
Research article
Select search scope: search across all journals or within the current journal

Even when practiced under new, and allegedly sustainable modalities (as with the case of Ecotourism), touristic activities in the rural and natural spaces of developing countries always suppose the introduction of capitalistic socio-economic relationships, and never the overcoming of these countries’ poverty or the abandonment of their traditional dependency on the dominant countries. Currently, capitalism follows two basic strategic lines with regard to the touristic exploitation of natural resources in developing countries, according to whether, or not, it includes the participation of the peasantry. In the first of these cases, termed Ecotourism, the peasants are driven from their land, but included in a shared management of the landscape's resources. The second is based on the theory of conservationism and on the concept of deep ecology (landscapes without human beings) and consists of the control of the natural areas by capital, without the intervention of peasants, or even of human beings at all.
Recently, the ideology of sustainable development, applied to tourism and other economic activities, has been widely promoted by the mass media. Indeed, it can be said that most people easily assume that ecotourism is a beneficial activity that can help local economies in impoverished countries overcome underdevelopment. In ecotourist projects, nature is exploited, sold and consumed, as part of the usual practice for competitive market economies which have, as a fundamental feature, the mistaking of price for value. In this kind of project, it is pretended that certain environments (forests, lakes, beaches, mountains) or their fauna and flora are protected, but in practice these are merely preserved for the rich. Hence, it becomes normal to pay, and pay high prices, for the right to enjoy preserved nature. Through ecotourism, nature becomes a consumer good. Places of leisure are sold and consumed as exchange values, as with other merchandise. The true emancipation of the peasantry, and of the indigenous peoples of these areas of the developing countries does not lie in ecotourism. Instead, it lies in struggles for the land and its fair distribution.
There also exist projects which do not include the presence of peasants or any other local people. In these, capital fosters deep ecology and conservationism to control and exploit the resources of natural areas without human intervention. A vision of the human being as necessarily destructive of nature is the ideological foundation of such projects.
The environmental services industry generates millions of dollars around the world. Economic, strategic and geopolitical interests linked to this activity proliferate. The major beneficiaries are the big international banks and the most powerful transnational corporations of this sector.
Be it conventional, or allegedly sustainable, tourism will never bring modernization to the dependent countries. The origin of the problems and oppression of the peasantry lie in an unjust distribution of landed property. As long as authentic agrarian reform is avoided, peasants in the peripheral countries will continue to be impoverished. Tourism provides capital and states with arguments that hide the true and essential problems of rural areas.
Emphasizing the necessity to diversify rural economies by means of the introduction of touristic activities, capital and the state hide the true and essential problems of rural areas. Tourism, be it conventional or not, will never bring modernization to the dependent countries. The origin of the problems and oppression of the peasantry lie in an unjust distribution of landed property. As long as authentic agrarian reform is avoided, peasants in the peripheral countries will continue to be impoverished.
Las actividades turísticas que se desarrollan en los espacios rurales y naturales de los países subdesarrollados, aunque se realicen bajo cualquier modalidad de nuevo cuño y supuestamente sustentable (como es el caso del ecoturismo), siempre suponen la introducción de unas relaciones socioeconómicas típicamente capitalistas y nunca la superación de su empobrecimiento crónico o el abandono de su tradicional dependencia respecto a los países dominantes.
El capitalismo actual sigue dos líneas estratégicas básicas en la explotación turística de los recursos naturales de los países periféricos según se incluya o no al campesinado. En el primer caso se trata de un corporativismo estatal en el que el campesinado es desarraigado de la tierra para ser incluido en una gestión compartida de los recursos del entorno mediante la implantación del ecoturismo. Por otro lado, existen proyectos turísticos en los que no se considera la presencia campesina, ni siquiera humana, y donde los agentes del capital impulsan el desarrollo de la teoría del conservacionismo y la ecología profunda (paisajes sin seres humanos) para penetrar en ellos y controlar y explotar sus recursos. La ideología del desarrollo sostenible aplicada tanto al turismo como a otras manifestaciones económicas ha sido muy difundida por los medios de comunicación de masas y se encuentra ya tan arraigada que hasta el más común de los ciudadanos puede afirmar sin más disquisiciones que hoy en día el ecoturismo es una actividad beneficiosa capaz de sacar del subdesarrollo a muchas economías locales de los países empobrecidos.
En muchos proyectos de ecoturismo la naturaleza es explotada, vendida y consumida. Es decir, lo normal en una economía de mercado competitiva en la que su razón de ser es confundir valor con precio. Este tipo de proyectos pretenden en teoría la preservación de ciertos parajes (bosques, selvas, lagos, playas, montañas) o de las especies animales y vegetales del lugar, pero en la práctica lo que hacen es reservarlos para los más ricos. Entonces parecerá natural pagar, y pagar caro, por el derecho a disfrutar de una naturaleza preservada. Con el ecoturismo, la naturaleza se convierte en muy poco tiempo en un bien de consumo, ya que el modo de producción imperante encuentra en los espacios naturales la posibilidad de explotarlos para el disfrute y recreo de los que pueden pagarlos. Así, produce lugares de ocio, los vende y consume como valores de cambio, como si fueran una mercancía más.
La verdadera emancipación del campesinado y de los indígenas de varias zonas de los países subdesarrollados no pasa por la implantación de un ecoturismo que se basa en su articulación corporativa con el Estado capitalista, sino en la lucha por la tierra y el reparto justo de la misma.
También existen proyectos turísticos en los que no se considera la presencia campesina, ni de ninguna población local, y donde los agentes del capital impulsan la ecología profunda y el conservacionismo, es decir, áreas naturales sin seres humanos en las que instalarse para controlar y explotar sus recursos. La ideología que subyace en este modelo se basa en la visión de los seres humanos como entes necesariamente destructores de la naturaleza.
El negocio de los servicios ambientales genera millones de dólares de ganancias en todo el planeta, lo que significa que existe una proliferación inusitada de intereses económicos, estratégicos y geopolíticos ligados a él, cuyos beneficiarios son la gran banca internacional, las corporaciones transnacionales más pujantes del sector y los países centrales.
La modernización de los países dependientes nunca vendrá de la mano del turismo, sea convencional o supuestamente sostenible, pues el origen del problema campesino y de su opresión radica en la injusta distribución de la propiedad de la tierra. Mientras no se produzca una auténtica reforma agraria, el campesinado de los países periféricos seguirá empobreciéndose sin remisión y prestando argumentos a los agentes del capital y a los propios estados para que enmascaren los verdaderos y esenciales problemas y esgriman la necesidad de diversificar la economía rural mediante el desarrollo del turismo.
This [the “Holiday Season”] is a very special time of year for us, a time for family reunions and for celebrating together the blessings of God and the promises He has given us… [T]his is a season of hope and of love.
Certainly one of the greatest blessings for people everywhere is the family itself. … It's in the family where we learn to think for ourselves, care for others, and acquire the values of self-reliance, integrity, responsibility, and compassion.
—Ronald Reagan, Radio Address to the Nation on the American Family (12/1/1983)
Ok, Cabbage Patch dolls…
…The ironic thing, of course, that the very party with the money—you—is the very one who has lost control. The kids, who have no money, have been wired by the manufacturer who wants your money. You're the monkey in the middle, frantically running through plate glass windows to satisfy a craving of your kid's, afraid to say no because that means breaking a promise and disappointing a kid—a crime punishable by guilt and, later, therapy fees.
So look at things the way the manufacturers do. See how there is a new item on the market, each a little bit different but all programmed the same. You can have one just by looking into the mirror. There it is, you and me: Sucker Doll. Wind it up and it will buy anything a kid wants.
—Richard Cohen, “Dollemma,”
Commodities are now all there are to see; the world we see is the world of the commodity.
Guy Debord,
Powerful ideas that shape the world become taken-for-granted verities, in two senses of the term: as the only world that is known; and as the only world that can be imagined. When hegemony controls the imagination, fundamental criticism becomes difficult, and perhaps, impossible. Yet what if there were flaws in the original idea, from which new worlds were constructed, that have materialized in a political-economic geography beset with seemingly unsolvable problems? For example, what if there have always been fundamental flaws in the free trade, open market, competitive, global system that dominates both the world as we know it and the conventional political-economic-geographical thought we know it through? This article speculates that a psycho-discursive act of deconstruction might unravel the entire, subsequent discourse. It aims deconstruction at a founding statement in the free trade, global ideal, by looking critically at David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage. Ricardo's argument that specialization and free trade are universally beneficial, became a founding premise of conventional economic theory and a basic prescription of liberal and neoliberal development policy. The article looks critically: at the logical consistency and representational accuracy of Ricardo's theory, especially the claim that all participants benefit from participation in a free trading scheme, so that trade brings about a far better world. The article reaches two main, critical conclusions: free trade theory based in comparative advantage has, from the beginning, been an ideology for creating economic spaces open to domination by powerful, leading countries; economics and economic geography have, since their classical beginnings, been biased in that their founding statements reverse the reality they pretend accurately to represent.
While the imposition of neoliberal policies by Western development institutions has been widely criticized, the ways in which such policies have found allies in the Third World have not received the same attention. This article focuses on India's cooperative dairying program in order to trace its transformation from an organization seeking to protect small-scale dairy producers against foreign dairy interests to current shifts in favor of the privatization of the dairy sector. The story of how India averted neocolonial dependence in its (dairy) White Revolution merits consideration now, when the global percentage of people in food poverty is again increasing. For decades, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank enforced the Washington consensus demanding that developing countries adopt structural adjustment programs including privatization of state services, subsidy cuts to indigenous farmers and consumers, and the opening of markets to (often subsidized) food imports from rich countries. Neoliberal policies are implicated in rural poverty, hunger, and migration to sprawling megacities. Given this, it is important to focus on struggles against the possible loss of cooperative institutions and thus build a broader understanding of the ways in which neoliberal policies spawn rural conflicts.
This article is divided into three main sections. In the first section, the growth of dairy productivity in India under the cooperative dairying program is traced from the 1970s onwards, beginning with its ability to utilize EEC food aid for the growth of the national dairy sector in a program called Operation Flood. A large part of the credit for this creative use of monetized food aid is usually attributed to Verghese Kurien, who has been associated with cooperative dairying from its beginnings in the small town of Anand, Gujarat, and whose pro-cooperative philosophy guided national dairy development organizations till recently. The second section of the article focuses on the institutional politics of dairy development, taking as its point of entry the replacement of Kurien by officials who are less likely to be oppositional to the privatization of the dairy sector. The departure of Kurien thus marks a key moment in the neoliberalisation of the cooperative dairying sector.
The third section focuses on the wider politics of the state of Gujarat within which the ‘Anand pattern’ of cooperative dairying was established. Here, the pro-business policies of Chief Minister Narendra Modi have been focused on attracting foreign investment to the state, leading to accelerated, but not equitable, economic growth. The ways in which agrarian interests have both clashed and intersected with Modi's vision of development provides an understanding of the transformed political economy within which cooperative dairying now has to function. Overall, the politics of cooperative dairying in India provides an insight into the place-based nature of neoliberal experiences, and can serve as an illustration of impending rural struggles across the world.
I use Gramsci's notion of hegemony to analyze how Mexican governments have reproduced the neoliberal state over the past twenty-five years. Hegemony is a spatially-contingent process of consensus and coercion that explains how dominant economic and political policies take shape. In the case of Mexico, I examine the rise of new political elites (technocrats), their attempts at reshaping the corporatist consensus through social pacts, and their use of a regional economic model as national archetype for economic development. More specifically, this analysis employs labor politics to illustrate how the government uses consensus and coercion to maintain the state as the privileged space for shaping the hegemonic geographies of economic development in Mexico.

Contradictory policies are being applied to the financial collapse in the United States. Nationalization and encouraging mergers constitute the prevalent approach, yet some banks are allowed to fail. Nationalizing toxic mortgages will entail unprecedented costs, yet will not solve the debt problem. The recession that began in North America tends to globalize: European monetary policy deepens the recession; Japan is dragged down by its own depression; the possibility of a new economic block headed by China vanishes. Initial analogies made with the 1987 crash, and with the end of the technological bubble in 2001, have little accuracy. And many comparisons made with the depression of the 1930s miss the differences produced by state interventionism and the globalization of capital and power. However, reference to the 1975–79 period is more useful in figuring out the changing phase of the capitalist economy. A loss of political authority, military adversities, and economic unbalances limit the possibilities of the US to export the crisis. The financial crisis rebuffed the neoliberal beliefs and the assumption that sophisticated investments can help reduce risks. Speculation is inherent to Capitalism, and the bankers and industry have worked in unison. The crunch is due to a peculiar crisis of over-production rooted on the fake valorization of assets and worker indebtedness induced by easy credit. The crisis demonstrates how wage contraction and global competition strengthen the problem of over-production. As well, it converges with a cyclical scarcity of raw materials, fostered by environmental degradation. These processes have exhausted North-American hyper-consumption financed by the rest of the world. Peripheral countries are the most likely to suffer most from the major effects of the crisis, as anticipated by the tragedy of Africa. Even continued control by the ruling classes in the semi peripheral countries over specific economic areas is uncertain. The financial
The author is member of the Buenos Aires-based Left-Wing Economists Group (EDI)
En Estados Unidos se implementan medidas contradictorias frente al colapso financiero. Predomina la estatización y el aliento de las fusiones, pero también se insinuó permitir la caída de algunos bancos. La nacionalización de hipotecas tóxicas tendrá un costo inédito y no resuelve la insolvencia de los deudores. La recesión norteamericana tiende a globalizarse, la política monetaria europea acentúa el enfriamiento, Japón arrastra su propia depresión y se esfuma la expectativa de un desacople liderado por China. Las analogías iniciales con el crack bursátil (1987) y la burbuja tecnológica (2001) han perdido pertinencia, pero muchas comparaciones con el 30 omiten las diferencias creadas por el intervencionismo estatal y la asociación mundial de capitales y potencias. Ciertas semejanzas con la depresión japonesa son acertadas, pero la referencia de 1975–76 es más útil para graficar el cambio de etapa. La pérdida de autoridad política, las adversidades militares y los desequilibrios económicos limitan la capacidad norteamericana para exportar la crisis. Pero el paradójico refugio en el dólar abre interrogantes sobre su ocaso.


