Ecologically unequal exchange theory highlights the asymmetric transfer of environmental pressures and economic benefits between core and peripheral countries. This study provides empirical evidence of these dynamics in Argentina’s trade with Brazil, China, and the European Union from 2000 to 2016. Using an environmentally extended multiregional input-output model, it estimates greenhouse gas emissions, natural resources, and value added embodied in trade flows. The findings reveal significant disparities: Argentina, as an exporter, bears environmental costs while receiving limited economic compensation in trade with core countries, whereas the latter avoid emissions but capture greater economic benefits. These results underscore ecologically unequal exchange as an aspect of trade between core and peripheral countries.
AicheleRahelFelbermayrGabriel. 2011. Kyoto and carbon leakage: An empirical analysis of the carbon content of bilateral trade. Review of Economics and Statistics97: 104–15.
2.
AjlMax. 2023. Theories of political ecology: Monopoly capital against people and the planet. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy12(1): 12–50.
3.
AlthouseJeffreyCahen-FourotLouisonCarballa-SmichowskiBrunoDurandCédricKnaussSteven. 2023. Ecologically unequal exchange and uneven development patterns along global value chains. World Development170: 106308.
4.
AtkinsonGilesHamiltonKirkRutaGiovanniVan Der MensbruggheDominique. 2011. Trade in “virtual carbon”: Empirical results and implications for policy. Global Environmental Change21 (2): 563–74.
5.
BaimanRon. 2022. Our two climate crises challenge: Short-run emergency direct climate cooling and long-run GHG removal and ecological regeneration. Review of Radical Political Economics54 (4): 435–51.
6.
BöhringerChristophBalistreriEdward J.RutherfordThomas F.2012. The role of border carbon adjustment in unilateral climate policy: Overview of an energy modeling forum study (EMF 29). Energy Economics34: 97–110.
7.
BurnsThomas J.DavisByron L.KickEdward L.1997. Position in the world-system and national emissions of greenhouse gases. Journal of World-Systems Research3: 432–66.
8.
ColeMatthew. 2004. Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: Examining the linkages. Ecological Economics48 (1): 71–81.
9.
DavisSteven J.CaldeiraKen. 2010. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107 (12): 5687–92.
10.
DorningerChristianHornborgAlfAbsonDavid J.Von WehrdenHenrikSchaffartzikAnkeGiljumStefanEnglerJohn-OliverFellerRobert L.HubacekKlausWielandHanspeter. 2021. Global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange: Implications for sustainability in the 21st century. Ecological Economics179: 106824.
11.
DuanYuwanJiangXuemei. 2017. Temporal change of China’s pollution terms of trade and its determinants. Ecological Economics132: 31–44.
12.
DuanYuwanYanBingqian. 2019. Economic gains and environmental losses from international trade: A decomposition of pollution intensity in China’s value-added trade. Energy Economics83: 540–54.
13.
EickeLaimaWekoSilviaApergiMariaMarianAdela. 2021. Pulling up the carbon ladder? Decarbonization, dependence, and third-country risks from the European carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energy Research & Social Science80: 102240.
14.
EskelandGunnarHarrisonAnn. 2003. Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. Journal of Development Economics70 (1): 1–23.
15.
FélizMariano. 2007. A Note on Argentina, its crisis, and the theory of exchange rate determination. Review of Radical Political Economics39 (1): 80–99.
16.
FosterJohn BellamyHollemanHannah. 2014. The theory of unequal ecological exchange: A Marx-Odum dialectic. Journal of Peasant Studies41 (2): 199–233.
17.
FrankelJeffrey A.2009. Addressing the leakage/competitiveness issue in climate change policy proposals. Brookings Trade Forum2008 (1): 69–91.
18.
FranzenAxelMaderSebastian. 2018. Consumption-based versus production-based accounting of CO2 emissions: Is there evidence for carbon leakage?Environmental Science & Policy84: 34–40.
19.
GivensJennifer E.HuangXiaoruiJorgensonAndrew K.2019. Ecologically unequal exchange: A theory of global environmental in justice. Sociology Compass13 (5): e12693.
20.
HornborgAlf. 1998. Towards an ecological theory of unequal exchange: Articulating world system theory and ecological economics. Ecological Economics25 (1): 127–36.
21.
HuangRuiLenzenManfredMalikArunima. 2019. CO2 emissions embodied in China’s export. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development28: 919–34.
22.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2019. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/.
23.
JorgensonAndrew K.2006. Unequal ecological exchange and environmental degradation: A theoretical proposition and cross-national study of deforestation, 1990–2000. Rural Sociology71 (4): 685–712.
24.
JorgensonAndrew K.2012. The sociology of ecologically unequal exchange and carbon dioxide emissions, 1960–2005. Social Science Research41 (2): 242–52.
25.
JorgensonAndrew K.ClarkBrett. 2009. Ecologically unequal exchange in comparative perspective: A brief introduction. International Journal of Comparative Sociology50 (3–4): 211–14.
26.
KimDong-HyeonSuenYu-BoLinShu-Chin. 2019. Carbon dioxide emissions and trade: Evidence from disaggregate trade data. Energy Economics78: 13–28.
27.
KimTae-JinTrompNikolas. 2021. Carbon emissions embodied in China-Brazil trade: Trends and driving factors. Journal of Cleaner Production293: 126206.
28.
LanJunMalikArunimaLenzenManfredMcBainDarianKanemotoKeiichiro. 2016. A structural decomposition analysis of global energy footprints. Applied Energy163: 436–51.
29.
LenzenManfredKanemotoKeiichiroMoranDanielGeschkeArne. 2012. Mapping the structure of the World economy. Environmental Science & Technology46 (15): 8374–81.
30.
LenzenManfredMoranDanielKanemotoKeiichiroGeschkeArne. 2013. Building EORA: A global multi-region input-output database at high country and sector resolution. Economic Systems Research25 (1): 20–49.
31.
LeontiefWassily W.1936. Quantitative input and output relations in the economic systems of the United States. The Review of Economic Statistics18 (3): 105–25.
32.
LópezEmilianoBarrera InsuaFacundo. 2019. The specific conditions of the valorization of capital in a dependent nation: The case of Argentina (2002–2014). Review of Radical Political Economics51 (1): 75–94.
33.
MengJingMiZhifuGuanDaboLiJiashuoTaoShuLiYuanFeng.Kuishuang2018. The rise of South–South trade and its effect on global CO2 emissions. Nature Communications9 (1): 1871.
34.
MillerRonald E.BlairPeter D.2009. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
MunroJames. 2018. Emissions Trading Schemes Under International Economic Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
OliveiraManuela MacedoDe Santana RibeiroLuiz CarlosCarvalhoTerciane Sabadini. 2020. Decomposição estrutural das emissões de gases de efeito estufa dos países do BRIC [Structural decomposition of greenhouse gas emissions of the BRIC countries]. Geosul35 (75): 506–32.
37.
PerdanaSigitVielleMarc. 2022. Making the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism acceptable and climate friendly for least developed countries. Energy Policy170: 113245.
38.
Pérez-RincónMario Alejandro. 2006. Colombian international trade from a physical perspective: Towards an ecological “Prebisch thesis.”Ecological Economics59 (4): 519–29.
39.
PetersGlen P.MinxJan C.WeberChristopher L.EdenhoferOttmar. 2011. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108 (21): 8903–8.
40.
PirlotAlice. 2022. Carbon border adjustment measures: A straightforward multi-purpose climate change instrument. Journal of Environmental Law34 (1): 25–52.
41.
PrebischRaúl. 1949. El desarrollo económico de la América Latina y algunos de sus principales problemas [The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems]. El Trimestre Económico16 (63): 347–431.
42.
PrellChristinaFengKuishuangSunLaixiangGeoresMarthaHubacekKlaus. 2014. The economic gains and environmental losses of US consumption: A world-systems and input-output approach. Social Forces93 (1): 405–28.
43.
PrellChristinaSunLaixiang. 2015. Unequal carbon exchanges: Understanding pollution embodied in global trade. Environmental Sociology1 (4): 256–67.
44.
RamRati. 2004. Trends in developing countries’ commodity terms-of-trade since 1970. Review of Radical Political Economics36 (2): 241–53.
45.
RiccioFedericoDosiGiovanniVirgillitoMaria Enrica. 2025. Decarbonization and specialization downgrading: The double harm of GVC integration. World Development194: 107047.
46.
RiceJames. 2007. Ecological unequal exchange: International trade and uneven utilization of environmental space in the world system. Social Forces85 (3): 1369–92.
SakaiMarcoBarrettJohn. 2016. Border carbon adjustments: Addressing emissions embodied in trade. Energy Policy92: 102–10.
49.
SamaniegoPabloVallejoMaría CristinaMartínez-AlierJoan. 2017. Commercial and biophysical deficits in South America, 1990–2013. Ecological Economics133: 62–73.
50.
SantarcángeloJuan Eduardo. 2017. Growth, employment, and income distribution in Argentina, 1990–2010. Review of Radical Political Economics49 (2): 219–32.
51.
SchteingartDanielSantarcángeloJuanPortaFernando. 2017. Argentina’s participation in global value chains. Asian Journal of Latin American Studies30 (3): 45–82.
52.
ShandraJohn M.LeckbandChristopherMcKinneyLaura A.LondonBruce. 2009. Ecologically unequal exchange, world polity, and biodiversity loss: A cross-national analysis of threatened mammals. International Journal of Comparative Sociology50 (3–4): 285–310.
53.
ShandraJohn M.ShorEranLondonBruce. 2008. Debt, structural adjustment, and organic water pollution: A cross-national analysis. Organization & Environment21 (1): 38–55.
54.
SuBinAngBeng Wah. 2014. Input-output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: A multi-region model for China. Applied Energy114: 377–84.
55.
SvampaMaristellaVialeEnrique. 2014. Maldesarrollo: La Argentina del extractivismo y el despojo [Misdevelopment: Argentina’s extractivism and dispossession]. Buenos Aires: Katz Editores.
56.
TobeyJames. 1990. The effects of domestic environmental policies on patterns of world trade: An empirical test. Kyklos43 (2): 191–209.
WangQiangYangXue. 2020. Imbalance of carbon embodied in South-South trade: Evidence from China-India trade. Science of The Total Environment707: 134473.
59.
WiebeKirsten S.BrucknerMartinGiljumStefanLutzChristian. 2012. Calculating energy-related CO2 emissions embodied in international trade using a global input–output model. Economic Systems Research24 (2): 113–39.
60.
XuYanDietzenbacherErik. 2014. A structural decomposition analysis of the emissions embodied in trade. Ecological Economics101: 10–20.
61.
ZhangZengkaiZhuKunfuHewingsGeoffrey J. D.2017. A multi-regional input-output analysis of the pollution haven hypothesis from the perspective of global production fragmentation. Energy Economics64: 13–23.
