Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie Jg. 43 (1999)
Piers Blaikie, Norwich/Great Britain
A Review of Political Ecology
Issues, Epistemology and Analytical Narratives
Political ecology:
all things to all people?
„The notion of political ecology and the wheel
share an important characteristic - both keep on
being reinvented. I shall draw the optimistic
and maybe reckless conclusion they both must
therefore be good ideas, and that people must
continue to need them ...Since 1987, the in-
creasing pace of reinvention has created a new
phenomenon, also related to the wheel. The
whole political ecology show is now firmly on
the road, and has become something of a band-
wagon. Perhaps therefore it is time to take
stock. Where is political ecology going? Does
it have the coherence and vitality to transform
itself, rather than remain a capacious ve-
hicle for academic hitchhikers?" (BLAIKIE
1994, 1).
These words were written in 1994, and this re-
view in 1999, while taking a slightly jaded
view of the bandwagon itself - its label and its
Claims - still appreciates the vitality of many of
its hitchhikers. There has been a profusion of
exciting work with empirical, critical, episte-
mological, and (less often) policy related foci,
but, while the claim still has some merit, the
gloss of being called „political ecology" may
be becoming somewhat tarnished, although, as
the conclusion to this article maintains, the
term still acts as an emblem and discursive de-
vice through which diverse networks of scho-
lars and other concerned groups may commu-
nicate. Clearly, the term is an elision of a num-
ber of established disciplines from the natural
and social sciences which bring with them their
dominant epistemologies and methodologies.
By internalising diverse notions from its eclec-
tic origins, political ecology is able to throw
light on new contradictions and paradoxes
which are brought together from different net
works of scholars, activists and other actors.
Insofar as intellectual growth tends to be stron-
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Heft 3-4, S. 131-147 Frankfurt a. M.
gest at the antagonistic and problematic mar-
gins of established disciplines and the instituti-
ons which reproduce them, the claim to be
doing political ecology still has a certain ca-
chet. However, as this review shows, the claim
works less well in terms of creating coherence
and focus. There is a growing number of stu-
dies labeling themselves political ecology, and
courses on the subject have sprung up on both
sides of the Atlantic. It is not difficult to iden-
tify at the present time a drive to establish a di-
stinctive genealogy and intellectual history for
political ecology. This exercise requires an ex
post re-labeling of work over the past fifteen
years or so which did not self-consciously re-
cognise itself as political ecology, as well as
staking out new Claims into neighbouring ter-
rains.
Much of political ecology could, in an inclusi-
ve definition of the field, just as well be labe-
led environmental sociology, environmental
anthropology, environmental economics, and
the political science of the environment, and as
such, is produced by a number of disciplines
outside geography too. WATTS and PEET
(1993) critiqued political ecology, but, perhaps
wisely, did not seek to define it, and characte-
rised the project as ,,reflect[ing] a confluence
between ecologically-rooted social science and
principles of political economy" (ibid. 239).
ZIMMERER (1993) traced five different ways
in which human geography has utilised ecolo-
gical concepts, of which political ecology is the
most recent, but again did not seek to define its
frontiers. There are no strong grounds in this
paper, or in other reviews, for excluding much
of the earlier and wider conceptualisations of
ecology from the field of political ecology.
Further reviews of political ecology and related
subject areas (BLAIKIE1994, WATTS/ Mc-
CARTHY 1997) treated the term in similar
broad terms. BRYANT and BAILEY (1997,
10-26) in their more referenced and compre-
Authenticated
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
132 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie
hensive review of Third World political ecolo-
gy, were careful to distinguish it from other
„selected environmental research fields", but
their basis for distinguishing them (eg. political
ecology from environmental politics) is not ar-
gued very hard, and they acknowledge a large
degree of overlap. BLAIKIE and BROOK-
FIELD (1987, 17-19) had earlier developed a
multi-level conceptualisation of what they cal-
led „regional political ecology", „which en-
compasses interactive effects, the contribution
of different geographical scales and hierarchies
of socio-economic organisations (eg. person,
household, village, region, State, world) and
the contradictions between social and environ
mental changes through time". Thus, the tradi-
tional focus in geography based in regional dy-
namics, and place-based environment-society
relations as they unfold in space-time (just in
the same way äs a traditional ecology seeks to
do within the natural sciences) is thereby lin-
ked to global, systemic - and not necessarily
spatial - concerns, such as world trade, econo-
mic restructuring North-South relations and, in
more general terms, to international relations
(CONCA 1993, CONCA/ DABELKO1998)
and to the development of capitalism
(SCHNAIBERG/ GOULD 1994). Thus, there
is not much evidence in the review literature
and in the ränge of empirical work which gives
itself the name, of recognised limits to political
ecology, in the sense of „this far and no furt-
her"- hence, the metaphor of the capacious
bandwagon at the beginning of this article. Any
limitations to this expansive and expanding
fleld therefore tend to come from unacknow-
ledged literatures across disciplinary divides,
and between academia and other arenas where
environment-society relations are played out.
Since every discipline is to some extent prefe-
rentially self-referencing, it is principally that
work recognised by geographers which tends
to be referred to as doing political ecology.
