INTRODUCTION: NEOLIBERAL CONSERVATION, UNEVEN GEOGRAPHICAL ... · introduction: neoliberal conservation, uneven geographical development and the dynamics of contemporary ... department

INTRODUCTION: NEOLIBERAL CONSERVATION,UNEVEN GEOGRAPHICAL DEVELOPMENTAND THE DYNAMICS OF CONTEMPORARYCAPITALISMtesg_712 129..135

Bram Büscher* & Murat Arsel**

*Institute of Social Studies, the Netherlands and postdoctoral fellow, Department of Geography,Environmental Management & Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg. Address: Kortenaerkade 12,2518 AX, The Hague, The Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected].**Institute of Social Studies, the Netherlands. Address: Kortenaerkade 12, 2518 AX, The Hague,The Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected].

INTRODUCTION

This editorial aims to introduce the papers ofthis special dossier and critically reflect on theconnection between the ongoing financialcrisis and crises in the sphere of environmentand development. The environmental crisisrelates to the interconnected global crises ofclimate change, biodiversity loss, ocean acidifi-cation, forest loss, and so forth (Heynen et al.2007; CBD 2010). The development crisis isone of global inequality or the further accre-tion and concentration of wealth in fewerhands while large pockets of poverty remain orbecome entrenched across the developed anddeveloping world (Edward 2006; Harvey 2010;Saith 2011). Both, we argue, are inherent tocontemporary capitalism, but have not receivedthe type of concentrated political and econ-omic investment of capital that we haveobserved during the financial crisis.

Capitalist production systems are, however,increasingly trying to take emerging naturallimits and growing inequality into account.Recent years have seen an astonishing arrayof ‘partnerships’ among and between govern-ments, corporations, academic institutions,development agencies, NGOs and others todeal with the consequences of environmentalproblems and world poverty (Lemos & Agrawal

2006; Glasbergen et al. 2007; Ros-Tonen 2007;Neves & Igoe 2012). Obvious examples areclimate change and the Millennium Develop-ment Goals (MDGs). Yet, the mainstreamefforts here are remarkably in line with thegeneral response to the 2008/2009 or ratherthe ongoing financial crisis: they aim for thesurface effects, not the root causes (e.g. Macart-ney 2009; Harvey 2010). The main response tothe environmental crisis has been neoliberalconservation, which, simply put, comes down tomaking environmental conservation compat-ible with capitalism (Brockington & Duffy 2010;Büscher et al. forthcoming). The main policyresponse to the development crisis continues,despite acknowledgement of the multidimen-sional nature of poverty by the MDGs, to relyalmost entirely on economic growth alone(Vandemoortele 2011), thus further stimulat-ing and intensifying ‘uneven development’, the‘hallmark of the geography of capitalism’(Smith, 2008, p. 4).

By exploring the concepts of neoliberalconservation and uneven development in thecontext and wake of the recent and ongoingfinancial crisis, we argue that this specialdossier of Tijdschrift voor Economische en SocialeGeografie will be able to shed some light onrecent changes in contemporary capitalism.More specifically, the following key questions

Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie – 2012, DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9663.2012.00712.x, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp. 129–135.© 2012 The AuthorsTijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAGPublished by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

are addressed: What are some of the most per-tinent characteristics of current dynamics incontemporary capitalism and how do theseconnect to the issues of neoliberal conservationand uneven geographical development? Webelieve these are fundamental questions thatneed revisiting time and again if we are todevelop indepth understanding, and addressthe global crises we are currently facing. AsHarvey (2006b, p. xxii) argued: ‘somethingcrucial is lost when we refuse to confrontthe internal contradictions of capitalism as thecrux of our problems. I believe . . . that a poli-tics that evades central contradictions can onlyever address symptoms’. This introduction,then, will first briefly introduce the (relevanceof the) concepts of neoliberal conservation anduneven geographical development in the lightof the financial crisis and then connect thecontributors’ insights to these issues.

