Post-Fordist Governance of Nature: The Internationalization of the State and the Case of

Genetic Resources: A Neo-Poulantzian Perspective

Author(s): Ulrich Brand and Christoph Görg
Source: Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Oct., 2008), pp. 567-589
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25261986
Accessed: 10-09-2016 05:11 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of
International Political Economy

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Review of International Political Economy 15:4 October 2008:567-589 ?\ Taylor & Francis croup

Post-Fordist governance of nature: The

internationalization of the state and the case
of genetic resources - a Neo-Poulantzian
perspective
Ulrich Brand1 and Christoph G?rg1
1Institute of Political Science, Vienna University, Universit?tsstr. 7/2, A-1010
Vienna, Austria
2Kassel University and UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research,
Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Permoserstr. 15, D-04318
Leipzig, Germany

ABSTRACT
Compared with the stated aims and the claims for urgent action, multilatera
environmental agreements show unsatisfying results. Among other reasons
- e.g. a deficit in national implementation - lack of coherence among a va
riety of overlapping and sometimes contradictory international institution
is considered as one major cause which needs to be overcome. In this ar
ticle, however, it is argued that this lack of coherence is not a result of
lack of cooperation but a form of governance failure strongly connected wit
the political and economic structures of global capitalism and its ongoing
neoliberal-imperial transformation. Moreover, it is demonstrated that thi
governance failure is a by-product of the articulation of sometimes antag
onistic interests and related power relations inscribed in different national
and international institutions. Building on the concept of societal relation
ships with nature, on historical-materialist state theory and its perspective
of the internationalization of the state as well as on the regulation approach
the paper analyzes the tension between different international institutions
in order to understand the actual transformations towards a post-Fordist
governance of nature. The empirical issues dealt with are different interna
tional regulations concerning the appropriation of genetic resources, espe
cially the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Agreement on
Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Orga
nization (WTO).

KEYWORDS
Global environmental governance; biodiversity politics; historical
materialist; regulation approach; state theory; internationalization of the
state; WTO; CBD; FAO.

Review of International Political Economy

ISSN 0969-2290 print/ISSN 1466-4526 online ? 2008 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk
DOI: 10.1080/09692290802260647
This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

There is still dissent in social sciences on how to conceptualize theoret

ically the transformation of the state and the state system in the course
of 'globalization' and its implication for the various institutions, collective
actors and persons affected. What role does the national state still play
and what is the role of international politics, particularly the system of
international institutions, which is emerging? How are the different levels
of politics - from the local to the international - related towards the oth
ers? How can we understand the political and cultural embeddedness of
politics? Concerning the environmental crisis some more questions arises:
to what extent do environmental problems affect economic and political
processes? Do environmental measures have any specific impact on capi
talist restructuring, or are they, at the contrary, completely dominated by
the socio-economic processes of capitalist globalization and the power re
lations involved?
In this article we respond to some of these questions by focussing on
the observation that international institutions face challenges to formulate
coherent policies in order to solve the identified problems (see, for exam
ple, MASR, 2005). First, we present a theoretical approach, i.e. a specific
understanding of the internationalization of the state, based on historical
materialist state theory and the regulation approach, and, second, test the
argument empirically in the field of biodiversity politics. In this field we
focus especially on the important 'component' of biodiversity, on genetic
resources. Genetic resources are those components which contain hered
itary characteristics - not coffee once it has been roasted, but the seeds
and generally the genotypes of animals and plants. These are not least
of particular economic interest because they constitute an input for the
newer biotechnologies and genetic technologies and the industries based
on them, the so-called life-sciences industries.
The erosion of biodiversity and genetic resources is by no means an
objective 'fact' existing independently from scientific and cultural descrip
tions. Even if it is accepted widely that there exists such a problem (cf.
MASR, 2005; Secretariat of the CBD, 2006) this acknowledgment is a social
construction. More than this: the very definition of the problem is closely
connected with the economic, and beyond them the social and cultural,
interests in biodiversity (G?rg, 2004). Thus, numerous disputes over dom
inant or even hegemonic interpretation patterns can be observed (cf. Esco
bar, 1998; Goldman, 1998). For this, the starting point to be taken must be
the specific historical conditions in which different strategies of valuing and
maintaining biodiversity clash with one another. With regard to the objects
of the conflicts, biodiversity or genetic resources, it is not only a question
of quite new forms of their scientific description, but of a new constitu
tion of the object itself and of new processes of its practical appropriation
(Heins and Flitner, 1998). Even the political structures and terrains emerge
in a contested way, in which strategies of capitalist valorization becomes
568

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAND AND G?RG: POST-FORDIST GOVERNANCE OF NATURE

dominant (G?rg, 2004). If we analyze biodiversity politics from this per

spective, the valorization of genetic resources represents an integral part
of a new phase of capitalist development, something we call post-Fordist
relationships with nature. If the novelty of this phase and its central elements
are adequately taken into account, the conflicts over the institutional or
ganization of relationships with nature can be grasped more adequately.
This refers also to possible alternatives in the organization of relationships
with nature.
In order to grasp these questions the article is structured as follows:
starting with some critical remarks concerning the internationalization of
politics in international relations (IR) and International Political Economy
(IPE) theory we sketch out the central features of materialist state theory.1
Building on these features we consider the international level of politics
and especially the relationship of different institutions with each other.
Therefore, we introduce what we call the Neo-Poulantzian approach to IPE
and the concept of 'second order condensations of social power relations'
(1). In the next section we discuss some arguments of the regulation ap
proach in order to grasp the actual transformations of the state (2 and 3).
After that we introduce briefly the concept of societal relationships with
nature and the current trends towards a valorization of nature. We call this
'post-Fordist societal relationships with nature' (4). Then we summarize
some results of our empirical research about of the transformation of the
state and societal relationships with nature. The focus is on different inter
national agreements regulating access to genetic resources and the sharing
of benefits out of its use as well as their role in this new phase of capitalist
accumulation whose mode of regulation is highly contested (5). Instead of
a conclusion, we end with a brief outlook by asking for the possibilities of
democratic biodiversity politics (6).
In order to avoid misunderstandings we want to clarify at the begin
ning that we use the term 'governance failure' to denote specific problems
arising from policies in the mode of governance.2 We are fully aware that
there are no objective criteria to determine whether a social problem is
dealt with adequately or not. Methodologically, some of our theoretical
reflections are a result of multi-year empirical research and that we do not
intend to match real developments into a fix theoretical framework. The
proposed 'Neo-Poulantzian approach' is still under construction.

