Titlebook: Ecologically Unequal Exchange; Environmental Injust R. Scott Frey,Paul K. Gellert,Harry F. Dahms Book 2019 The Editor(s) (if applicable) an

債務(wù)

奇思怪想

Epilogue: The Wider Viewis prospect; if so, equalizing ecological exchange around the globe will be a necessary step along the way. Such equalizing may well be the necessary first step in remedying the world-system’s impetus toward maintaining and amplifying existing forms of inequality that nation-states no longer can con

令人心醉

Book 2019tions on ecologically unequal exchange; empirical research on mining, deforestation, fisheries, andthe like; and strategies for responding to the adverse consequences associated with unequal ecological exchange. Scholars as well as advanced undergraduate and graduate students will benefit from the s

N斯巴達(dá)人

analogous

ADOPT

Toward a Theory of Ecologically Unequal Exchangef ecologically unequal exchange (EUE). In it, Bunker argues that the socioecological consequences of extractive economies differ from those of productive economies. Analysis of underdevelopment in extractive export economies requires an analysis of the cumulative effects of the sequence of local mod

FLAGR

Ecologically Unequal Exchange and Raw Materialism: The Material Foundations of the Capitalist World-is theoretical model focuses attention on the raw materials-based industries and linked transport systems that are used to solve the most fundamental challenge to rapid economic growth: how to acquire growing volumes of raw materials at lower costs and in greater and more secure volumes than other c

膽大

松雞

Bunker’s Ecologically Unequal Exchange, Foster’s Metabolic Rift, and Moore’s World-Ecology: Distinctman or biophysical nature while undermining sustainability. In the context of recent, largely one-sided criticism of Moore by Foster, this chapter highlights fundamental agreements regarding ecologically unequal exchange across all three of these sociologists. Then, it unpacks distinctions regarding