NEOLIBERAL CONSERVATIONAND UNEVEN GEOGRAPHICALDEVELOPMENT AFTER THE CRASH

The concepts of neoliberal conservation anduneven geographical development derive fromrich, nuanced literatures that cannot be donejustice to in a short introduction (see e.g. Braun& Castree, 1998; Smith, 2008; Arsel & Büscher,2012; Büscher et al. forthcoming). The purposeof this section is therefore not to provide a fullgenealogy of the concepts but rather to explaintheir key characteristics with a view to pavingthe way for the contributions to the specialdossier. Importantly, both concepts are rootedin critical political economy analyses that framethe interplay between interests and markets –and their social and environmental con-stitution and effects – within an explicitconfiguration of structural power (Arrighi1994; O’Connor 1994; Heynen et al. 2007;Storm 2009). The historic configuration that iscurrently dominant is that of late capitalism.Hence these analyses have the critical study ofcapitalist structures of power and modes ofproduction and value creation at their core.This is why the global financial crisis that hasbeen unfolding since 2007 has been of parti-cular interest, as it confirmed once more theessential instability and contradictory nature ofcapitalism (Bellamy Foster & Magdoff 2009).

Many of the central contradictions of capital-ism derive from the nature of capital, definedas ‘value in process, money in process . . . Itcomes out of circulation, enters into it again,preserves and multiplies itself within circula-tion, emerges from it with an increased size,and starts the same cycle again and again’(Marx 1976: 256). Capital, as Harvey (2010)recently emphasised, is always on the move;it cannot stop but on penalty of the death ofthe system. The financial crisis again madethis abundantly clear. From Washington viaLondon to Tokyo, all leaders of rich and manypoorer countries were, and are, primarilyconcerned with making sure that banks startlending again in order to get the economy outof the slump and money back into circulation.As such, capitalism is inherently expansionist,and so cannot help but to seek and bring moreand more facets of life into its orbit, includingthe natural world (Castree 2008; Büscher2010). Making clear the (monetary) exchangevalue of nature so as to calculate what pricehas to be paid in order to conserve its services,then, has only superficially to do with trying topreserve ecosystems, as the currently popularadage ‘payments for environmental services’would have it. Rather, it should be looked at inPolanyian terms of capitalism trying to mediateits worst excesses while simultaneously trying toopen up new avenues for ‘moving capital’ andsecuring profit (Igoe et al. 2010).

It is here that we get to the concept of neoli-beral conservation. McCarthy (2012), as well asBüscher (2012) show that one of the ways inwhich to conceptualise neoliberalism is as aparticular ideology to subject social and politi-cal (and environmental!) affairs to capitalist(market) dynamics. Neoliberalism has beenthe globally dominant ideology since the early1970s and has deeply influenced the issue ofenvironmental conservation by trying to makeit compatible with capital circulation (Neves& Igoe 2012). Of course, this is not to say thatconservation has only recently become associ-ated with capitalism. The literature (e.g. Brock-ington et al. 2008; Igoe et al. 2010), increasinglyemphasises that conservation has played a vitalrole throughout the history and developmentof capitalism. In part, this relates to Polanyi’s‘double movement’: conservation as a politicalbacklash against the environmental effects of

130 BRAM BÜSCHER & MURAT ARSEL

© 2012 The AuthorsTijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie © 2012 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG

modernisation and capitalist industrialisation.But as Igoe et al. (2010) show, this is only aminor part of the story. Conservation has inactual fact been an essential part of capitalistexpansion since the nineteenth century andwas deeply dependent on elites and rising busi-ness tycoons (Adams 2008).

Neoliberal conservation, then, is the contem-porary push to making environmental conser-vation not only compatible with capitalism butalso a source for economic growth (Arsel &Büscher 2012). Hence where after the GreatDepression it was the automobile industrythat led many of the technological changesthat helped to generate economic growthfor decades, many world leaders, includingBarack Obama, have been pushing ‘green tech-nologies’ to provide economic growth, deve-lopment and environmental stewardship.1

Obviously, these (so-called) ‘green technolo-gies’ have a longer history, but the financialcrisis really catapulted them into the globalpolitical limelight, especially through theUnited Nations Environment Programme’scall for a ‘Global Green New Deal’ and, morerecently, the ‘Green Economy’ (UNEP 2011).In particular due to the pressing problems ofclimate change, loss of biological diversity andfresh water resources and pollution, the capi-talist system is trying to find ways to cope withand incorporate these in order to safeguardfuture economic growth (Stern 2006). But whatexactly are the consequences of further inte-grating conservation with contemporary capi-talism? This is one of the issues that thecontributors to the special dossier address.