1. STATE, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND

HEGEMONY: A NEO-POULANTZIAN VIEW3
A striking deficit of many political science approaches which are concerned
with the internationalization of politics is the way in which they theorize
about the state (cf. Shaw, 2000: 87). Usually the 'modern' state as a form
of political domination is presupposed without explaining its existence
569

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

and functioning theoretically. This can be seen in the many contributions

to global governance or global public policy, which claim to grasp the
current upheavals analytically (cf. e.g. Held and McGrew, 2002; Reinicke,
1998; survey and criticism in Brand, 2005). 'Reduced to the simplest com
mon denominator, "global governance" means accompanying politically
the process of globalization' (Enquete-Kommission, 2002: 415, our trans
lation). It is about dealing with the problems arising from globalization
by means of public, cooperative policies, i.e. the 'principal modalities of
global-rule making and implementation' (Held and McGrew, 2002:11). The
state is understood as an independent, sovereign and rationally behaving
actor operating in the name of a more or less unified and definable 'national
interest' - even these approaches argue that this task becomes more and
more difficult in the process of globalization. Similarly to regime theory
(Krasner, 1983; Rittberger, 1993; for a critique K?tting, 2000), the question of
international cooperation between states is the core issue. The broader so
cietal context, including possible tensions and fundamental contradictions
of national and international politics, are largely lost from view.
International Political Economy goes beyond regime theory in many
of the aspects which are important for the issues we are discussing here
(Underhill, 2000: 806; cf. Bieling, 2007; Palan, 2000). However, in IPE
the state is often understood in a rather formal manner as an institution
equipped with rule-setting power. The foundations of the state in society
and the complex relationships between socio-economic relations (not only
class relations) and the state are neglected. Therefore, the state is very
often not seen as a materialization of contradictory social relations. Thus,
IPE runs the risk to conceptualize the relationship between politics and
economics as a dichotomy, thereby undermining its own claim of an inte
grated approach. It is helpful here to refer to the regulation approach and
to materialist state theory. In addition socio-ecological themes do not play
any role in IPE as a rule but for our endeavour they must be conceptualized
as well.
The inadequate anchoring of IR and IPE approaches in social theory
has consequences for the explanation of governance failure. Therefore, we
refer to concepts of materialist state theory which were developed in the
1970s by reverting to the approaches of Marx and Gramsci (cf. among oth
ers Hirsch, 2002; Jessop, 1990, 2003; Poulantzas, 2001). The state and the
system of states are understood here within the framework of a theory of
society as a specific form of the political under the conditions of capitalist
socialization. Accordingly, a fundamental structural characteristic of capi
talist society is the creation of an apparatus which is formally separate from
the classes in society, and thus in the separation of 'state' from 'society' and
of 'politics' from the 'economy'. This form is based on the fact that the cap
italist mode of appropriation of surplus value, i.e. via private production,
wage labor and the exchange of commodities, both requires and accelerates
570

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAND AND G?RG: POST-FORDIST GOVERNANCE OF NATURE

the independence and centralization of compulsory physical force. The

'particularization' (Besonderung) or 'relative autonomy' of the state is the
foundation of a specific mode of regulation of classes and other social rela
tions. It is this which makes possible in the first place the formulation of a
'politics of capital' which goes beyond divided, competing interests, and at
the same time enables the exploited and dominated classes to be integrated
politically in both a repressive and a consensual way. The state thus proves
in this specifically determined form at the same time to be a material con
densation of specific relationships between social classes and groups, i.e. one
characterized by its own institutional structures and routines (Poulantzas,
2001:154-7). It is neither an independent subject, nor simply an organiza
tion with a rational purpose, but the expression and a component of societal
relations characterized by fundamental contradictions and conflicts. The
state therefore necessarily forms a heterogeneous complex of apparatuses
with divergent societal relations which are relatively independent of one
another and often operate against each other. The formal separation of state
and society is at the same time the form of the presence of the political in the
economy.
One central subject of dispute is the institutional safeguarding of the
actors' own interests through state policies or the hindering or even pre
venting of the institutionalization of contrary interests. A major indicator
for the establishment of specific positions is therefore the extent to which
they succeed in becoming 'the national interest'.
The structure of capitalist societies consists not only of the particular
form of the state but also the pluralism of the (national) states (cf. for
more detail Hirsch, 2002: 35^0; for environmental politics cf. G?rg and
Brand, 2000). This is an expression of the contradictions and rivalries which
characterize global societal relations. The plurality of the states is itself a
mode of the reproduction of the capitalist political form. It divides social
groups and classes along state borders and thus creates the basis both for
the formation of competing 'national' class formations and for 'corporate'
and other societal compromises.
In order to understand this conflict-driven interplay of international reg
ulating processes we revert to the concept of international hegemony (cf.
Bieler and Morton, 2001; Cox, 1993; Gill, 2003; Morton, 2003; Scherrer, 1998).
International hegemony in the sense of a transnational and consensus
based societalization has two dimensions: first, the establishment of certain
living conditions and concepts of value in and across societies and, second,
the ability of dominant societal actors, especially transnational capital, and
political actors like the governments of the dominant states to formulate
projects, follow strategies and work out compromises on the international
scale and give them a certain institutional durability.
One aspect is important here: the international institutional system is
not a coherent unit - not even in perspective, i.e. as still-to-be-created.
571

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

The apparatuses, which are partially in a contradictory relationship to one

another, are terrains on which very specific and differing social power
relations are concentrated. In addition, resources and the legal possibilities
of sanction play a large role in the effectiveness of specific institutions
(Shaw, 2000: 215-9).
Neither strong states nor transnational classes are able to instrumentalize
these institutions completely for their own interests. So we have to integrate
three elements in a satisfying understanding of international institutions:
first, the transnational form of interest articulation and problem construc
tion as part of transnational hegemony; second, the fact that other national
states play an important role in the formulation of international agree
ments; and third, an emerging political-institutional international level
which cannot be reduced to the first two elements. To integrate these ele
ments we intend to develop what we call a Neo-Poulantzian approach to IPE.
That means: international institutions are themselves the condensation of
antagonistic interests in global power relations. On the international scale
the mutual opposition of different actors can be observed, among them na
tional governments. Since the strategies of these central state actors are in
the final analysis the result of the condensation of different power relations
in the individual state apparatuses, we are dealing here with a second order
condensation of societal relationships of forces. This is not to deny the forma
tion of transnational alliances of social forces which try to influence interna
tional institutions not only via their respective national representatives but
also in a more direct way. Nor would we deny the importance of transna
tional forms of hegemony connected with transnational class interests and
universalized views of world orders. But political institutions, at the na
tional as well as at the international level, have a logic of their own which is
not reducible to the actions and interests of collective actors. Furthermore,
the relationship between the different levels should not be misunderstood
as being a hierarchy of control but there is a certain contingency where
and how relationships of forces are condensed materially in a Poulantzian
sense.

2. REGULATION AS TEMPORARY INSTITUTIONAL

STABILIZATION OF SOCIETAL PROCESSES
The background to the change in the economic importance of biologi
cal diversity and in particular of genetic resources is the transition to a
post-Fordist mode of accumulation and regulation following the world
economic crisis of the 1970s. We examine this development using the con
cepts of the regulation approach, which have been developed particularly
in France and Germany since the 1980s.4 It is thanks to this approach that
the field for a differentiated analysis of capitalist formations which differ
in space and time, with their own specific strategies for the valorization of
572