There are however, major contributions from
other disciplines too (particularly anthropolo-
gy, politics and sociology).
Nonetheless, although there may be only a we-
ak case for an exclusive and precisely defined
political ecology, there remain two narrower
foci, perhaps less sharp now in the late 1990s,
which derive from the methods of ecology and
more traditional concerns of geography. The
first is the interaction between changing envi
ronmental and the socio-economy, in which
landscapes and the physiographic processes ac-
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
Heft 3-411999
ting upon them, are seen to have dialectical, hi-
storically derived and iterative relations with
resource use and the socio-economic and poli
tical sets of relations which shape them. These
studies typically have involved fieldwork, are
pitched at a micro- or meso-scale and are often
located in lesser developed countries. A short
selection of classic studies illustrates this fo
cus. BASSETT (1998) discusses conflict bet
ween herders and peasants, both in economic
and political terms in the Ivory Coast in similar
ways to BELL and ROBERTS (1991) concer-
ning soil and water resources of dambos in
Zimbabwe. BLACK (1990) applies BLAIKIE
and BROOKFIELD's (1987) conception of re
gional political ecology to the environmental
implications of poverty and out-migration in
northern Portugal, and comes to the conclusion
that the framework is too rigid, uni-directional
in directions of causality and employs alto-
gether too arbitrary an explanatory method.
The tenor of these criticisms still remains im-
portant as a result of the subsequent post-struc-
turalist direction which geography has taken,
and is returned to later. Four key political eco
logies of forests and forestry PELUSO (1992)
in Indonesia, BRYANT (1996) in Burma,
HECHT and COCKBURN (1989) in the Ama
zon, and GUHA (1989b) in India were follo-
wed by many other studies with similar con-
flictual stories, especially between the State and
its forestry officials with their own professio-
nal and bureaucratic repertoires, commercial
interests (mostly timber companies), develop
ment agencies and a differentiated set of local
people - a familiär enough cast of actors,
which re-appear in many political ecologies of
the forest. Only a few (eg. GRANER 1997,
BUNKER 1985) provide a füll political ecolo
gy, in the sense of an analysis of the political
economy, actors and their politics and conflic-
ting representations of the forest however. The
collection of case studies in Economic Geogra
phy 1993/4, subsequently reproduced and refi-
ned as an edited book (PEET/ WATTS 1996)
was from a different mould. Leaving aside so
me of the more thematic and broader contribu
tions of that volume until later in this article, a
number of political ecology case studies appro-
ached the same themes of contest and conflict
over resources, but in a more post-structural te
nor. Some of the criticisms of earlier structura-
list work - that it lacked the politics in political
ecology, faced insuperable methodological
Problems of proof (and ultimately of persuasi-
Authenticated
 P. Blaikie: A Review of Political Ecology
on), and asserted its own meta-narratives, the-
reby silencing local and alternative voices -
were avoided in this volume. CARNEY (1993)
and SCHROEDER (1993) discuss the impact
of irrigation and agricultural intensification in
West Africa upon male control of female la-
bour and land rights. MOORE (1993) also hig-
hlights gender inequalities in his account of
'peasant micro-politics' of a national park in
eastern Zimbabwe, JAROSZ (1993) the issue
of deforestation, population growth and con-
servation in Madagascar, and finally ZIMME
RER (1993) examines alternative perceptions
of soil erosion from the viewpoints of young
peasants, trade unions and development insti-
tutions. These studies (with others not mentio-
ned in this volume) have the common charac-
teristics listed above, but, true to a more post-
structural approach, emphasise politics rather
than economics, alternative accounts of reality
rather than the author's own environmental
and social data, and agency and resistance rat
her than structural inequality.
The second core set of characteristics of politi
cal ecology might be identified as an examina-
tion of different states of nature, their change
through time and their contested representati-
ons under conditions of unequal power.
BRYANT (1998) in his latest review strongly
emphasises Systems of political and economic
control which derive from the colonial era, a
point which is re-examined here. This usually
involves the production and/or critique of
scientific interpretations as well as others such
as by the mass media, policy makers, formal
and informal institutions, and various other ac-
tors in civil society. It also involves an exami-
nation of how the environment is politicised, in
which all manner of other cultural positions,
economic interests and political strategies are
involved. As far back as 1977, PRYCE noted
that " from time immemorial people have for-
med opinions, developed attitudes and based
their actions on images that may have borne li-
ttle or no resemblance to reality. Biases or in-
deed completely erroneous ideas concerning
the environment are potentially as influential
as those conforming to the real world" (quoted
in PEPPER 1984). Leaving aside for a moment
the thorny issue of whether there is a real
world, this Statement rapidly expands this core
notion of „contested states of nature" to an im
mense field which opens out in the same way
as suggested by the more inclusive definitions
above.