This question is extremely important yetoddly enough hardly discussed in mainstreamdiscussions and policy environments. Every-body knows and recognises we live in a capitalisttime, yet no policies on the environment everstart with ‘biodiversity conservation is highlyinfluenced by capitalism’. As Newell (2011, p.4) put it succinctly for the realm of academia,‘capitalism is ever present, yet largely unsaid,in many academic debates on global environ-mental change’. We believe that this recogni-tion is desperately needed in the mainstreamdebate because its view on how further integra-tion of conservation with capitalism leads tomultiple ‘wins’ is in fact based on a history ofmany environmentally harmful contradictions.

Furthermore, it relates to the question of howthe benefits and burdens of conservation aredistributed across the globe (Brockington &Duffy 2010). This then brings us to the secondmain concept, that of uneven geographicaldevelopment.

Proponents of neoliberalism have been atpains to stress the specialness of this crisis –Greenspan called it a ‘once in a century credittsunami’ (BBC 2008) – in order to buttressthe perceived strength of the foundations ofthe global economic order. However, from acritical political economy perspective, suchcrises confirm that capitalism has progressedhistorically according to what Harvey (2006a,p. 71) terms ‘“uneven geographical develop-ment”: the extreme volatility in contemporarypolitical economic fortunes across and betweenspaces of the world economy (at all manner ofdifferent scales)’. Importantly, the benefitsand burdens of the crisis, as well as the abilitiesand capabilities of states to deal with the crisishave also been extremely unevenly distributed.Büscher (2012) shows that the continent thatleast contributed to the crisis was nonethelessseverely hit, while rich, Western nations atleast had the ability and capacity to providelavish bail-out packages.2 Such an ability isoften missing within the context of develop-ing nations, whose states not only lack theresources to undertake the protection oftheir citizens who suffer from myriad negativeimpacts of financial crises, but are also activelyprevented by intergovernmental organisationsfrom undertaking meaningful action lest thesedisrupt the workings of markets (Akyüz 2011).

This unequal and differentiated ability of(and within) developing and developednation states to respond to crises, formsanother dimension of uneven geographicaldevelopment. In this regard, it is importantto remember that ‘neoliberalism uses unevengeographical development as a means topromote the universality of its own worldproject, which has nothing to do with thewell-being of the whole of humanity but every-thing to do with the enhancement of dominantforms of class power’ (Harvey 2009, p. 1276).To this end, Arsel (2012) demonstrates thateven explicitly post-neoliberal leaders in LatinAmerica, who are pursuing redistributionistpolicies, have to make use of the neoliberal

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL DOSSIER 131


toolkit in developing their policies. This seem-ing contradiction arises from the tensionbetween the traditional logic of the develop-mental state, namely, to deliver socio-economicprogress through economic growth, with itsnewly acquired, or at times imposed, role toprotect the integrity of ecosystems not only forthe benefit of local communities who dependon them but also for the parts of the globalsociety at large who demand their preservation.

Of course, to say, in general, that thingsdevelop unevenly does not seem to say much.This is why the addition ‘geographical’ is soimportant: not only do actors have unevencapabilities to deal with environment anddevelopment problematics, the benefits andburdens of these are also inherently unevenlydistributed across and between spaces of theworld economy (Smith 2008). In turn, capital-ism, and especially capital circulation attributeuneven importance to different spaces, withspecific geographical expressions. This was,of course, Smith’s (2008, p. 4) basic message:‘uneven development is the systematic geo-graphical expression of the contradictionsinherent in the very constitution and structureof capital’. Crises, then, as Smith (2008, p. 170)also points out ‘can also be acutely functionalfor capital’ as it shakes up the playing fieldwithin which class interests can be rearticu-lated, and particularly, reinforced (as is whatHarvey 2010 argues is what happened with theUS$700 billion bailout package in the US).

Crisis can also be an opportunity to questionthese dynamics and practices, and this is whatthe special dossier is all about: interrogatingimportant issues like environmental conser-vation, poverty and development within anexplicit configuration of structural power. This,as Newell (2011, p. 6) also stresses, is highlynecessary and overdue: ‘the extension anddeepening of the logics of capitalism to newgeographical and ecological areas of the planetappears to be unprecedented. This processneeds to be adequately understood as a politi-cal and economic phenomenon with importantsocial and environmental consequences ofinterest both to scholars of global environmen-tal change and to all of us as citizens who, somemore than others, will live with the benefitsand problems it brings’. Exploring the issuesof neoliberal conservation and uneven geo-

graphical development can contribute to thisunderstanding, and each of the contributorstouches on different aspects. Let us brieflyintroduce their main concerns and arguments.