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAND AND G?RG: POST-FORDIST GOVERNANCE OF NATURE

capital, their own political institutional forms and relationships of social

forces etc., has been opened up. The historical development of capitalist
societies does not follow an objective logic but is shaped by the conflicting
activities of social actors and their ability to pursue their interests, norms
and values and give them - mostly through compromises - certain dura
bility. The valorization of capital, i.e. the production and accumulation of
surplus value, is a fundamental component and driving force of capitalist
development, but it must not be understood simply as a mechanism which
objectively prevails and to which social behavior adapts unconditionally.
In the terminology of the regulation approach, a system of regulation is
necessary for this to happen. The concept of regulation as we use it relates
to the fact that capitalist societies, based on private production guided by
the market, wage labor and competition, cannot have a controlling center
as a result of the contradictions and conflicts which are contained in it. Its
reproduction takes place via permanent disputes and struggles between
contending actors. These can lead to more permanent social compromises
which manifest themselves in specific systems of institutions and in this
way lend it a certain durability for some time. Accordingly, the reproduc
tion of capitalist society must be regarded a 'process without a steering
subject'.5 In particular the state is an important point of intersection of reg
ulative processes, but represents not their single steering subject. In their
specific shape and institutional configuration states, although important
for the management of social conflicts, are at the same time objects and
products of a social mode of regulation.
The relative consistency and durability of a historical form of capitalism
depends on the formation of a mode of regulation which enables social
conflicts to be kept compatible with the valorization process of capital
which is materialized in the accumulation regime. For this to be the case,
not only must the general orientations for societal development be shared
(e.g. the welfare state class compromise, the neoliberal market and compe
tition model), but terrains must also be defined and accepted by the most
important actors on which political and social struggles can be fought out
without resulting in fundamental interruptions of the accumulation pro
cess. The state in the process of internationalizing itself is decisive for the
creation of this terrain.
However, concerning the role of the state in the regulation approach
some of the shortcomings are important (see for a detailed analysis: Brand
and Raza, 2003; Esser et al, 1994b; Jessop, 2003). Among other things, what
is most contended is a certain functionalism of this approach and, more
important for our task, the narrow focus on the national level.6 Concerning
the first point, the role of social struggles is underestimated and in particu
lar the broader cultural and discursive contexts of societal transformations
are often neglected. Analyzing the role of the state on the regulation pro
cess, thus, must consider the state as a social relation and a condensation of

573

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

ongoing social struggles. This theoretical perspective does not claim that
social conflicts are resolved or suppressed completely. To emphasize so
cial struggles inscribed in political institutions means that certain power
relations in a specific historical constellation among conflicting actors with
their respective interests, norms and world views are institutionalized for
a certain time (but might be still contested).
Secondly, regardless to some attempts to acknowledge the relevance of
the international level (Hirsch, 1993; Lipietz, 1987) the regulation approach
systematically focuses on the national scale of socio-economic and political
regulation. Thus, the scalar dimension of social struggles is ignored, i.e.
that the spatial dimensions of societal regulations and its dominant scale is
always a part of the struggles (Jessop, 2002; Keil and Mahon, 2007; Winter,
2003; Wissen, 2007). This is of particular relevance regarding the transition
from the Fordist mode of development - where the national scale plays a
more important role - to the post-Fordist one.

3. STATES AND SCALES IN THE POST-FORDIST MODE

OF REGULATION
The establishment of a post-Fordist mode of development implied major
changes of the institutional mode of regulation. The structures of the stat
and of the state system were sustainably altered and led to a fundamen
tally altered relationship between capital, labor and the states. This deve
opment is expressed in the type of the competition state, which is central
aligned towards the ensuring of optimal conditions for the valorization o
capital (Hirsch, 2002). The transformation towards a competition state has
involved changes in both the configuration of the state apparatuses and i
the modes of political decision-making and decision enforcement. What is
important here is that the relations of the different national states to on
another as well as the relationships between the national and other scale
were considerably modified, a process which we describe as the intern
tionalization of the state (on this cf. Brand et al, 2008; Hirsch, 2002; Hirs
et al, 2001; Jessop, 2003). Although an internationalization of the econom
already took place during Fordism, the processes of deregulation and pr
vatization since the 1980s led to an increased dependency of the national
state apparatuses on the international capital and financial markets. Mor
over, whereas during Fordism the national levels seemed to represent
at least in the Western countries - the dominant and unchallenged level
of political authority, the transition to post-Fordism was accompanied b
a rescaling of the state in both directions, as a down-scaling to lower re
gional levels as much as an up-scaling to higher supra- or international
levels. These 'new state spaces' (Brenner, 2004) raised major concerns
scientific debates and motivated new approaches regarding the relation
ships between state and space (see Brenner et al, 2003).
574

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAND AND G?RG: POST-FORDIST GOVERNANCE OF NATURE

However, despite the internal transformation, the internationalization

of the state and the rescaling of the state national states retain a central
importance, i.e. states tend to be the centers of the regulation of class and
other societal relations and it is essentially up to them to provide the gen
eral conditions of production (laws, infrastructure, research, technology)
and reproduction. This is particular the case and, as we will see in the
following, in international biodiversity politics where national sovereignty
over biological diversity and especially genetic resources gains importance
and is ceded as a precondition for conservation and use. One reason for
this general tendency is the fact that the 'monopoly of legitimate phys
ical coercion' despite some differences and qualifications - and despite
developments since September 11, 2001 - remains at the national level.
Moreover, especially the core states have in their apparatuses still an enor
mous amount of material resources as well as knowledge and experiences
and represent the main focus of social struggles, although these struggles
sometimes reach beyond the national scale and include international or
local actors, too.
Finally, at the international level a 'new constitutionalism' (Gill, 2003) is
advanced by the capitalist triad centers in order to safeguard their global
dominance institutionally in general or of specific actors. Intellectual prop
erty rights are fundamental in this regard, especially with respect to societal
relationships with nature.

4. SOCIETAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH NATURE AND THE

VALORIZATION OF GENETIC RESOURCES
One specific foundation of the Fordist mode of accumulation and regu
lation was the enormous increase in the exploitation and destruction of
natural resources. At the same time Fordist mass production and con
sumption formed one of its fundamental moments of crisis. The 'ecological
crisis', which became ever more obvious at the beginning of the 1970s, was
closely bound to that of Fordism, but not only because of these material de
pendencies. As a crisis of societal development, however, it was acknowl
edged only because social movements, critical scientists and other actors
struggled for a redefinition of societal development. These disputes in the
context of the 'ecological crisis' have led in recent decades to a stronger
consideration of ecological and socio-ecological aspects. Nevertheless,
this must not be conceptualized as a societal learning process in which
'society' as a whole begins to adjust itself to its ecological problems, but as
a conflict-driven process in which different actors with different interests
in the conservation and use of nature encounter one another. Even weaker
actors succeed here in finding consideration within the framework of the
asymmetric compromises of an emerging 'ecological capitalism'. Through
the discussion of the 'ecological crisis' the destruction of the material
575