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
133
Issues, narratives and epistemologies
It is proposed to construct an outline genealo-
gy of political ecology by the identification of
major political ecological issues through time
(eg. deforestation, soil erosion, desertification,
climate change) and the major Controlling nar
ratives through which these issues have been
interpreted (eg. ecological modernisation,
structuralist critiques of varying degrees of ra-
dical persuasion, and post-structuralism). En
vironmental issues do not only become so (if at
all) because of ontologically real changes in
nature, but because they are constructed by so
cial processes, successfully represented and
launched. There is a large literature on the key
tasks in constructing environmental issues,
summarised by HANNIGAN (1995). These in-
volve amongst others, discovering the issue,
naming it, and establishing the basis of the
claim; presenting the claim, by commanding
attention, and legitimating the claim; and then
finally contesting other counter Claims, by in-
voking action, mobilising support, leading to
successful strategies such as networking, deve-
loping technical expertise, and opening policy
Windows (SUSSKIND 1994). Indeed, one of
the most fertile foci for study is the politics of
environmental information, and which has be
en approached using a variety of political eco
nomic and discursive frameworks.
Thus, environmental issues do not so much
rest on unexamined and so-called „real„chan-
ges in nature, but are socially constructed and
become issues through developments in scien
tific research and political and economic cir-
cumstances which shift and reform already
established representations of nature. Howe-
ver, these issues once launched, (international
Conferences are called, papers are read, media
reportage follows, environmental conditionali-
ties are imposed on national policy by interna
tional agencies, policies are enacted and so
on), bear the timing and circumstances of their
inception - their mapping of the environment,
their „take" on the issue, which problems ap-
pear in the frame, and which are obscured or
dropped from view and acceptable Standards
of proof. They also are shaped by the imprint
of dominant narratives from which they drew
their intellectual inspiration and legitimacy.
Some issues, such as deforestation, desertifica
tion and soil erosion have had a long history
and were originally framed in the 1920s or
even earlier, entered policy debates in a colo
nial political environment (e. g. the Indian Fo-
Authenticated
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
134 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie
rest Service and African colonial agricultural
departments), but survive within dominant po-
licy networks to the present day - to be chal-
lenged later, as new ways of experiencing, in-
terpreting and intervening in the environment
appear. Others, such as biodiversity, erosion
and climate change appear much later in the la-
te 1980s, are less encumbered by a neo-coloni-
al genealogy and are couched in more recent
political and epistemological terms. However,
even within these newer environmental issues,
appropriations by „throw-backs" to colonial
discourse, and state-led authoritative scientific
knowledge still take place. For example, biodi
versity conservation, although born into a post-
structuralist intellectual environment and the
more populist and pluralist policy style of the
1990s, has largely been co-opted by a much
earlier colonial policy mindset, in which „fort-
ress" conservation and colonial conceptions of
the threats from „the tragedy of the commons",
uncontrolled population growth and indigent
local resource users have managed to (re-
)establish themselves (WELLS et al. 1992,
BLAIKIE/JEANRENAUD 1996). It is one of
the central tasks of a critical political ecology
to identify these powerful and long established
notions and how they reproduce themselves in
the face of alternative ones.
Disjunctures
Finally, it is to be expected in the development
of any field of ideas that there remain disjunc
tures between different networks of scholars,
policy makers, consultants, professional scien-
tists in the private sector and other diverse
groups in civil society, which come about not
because of unresolved debates, but because of
non-engagement between them. Here, there
are undefended frontiers simply because they
remain unacknowledged and unexplored. An
enduring disjuncture which will be all too fa
miliär in geography departments the world
over occurs between physical and human geo
graphers in their study of nature and environ
ment. This remains because of a continuing
failure to engage in crucial epistemological de-
bate about how we understand and interpret
Statements about nature and environmental
change, to which this article returns later. In
the simplest terms, a realist view of nature ser-
ved by logical positivist methodologies re
mains the most credible epistemology and as-
sociated set of methods for most natural scien-
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
Heft 3-4/1999
tists, where stable patterns of cause and effect
can be established through (usually quantitati
ve) hypothesis testing, in order to make gene-
ral Statements about what PEPPER calls the
„real" or tangible physical environment (1984,
60). Human geographers have increasingly
shifted towards a post-structural or „interactio-
nist" approach whereby the establishment of
„truths" about the environment inevitably are
shaped by the relationship between the subject
and object of research, such that different ac-
tors, such as scientists, or others, may con-
struct the same environment in very different
ways. Human geographers writing about poli
tical ecology have located themselves along a
ränge of social constructionist positions about
nature, and have taken a more critical view
than physical geographers of the production of
scientific truths, and the uses to which they ha
ve been put. Physical geographers have usual
ly kept with more realist positions, and there-
fore with more technical, ecological and
„scientific" matters, thereby largely ignoring
the „political" in political ecology. Human
geographers, on the other hand, have tended to
de-emphasise the „ecology" and physical evi-
dence of states of , and, if the counter-critique
may be pursued, thereby remain under-infor-
med of the real states of nature and the scienti
fic debates which Surround them.
Similar disjunctures occur between, on the one
hand, development Professionals, policy ma
kers and international civil servants, and on the
other, academics and environmental activists.
