with one of embedded systems. Three pillars suggest that the economic, social, and
environmental dimensions are of equal quality and could potentially be served in an
additive and not integrated way: some institutions take care of social things, some
protect the environment and others make sure we have enough economic growth.
The total sum would be sustainable development.
I found a striking example of this during my PhD in global political economy
when I was also working as a volunteer campaigner for Friends of the Earth in its
international trade program. Since 1999, international civil society organizations
have formed huge coalitions behind the slogan “Our World is Not for Sale.” They
teamed up with small farmers, fishing communities, and workers from around the
globe to voice concerns about the impact that treating everything as traded commodities managed through global market mechanisms has on livelihoods, equity
and ecosystem integrity. They also pointed out that this type of world trade system
would primarily benefit wealthy corporate players who are empowered to expand
their activities according to their own standards.
The dominant narrative found in major global institutions, on the other hand,
presented a mainstream economic spin on why a global trade system and its core
institution, the World Trade Organization (WTO), would benefit poorer people:
growth will trickle down after some structural adjustment periods. Moreover,
environmental issues should be dealt with in the Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs) but not in purely economic trade negotiations. During my
research into different schools of economic thought and the role that scientific
expertise plays in institutionalization processes, I came across the following
eye-opening passage from the WTO’s tenth anniversary report. Prepared by an
“international panel of experts” it states: “It is old wisdom in many cultures that you
cannot kill two birds with one stone . . . So the correct policy solution is to fix the
environment through an appropriate environmental policy and to maintain open
trade to maximize the gains from trade and hence economic prosperity” (Sutherland
et al. 2004: 14).
Wow, I thought, have these people not heard anything about the sustainable
development agenda and its argument that this false dichotomy between environment and economy only holds in theoretical models? Checking the educational
background of the eight experts in question, I found that all of them had studied
economics at American universities. Differing passports notwithstanding, the
degree of diversity of views on this panel could hardly have been lower.
Unsurprisingly, some of the most popular cases for the WTO Dispute Settlement
Body and also the hottest topics in the ongoing Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) negotiations are things like import bans on tuna fished with
tight nets that create incredible amounts of by-catch, genetically modified organisms or hormone-treated meats: because they are ‘like products’ (basically offering
the same) they must not be treated differently under the purely economic trade law.
They must be granted equal access to the market. Also prohibited are border tax
adjustments that counter the competitive price advantage of products where
3.2 How Mainstream Economics Views Nature and Its Governance
97
environmental dimensions are of equal quality and could potentially be served in an
additive and not integrated way: some institutions take care of social things, some
protect the environment and others make sure we have enough economic growth.
The total sum would be sustainable development.
I found a striking example of this during my PhD in global political economy
when I was also working as a volunteer campaigner for Friends of the Earth in its
international trade program. Since 1999, international civil society organizations
have formed huge coalitions behind the slogan “Our World is Not for Sale.” They
teamed up with small farmers, fishing communities, and workers from around the
globe to voice concerns about the impact that treating everything as traded commodities managed through global market mechanisms has on livelihoods, equity
and ecosystem integrity. They also pointed out that this type of world trade system
would primarily benefit wealthy corporate players who are empowered to expand
their activities according to their own standards.
The dominant narrative found in major global institutions, on the other hand,
presented a mainstream economic spin on why a global trade system and its core
institution, the World Trade Organization (WTO), would benefit poorer people:
growth will trickle down after some structural adjustment periods. Moreover,
environmental issues should be dealt with in the Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs) but not in purely economic trade negotiations. During my
research into different schools of economic thought and the role that scientific
expertise plays in institutionalization processes, I came across the following
eye-opening passage from the WTO’s tenth anniversary report. Prepared by an
“international panel of experts” it states: “It is old wisdom in many cultures that you
cannot kill two birds with one stone . . . So the correct policy solution is to fix the
environment through an appropriate environmental policy and to maintain open
trade to maximize the gains from trade and hence economic prosperity” (Sutherland
et al. 2004: 14).
Wow, I thought, have these people not heard anything about the sustainable
development agenda and its argument that this false dichotomy between environment and economy only holds in theoretical models? Checking the educational
background of the eight experts in question, I found that all of them had studied
economics at American universities. Differing passports notwithstanding, the
degree of diversity of views on this panel could hardly have been lower.
Unsurprisingly, some of the most popular cases for the WTO Dispute Settlement
Body and also the hottest topics in the ongoing Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (TTIP) negotiations are things like import bans on tuna fished with
tight nets that create incredible amounts of by-catch, genetically modified organisms or hormone-treated meats: because they are ‘like products’ (basically offering
the same) they must not be treated differently under the purely economic trade law.
They must be granted equal access to the market. Also prohibited are border tax
adjustments that counter the competitive price advantage of products where
3.2 How Mainstream Economics Views Nature and Its Governance
97