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

foundations of life has become an integral and contested component of

post-Fordist restructuring (on the connection between the discussion on
sustainability and that on globalization cf. Brand and G?rg, 2008).
Not the environmental facts as such, but their scientific description and
their political contestation and acknowledgement as a societal problem
constitute environmental problems. The concept of societal relationships
with nature, thus, emphasizes the practical, i.e. economic/technical and
linguistic /discursive construction of nature (see for a more detailed elabo
ration: G?rg, 2008). In the case of biodiversity and genetic resources, the
life-science industry with its new scientific descriptions, new technical op
tions and new economic strategies plays a major role in the construction
of nature. It should be remembered, however, that there are also other
practical constructions of nature, as we shall see more precisely in the fol
lowing. There is an unavoidable pluralism of societal relationships with nature
which, however - particularly under bourgeois-capitalist conditions - is
characterized by unequal power relations and by dominant ways in the
societalization of nature.
We can see empirically that in many fields the dominant strategies for the
appropriation of nature are increasingly aimed at its commercialization,
i.e. at a purely economic appraisal of nature. That is meant by the term
valorization of nature which is crucial for capitalism in general but has
a new quality in post-Fordism. We call this a valorization paradigm which
constitutes the overall framework for specific institutional developments
in order to deal with the environmental crisis in general and the erosion
of biodiversity in detail. Moreover, depending on the interests and power
relations involved, a highly selective treatment of environmental problems -
such as the erosion of biological diversity - takes place. This is not the result
of a historical law in whatever form - whether that of the logic of capital
or of the modernization and differentiation of societies - but of political
strategies which have been enforced partially through hard struggles. In
the process, other forms of organization are marginalized and tend to be
dissolved, and nature is reduced to its economic value, i.e. subsumed under
the practices of marketization (see, for example, indigenous peoples as
being functionalized for nature protection).
We consider the valorization of nature as the major force in shaping new
societal relationships with nature. Beside the appropriation of oil and gas
and new 'strategic resources' (Cece?a and Barreda, 1995) such as fresh
water, biodiversity is partly constituted as a new resource by means of
new technologies and socio-economic developments. This is true in par
ticular of genetic resources in connection with genetic technology (and we
can expect in the near future the reconstitution of parts of nature through
nano-technology). The life-sciences industries are the most powerful driv
ing force in the reorganization of societal relationships with nature in this
field, whereby much - from the economic and technical options to the
576

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAND AND G?RG: POST-FORDIST GOVERNANCE OF NATURE

design of the political and legal environment - is still uncertain or dis

puted (Brand et al, 2008; Gibbs, 2000; Mooney, 1999).
However, this process is itself highly contested. Since biological diversity
also includes the diversity of the animals and plants used in agriculture, it
is of central importance for the ensuring of human nutrition and provides
food, shelter and other products for various societal relations. Even in the
age of globalization cultural interpretations and, linked to them, forms of
knowledge and practices, can be found which cultivate a completely differ
ent treatment of nature. These 'traditional' forms of knowledge and their
agencies have even been given a greater value by the ecological crisis and
the interests of research centers and biotechnological firms in a high bio
logical diversity, for one can discover in certain practices dealing with the
tropical rainforest or in certain forms of agricultural production elements
of a more respectful handling of natural resources. This poses the question
whether these practices are today only marginal or if they have a chance
of influencing the shaping of global relationships with nature - or even only
of preserving their own forms of living. After all, the dynamisms in this
process are determined by actors with quite different strategies.
To sum up: the tendency toward the greater commercialization of biodi
versity determines the overwhelming tendency in the new socio-economic
appropriation of nature. This general trend towards post-Fordist relationships
with nature which are stabilized institutionally and especially by the internation
alized state is examined in the following. We focus here on the international
level but tackle the question of scale briefly (see for the latter in more detail
Brand et al, 2008).

5. INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND THE CLASH OF

REGULATIONS IN THE CONFLICTS ABOUT GENETIC
RESOURCES

For the conflicts over the use and valorization of biological diversi
especially genetic resources the further developments of the intern
regimes for the maintenance of access and the regulation of benefit
thus the safeguarding of intellectual property rights - are of centra
tance. At issue here is the determination of who profits from the advan
which arise from the use of genetic resources. After all, such resour
primarily to be found in Southern countries and, within them, of
the habitats of 'marginalized' population groups, especially indi
peoples. Thus, there is a certain paradox in the fact that the most m
actors (research institutions and above all transnational high-tech
rations like the life-sciences industries) are dependent on access to
resources and thus to a certain degree on marginalized population
in the global South. The core of the conflict over access, benefit-shar
intellectual property rights basically stems from this paradox. In ad
577

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

for the appropriation of genetic resources the traditional knowledge of how

to use these resources plays an important role, for it often serves as a filter
in the search for economically valuable substances (Kuppe, 2001:147-9).
This complex conflict field is regulated through a broad variety of po
litical institutions at different levels. Even at the international level there
exist a lot of international agreements and organizations which deal with
different aspects of the erosion and the use of biodiversity:

international agreements dealing only with nature protection like the

convention on endangered species (CITES);
treaties aiming the sustainable use and the sharing of benefits from this
use, too (like the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD);
agreements dealing with very specific aspects of this use, i.e. in agricul
ture: the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (ITPGR) under
the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the short term is Inter
national Seed Treaty;
the Agreement on Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of
the World Trade Organization (WTO);
in recent years the World Property Organization (WIPO) gains influence
because many Southern governments are disappointed with the devel
opment of the TRIPS agreement.
Each of these international institutions is a more or less legally binding in
strument. Some major provisions, however, are highly contested and, most
important, their relationship which each other is not at all coherent. More
recently, concerns were raised about the insufficient vertical integration of
these different instruments (MASR, 2005).
We are more doubtful whether the apparently attractive picture of 'syn
ergy effects' between the various political institutions is an apposite one.
We argue that each of it is with its own history a specific material 'con
densation of power relations', i.e. of power relations among political and
societal actors. That means that struggles between the interest and power
relations of a broad spectrum of national and international actors are in
scribed in the structure, legal provision, financial resources and internal
modes of operations of such institutions.
One crucial and highly conflictive aspect can clarify this: the relationship
between CITES, the CBD, the ITPGR, WIPO and the WTO. We dispute,
whether it is to be expected that it will be possible to reach consensual
solutions, never mind mutually supporting ones, in the really important
controversial issues.7 A first look on the concrete institutional structures
and processes show that they tend to represent very different condensation
of power relations:

(a) In each agreement or organization are different actors involved -

even from the governmental side different ministries participate in the
578

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAND AND G?RG: POST-FORDIST GOVERNANCE OF NATURE

formulation of national or European 'interests' with respect to an issue

and in the negotiations.
(b) These various ministries themselves represent ('condense') specific do
mestic interests and power relations and they follow different strate
gies; e.g. to support their agriculture or their biotechnological industry,
to strengthen sustainable agriculture or high yield and world market
oriented agro-business, to respect the claims of indigenous peoples.
(c) The different political institutions vary in their very constituencies with
respect to the direct participation of societal actors. Whereas industry
often acts via certain governments, for NGOs or indigenous peoples
organizations the (im)possibility of formal participation are quite im
portant for the articulation of their interests and norms (for a detailed
analysis of the differing political positions and influences, cf. Brand
et al, 2008).

Therefore, the governance failure of the existent global governance archi

tecture in this field is no surprise. At the contrary, against the outlined
theoretical background at least four arguments can be presented to ex
plain the tensions and contradictions of the current international regulation
system in more detail.
First, one of the most discussed topics is the tensions between nature
conservation and trade liberalization agreements (cf. Chouchena-Rojas et
al, 2005). But such tensions do not only emerge where the commitments
of multilateral environmental agreements conflict with the WTO. Before
such conflicts arise the overwhelming tendency of the valorization of na
ture is inscribed in agreements like the CBD as well. Contradictions be
tween the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are part of the
constituency of the CBD and their different issues (like the regulation on
access and benefit-sharing; see Siebenh?ner and Suplie, 2005). We argue,
that the growing importance of the economic value of biodiversity was
inscribed in the CBD because of a transnational hegemony of neoliberal
thinking and therefore a trust in the creation of global markets on genetic
resources. In the early 1990s there was a widely common belief that free
markets can best protect biological diversity (see the instructive study of
Pearce and Moran, 1994; Sukdev et al, 2008). This hegemony is strongly
connected with the internationalization of capital, which was further ad
vanced by the transition to post-Fordism (see above) and secured by the
state and a new constitutionalism.
Second, different agreements do not have the same strength. At the inter
national level, due to the dominance of one particular institution, namely
the WTO, we are dealing with 'negotiations in the shadow of hierarchy'. In con
trast to the national state framework (cf. Scharpf, 1993), at the international
level the asymmetry is not anchored within the framework of the state
monopoly of legitimate force. Rather, the last obscurities or irreconcilably
579

