBRIN Cosmin, 2012. "Innovational Strategies," Revista Economica, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(2), pages 284-289.
    11. anonymous, 2013. "Noteworthy: Population, natural gas, birth rates," Southwest Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Q2, pages 1-11.
    12. Gallopín, Gilberto C., 2003. "A systems approach to sustainability and sustainable development," Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo 5759, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    13. Tsai-Lien Yeh & Tser-Yieth Chen & Chia-Kai Li, 2012. "Strategic alliances and hotel efficiency in Taiwan," International Journal of Business Performance Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 13(1), pages 28-45.
    14. Hadiye Aslan & Praveen Kumar, 2012. "Strategic Ownership Structure and the Cost of Debt," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 25(7), pages 2257-2299.
    15. Yuli Radev, 2013. "Economic Growth and Natural Resources," Ikonomiceski i Sotsialni Alternativi, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 4, pages 15-26, December.
    16. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2006. "Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1885-1913, November.
    17. Guohua Jiang & Donglin Li & Gang Li, 2012. "Capital investment and momentum strategies," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 165-188, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Junwu Wang & Yipeng Liu & Mingyang Liu & Suikuan Wang & Jiaji Zhang & Han Wu, 2022. "Multi-Phase Environmental Impact Assessment of Marine Ecological Restoration Project Based on DPSIR-Cloud Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Rustad, Siri Aas & Le Billon, Philippe & Lujala, Päivi, 2017. "Has the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative been a success? Identifying and evaluating EITI goals," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 151-162.
    3. Khosravi, Faramarz & Izbirak, Gokhan & Shavarani, Seyed Mahdi, 2021. "Application of bootstrap re-sampling method in statistical measurement of sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    4. Luis Gabriel Carmona & Kai Whiting & Angeles Carrasco & Tânia Sousa & Tiago Domingos, 2017. "Material Services with Both Eyes Wide Open," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-23, August.
    5. Jason Phillips, 2021. "The application of the Geocybernetic Assessment Matrix to the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7550-7572, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Filipa Correia & Philipp Erfruth & Julie Bryhn, 2018. "The 2030 Agenda: The roadmap to GlobALLizaton," Working Papers 156, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    2. Ronja Teschner & Jessica Ruppen & Basil Bornemann & Rony Emmenegger & Lucía Aguirre Sánchez, 2021. "Mapping Sustainable Diets: A Comparison of Sustainability References in Dietary Guidelines of Swiss Food Governance Actors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Lujala, Päivi, 2018. "An analysis of the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative implementation process," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 358-381.
    4. J-B Yang & D-L Xu & X Xie & A K Maddulapalli, 2011. "Multicriteria evidential reasoning decision modelling and analysis—prioritizing voices of customer," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1638-1654, September.
    5. López-Cazar, Ibeth & Papyrakis, Elissaios & Pellegrini, Lorenzo, 2021. "The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and corruption in Latin America: Evidence from Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, and Trinidad and Tobago," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    6. Jean-François Ruault & Alice Dupré La Tour & André Evette & Sandrine Allain & Jean-Marc Callois, 2022. "A biodiversity-employment framework to protect biodiversity," Post-Print hal-03365820, HAL.
    7. S. Nazrul Islam & Kenneth Iversen, 2018. "From “Structural Change” to “Transformative Change”: Rationale and Implications," Working Papers 155, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    8. Zhou, Zhi-Jie & Hu, Chang-Hua & Xu, Dong-Ling & Chen, Mao-Yin & Zhou, Dong-Hua, 2010. "A model for real-time failure prognosis based on hidden Markov model and belief rule base," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 269-283, November.
    9. Xiaojiao Qiao & Dan Shi, 2019. "Risk Analysis of Emergency Based on Fuzzy Evidential Reasoning," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-10, November.
    10. Child, Michael & Koskinen, Otto & Linnanen, Lassi & Breyer, Christian, 2018. "Sustainability guardrails for energy scenarios of the global energy transition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 321-334.
    11. Korhonen, Jouni & Honkasalo, Antero & Seppälä, Jyri, 2018. "Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 37-46.
    12. Kristin Linnerud & Erling Holden & Morten Simonsen, 2021. "Closing the sustainable development gap: A global study of goal interactions," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 738-753, July.
    13. Jun Liu & Jian-Bo Yang & Da Ruan & Luis Martinez & Jin Wang, 2008. "Self-tuning of fuzzy belief rule bases for engineering system safety analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 143-168, October.
    14. Brunnschweiler, Christa & Edjekumhene, Ishmael & Lujala, Päivi, 2021. "Does information matter? Transparency and demand for accountability in Ghana's natural resource revenue management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    15. Don Clifton, 2012. "Sustainable Business: Are We Heading in the Right Direction?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-18, April.
    16. Vinnari, Markus & Tapio, Petri, 2012. "Sustainability of diets: From concepts to governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 46-54.
    17. Kong, Guilan & Xu, Dong-Ling & Body, Richard & Yang, Jian-Bo & Mackway-Jones, Kevin & Carley, Simon, 2012. "A belief rule-based decision support system for clinical risk assessment of cardiac chest pain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 564-573.
    18. Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2014. "Nested open systems: An important concept for applying ecological footprint analysis to sustainable development assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 105-111.
    19. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2010. "The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 601-608, November.
    20. Willamo, R. & Helenius, L. & Holmström, C. & Haapanen, L. & Sandström, V. & Huotari, E. & Kaarre, K. & Värre, U. & Nuotiomäki, A. & Happonen, J. & Kolehmainen, L., 2018. "Learning how to understand complexity and deal with sustainability challenges – A framework for a comprehensive approach and its application in university education," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 370(C), pages 1-13.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:49:y:2016:i:c:p:248-265. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.