Thesis: Wallerstein 2.0

I only just proposed my thesis subject to my promotor. Hopefully, it gets approved because it is what I really want to do. My thesis subject can be situated at the crossroad of all my major interests: economic systems, development in the global South and ecology. What I hope to be preoccupied with for the two years to come is the ecologically unequal exchange. 'Unequal exchange' is a marxist idea signifying a trade in which the price of the traded good does not reflect the actual costs and benefits for both parties. Of course it's a very contested concept.

The Third World Studies Center of Ghent University

Probably the best known application of the concept is its usage in Immanuel Wallerstein's World-systems Analysis. In this theory, Wallerstein argues that a set of core nations (the industrialized North) develops by exploiting the periphery (the global South) trough unequal trade relations. Such ideas were very popular in the 70's but with the rise of neoliberalism it got more and more contested. My thesis will focus on a chance of revival for World-systems Analysis; a chance embodied by the ecologically unequal exchange or EUE.

An EUE is just like the marxist concept, only it focuses specifically on the negative effects of an economic activity on the environment. EUE-theorists claim that often such ecological costs are not included in the pricing mechanism. The result is a product with an artificially low price, the excess value being transfered to the buyer. Can you see where this is going? Indeed, the industrialized North buys not-so-eco-fiendly goods produced in the global South thus extracting the excess value. My goal is to find out whether this effect plays in the real world, outside the field of theory, and in what way it contributes to problematic development in the South.

You all burn a candle for that the promotor may set the light to green and this exciting matter comes my way!

Youthful idealism

Today, I had my first class of the new academic term. The course in question was Theory of International Relations and the lesson provided me with some - much needed - inspiration for this blog. People who read my first contribution to Blogger might start to see a pattern. ;-)

Anyhow, the first lesson wasn't the average introduction speech on which text book to use etc. Quite the contrary; the prof used his premiere to test our worth. We were asked to engage in a hundred person debate revolving around one given question: Why did the NATO intervene in Libya? As the exemplary students we are, many a valuable contribution was made. We stressed the importance of regional stability, the perceived threat of political Islam and of course the inescapable Libyan oil reserves. One explanation was remarkably absent from the debate, accidentally the official one. Can you by any chance remember French head of state Nicolas Sarkozy mentioning the violation of human rights by the Libyan regime? Or maybe you recall American president Obama saying something about the protection of Libyan citizens?

For some reason my fellow students didn't buy the noble motives NATO itself put forth. Is it naive to rejoice when I hear Belgian military planes will help to enforce the no-fly zone? Sure, the NATO members have their agenda, but a nationwide massacre was avoided. It came as a genuine shock to me how harsh and negative the people I socialize with sounded. My grandma portrays more joie de vivre than our entire theatre together and she's almost eighty! It is good to have a critical attitude, but most comments left a real bitter taste. Luckily the professor assumed the role of devil's advocate and pointed out the multitude of facets involved. He kept cool and made clear we are hypocrites out of necessity: we don't protect the Chechens because Russia has nuclear arms, we don't support the Syrian uprising since Assad has close ties with Iran, etc. Just like him, I believe that the political elite of the democratic west wants to address those issues. The price is however too high to pay and so we abstain.

The lesson I learned today is that idealism on it itself doesn't do much good, even though I often flirt with it myself. To all readers who just like me enjoy the occasional stay at Castle Sky: dreaming of a better world is a must, but reality is a bitch. Even idealists should take it into account if they seek a resolution. The blinding light of prefabricated ideologies - of whichever kind - can muddle our vision when dealing with REAL problems. Situations are often more complex than we tend to present them, so remember: it's all swings and roundabouts! :p