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

opposing interests in international negotiations are dealt with by hard

power bargaining. This has ambiguous effects. On the one hand power
relations often have a much more direct effect at the international level
because they are less cushioned by a national legal system or by complex
institutional decision-making procedures and majority decisions. On the
other hand, these processes are therefore also easier to block and even dom
inant actors do not necessarily have the means to secure the fulfillment of
certain provisions due to the lack of sanctioning authorities. At all events,
the differing negotiation processes play an important role not only for the
ultimate relevance of the individual agreements but also for their shaping
during the negotiation process. For some years, the compatibility with the
TRIPS agreement was a central criterion for all international agreements
with which certain actors - the industrial countries in general and partic
ularly the US government - attempted to influence current negotiations.
And as could be seen in the formulating of the International Seed Treaty
(ITPGR) simply the risk of violating the TRIPS agreement was an important
argument in the negotiations to block specific proposals and compromises.
To strengthen their strategy in disputes over certain regulations some par
ties (including the US) asked the representative of the WTO to give advice
whether some contested terms of the new treaty are in line with the obliga
tions of the WTO-TRIPS agreement or not (Brand et al, 2008; a perspective
of the biotech industry from Finston, 2005). Ongoing negations on the new
international treaty (Chiarolla, 2008; ITPGR, 2001), thus, were constrained
by this stronger agreement. In another case attempts to weaken the im
pact of intellectual property rights on plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture (PGRFA) in developing countries by introducing a model law
(provided by the African union) was rejected by the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) arguing that this law violates the interna
tional standards of the protection of intellectual property rights - even if
this model law explicitly argues that these standards are not acceptable for
plant genetic resources.8 The ninth Conference of the Parties to the Conven
tion on Biological Diversity (May 2008 in Bonn) showed again, that there
are strong interests from some Northern governments and corporations to
subjugate central provisions of the CBD to the WTO.
Third, however, the relatively strength of particular agreements is it
self contested. Moreover, the politicization of certain agreements can make
their usefulness for the establishment of dominant interests more difficult
or even impossible. Particularly the politicization of the TRIPS agreement
in the current revision process is an example of the fact that the new in
terests (regarding the prices of necessary drugs as much as the legitimacy
of the patenting of life forms), which have now to a certain extent been
accepted as legitimate, must be dealt with. And it is dealt with by at least
two different ways: by relegating them to other forums - what is called
forum-shifting 9 - or by bilateral negotiations (see below). The first way is
580

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAND AND G?RG: POST-FORDIST GOVERNANCE OF NATURE

used with respect to intellectual property rights by the US government

and other major countries by upgrading forums such as the WIPO for the
establishment of the dominant interests. This forum-shifting is also an in
dication of the fact that at the international scale a sanctioning authority
corresponding to the national state is lacking and the asymmetry of the
agreements develops its effectiveness only indirectly and ambiguity.
Forth, another way to resolve the problem of politicized agreements is the
transition to bilateral negotiations. Most of the questions handled within the
WTO and its sub-agreements are now dealt with in bilateral agreements,
where the dominant countries can dictate their interest - in the protection of
intellectual property rights as much as the field of investment agreements
- more directly.
Beside those tensions among international political institutions the ques
tion of scale is of utmost importance to understand global environmental
politics in general (McCarthy, 2005) and, in our case, the conservation and
use of biodiversity. A shift of international strategies presupposes usu
ally the shifting of societal power relations at the national level, which
manifest themselves in state policies, i.e. laws, financial resources, admin
istrative capacities, institution and capacity building. At one hand, we can
observe today in many countries that the formulation of concrete biodi
versity policies depend on the organized articulation of local actors like
farmers and indigenous peoples, often supported by NGOs. In Mexico,
initiatives of indigenous peoples to influence the policy process were not
very successful whereas in Bolivia the attention toward indigenous issues
under president Evo Morales increases. At the other hand, the existence of
a national biotechnology industry in countries rich in biodiversity (Brazil,
India) or a strongly world market oriented agricultural sector is influential
regarding the development of a 'national interest'. Finally, such a national
interest has to be formulated by the state.
In biodiversity politics we can see very clearly that even in times when
the international scale gains importance, the national state remains a de
cisive element of international politics as much as of global domination.
This is not only the case because the central political actors in international
politics are national governments and the national level is decisive for the
implementation for internationally agreed policies. Additionally, the CBD
- in force since 1993 - constitutes legally the 'national sovereignty' over
genetic resources which before were considered as a 'common heritage of
humankind'.
A global political system thus includes the condensation of power rela
tions at different levels. These levels are not independent from one another,
but exert a mutual influence on each other. From a strategic perspective,
sometimes it is easier at the local level to bring the interests of the actors
based there to bear. This is not the result of a natural law, however, but
local conflicts can be reshaped by the entrance of powerful external actors.
581

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

International institutions sometimes strengthen the local level, e.g. the CBD
article 8(j) on indigenous rights and the FAO concept of farmers' rights. But
these provisions bring little juridical certainty. Whereas the CBD provision
is instrumental in nature and subordinates the rights of indigenous peoples
under nature conservation strategies, the farmers' rights in the FAO is sub
ordinated to national legislation (and thus provides no protection against
the national governments). Both provisions are less legal instruments then
an impetus for the politicization of the problem.
The international regulations thus do not make the national legislation
processes less important, but present them with a role which is partly
new. And in addition, national states or their governments play a central
role as actors at the international level, even if this role is no longer without
competition. This is meant when we introduce the concept of a condensation
of the second order in the case of international institutions. The interests and
relationships of power which are already condensed in national institutions
and strategies are condensed at a further level in another form, partly with
other conflicts and contents and thus with perhaps deviating results - and
in this form they have an effect in turn on other levels. This interlinkage is
not really new but in the internationalization of the state it gains particular
weight.
In sum, we can identify a paradox, i.e. a nationally organized global dom
ination, which can be understood using Poulantzas' concept of the state
as we introduced before. This does not deny the actions and effects of
international actors. But it does argue against the assumption of a sort
of 'autonomizing' of international apparatuses while recognizing the rela
tively binding character of (international) institutions against the strategies
of different actors.

