IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/develp/v55y2012i1p25-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nature in the Market-World: Ecosystem services and inequality

Author

Listed:
  • Kathleen McAfee

Abstract

Programmes to address global warming and promote green development, such as Payments for Ecosystem Services and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and [forest] Degradation financed by carbon-offset trading, are framed by a world-as-market paradigm that subsumes social goals within a project of globalized eco-economic management. Because market-based strategies reinforce existing property claims and power relations, Kathleen McAfee argues that they are likely to worsen inequality without yielding net, global environmental benefits. A better approach would build upon positive synergies between climate mitigation, agriculture, and rural livelihoods.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "Nature in the Market-World: Ecosystem services and inequality," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 55(1), pages 25-33, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:develp:v:55:y:2012:i:1:p:25-33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/development/journal/v55/n1/pdf/dev2011105a.pdf
    File Function: Link to full text PDF
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/development/journal/v55/n1/full/dev2011105a.html
    File Function: Link to full text HTML
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Rodrigo Muniz & Maria João Cruz, 2015. "Making Nature Valuable, Not Profitable: Are Payments for Ecosystem Services Suitable for Degrowth?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-27, August.
    2. Herman, Christoph, 2015. "Green new deal and the question of environmental and social justice," GLU Working Papers 31, Global Labour University (GLU).
    3. Smessaert, Jacob & Missemer, Antoine & Levrel, Harold, 2020. "The commodification of nature, a review in social sciences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    4. Antonella Pietta & Marco Tononi, 2021. "Re-Naturing the City: Linking Urban Political Ecology and Cultural Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Andres M. Urcuqui-Bustamante & Theresa L. Selfa & Paul Hirsch & Catherine M. Ashcraft, 2021. "Uncovering Stakeholder Participation in Payment for Hydrological Services (PHS) Program Decision Making in Mexico and Colombia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-26, July.
    6. Remig, Moritz C., 2017. "Structured pluralism in ecological economics — A reply to Peter Söderbaum's commentary," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 533-537.
    7. Herman, Christoph., 2015. "Green new deal and the question of environmental and social justice," ILO Working Papers 994871163402676, International Labour Organization.
    8. Balvanera, Patricia & Pérez-Harguindeguy, Natalia & Perevochtchikova, María & Laterra, Pedro & Cáceres, Daniel M. & Langle-Flores, Alfonso, 2020. "Ecosystem services research in Latin America 2.0: Expanding collaboration across countries, disciplines, and sectors," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    9. Ma, Ben & Cai, Zhen & Zheng, Jie & Wen, Yali, 2019. "Conservation, ecotourism, poverty, and income inequality – A case study of nature reserves in Qinling, China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 236-244.
    10. Heller, Hannah, 2020. "Die narrative Krise der (Wirtschafts-)Wissenschaft und ihre Bedeutung in der globalen Umweltpolitik," Working Paper Serie des Instituts für Ökonomie 64, Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung (HfGG), Institut für Ökonomie.
    11. Belsky, Jill M., 2015. "Community forestry engagement with market forces: A comparative perspective from Bhutan and Montana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 29-36.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:develp:v:55:y:2012:i:1:p:25-33. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    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.