IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dav/wpaper/20-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Injecting power dynamics and biodiversity protection into elementary microeconomics

Author

Listed:
  • David Martin

    (Department of Economics, Davidson College)

Abstract

Microeconomic theory is applied to protecting the biodiversity that conservation biologists have identified as important and threatened in several ways, including creating market values for ecosystem services and providing incentives for local people to protect habitats. Yet, economists frequently ignore the power dynamics inherent in the social systems involved with the biodiversity measures they propose and assess, which brings them into conflict with political ecologists. To bridge this gap between economists, political ecologists, and conservation biologists, I discuss how to frame the important introductory microeconomic topics of consumer sovereignty and the equimarginal rule with the additions of the type of power dynamics commonly used by political ecologists. I use the topics of shade grown coffee and the Noah’s Ark framework, both very familiar to conservation biologists, to place this discussion within the context of protecting biodiversity. I conclude that introducing these topics will better serve the biodiversity analysts who take only the economics principles course.

Suggested Citation

  • David Martin, 2020. "Injecting power dynamics and biodiversity protection into elementary microeconomics," Working Papers 20-03, Davidson College, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:dav:wpaper:20-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://econrepec.davidson.edu/wpaper/PowerDynamicsConBio.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sanjay V. Lanka & Iqbal Khadaroo & Steffen Böhm, 2017. "Agroecology accounting: biodiversity and sustainable livelihoods from the margins," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 30(7), pages 1592-1613, September.
    2. Weber, Jeremy G., 2011. "How much more do growers receive for Fair Trade-organic coffee?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 677-684, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barham, Bradford L. & Weber, Jeremy G., 2012. "The Economic Sustainability of Certified Coffee: Recent Evidence from Mexico and Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 1269-1279.
    2. Meemken, Eva-Marie & Spielman, David J. & Qaim, Matin, 2017. "Trading off nutrition and education? A panel data analysis of the dissimilar welfare effects of Organic and Fairtrade standards," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 74-85.
    3. Torelli, Riccardo & Balluchi, Federica, 2020. "Business Legitimacy, Agricultural Biodiversity and Environmental Ethics: Insights from Sustainable Bakeries," OSF Preprints sxzjf, Center for Open Science.
    4. Ruifeng Liu & Zhifeng Gao & Gongan Yan & Hengyun Ma, 2018. "Why Should We Protect the Interests of “Green Food” Certified Product Growers? Evidence from Kiwifruit Production in China," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Durevall, Dick, 2015. "Are Fairtrade Prices Fair? An Analysis of the Distribution of Returns in the Swedish Coffee Market," Working Papers in Economics 615, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised Sep 2017.
    6. Donovan, Jason & Poole, Nigel, 2016. "Changing asset endowments and smallholder participation in higher-value markets: Evidence from certified-coffee producers in Nicaragua," IFPRI book chapters, in: Devaux, André & Torero, Maximo & Donovan, Jason & Horton, Douglas E. (ed.), Innovation for inclusive value-chain development: Successes and challenges, chapter 3, pages 93-126, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Ruben, Ruerd, 2017. "Dovetailing Fairtrade And Organic Certification: How The Twin Can Meet?," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260827, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Balineau, Gaëlle, 2013. "Disentangling the Effects of Fair Trade on the Quality of Malian Cotton," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 241-255.
    9. Fikadu Mitiku & Yann De Mey & Jan Nyssen & Miet Maertens, 2017. "Do Private Sustainability Standards Contribute to Income Growth and Poverty Alleviation? A Comparison of Different Coffee Certification Schemes in Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(2), pages 1-21, February.
    10. Fédes Rijn & Ricardo Fort & Ruerd Ruben & Tinka Koster & Gonne Beekman, 2020. "Does certification improve hired labour conditions and wageworker conditions at banana plantations?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(2), pages 353-370, June.
    11. Abdoul Murekezi & Songqing Jin & Scott Loveridge, 2014. "Have coffee producers benefited from the new domestic cherry market? Evidence using panel data from Rwanda," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 489-500, July.
    12. Vellema, W. & Buritica Casanova, A. & Gonzalez, C. & D’Haese, M., 2015. "The effect of specialty coffee certification on household livelihood strategies and specialisation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 13-25.
    13. Meemken, Eva-Marie & Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan & Qaim, Matin, 2017. "Toward Improving the Design of Sustainability Standards—A Gendered Analysis of Farmers’ Preferences," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 285-298.
    14. Bravo-Monroy, L. & Potts, S.G. & Tzanopoulos, J., 2016. "Drivers influencing farmer decisions for adopting organic or conventional coffee management practices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 49-61.
    15. Podhorsky, Andrea, 2015. "A positive analysis of Fairtrade certification," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 169-185.
    16. Christopher M. Drohan & F. Bailey Norwood, 2020. "From Tunnel‐Vision to Panoramic Fog—An Essay on How Philosophy Can Help us Better Understand Consumers' Pursuit of Ethical Food," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 421-433, September.
    17. Donovan, Jason & Poole, Nigel, 2014. "Changing asset endowments and smallholder participation in higher value markets: Evidence from certified coffee producers in Nicaragua," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-13.
    18. Oya, Carlos & Schaefer, Florian & Skalidou, Dafni, 2018. "The effectiveness of agricultural certification in developing countries: A systematic review," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 282-312.
    19. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Vranken, Liesbet & Van Den Broeck, Goedele & Vande Velde, Katrien & Raymaekers, Karen & Maertens, Miet, 2015. "Farmers’ preferences for Fair Trade contracting in Benin," Working Papers 225931, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    20. Sophie Redecker & Christian Herzig, 2020. "The Peasant Way of a More than Radical Democracy: The Case of La Via Campesina," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(4), pages 657-670, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Biodiversity protection; consumer sovereignty; equimarginal rule; shade grown coffee; Noah’s Ark;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • A12 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines
    • A13 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Social Values

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dav:wpaper:20-03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dedavus.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dave Martin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dedavus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.