6. OUTLOOK: PROSPECTS FOR DEMOCRATIC POLITICS

The chances of democratic biodiversity politics must be seen against the back
ground examined in this article. In general, democratic regulations require
at least two basic conditions concerning the issues at stake and the power
relations involved. Regarding the first topic, it is a fundamental precon
dition of democratic politics that the actors affected recognize the extent
of the problem in order to be able to articulate their interests. Concerning
the second issue, rights to participate effectively is a precondition to bal
ance unequal power relations. Such rights, however, must be established
by laws and institutionally backed to provide the realistic possibility of
being able de facto to claim these rights or to reject undesirable develop
ments. Therefore, they are often further reaching than the usually vague
rights of participation. The right to participate in the democratic shaping of
societal developments thus refers not only to the formal decision-making
mechanisms with which certain decisions are enforced and corresponding
582

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAND AND G?RG: POST-FORDIST GOVERNANCE OF NATURE

regulations established. It refers to the actual chances of different interest

groups of their case being heard in the political process and of being able
to take part to an adequate degree in deciding by which regulations their
own living conditions will be structured. It will be interesting to see how
the International Regime on Access and Benefit-sharing will be negotiated
in the context of the CBD until end of 2010 (Brand, 2008; Young, 2008).
Conflicts about its (non-)binding character are as important as those of the
effective participation of societal and especially weaker stakeholders in the
implementation of concrete policies.
There is a basic concern that the process of neoliberal-imperial globaliza
tion has decisively weakened the chances for the democratic influencing of
social living conditions and of societal relationships with nature, although
there is no consensus over the reasons for and the extent of this (G?rg and
Hirsch, 1998). Some of the developments which are continually discussed
in this context - the non-democratically controlled power of international
organizations such as the World Bank and the WTO, and the growth of
politically barely controllable TNCs - are also reflected in the field of bio
diversity politics.
With regard to the real prospects to shape societal relationships with na
ture in a democratic way the answers vary from reserved to skeptical. Of
particular relevance is the ability of weaker actors, mostly situated in a lo
cal context, to articulate their interests in a given framing of environmental
problems and to shape decision-making on different levels. Thus, unequal
power relations are connected to cross-scale interactions of societal pro
cesses. While the relevance of the local is recognized at the international
level, this recognition has not been reflected in a form that legally bind
ing and enforceable rights have developed from it. Neither article 8(j) of
the CBD which strengthens the rights of indigenous peoples nor the prin
ciple of farmers' rights were shaped in such a way (the same is true for
recognition within the ILO).
Moreover, we would argue, that the decisive level in the process of the
internationalization of the state remains at the national state. What can, in
face of specific domestic power relations, be implemented in national laws
or in other state measures is also decisive for the local level. The relevance
of the national scale is confirmed not only by the improvement of national
sovereignty in the context of the CBD but also by similar developments
in the framework of the FAO and the ITPGR (the subordination of farm
ers' rights to national legislation; see above). The advancement of bilateral
instruments on the fringe of the WTO is an indication that national state
regulations ultimately play a decisive role. This does not exclude the fur
ther development of multilateral regulating mechanisms; rather, the two
instruments complement each other.
Unequal power relations not only result in the ability to establish certain
rules in or through political institutions. They are expressed in a much more
583

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

comprehensive sense: in the definition of the problems, in the structuring

of the terrain, in the concrete formulation of policies and in the potential
of certain interests and positions to prevail. Hegemonic interests are also
expressed in the fact that they bind other interest groups to a certain view
of the problem and the corresponding solutions, and at the same time make
concessions to them to a certain degree.
The chances of locally based actors being able to shape their relation
ships with nature in opposition to the valorization and the establishment
of global markets for genetic resources are therefore rather slim. One of the
essential tendencies of post-Fordist relationships with nature is the tendency
to destroy other societal forms of the appropriation of nature. In this sense
it is a continuation of primitive accumulation: non-capitalist forms are used
and transformed in the service of valorization and subsumed under capi
talist forms of socialization. This tendency is quite crucially supported by
rights, primarily by rights to 'intellectual property'. In the establishment
of these rights the national states, however, play a central role: as the pro
prietors of the 'monopoly of legitimate physical coercion' and with their
material as well as knowledge resources and their experiences. The pro
cess of primitive accumulation presents itself at this level as the conflict
between different forms of rights: 'modern' intellectual property rights
such as patents versus farmers' rights or collective rights. But these rights
do not stand alone. They must be seen in connection with certain societal
practices and they cannot simply be located in the assumed contradiction
economy versus ecology (or environmental concerns). The protection of
nature is also rational within the framework of the life-sciences industry
as long as it does not cause disproportional costs and above all as long as
access (and thus transaction costs) are not bureaucratically over-regulated.
The conservation of biological diversity is to a certain degree in the inter
ests of some fractions of capital, even if it conflicts with other tendencies
of capitalist development: with the interests of the extractive industry and,
above all, the increasing use of land both in the South - meadows, the
felling of trees, etc. - and in the North - settlements, roads, etc.
Alternative structures and processes of global governance require an
in-depth understanding and critique of the existing structures. One major
proposal which creates major resonances among emancipatory movements
and intellectuals as well as progressive governments is that of 'deglob
alization' developed by Waiden Bello (2002; on the concept of 'counter
hegemony' in social movements, cf. Brand and Sekler, 2009). This means a
strengthening of local and regional structures, a reorientation of progres
sive governments towards a just and steered development and a weak
ening of the actual powerful political institutions of global governance as
well as of transnational capital. However, a problem remains which was
highlighted by Nicos Poulantzas and his concept of 'radical transforma
tion' (1979; Poulantzas, 1980: 286-92) or the similar concept of 'radical
584

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAND AND G?RG: POST-FORDIST GOVERNANCE OF NATURE

reformism' (Esser et al, 1994a): alternative international and multiscalar

politics are not only a question of shifting political institutions and eco
nomic relations but a much broader process of changing societal relation
ships of forces (class, gender, ethnical), of North-South relations, of dom
inant orientations, of everyday forms of living - and not at least of the
societal relationships with nature.
Opportunities for democratic influence of weaker actors - as a precon
dition for the future shaping towards democratic societal relations - arise
above all where the contradictions between agreements in relation to the
CBD and WTO/TRIPS have become obvious and can be exploited. That
is why the resistance to the patenting of genetic resources correctly stands
at the center of many campaigns. But beyond that a more comprehensive
understanding of the contradictions and conflicts is necessary. A critical
theory of the internationalization of the state must examine the emerging
forms of global domination and power relations without appearing disin
terested in the multitude of details of the socio-ecological conflicts. These
are often of decisive importance precisely with regard to the shaping of
post-Fordist relationships with nature - for the chances of emancipative
action as well as for the material dimensions of societal reproduction.

NOTES
1 We use the term International Political Economy for the whole range of
proaches and develop then a critical understanding which sometimes is l
Global Political Economy (GPE; cf. Palan, 2000). We use the terms GP
critical IPE synonymously.
2 Thus, the term is similar to the terms market or state failure; see Jessop (2
3 We are well aware that we argue against the background of experiences o
global North. However, the theoretical reflections on international hegem
regulation and the internationalized state might be universal since the pow
governments of the global North mainly structure the international po
terrains.
4 Aglietta (1979, 2000); Boyer (1990, 2000); Lipietz (1987); Jessop (1990); Esser et
al (1994b); Brand and Raza (2003); Scherrer (2003).
5 We must therefore differentiate between two processes whose conceptual dis
tinction in English is not easy: 'regulation''(in German: regulation) is not the same
than 'regulating' (in German: Regulierung), whereas the second term is closer to
the normal use of the term regulation.
6 An exception is the so-called Grenoble School of the regulation approach around
G. de Bernis which focused on international economic relations but did not
theorize the political at all (cf. Becker, 2002; Robles, 1994).
7 As one reviewer who is familiar with the topic at the EU level recommended,
it would be useful in further research to see if there is stronger coordination of
the political positions of major players like the EU in different forums.
8 The situation might change actually because of the deadlock in the TRIPS ne
gotiations. It seems that WIPO is gaining importance.
9 We can borrow, from John Braithwaite and Peter Drahos (2000, ch. 24), the
concept of forum-shifting which means that a political actor, especially the US,
585