CONNECTING THE CONTRIBUTIONS TOTHE SPECIAL DOSSIER

Just as there has been a ‘scramble’ in academiccontributions trying to make sense of the crisis(Castree 2010), so the crisis signifies a scrambleover resources and over how to appropriateand value these. In the various geographicspaces of concern, as well as on the variousscales of the contributions, one can detectthese dynamics at play, whereby struggles overresources and their value are played out againstthe background of variegated forms of capitalaccumulation – and thus uneven geographicaldevelopment. In Büscher’s (2012) contribu-tion about the place of the African continentwithin the world system, the unevenness isarguably starkest. Büscher shows how ‘Africa’splace in the global world order’ has long beensignified by a seemingly paradoxical situationof intensive, one-sided and violent resourceexploitation and equally intensive, one-sidedand violent resource conservation. From hiscontribution, it is clear that the old ‘scramblefor Africa’ has not only transitioned into theneoliberal era, but taken on distinct new formsof geographical unevenness, scales and intensi-ties. Büscher argues that the financial crisis hasgiven globally dominant actors renewed vigourto intensify familiar processes of neoliberal con-servation and neoliberal exploitation behind awin-win façade: good for outsiders and good forAfrica’s poor.

These core dynamics are also evident inother parts of the world that are the focus ofsome of the contributions. Arsel (2012) focuseson Latin America and Ecuador in particular,and shows that the scramble there is to transferthe hold on vital resources, particularly oil,from foreign corporations to the ‘refounded’state. Through a broader Latin Americanstrategy of ‘Socialism of the twenty first cen-tury’ which reflects the driving force behindthe ongoing ‘Left Turn’, President Correa ofEcuador saw only one way to lessen foreigninfluence, namely to strengthen state con-trol over resources and environmental and



developmental processes in the country.Paradoxically, one of the key ways of doingso for Correa proved to be a policy thatstrongly resembles neoliberal conservation. Tothe extent that the Yasuní-ITT (Ishpingo-Tambocoha-Tiputini) initiative is path break-ing as an attempt to transcend the tensionbetween the need for continued socio-economic development in the South and thenecessity of preserving ecosystems critical forthe health of the planet, it too has succumbedto the dominant logic of the markets. The statecontrol over resources was supposed to funddevelopment projects, which led to a jostle withprimarily European ‘contributors’ who areinterested in buying the credits and preferthe funds to be used for conservation of the‘globally significant’ Yasuní park. While thisproblem seems to have been resolved by theinvolvement of the UNDP in the architecture ofthe Yasuní-ITT trust fund, the process of nego-tiation showed once again the difficulties inher-ent in North-South relations regarding globalenvironmental change and conservation.

What is striking about these two contri-butions is how they signify both new andfamiliar forms of unevenness, but also new andcontradictory forms of neoliberal conservation.At the same time, it is hard to compare the twocontinents as their experiences in uneven geo-graphical development and neoliberal conser-vation are so vastly different. Castree (2008,p. 135) warned about this recently: ‘Where oneis dealing with sui generis forms of neoliberalenvironmental governance – at the nationalor local scale, say – the hoary question of howfar one can compare from case to case in geo-graphical research arises’. Neves and Igoe’scontribution, however, does attempt to makethis comparison across vastly different casesand natures: whale watching in the Azores andcommunity-based conservation in Tanzania. Inboth cases new legal mechanisms are created todefine and restrict access to resources. In con-trast to Arsel’s description of the Ecuadorianstate, ‘these forms of “re-regulation” . . . and“territorialisation” . . . are not based on owner-ship but on carefully monitored managerialrelationships between people and resources’(Neves & Igoe 2012, p. 164). Yet, where inEcuador more ‘traditional’ and raw power poli-tics seem to be decisive, Neves and Igoe (2012,

p. 164) point towards more obscure forms ofpower: the ability of actors at various politicaland geographical scales to ‘remake reality’‘around imagined possibilities of openingnature as a new realm for capitalist expan-sion’. While this may be beneficial for certainspaces and species, the broader outcomesdemonstrate the inherently divisive and, infinal reckoning, destructive impact of neoli-beral conservation on nature as a whole aswell as on the livelihoods of disenfranchisedcommunities.

This, finally, brings us to McCarthy’s con-tribution which deals with this more obscurestruggle that takes place primarily at the level ofideas and ideologies. McCarthy asks the vitalquestion what the likely or possible trajecto-ries are for relationships between political-economic structures and environmentalgovernance ‘after’ the crisis. Focusing on theUS, McCarthy (2012, p. 180) also shows how thefinancial crisis has led to a struggle overresources, whereby ‘responses to the criseshave come to focus overwhelmingly on restor-ing dominant political economic arrangementsto where they were several years ago, ratherthan taking the opportunity to “green” them inany deep, substantive sense’. As such, McCar-thy’s conclusion is that the fallout from thefinancial crisis demonstrates the pervasivenature of neoliberal policies, which have notonly spread across the globe but also pen-etrated into the very fabric of policy discoursesof diverse actors, and that they are likely toremain and to exacerbate the process ofuneven geographical development. At thesame time, he believes that there are ways to‘contribute to more just, democratic, and sus-tainable activity’, and that even though ‘any“de-neoliberalisation” of environmental gover-nance is likely to be slow, difficult, and uneven’McCarthy (2012, p. 180), there have been posi-tive contributions to this project.

We hope the papers in this special dossiercontribute to this project in one way or anotherat this important moment in history. While thefocus of mainstream policy, business and gov-ernment circles, three years ago and today still,is on ‘“fixing” rather than reconstructing globalfinance’ (Macartney 2009, p. 116), we believethat the financial crisis has also opened upspace to discuss the more fundamental political



and economic processes related to contem-porary capitalism. In fact, we argue that thecontinuing stream of ‘financial crises’ makeit highly necessary and relevant to developnuanced analyses that link the nature of thesecrises to relevant contemporary political issues.The concepts of neoliberal conservation anduneven geographical development enablethese types of analyses and the contributions tothis special dossier of Tijdschrift voor Economischeen Sociale Geografie point to the deeper, morestructural insights that these can lead.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Mirjam Ros and the editors of TESG,the reviewers and the participants, organisers andsupporters of the original symposium where the ideawas born for this collection (the ‘Neoliberal Conser-vation: Promise or Peril? Debating Environment andDevelopment in a North-South Context’ symposium,organised by the Department of Social and CulturalAnthropology of the VU University Amsterdam andthe Cluster Resources, Environment and Livelihoodsof the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague) forvaluable inputs and comments on various drafts ofthis introduction and the other papers in the specialsection.

Notes

1. Although, it must be said, the earlier enthusiasmquickly waned and Obama’s track record on envi-ronment and energy is generally considered verydisappointing. See McCarthy (2012) for a fullerdiscussion.

2. Although this, again, seems to be nearing itslimits, particularly in Europe, considering thecurrent ‘debt crisis’.

REFERENCES

Adams, W.A. (2008), Green Development: Environmentand Sustainability in a Developing World. London:Routledge.

Akyüz, Y. (2011), Policy Responses to the GlobalFinancial Crisis: Key Issues for Developing Coun-tries. In: J.K. Sundaram, ed., Reforming the Interna-tional Financial System for Development, pp. 105–142.New York: Columbia University Press.

Arrighi, G. (1994), The Long Twentieth Century.Money, Power and the Origins of our Times. London:Verso.

Arsel, M. (2012), Between ‘Marx and Markets’?The State, the ‘Left Turn’ and Nature in Ecuador.Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 103,pp. 150–163.

Arsel, M. & B. Büscher (2012), Nature™ Inc:Changes and Continuities in Neoliberal Conserva-tion and Environmental Markets. Development andChange 43, pp. 53–78.

BBC (2008), Financial crisis like a tsunami. Availableat <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7687101.stm>.

Bellamy Foster, J. & F. Magdoff (2009), The GreatFinancial Crisis. Causes and Consequences. New York:Monthly Review Press.

Braun, B. & N. Castree (1998), Remaking Reality.Nature at the Millennium. London: Routledge.

Brockington, D. & R. Duffy (2010), Capitalismand Conservation: The Production and Reproduc-tion of Biodiversity Conservation. Antipode 42,pp. 469–484.

Brockington, D., R. Duffy & J. Igoe, (2008), NatureUnbound. Conservation, Capitalism and the Future ofProtected Areas. London: Earthscan.

