Contextualizing the Bioeconomy in an Unequal World: Biomass Sourcing and Global Socio-Ecological Inequalities

AbstractWhat is the bioeconomy and how does the bioeconomy relate to socio-ecological inequalities? With a focus on biomass sourcing, production and bioenergy, this chapter aims to answer these two questions with the whole book in mind. First, we introduce the conceptual, geographical and methodological focus of the volume. Drawing on political ecology and world systems theory, we develop an analytical lens for the study of global socio-ecological inequalities. Against this background, we sketch out the main findings of the contributions, which focus on conceptual questions, bioeconomy policies and agendas in different countries, as well as the reconfigurations and continuities of socio-ecological inequalities in and beyond the agrarian sector from the local to the global level. The contributions offer insights into different countries in South America, Southeast Asia and Europe as well as into the interrelations between different countries and regions. Finally, the outlook identifies and discusses four areas of further research.

Download Full-text

Understanding the Global–Local Nexus in the Context of the Olympic Games: Implications for Managing Community Development Through Sport Megaevents

Journal of Sport Management ◽

10.1123/jsm.2020-0380 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-14

Author(s):

NaRi Shin ◽

Jon Welty Peachey

Keyword(s):

Systems Theory ◽

Olympic Games ◽

Host Community ◽

World Systems ◽

World Systems Theory ◽

Winter Olympics ◽

Global Standards ◽

Field Notes ◽

Diverse Data ◽

The Olympic Games

In this study, the authors sought to understand the influence of the Olympic Games on a host community’s globalization and development using world-systems theory and theories of globalization (i.e., glocalization and grobalization). The host community for the 2018 PyeongChang Winter Olympics (Daegwallyeong-myeon in South Korea) was the focus of this investigation. Using a global ethnographic approach, the authors collected diverse data through interviews, observations, archival and media documents, and field notes. Findings identified five key themes: (a) perception of underdevelopment, (b) the Organizing Committee’s institutional management of the global standard, (c) the Organizing Committee’s role as a negotiator between the global standard and the locality, (d) resident perspectives on global standards and regulations, and (e) aspirations to globalize Daegwallyeong-myeon. Through this study, the authors advance the use of world-systems theory and expand the concept of grobalization in the context of sport megaevent management by discussing global–local configurations and local agents’ desires to transform the community through Olympic-driven development and globalization.

Download Full-text

Reply to Donald Nielsen's ?after world systems theory?

International Journal of Politics Culture and Society ◽

10.1007/bf01390154 ◽

1991 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. 499-500

Author(s):

Janet Abu-Lughod

Keyword(s):

Systems Theory ◽

World Systems ◽

World Systems Theory

Download Full-text

The Marxist Critique of International Political Theory

The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory ◽

10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198746928.013.49 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 651-663

Author(s):

Andrew Davenport

Keyword(s):

Political Theory ◽

Systems Theory ◽

International Politics ◽

World Systems ◽

World Systems Theory ◽

Modern Politics ◽

International Political Theory ◽

The Status ◽

Leading Schools ◽

Normative Issues

Marxism’s critique of International Political Theory (IPT) is not of specific themes but of how the latter understands international politics generally. Where IPT typically focuses on ethical and normative issues and problems of justice, Marxism has always given priority to capitalism and class, which it regards as fundamental to modern politics and as inadequately recognized within IPT. Marxism therefore rejects the view of the international as a shared “societal” space open to negotiation and compromise, and instead emphasizes irreconcilable conflict and exploitation. Through its leading schools of Imperialism, World Systems Theory, and Neo-Gramscian theory, Marxism has provided accounts of international politics that strongly contrast with the concerns of IPT. However, a potentially more far-reaching line of critique, drawing upon Marx’s analysis of liberal forms, remains undeveloped because Marxism has not yet clarified the status of the international within its theoretical space.

Download Full-text