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

can shift strategies from one organization to another, to leave an organization,

to pursue strategies towards several ones.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Ulrich Brand studied political science and economics in Frankfurt/M., Buenos
Aires and Berlin and taught at the Universities of Kassel, Rutgers-Newark and the
University for Applied Sciences Bremen. He is currently Professor of International
Politics at the Institute of Political Science at Vienna University, Austria. One of his
publications is: Fit f?r den Postfordismus? Theoretisch-politische Perspektiven des Regu
lationsansatzes (Fit for Post-Fordism? Theoretical-Political Perspectives of the Regulation
Approach, edited with Werner Raza, M?nster, 2003). His yet not published habili
tation has the title 'The Political Form of Globalization. Social Forces and Political
Institutions in the Internationalised State'. Together with Christoph G?rg, Joachim
Hirsch and Markus Wissen he published Conflicts in Global Environmental Regula
tion and the Internationalization of the State. Contested Terrains (London: Routledge
2008).
Christoph G?rg studied sociology and political science in Frankfurt/M. and taught
at the Universities of Frankfurt, Kassel and Leipzig. He is Professor for Environmen
tal Governance at the University of Kassel and head of the Unit of Environmental
Policy at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ in Leipzig. His
most important publications are Regulation der Naturverh?ltnisse (Regulation of Soci
etal Relationships with Nature. A Critical Theory of the Environmental Crisis, M?nster,
2003) and 'Landscape Governance. The Politics of Scale and the Natural Conditions
of Places' (in Geoforum, 38(5), 2007, 954-66). Together with Ulrich Brand, Joachim
Hirsch and Markus Wissen he published Conflicts in Global Environmental Regula
tion and the Internationalization of the State. Contested Terrains (London: Routledge,
2008).

REFERENCES
Aglietta, M. (1979) A Theory of Capitalist Regulation. The US-Experience, London
New Left Books.
Aglietta, M. (2000) 'Shareholder value and corporate governance: some tric
questions', Economy and Society, 29(1): 146-59.
Becker, J. (2002) Akkumulation, Regulation, Territorium. Eine kritische Rekonstrukt
der franz?sischen Regulationstheorie, Marburg: Metroplis.
Bello, W. (2002) Deglobalization. Ideas for a New World Economy, Dhaka
University Press.
Bieler, A. and Morton, A. D. (2001) 'The Gordian Knot of Agency-Structur
International Relations: A Neo-Gramscian Perspective', European Journal of
ternational Relations, 7(1): 5-35.
Bieling, H.-J. (2007) Internationale Politische ?konomie, Wiesbaden: Verlag f?r So
wissenschaften.
Boyer, R. (1990) The Regulation School: A Critical Introduction, New York and Oxfo
Columbia University Press.
Boyer, R. (2000) 'Is a Finance-Led Growth Regime a Viable Alternative to Fordism
A Preliminary Analysis', Economy and Society, 29(1): 111^5.
Braithwaite, J. and Drahos, P. (2000) Global Business Regulation, Cambrid
University Press.
586

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAND AND G?RG: POST-FORDIST GOVERNANCE OF NATURE

Brand, U. (2005) 'Order and Regulation: Global Governance as a Hegemonie

Discourse of International Politics?' Review of International Political Economy,
12(1): 155-76.
Brand, U. (2008) Between Protection, Rights and Commercialisation. The Conven
tion on Biological Diversity in the Process of Globalisation and the Opportu
nities for a Democratic Politics of Biodiversity, Rosa-Luxemburg-Foundation,
Manuskripte, 75, <http://www.rosalux.de/cms/index.php?id=16020>.
Brand, U. and G?rg, C. (2008) 'Sustainablity and Neoimperial-Liberal Globalisation:
A Theoretical Perspective', in J. Park, K. Conca and M. Fingers (eds) The Crisis of
Global Environmental Governance. Towards a new political economy of sustainability,
London: Routledge, pp. 13-33.
Brand, U. and Raza, W. (eds) (2003) Fit f?r den Postfordismus? Theoretisch-politische
Perspektiven des Regulationsansatzes, M?nster: Westf?lisches Dampfboot.
Brand, U. and Sekler, N. (2009) 'Struggling between Autonomy and Institutional
Transformations. Social Movements in Latin America and the Move towards
Post-Neoliberalism', in L. Macdonald and A. Ruckert (eds) Post-Neoliberalism
in the Americas: Beyond the Washington Consensus?, London: Routledge.
Brand, U., G?rg, C, Hirsch, J. and Wissen, M. (2008) Conflicts about Genetic Resources
and the Internationalisation of the State. Contested Terrains, London: Routledge.
Brenner, N. (2004) New State Spaces, Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood,
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Brenner, N., Jessop, B., Jones, M. and Macleod, G. (eds) (2003) State/Space: A Reader,
Maiden, Oxford and Berlin: Blackwell.
Cece?a, A. E. and Barreda, A. (eds) (1995) Producci?n Estrat?gica y Hegemon?a
Mundial, Mexico City: Siglo XXL
Chiarolla, C. (2008) 'The Question of Minimum Standards of Access and Benefit
Sharing under the CBD International Regime: Lessons from the International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture', Asian Biotechnol
ogy and Development Review, 10(3), 3-18.
Chouchena-Rojas, M., Ruiz-Muller, M., Vivas, D. and Winkler, S. (eds) (2005) Dis
closure Requirements: Ensuring Mutual Supportiveness between the WTO TRIPS
Agreement and the CBD, Gland, Cambridge and Geneva: IUCN/ICTSD.
Cox, R. W. (1993) 'Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in
Method', in S. Gill (ed.) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations,
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-66.
Enquete-Kommission Globalisierung der Weltwirtschaft (2002) Schlussbericht,
Berlin: BT-Drucksache 14/9200.
Escobar, A. (1998) 'Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature? Biodiversity Conservation
and the Political Ecology of Social Movements', Journal of Political Ecology, 5:
53-82.
Esser, J., G?rg, C. and Hirsch, J. (1994a) 'Von den "Krisen der Regulation" zum
radikalen Reformismus', in J. Esser et al. (eds) Politik, Institutionen und Staat,
Hamburg: VSA, pp. 213-228
Esser, ]., G?rg, C. and Hirsch, J. (eds) (1994b) Politik, Institutionen und Staat, Zur
Kritik der Regulationstheorie, Hamburg: VSA.
Finston, S. K. (2005) 'Commentary: An American Biolndustry Alliance Perspective
on CBD/TRIPS Issues in the Doha Round', Global Economy Journal, 5(4):l-8.
Gibbs, D. (2000) 'Globalization, the Bioscience Industry and Local Environmental
Responses', Global Environmental Change, 10: 245-57.
Gill, S. (2003) Power and Resistance in the New World Order, New York: Palgrave.
Goldman, M. (1998) 'Inventing the Commons: Theories and Practices of the Com
mon' Professionals', in M. Goldman (ed.) Privatizing Nature. Political Struggles
for the Global Commons, London: Routledge, pp. 20-53.
587