Here too, there exist both ideational conflicts
as well as strong structural factors which dis-
courage cross-fertilisation across disciplinary
and ideological boundaries. For example, an
environmental economics approach to the en
vironment, espoused by the World Bank and
other powerful institutions which promote eco
logical modernisation, has to, by its rigid nor
mative assumptions, disregard the politics in
political ecology, the role of culture in envi
ronmental matters, and an appreciation of plu-
ral views - indeed they are treated as con-
straints to rational environmental policy. There
are no professional rewards for opening this
particular Pandora's box in most multi-lateral
institutions. In institutional terms, both in aca-
demia and international and national environ
mental policy making arenas, there is a profes
sional reward structure which disfavours dis-
sent from institutionally established norms,
plural views without closure and clear courses
Authenticated
 P. Blaikie: A Review of Political Ecology
for action, and departures from narrowly defi-
ned Standards of Professional excellence. The
se ideational and structural aspects in the crea-
tion of environmental knowledge has meant
that a critical political ecology is produced and
read outside policy making arenas and mass
media dissemination, and almost exclusively
within academia, and within this, by human
geographers, sociologists, anthropologists and
political scientists - and not by many natural
scientists.
This State of political ecology has brought ab-
out its impoverishment for three main reasons.
First, social scientists (with a few honourable
exceptions) usually do not have a well develo-
ped technical understanding of the environ
mental issues themselves, nor of the way in
which scientific information is produced and
used (WYNNE 1994, JASONOFF 1990). Adi-
latory reference to LATOUR and WOOLGAR
(1979) is often supposed to be enough to de-
bunk any authoritative Claims by scientists to
teil the rest of us about what is really going on.
Now, this is not to deny that it does not always
take a scientist to catch a scientist, and there
have been instances of crucial unmaskings of
scientific rationality in the political ecology
field by non-scientists (e.g CARSON 1962 of
the agro-chemical establishment and COM-
MONER 1971 on industrial technologies in
the North), as well as disasters or near-disa-
sters on such an obvious scale (eg. Chernobyl,
Bhopal and Three Mile Island) that in no way
should debar social scientists, environmental
activists and the like from publicising them.
Secondly, a critical and progressive political
ecology should be able to develop more soci-
ally responsible and socially embedded scien
tific methodologies, a task which it has, to da-
te, failed to do. Examples include the dialogue
between western „scientific" knowledge pro-
duction and indigenous and lay knowledges
and the specification of environmental and so
cial costs and benefits in such issues as tech-
nology transfer, e. g. crop breeding, forest ma-
nagement, ränge management in the semi-arid
tropics and a broad ränge of other techno-poli-
tical issues. If political ecology is to make a
difference in people's lives, it must also
acknowledge that progress will involve not on-
ly the political but the technical too. This is not
a criticism of such major works in political
ecology such as SHIVA's Staying Alive: Wo-
men, Ecology ans Development (1989), GU-
HA's The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
135
and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya
(1989b) as, at the end of their work, a signifi-
cant silence, and a missed opportunity to go
further. This would involve an examination
and re-working of existing scientific informa
tion and local knowledge to include local va-
lues, economic exigencies and culture, policy
reform, political strategy, media and public re-
lations and networking among many others.
This is not to suggest that these works should
end with a set of policy recommendations as in
a consultant's report, but to indicate what the
opportunies and constraints are. In short, the
most incisive critiques which political ecology
has provided are long on critique and short on
establishing goals (however plural and provi-
sional) and the technical and political means of
reaching them.
A cartography of political ecology
Fig. 1 is a map of political ecology since the
1930s. The left column depicts the main analy-
tical narratives which have informed political
ecology. These are: (i) ecological modernisati-
on, which has developed in two main forms -
a colonial, state-led and coercive form (labeled
„old" in Fig. 1), and later, by the 1990s with
economics and international law as its main or-
ganising principles („new"); (ii) radical realist
critique, from a ränge of ideological perspec-
tives, principally but not exclusively marxist
and dependista; and (iii) social constructionist
perspectives deriving from post-structuralist
political ecology. Their relative waxing and
waning throughout the last sixty years is gra-
phically represented on the left of the map. A
small selection of the main environmental is
sues (eg. soil erosion, deforestation, climate
change) appear in the central column, with lin-
kages shown where Substantive environmental
sub-topics have been co-opted by another ma
jor issue. For example, deforestation was initi-
ally addressed as a separate and regionally fo-
cused issue, but has increasingly been incorpo-
rated into climate change, and into regional
issues such as the „Himalayan environmental
crisis". It also remains a discursive field in
terms not dissimilar to those of thirty years ago
(shown in Fig. 1 as an arrow reaehing into the
1990s to the base of the diagram). Two regio
nal environmental issues in capital letters are
shown as examples. The next column to the
right lists some leading international conferen-
ces on environmental issues. These have acted
Authenticated
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
136 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie
as globalising activities for certain environ-
mental issues and encompassing analytical
narratives. They haveplayed theit part in crea-
ting, organising and Controlling regimes in the
form of international juridical and economic
policies for global environmental manage-
ment. They also occlude alternative voices and
problem framings, which have invited a sub-
stantial contribution from various critical poli-
tical ecologies. Finally, the column on the far
right depicts the rise in the number of interna
tional environmental treaties, as a leading indi-
cator of the growing globalisation of environ
mental issues, as well as the establishment of
global environmental regimes as part of the
ecological modemisation project. It now re-
mains to examine the three main analytical
narratives which have informed political eco-
logy, some selected issues themselves, and the
process of globalisation of ideas in political
ecology, through international environmental
Conferences and agreements.