Büscher, B. (2010), Derivative Nature: Inter-rogating the Value of Conservation in ‘BoundlessSouthern Africa’. Third World Quarterly 31, pp. 259–276.

Büscher, B. (2012), The Political Economy ofAfrica’s Natural Resources and the ‘Great Finan-cial Crisis’. Tijdschrift voor Economische en SocialeGeografie 103, pp. 136–149.

Büscher, B., S. Sullivan, K. Neves, J. Igoe &D. Brockington (forthcoming), Towards aSynthesized Critique of Neoliberal BiodiversityConservation. Capitalism, Nature Socialism 23.

Castree, N. (2008), Neoliberalising Nature:Processes, Effects, and Evaluations. Environmentand Planning A 40, pp. 153–173.

Castree, N. (2010), Crisis, Continuity and Change:Neoliberalism, the Left and the Future of Capital-ism. Antipode 41, pp. 185–213.

CBD (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montreal:CBD Secretariat.

Edward, P. (2006), Examining Inequality: WhoReally Benefits from Global Growth? World Devel-opment 34, pp. 1667–1695.

Glasbergen, P., F. Biermann & A.P.J. Mol, eds.(2007), Partnerships, Governance and SustainableDevelopment: Reflections on Theory and Practice.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Harvey, D. (2006a), Spaces of Global Capitalism: ATheory of Uneven Geographical Development. London:Verso.



Harvey, D. (2006b), Limits to Capital. London:Verso.

Harvey, D. (2009), Reshaping Economic Geogra-phy: The World Development Report 2009 Devel-opment and Change 40, pp. 1269–1277.

Harvey, D. (2010), The Enigma of Capital and theCrises of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Heynen, N., J. McCarthy, W.S. Prudham & P.Robbins, eds. (2007), Neoliberal Environments: FalsePromises and Unnatural Consequences. Routledge:New York.

Igoe, J., K. Neves & D. Brockington (2010), ASpectacular Eco-tour around the Historic Bloc:Theorising the Convergence of Biodiversity Con-servation and Capitalist Expansion. Antipode 42,pp. 486–512.

Lemos, M.C. & A. Agrawal (2006), EnvironmentalGovernance. Annual Review of Environment andResources 31, pp. 297–325.

Macartney, H. (2009), Disagreeing to Agree: Finan-cial Crisis Management within the ‘Logic of NoAlternative’. Politics 29, pp. 111–120.

McCarthy, J. (2012), The Financial Crisis andEnvironmental Governance ‘After’ Neoliberalism.Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 103,pp. 180–195.

Marx, K. (1976), Capital. Volume I. London:Penguin Books.

Neves, K. & J. Igoe (2012), Uneven Developmentand Accumulation by Dispossession in NatureConservation: A Comparison of Recent Trends

in the Azores and Tanzania. Tijdschrift voor Econ-omische en Sociale Geografie 103, pp. 164–179.

Newell, P. (2011), The Elephant in the Room: Capi-talism and Global Environmental Change. GlobalEnvironmental Change 21, pp. 4–6

O’Connor, M. (1994), Is Capitalism Sustainable?Political Economy and the Politics of Ecology. London:Guilford Press.

Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Ed. (in collaboration withH. van den Hombergh & A. Zoomers) (2007),Partnerships in Sustainable Forest Resource Manage-ment: Learning from Latin America. Leiden: BrillPublishers.

Saith, A. (2011), Inequality, Imbalance, Instability:Reflections on a Structural Crisis. Development andChange 42, pp. 70–86.

Smith, N. (2008), Uneven Development: Nature, Capitaland the Production of Space. Athens, GA: Universityof Georgia Press.

Stern, N. (2006), Stern Review of the Economics ofClimate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Storm, S. (2009), Capitalism and Climate Change:Can the Invisible Hand Adjust the NaturalThermostat? Development and Change 40, pp. 1011–1038.

UNEP (2011), Towards a Green Economy: Pathways toSustainable Development and Poverty Eradication.Nairobi: UNEP.

Vandemoortele, J. (2011), The MDG Story:Intention Denied. Development and Change 42,pp. 1–21.



Documents

INTRODUCTION: NEOLIBERAL CONSERVATION, UNEVEN GEOGRAPHICAL ... · introduction: neoliberal conservation, uneven geographical development and the dynamics of contemporary ... department