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

G?rg, C. (1998) 'Die Regulation der biologischen Vielfalt und die Krise
gesellschaftlicher Naturverh?ltnisse', in M. Flitner, C. G?rg and V Heins (eds)
Konfliktfeld Natur. Biologische Ressourcen und globale Politik, Opladen: West
deutscher Verlag, pp. 39-61.
G?rg, C. (2003) Regulation der Naturverh?ltnisse. Zu einer kritischen Theorie der
?kologischen Krise, M?nster: Westf?lisches Dampfboot.
G?rg, C. (2004) 'The Construction of Social Relationships with Nature', Poiesis &
Praxis, Special Issue: Focus on Biodiversity, 3(1): 22-36.
G?rg, C. (2008) 'Societal Relationships with Nature - A Dialectical Approach to
Environmental Polities', in Andrew Biro (ed.) Critical Ecologies, Toronto: Uni
versity of Toronto Press.
G?rg, C. and Brand, U. (2000) 'Global Environmental Politics and Competition
between Nation-States: On the Regulation of Biological Diversity', Review of
International Political Economy, 7(3): 371-98.
G?rg, C. and Brand, U. (eds) (2002) My then globalen Umweltmanagements. Rio+lOund
die Sackgassen 'nachhaltiger Entwicklung', M?nster: Westf?lisches Dampfboot.
G?rg, C. and Hirsch, J. (1998) Ts International Democracy Possible?', Review of
International Political Economy, 5(4): 585-615.
Heins, V and Flitner, M. (1998) 'Biologische Ressourcen und Life Polities', in M.
Flitner, C G?rg and V Heins (eds) Konfliktfeld Natur. Biologische Ressourcen und
globale Politik, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 13-38.
Held, D. and McGrew, A. (eds) (2002) Governing Globalization. Power, Authority and
Global Governance, Cambridge: Polity.
Hirsch, J. (1993) 'Internationale Regulation. Bedingungen von Dominanz,
Abh?ngigkeit und Entwicklung im globalen Kapitalismus', Das Argument, 198:
195-220.
Hirsch, J. (2002) Herrschaft, Hegemonie und politische Alternativen, Hamburg: VSA.
Hirsch, ]., Jessop, B. and Poulantzas, N. (2001) Die Zukunft des Staates, Hamburg:
VSA.
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (ITPGR) (2001) (ftp://ftp.fao.
org/ag/cgrfa/it/ITPGRe.pdf ).
Jessop, B. (1990) 'Regulation Theories in Retrospect and Prospect', Economy and
Society, 19(2): 153-216.
Jessop, B. (2002) 'Governance and Metagovernance: On Reflexivity, Requisite Vari
ety, and Requisite Irony', in: H. Heinelt, P. Getimis, G. Kafkalas, G. et al. (eds)
Participatory Governance in Multi-level Context, Opladen: Leske+Budrich, pp.
33-58.
Jessop, B. (2003) The Future of the Capitalist State, Cambridge: Polity.
Keil, R. and Mahon, R. (eds) (2007) The New Political Economy of Scale, Vancouver:
University of British Columbia.
Krasner, S. (ed.) (1983) International Regimes, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Kuppe, R. (2001) 'Der Schutz des traditionellen umweltbezogenen Wissens indi
gener V?lker', in G. Klaffenb?ck et al. (eds) Biologische Vielfalt. Wer kontrol
liert die genetischen Ressourcen!, Frankfurt M. Wien: Brandes&Apsel, pp. 141
55.
K?tting, G. (2000) Environment, Society and International Relations. Towards More Effec
tive International Environmental Agreements, London and New York: Routledge.
Lipietz, A. (1987) Mirages and Miracles. The Crisis of Global Fordism, London: Verso.
MASR (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report, Washington, DC:
Island Press, (http: / /www.millenniumassessment.org/ >.
McCarthy, J. (2005) 'Scale, Sovereignty, and Strategy in Environmental Governance',
Antipode, 37(4): 731-53.

588

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRAND AND G?RG: POST-FORDIST GOVERNANCE OF NATURE

Mooney, Pat Roy (1999) The ETC Century. Erosion, Technological Transformation and
Corporate Concentration in the 21st Century. Development Dialog 1-2, Uppsala:
Dag Hammarskj?ld Foundation.
Morton, A. D. (2003) 'Historicizing Gramsci: Situating Ideas In and Beyond their
Context', Review of International Political Economy, 10(1): 118-46.
Palan, R. (ed.) (2000) Global Political Economy. Contemporary Theories, London and
New York: Routledge.
Pearce, D. and Moran, D. (1994) The Economic Value of Biodiversity, London:
Earthscan.
Poulantzas, N. (1979) 'Es geht darum, mit der stalinistischen Tradition zu brechen!:
Interview von Rodrigo Vasquez-Prada mit Nicos Poulantzas', Prokla, 37:127
40.
Poulantzas, N. (1980) State, Power, Socialism, London: Verso.
Poulantzas, N. (2001) 'Die Internationalisierung der kapitalistischen Verh?ltnisse
und der Nationalstaat', in J. Hirsch et al. (eds) Die Zukunft des Staates, Hamburg:
VSA, pp. 19-69.
Reinicke, W. H. (1998) Global Public Policy. Governing without Government? Wash
ington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Rittberger, V (ed.) (1993) Regime Theory and International Relations, Oxford: Claren
don Press.
Robles, A.C. (1994) French Theories of Regulation and Conceptions of the International
Dimension of Labour, New York: St Martin's Press.
Scharpf, F. W. (1993) 'Positive und negative Koordination in Verhandlungssyste
men, in H?ritier (ed.) Policy-Analyse', Politische Viertel]ahresschrift, 24: 57-82.
Scherrer, C. (1998) 'Neo-gramscianische Interpretation internationaler Beziehun
gen. Eine Kritik', in U. Hirschfeld (ed.) Gramsci-Perspektiven, Berlin and Ham
burg: Argument, pp. 160-74.
Scherrer, C. (2003) 'Internationale Politische ?konomie als Systemkritik', in G.
Hellmann, K. Wolf and M. Z?rn (eds) Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen.
Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 465
494.
Secretariat of the CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity (2006) 'Global Biodi
versity Outlook 2', Montreal, http;//.biodiv.org/GB02.
Shaw, M. (2000) Theory of the Global State. Globality as an Unfinished Revolution, Cam
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siebenh?ner, B. and Suplie, J. (2005) 'Implementing the Access and Benefit Sharing
Provisions of the CBD: A Case for Institutional Learning', Ecological Economics,
53: 507-22.
Sukdev, Pavan et al. (2008) 'The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. An
Interim Report', European Communities.
Underhill, G.R.D. (2000) 'State, Market, and Global Political Economy: Genealogy
of an (Inter?)discipline', International Affairs, 76(4): 805-24.
Winter, J. (2003) 'Regulation und Hegemonie in nachfordistischen Zeiten', in U.
Brand and W. Raza (eds) Fit f?r den Postfordismus? Theoretisch-politische Per
spektiven des Regulationsansatzes, M?nster: Westf?lisches Dampfboot, pp. 206
227.
Wissen, M. (2007) 'Politics of Scale, Multi-Level Governance aus der Perspektive
kritischer (Raum-)Theorien', in A. Brunnengr?ber and H. Walk (eds) Multi
Level-Governance. Klima-, Umwelt- und Sozialpolitik in einer interdependenten Welt,
Baden Baden: Nomos: 229-49.
Young, T.R. (2008) 'Quest for Certainty in the New ABS Regime', Asian Biotechnology
and Development Review, 10(3), 113-36.

589

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Sat, 10 Sep 2016 05:11:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms