Drawing on ecologically unequal exchange theory and previous research, we assess whether palm exports from low- and middle-income nations to India increase forest loss in exporting nations. Using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression for a sample of 91 low- and middle-income nations, we find support for our main hypothesis that palm exports sent from low- and middle-income nations to India are related to increased forest loss in the exporting nations. Our findings refine and expand upon ecologically unequal exchange theory by demonstrating that India, a middle-income nation, nevertheless is capable of positioning itself favorably in trading opportunities with other low- and middle-income nations. As India meets its needs for palm oil from abroad which is central to its economic growth and industrialization, their low- and middle-income trading partners bear more of the burden of environmental harms from the extraction and export of palm oil.
AustinKelly F.2010a. “Soybean Exports and Deforestation from a World-Systems Perspective: A Cross-National Investigation of Comparative Disadvantage.” The Sociological Quarterly51(3):511–36.
2.
AustinKelly F.2012. “Coffee Exports as Ecological, Social, and Physical Unequal Exchange: A Cross-national Investigation of the Java Trade.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology53(3):155–80.
3.
AustinKelly F.2017. “Brewing Unequal Exchanges in Coffee: A Qualitative Investigation into the Consequences of the Java Trade in Rural Uganda.” Journal of World-Systems Research23(2):326–52.
4.
BanerjeeBarundeb. 1982. “A Strategy for the Control of Andraca Bipunctata Walker on Tea.” Crop Protection1(1):115–19.
5.
BaronVictorRivalAlainMarichalRaphaël. 2017. “No, palm oil is not responsible for 40% of deforestation.” The Conversation, May17, 1–9.
6.
BawaKamaljit S.KohLian PinLeeTien MingLiuJianguoRamakrishnanP. S.YuDouglas W.ZhangYa-pingRavenPeter H.2010. “China, India, and the Environment.” Science327(5972):1457–59.
7.
BoliJohnThomasGeorge M.1999. Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
BunkerStephen G.1985. Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Failure of the Modern State. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
BurnsThomas J.KickEdward L.DavisByron L.2003. “Theorizing and Rethinking Linkages between the Natural Environment and the Modern World-system: Deforestation in the Late 20th Century.” Journal of World-Systems Research9:357–92.
10.
BusbyJoshua. 2017. Water and U.S. National Security. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
11.
ByerleeDerekStevensonJamesVilloriaNelson. 2014. “Does Intensification Slow Crop Land Expansion or Encourage Deforestation?” Global Food Security3(2):92–98.
12.
ChakrabartiAnjanDharAnup K.DasguptaByasdeb. 2015. The Indian Economy in Transition: Globalization, Capitalism and Development. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CipletDavidRobertsJ. Timmons. 2019. “Splintering South: Ecologically Unequal Exchange Theory in a Fragmented Global Climate.” Journal of World-Systems Research23(2):372–98.
14.
Ehrhardt-MartinezKaren. 1998. “Social Determinants of Deforestation in Developing Countries: A Cross-national Study.” Social Forces77(2):567–86.
15.
Ehrhardt-MartinezKarenCrenshawEdward M.JenkinsJ. Craig. 2002. “Deforestation and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Cross-national Investigation of Intervening Mechanisms.” Social Science Quarterly83(1):226–43.
16.
EhrlichPaul R.EhrlichAnne H.2009. “The Population Bomb Revisited.” The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development1(3):63–71.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2015. “Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015.” Forestry Paper. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
21.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2017. “Global Forest Resources Assessment 2017.” Forestry Paper. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
22.
FrameMariko. 2019. “The Role of the Semi-periphery in Ecologically Unequal Exchange: A Case Study of Land Investments in Cambodia.” Pp. 75–106 in Ecologically Unequal Exchange, edited by FreyR. ScottGellertPaul K.DahmsHarry F.London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
FrankAndre Gunder. 1967. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. Vol. 93. New York: New York University Press.
24.
FrankDavid John. 1999. “The Social Bases of Environmental Treaty Ratification, 1900–1990.” Sociological Inquiry69(4):523–50.
25.
Freedom House. 2005. Freedom in the World 2005: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. New York: Freedom House.
26.
FreyScott R.2012. “The e-waste Stream in the World-system.” Journal of Globalization Studies3(1):79–94.
27.
FuchsAndreasVadlamannatiKrishna Chaitanya. 2013. “The Needy Donor: An Empirical Analysis of India’s Aid Motives.” World Development44:110–28.
28.
GiljumStefanEisenmengerNina. 2004. “North-South Trade and the Distribution of Environmental Goods and Burdens: A Biophysical Perspective.” The Journal of Environment & Development13(1):73–100.
29.
GivensJennifer E.HuangXiaoruiJorgensonAndrew K.2019. “Ecologically Unequal Exchange: A Theory of Global Environmental Injustice.” Sociology Compass13(5):e12693.
30.
Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare. 2017. “Annual Report.” Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare. Retrieved October 31, 2019 (http://agriculture.gov.in/).
31.
Government of India’s Ministry of Statistics. 2018. “Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation.” Retrieved October 31, 2019 (http://www.mospi.gov.in/).
32.
GraingerAlan. 2008. “Difficulties in Tracking the Long-term Global Trend in Tropical Forest Area.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105(2):818–23.
33.
Greenpeace. 2007. How the Palm Oil Industry Is Cooking the Climate. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Greenpeace.
34.
Hafner-BurtonEmilie M.TsutsuiKiyoteru. 2005. “Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises.” American Journal of Sociology110(5):1373–1411.
35.
HansenMathew C.StehmanStephen V.PotapovPeter V.2010. “Quantification of Global Gross Forest Cover Loss.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107(19):8650–55.
36.
HendersonKentShoretteKristen. 2017. “Environmentalism in the Periphery: Institutional Embeddedness and Deforestation among Fifteen Palm Oil Producers, 1990–2012.” Journal of World-Systems Research23(2):269–97.
37.
HornborgAlf. 2003. “The Unequal Exchange of Time and Space: Toward a Non-normative Ecological Theory of Exploitation.” Journal of Ecological Anthropology7(1):4–10.
38.
HuangXiaorui. 2018. “Ecologically Unequal Exchange, Recessions, and Climate Change: A Longitudinal Study.” Social Science Research73:1–12.
39.
HubacekKlausGuanDaboBaruaAnamika. 2007. “Changing Lifestyles and Consumption Patterns in Developing Countries: A Scenario Analysis for China and India.” Futures39(9):1084–96.
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.
42.
JorgensonAndrew K.2009. “Foreign Direct Investment and the Environment, the Mitigating Influence of Institutional and Civil Society Factors, and Relationships between Industrial Pollution and Human Health: A Panel Study of Less-developed Countries.” Organization & Environment22(2):135–57.
43.
JorgensonAndrew K.2016. “Environment, Development, and Ecologically Unequal Exchange.” Sustainability8(3):227.
44.
JorgensonAndrew K.DickChristopherAustinKelly. 2010. “The Vertical Flow of Primary Sector Exports and Deforestation in Less-developed Countries: A Test of Ecologically Unequal Exchange Theory.” Society and Natural Resources23(9):888–97.
45.
KeckMargaret E.SikkinkKathryn. 1998. “Transnational Advocacy Networks in the Movement Society.” Pp. 217–38 in The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century, edited by MeyerDavid S.TarrowSidney G.New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
46.
LewisTammy L.2003. “Environmental Aid: Driven by Recipient Need or Donor Interests?” Social Science Quarterly84(1):144–61.
47.
LiQuanReuvenyRafael. 2006. “Democracy and Environmental Degradation.” International Studies Quarterly50(4):935–56.
48.
LondonBruceRossRobert J. S.1995. “The Political Sociology of Foreign Direct Investment: Global Capitalism and Capital Mobility, 1965–1980.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology36(3):198–218.
49.
MaloneDavid M.2011. “Soft Power in Indian Foreign Policy.” Economic and Political Weekly46(36):35–39.
50.
MalthusThomas Robert.1986. “An essay on the principle of population. 1798.” London: Pickering & Chatto Publishers.
51.
Marquart-PyattSandra T.2008. “Are there similar sources of environmental concern? Comparing industrialized countries.” Social Science Quarterly89(5):1312–35.
52.
McCormickDorothy. 2008. “China & India as Africa’s new donors: The impact of aid on development.”Review of African Political Economy35(115): 73-92.
53.
McMichaelPhilip. 2004. Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
54.
MishraAdityaTapsallPhilip. 2017. “Palm Lines: Envisioning a Sustainable Future for the Indian Palm Oil Industry.” WWF Report. World Wildlife Fund-India, New Delhi, India.
55.
MuradianRoldanMartinez-AlierJoan. 2001. “Trade and the Environment: From a ‘Southern’ Perspective.” Ecological Economics36(2):281–97.
56.
NellemannChristian. 2007. The Last Stand of the Orangutan: State of Emergency: Illegal Logging, Fire and Palm Oil in Indonesia’s National Parks. New York: UNEP/Earthprint.
57.
NewellPeter. 2001. “Managing Multinationals: The Governance of Investment for the Environment.” Journal of International Development13(7):907–19.
58.
NobleMark D.2017. “Chocolate and the Consumption of Forests: A Cross-national Examination of Ecologically Unequal Exchange in Cocoa Exports.” Journal of World-Systems Research23(2):236–68.
59.
PaulAnusree. 2014. “Indian Foreign Direct Investment: A Way to Africa.” Procedia: Social and Behavioural Science157:183–95.
60.
PersaudSuresh ChandLandesMaurice R.2007. The Role of Policy and Industry Structure in India’s Oilseed Markets. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture. No. 1477-2016-121064.
61.
PimentelDavidPimentelMarcia. 1999. “Population Growth, Environmental Resources, and the Global Availability of Food.” Social Research66(1):417–28.
RatnaRajan SudeshKallummalMurali. 2013. “ASEAN–India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and Its Impact on India: A Case Study of Fisheries and Selected Agricultural Products.” Foreign Trade Review48(4):481–97.
64.
ReijndersLucasHuijbregtsMark A. J.2008. “Palm Oil and the Emission of Carbon-based Greenhouse Gases.” Journal of Cleaner Production16(4):477–82.
65.
RestivoMichaelShandraJohn M.SommerJamie M.2018. “The United States Agency for International Development and Forest Loss: A Cross-national Analysis of Environmental Aid.” The Social Science Journal55(2):171–81.
66.
RichBruce. 1994. Mortgaging the Earth. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
67.
RudelThomas K.1989. “Population, development, and tropical deforestation: A cross-national study.”Rural sociology54(3): 327-337.
68.
RudelThomas K.2017. “The Dynamics of Deforestation in the Wet and Dry Tropics: A Comparison with Policy Implications.” Forests8(4):108.
69.
RudelThomas K.RoperJill. 1997. “The Paths to Rain Forest Destruction: Cross-national Patterns of Tropical Deforestation, 1975–1990.” World Development25(1):53–65.
70.
SchleiferPhilip. 2016. “Private Governance Undermined: India and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil.” Global Environmental Politics16(1):38–58.
71.
SchnaibergAllan. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press.
72.
SchnaibergAllanGouldKenneth A.1994. Environment and Society. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
73.
SchoferEvanHironakaAnn. 2005. “The Effects of World Society on Environmental Protection Outcomes.” Social Forces84(1):25–47.
74.
ShandraJohn M.2007. “Economic Dependency, Repression, and Deforestation: A Quantitative, Cross-national Analysis.” Sociological Inquiry77(4):543–71.
75.
ShandraJohn M.LeckbandChristopherLondonBruce. 2009. “Ecologically Unequal Exchange and Deforestation: A Cross-national Analysis of Forestry Export Flows.” Organization & Environment22(3):293–310.
76.
ShandraJohn M.RademacherHeidiCoburnCarolyn. 2016. “The World Bank and Organized Hypocrisy? A Cross-national Analysis of Structural Adjustment and Forest Loss.” Environmental Sociology2(2):192–207.
77.
ShandraJohn M.RestivoMichelSommerJamie M.2019. “Do China’s Environmental Gains at Home Fuel Forest Loss Abroad: A Cross-national Analysis.” Journal of World-Systems Research25:83–110.
SmithJackie. 1995. “Transnational Political Processes and the Human Rights Movement.” Pp. 185–220 in Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, edited by KriesbergLouisDobkowskiMichael N.WallimanIsidor, vol. 18, 185–220. Greenwood, CT: JAI Press.
80.
SmithJackieWiestDawn. 2005. “The Uneven Geography of Global Civil Society: National and Global Influences on Transnational Association.” Social Forces84(2):621–52.
81.
SommerJamie M.ShandraJohn M.CoburnCarolyn. 2019. “Mining Exports Flows, Repression, and Forest Loss: A Cross-national Test of Ecologically Unequal Exchange.” Pp. 167–93 in Ecologically Unequal Exchange, edited by FreyR. ScottGellertPaul K.DahmsHarry F.Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
82.
SommerJamie M.ShandraJohn M.RestivoMichael. 2017. “The World Bank, Contradictory Lending, and Forests: A Cross-national Analysis of Organized Hypocrisy.” International Sociology32(6):707–30.
83.
SoodSanjay.2014. “Plantation of Traditional Indian Plants through Peoples Participation in Hamirpur District, Himachal Pradesh.” PhD thesis, Himalayan Forest Research Institute, Shimla, India.
84.
StreteskyPaul B.LynchMichael J.2009. “A Cross-national Study of the Association between per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Exports to the United States.” Social Science Research38(1):239–50.
85.
SwamyRaja. 2017. “Humanitarianism and Unequal Exchange.” Journal of World System Research23(2):353–71.
86.
TabachnickBarbara G.FidellLinda S.2013. Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th ed.Boston, MA: Pearson.
87.
TukeyJohn W.1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Vol. 2. London, England: Pearson.
88.
United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. 2017. UN Comtrade. Vienna, Austria: United Nations.
89.
United States Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Services. 2018. Data and Analysis. USDA: Washington DC.
90.
World Bank. 2015. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.
91.
World Bank. 2016. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank.
92.
World Resources Institute. 2016. World Resources Institute Global Forest Watch. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
YuiSahokoYehSonia. 2013. “Land Use Change Emissions from Oil Palm Expansion in Pará, Brazil Depend on Proper Policy Enforcement on Deforested Lands.” Environmental Research Letters8(4):044031.