Analytical narratives
for political ecology
Ecological modemisation, contemporary
style.
This term has been established during the late
1980s and is now the dominant narrative for
the analysis of environmental issues at the glo
bal level and by international institutions. It
originated from SPAARGEN and MOL (1992a
and b), who take a rather optimistic view of the
possibilities of an ecological revolution in
which industrialisation, particualrly its techno-
logies, enter a new phase of „super-industriali-
sation", made possible by the microchip and
other innovations such as gene engineering
and energy-saving and laying the basis for cle-
an and sustainable technologies of the future
(for a general discussion see HANNIGAN
1995,182f.). Ecological modemisation also
embraces the notion of „sustainable develop-
ment", although they draw most of their ori-
gins from different sources. It is predicated
upon a number of assumptions, summarised
here. First, it is assumed that it is possible to
overcome the environmental crisis without lea-
ving the path of modemisation by a major re
structuring of production-consumption cycles
so that the existing base of natural resources
and Services can be maintained sustainably. Se-
condly, scientists can no longer deliver autho-
ritative and certain predictions of environ
mental risks associated with a wide variety of
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
Heft 3-4/1999
technologies and resource use practices, and
therefore must share them with a wide public,
who will thereby become increasingly aware
of these uncertainties and be able to be politi-
cally active (or at least acquiescent) in promo-
ting or accepting necessary changes. Thirdly,
environmental problems can be objectively
identified, measured and subjected to analysis
by environmental economics, which will indi-
cate a rational allocation of resources (HAJER
1995). Fourthly, it promotes the establishment
of the „precautionary principle", by which en
vironmental costs can be predicted before they
arise, and the bürden of proof of future envi
ronmental costs is shifted onto the would-be
polluter/degrader on the basis of „proof
beyond doubt", rather than on statistical proba-
bility (O'RIORDAN/ JORDAN 1995). Fifth
and last, it assumes that modern, sustainable
and democratic institutions will evolve to ana-
lyse, monitor, legislate for and enforce the ne
cessary measures to ensure the transformation.
It is not proposed in this review to offer a füll
critique of this narrative, but to indicate firstly,
its domination of contemporary environmental
issues (particularly climate change, biodiversi-
ty conservation, other international environ
mental treaties, and national policy in both the
Norm and South); and secondly to review so
me of the critiques which have been offered
from political ecology and other quarters. Eco
logical modemisation permeates international
Conferences, the drafting of international envi
ronmental agreements, and much of the objec-
tives of environmental conditionalities to mul-
ti-lateral loans and foreign aid (CONCA 1993,
LITFIN 1994, CONCA/ DABELKO 1998).
International treaties on environment have
shown an extraordinary increase from about
twenty in 1955 to over 250 in 1998, indicating
a globalisation of environmental issues in a
modemisation framework. Much of the current
lending policy to countries of the South has be
en made conditional upon the restructuring and
strengthening of institutions dealing with the
environment in developing countries, such as
Ministries of the Environment and agriculture,
forestry departments, national parks and the li-
ke. Training, resource surveys, mapping, the
introduction of GIS, monitoring and evaluati-
on units have been part of this modemisation
of institutions, and in many cases has led to re-
newed tensions between the colonial State and
local people. Land tenure reform and the
sweeping away of so-called antiquated and ill-
Authenticated
Fig. 1: Political Ecology - Issues and Paradigms

ENVIRONMENTAL
TREATIES
0 100 MM)

Pollution
in the North

CLUB OF ROME
UN. CONFERENCE ON
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

CLUB DU SAHEL
& UNCOD

BRUNDTLAND
OUR COMMON FUTURE)
WORLD CONFERENCE
ON CHANGING
ATMOSPHERE (1988)

UNCED
AGENDA 21,
;:RIO DECLARATIÖNI:
.CONVENTIONS ON
CLIMATE CHANGE
BIODIVERSITY

Source: own draft

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
138 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie
functioning common property regimes is ano-
ther major feature. A lively debate has been in-
itiated, in which counter-attacks have repea-
tedly been made against endemic privatisation
of natural resources and development narrati-
ves such as the internalisation of externalities
through private property, „the tragedy of the
commons", and the threat of rapid population
growth. A glance at the types of environmental
projects initiated in many developing countries
bear witness to the drive to modernisation by
the replacement of wasteful resource use and
primitive agricultural techniques (e.g. shifting
cultivation on the forest margins, sometimes
combined with family planning programmes).
Why then do these narratives survive? The
most persuasive answers perhaps can be provi-
ded by a structural analysis of the development
industry itself or a discursive post-structuralist
examination of these ideas as text. (Both ap-
proaches, although different, would be compli-
mentary and together contribute to a more in-
formed sociology of public policy (APTHOR-
PE/ GASPAR 1996). However, generalised
damning critiques of ecological modernisati
on, tempting they may be as a coup de theatre
at academic Conferences perhaps should not be
made too hastily, since existing „pre-modern"
patterns of resource use and State involvement
have frequently been very much worse in
terms of both equity and efficiency, than pro-
posed (and sometimes, actual) modernising re-
forms. Evidence-based evaluations of ecologi
cal modernisation policies are usually ambiva-
lent, and they require painstaking local
research or reading difficult-to-access grey li-
terature, rather than rhetorical flourishes. Wi-
despread corruption, patronage, appropriation
of State property, charcoal and timber mafia
and devastating deforestation brought about by
colluding forestry officials and multi-national
timber companies make a familiär litany
(COLCHESTER 1994, BUNKER 1985), and
it is these which are also addressed, at least on
paper and in theory, by ecological modernisa
tion policies in the South.
Still, the balance of evidence for ecological
modernisation must weigh against a favoura-
ble judgement. The outcomes of many treaties
and policies leave much to be desired, and ha
ve exposed many of their modernist assumpti-
ons. First, ecological modernisation has little
to say about power relations which permeate
the socio-economic processes which help to
shape environmental processes and outcomes,
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
Heft 3-4/1999
as well as their representation and framings. As
GOULD et al. (1993) said, there are important
political and social dimensions which limit
what is acceptable and feasible. Secondly, it
virtually ignores the South, and talks in almost
exclusive terms of existing and feasible tech-
nologies of the industrial North. A reading of
such critical and illuminating works as The Po
litics of Climate C hange: a European Perspec-
tive (O'RIORDANI JÄGER 1996) or The Poli
tics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological
Modernisation and the Policy Process (HA-
JER 1995), the latter discussing European po
litics „of acid rain", simply depict a different
world from that of the environmental politics
and policy in the South. The ränge of case stu-
dies in a comprehensive volume on internatio
nal environmental treaties which included the
USA, France, Japan, the Russian Federation
(and formerly the USSR), Cameroon and India
(WEISS/ JACOBSON 1998) pointed to an al
most unbridgeable gap between the prospects
for ecological modernisation in the North and
many of the poorer and beleaguered countries
of the South (e.g. see the case studies of Ca
meroon or Brazil). Nonetheless, ecological
modernisation remains the dominant environ
mental discourse in spite of all the criticisms
from post modern, post-structural and populist
perspectives.
Ecological modernisation, colonial style.
There is another analytical narrative which
predates contemporary ecological modernisati
on by some seventy years. This derives from
the colonial experience of political and envi
ronmental relations between, the metropolitan
governments of the major colonial powers, the
in-country governments of settler states, pro-
tectorates and other colonies, and local people
(and in settler states, settlers themselves). The
varied politics of the different colonies need
not be examined here, although MILLING-
TON (1987) and ANDERSON/ MILLING-
TON (1987) point out the important differen-
ces in colonial states which shaped their envi
ronmental policies and politics. During the
colonial period, issues of environmental mana-
gement, (mainly concerning agriculture, fore
stry and ränge management ) were framed in
what might be called an archaic form of ecolo
gical modernisation. Of course these „techni-
cal" and conservation matters of the colonies
in Africa and south and south-east Asia belied
all manner of other interests, particularly those
of settlers, when they were threatened by com-
Authenticated
 P. Blaikie: A Review ofPolitical Ecology
Petition in the market from local farmers, for
access to fertile land or better watered pastu-
res, and for labour to work in the mines and on
settler farms (BLAIKIE 1987, BEINART
1984). Nonetheless, many conservation poli-
cies adopted a conservation style claiming to
modernise and rationalise „native" resource
use and management. It caused widespread re-
sistance, and, as is usual in „environmental" is-
sues, they became politicised and linked to in-
dependence struggles in imperial India, Kenya
and Tanganyika. It was state-led, paternalist at
best, and at worst coercive, relied upon autho-
ritative scientific knowledge (which, as we
shall see, was frequently mis-applied and so-
metimes piain wrong), and derided indigenous
culture, technical knowledge and resource use
as irrational, primitive and careless.
It has, for all the criticism, survived the waning
of empire and can be readily recognised in
contemporary national conservation strategies
in Africa and Asia, agricultural plans, and for-
eign aid projects in the South (see the left co-
lumn in Fig. 1). Its post-colonial survival has
been labeled „classic" or neo-colonial (BLAI
KIE 1985, 38-78, BIOT et al. 1995, GHIMI-
RE/ PIMBERT 1997, and at various points in
ANDERSON/GROVE 1987). Various reasons
for the survival and resilience of this archaic
form of modernisation have been posited from
a wide ränge of approaches. Radical critiques
have tended to emphasise the contradictions
and injustices of class relations, capital accu-
mulation, the reproduction of neo-colonialism,
and the commodification of nature, all of
which require the „conservation of nature" for
its eventual destruction by capital. On the other
hand, contemporary ecological modernisation
has focused on the lack of democratic gover-
nance, unwarranted interference of the State in
the market for technical knowledge, agricultu
ral products and inputs, and unclear or ineffec-
tive property relations. The post-structuralist
critique emphasises the nexus of power, know
ledge and theory, and therefore the ways in
which the environment is constructed in a va-
riety of eurocentric and modernist cultural
forms (see Escobafs treatment of the Brundt-
land Report and other environmental and de-
velopment issues, passim, ESCOBAR 1995,
and an edited volume by SACHS 1993). The
survival of this form of modernisation has be
en attributed by the three critical approaches
respectively as follows:- (i) radical structura-
list critique: the continuing primacy of global
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
139
capitalism; (ii) ecological modernisation, con
temporary style: enduring patterns of bu-
reaucratic behaviour and the susceptability of
rational economic and technical behaviours to
Subversion by powerful political forces (e.g.
feudal landlords, timber contractors and cor-
rupt officials); and (iii) post-structuralist ap
proaches: by the power of development and
the modernist project in which it is embedded
(ESCOBAR 1995; CRUSH 1995, 1-26). My
own inclination is eclectic. While eclectism
runs the risk of being accused of ideological
and epistemological inconsistency, it recogni-
ses in this case, both the persuasiveness but al
so limits of discourse, acknowledges economic
power both in the construction of environ
mental ideas („he who pays the piper calls the
tune") as well as a pervasive and global logic
in all economic relations surrounding resource
use, and the difficulties of imagining political-
ly and technically feasible alternatives to the
possibilities of progress in the modernist
mould, however and by whomsoever this
might be defined. Some of these sentiments are
also expressed, although with different empha-
sis, by WATTS and McCARTHY (1997, 84-5).
Social critique - radical and conservative
From the 1970s onwards there appeared a
trickle of articles from disparate sources,
which claimed to be political ecology. Mostly
they were from anthropology (e.g. WOLF
1972), academic marxism (ENZENSBERGER
1974), radical geography of marxist and neo-
marxist persuasions (O'KEEFE 1975), WIS-
NER (1978) and, in a different mould, from
cultural ecology (ELLEN 1982) - for a fuller
review, see BLAIKIE (1994), BRYANT
(1998) and BRYANT and BAILEY (1997).
These earlier studies were critical of dominant
theories of the time, e.g. neo-malthusian expla-
nations of poverty and environmental degrada-
tion, and physiographic explanations of disa-
sters, particularly famine (Watts in HEWITT's
1983 path breaking edited volume on disa-
sters).
An expanded multi-scale political ecology was
attempted by BLAIKIE in 1985, although it
used the framework of marxian political eco-
nomy rather than political or cultural ecology,
and as such, reads today as rather mechanistic,
and lacking in the „hurly-burly of everyday
politics" (WATTS 1997). It focused on the is-
sue of soil erosion and adopted a realist as-
sumption that there was such a universally un-
Authenticated
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
140 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie
derstood process as soil erosion, and that it was
occurring to the extent that it was a significant
social problem. It linked its supposed global
occurrence to the development of capitalist re-
lations in agriculture, forestry and livestock
production. There followed a schematic ac-
count of how different relations of production,
technologies and actual land use practices we-
re related and led in some instances to soil ero
sion. The analysis was pitched at a number of
scales including the local, in which households
and individuals within them and their differen-
tial access to material resources shaped a spe-
cific cumulative history of repeated land use
practices over a particular area over time.
A hierarchy of geographical scales was con-
structed by what was called „the chain of ex-
planation" (further elaborated in BLAIKIE
1989,1994). It started at the local level and set
itself the analytical task of explaining a local
incidence of soil erosion. At the local level,
physical changes in soil and Vegetation created
economic Symptoms, such as falling crop
yields and increased mortality of cattle. These
in turn can be attributed to specific land uses
and misuses, which derived from the ways in
which those local people earned a livelihood.
There follows an analysis of how households
put together a portfolio of activities to secure a
livelihood, some of them having implications
for the specific land use practices which had
led cumulatively and through time to land de-
gradation. In turn, and moving up a scale, the
way in which people allocate labour (including
gender aspects) and households' access to re
sources, to which could be added the more re-
cent notions of social capital and capabilities,
can be explained by the nature of agrarian so-
ciety, in which class and the social relations of
production were privileged as the major expla-
natory logic. The nature of the State also has
impacts upon the local instance of land degra-
dation with which the chain of explanation
started (e.g. official land tenure law, the abili-
ties of the administration, especially in agricul-
tural Services and the quality of governance).
Finally, the State itself is part of the world eco-
nomy and political economy, and as such, is
impacted by cycles of world trade, the foreign
debt crisis, structural adjustment polices and
the like. As the causal chain leads off from the
local to the regional, the nation State and the
international, a structuralist methodology, with
its rigorous Standards of proof, becomes in-
creasingly difficult to justify.
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
Heft 3-4/1999
There were, at the time of writing admitted
epistemological and methodological problems,
mainly about the Status and Standing of proof.
The method (as further developed in BLAI
KIE/ BROOKFIELD 1985) was criticised as
„woolly" (PEET/ WATTS 1993, 239). There
are undoubtedly formidable problems when at-
tempting to make causal connections between
social and environmental processes associated
with the availability and accessibility of data
(particularly of time series or historical data of
any sort), and epistemological issues connec-
ted to acceptable Standards of proof. Ceteribus
paribus conditions are never satisfied and the
re are usually so many intervening variables
that the project may seem like trying to find a
needle in a haystack when, as post-structuralist
critics might add, you cannot find the hay
stack. MEARNS (1991), for example, set out
to examine the environmental impact of struc
tural adjustment policies in Malawi but, admit-
ting that this was a „wicked problem area", en-
ded up writing an illuminating methodological
examination instead. Practical problems of
identifying causal connections in this case in-
cluded the variety of different structural ad
justment programmes in Malawi with different
onset dates, the difficulty of assessing on-the-
ground impacts of the policies themselves, ti
me lag effects and important causal impacts of
weather upon crop yields and agricultural Out
puts. While it is certainly fair to criticise such
attempts to establish causality and feedback
between social and environmental change, it
could be pointed out that all except the most
discursive deconstructionists attempt to esta
blish exactly the same type of causal relations,
even if they do not take explicit epistemologi
cal responsibility for it. As long as empirical
evidence of socio-economic and physiographic
change and inter-relations between them re-
mains an essential input into a critical political
ecology, these methodological challenges will
remain. However, how they are met will de-
pend amongst other factors, upon the ways in
which post-structural methodologies can en-
hance, or even partly replace them.
BRYANT and BAILEY's book Third World
Political Ecology (1997) was a welcome ad-
vance, in that, after a gap of about a decade, a
new and more comprehensive framework for
political ecology appeared. It represents an
ambitious and much broader field, in which
both geographical scales and issues of time
and periodicity were explicitly considered.
Authenticated
 P. Blaikie: A Review ofPolitical Ecology
What the authors call the „dimensions of a po-
liticised environment" are seen as damaging
physical change (e.g. soil erosion, flood, pesti-
cide concentration) in every day, episodic and
systemic time periods. These have differentia-
ted impacts, usually more pronounced upon
the poor. The key analytical concepts gover-
ning these are marginality, vulnerability and
risk, and the authors typify political responses
in terms of resistance, protest and populär
distrust of „experts" regarding systemic envi-
ronmental problems (and, one might add,
which are complex and with latent physical
manifestations. One of the key tables in the
book (Tab. 2.1, page 35) cross-classifies diffe-
rent actors on political ecology (states, gras-
sroots actors, business interests, multilateral
institutions and environmental NGOs) with
different scales at which they engage with the
environment and with each other. While the
actor-orientated approach here is under-theori-
sed and does not avail itself of the insights of-
fered by a füll actor orientated approach
(LONG/ LONG 1992), it enables the authors
to sketch out the main political and social issu-
es in the Third World, and to introduce a rieh
panorama of empirical detail within an organi-
sed framework. The book also keeps the prio-
rities of addressing inequality, but follows
through, at least schematically, the politics of
unequal power.
Post-structural political ecology
The post-structural and post-modern arrival in
the social sciences has been a slow process. It
has been welcomed within the field of political
ecology by many, for example PEET and
WATTS (1996, 38): „One of the great merits of
the turn to discourse, broadly understood, wit
hin political ecology, is the demands it makes
for nuanced, richly textured empirical work (a
sort of political-ecological thick description)
which matches the nuanced beliefs and prac-
tices of the world". Undoubtedly, the so-called
post-structuralist turn has enormously enriched
political ecology. It has questioned powerful
environmental knowledge (usually „scienti-
fic", formal, and State sponsored) which has
controlled, immiserated and impoverished
(both materially and culturally) so many peo-
ple in the North and South. The critical offen
sive against scientific truths about environ
mental degradation, nature conservation, fore-
stry management and their social causes
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
141
(feckless natives, primitive technologies and
the like), as well as against environmental po-
licies of many multi-lateral and national orga-
nisations has been joined by a post-structura
list political ecology. Environmental truths ha
ve been interrogated, and their means of
construetion and persuasion unmasked, so that
they now appear as narratives (ROE 1995a, b),
and are politically construeted (see HOBEN
1995 for an analysis of environmental narrati
ves and policy in Ethiopia), and are treated
with seepticism they have long deserved (see
CROLL/ PARKIN 1992 for an examination of
practice and development narrative in agricul-
tur, and SACHS 1993 for a particularly seepti-
cal treatment of some powerful environmental
narratives of the time). In this latter edited vo-
lume they are debunked, not necessarily by of-
fering alternative and better theories and poli-
cies, but by the exposing cultural and profes-
sional repertoires of the powerful who
invented these narratives and inscribed them
on the imaginations and material lives of the
objeets of development. Other approaches to
contested views and material interests in natu
re are more structural, although they too inter-
rogate powerful views, examine those of
others who have become marginalised and cri-
minalised as a result of losing the battle of re-
presentation, but test these views and practices
on the ground empirically. BROWN (1998)
and ABEL/ BLAIKIE (1986) identify the dif
ferent actors which use and seek access to the
same resources in national parks in the Nepa
lese terai and in Zambia respectively. The po
litically marginalised ( most local farmers,
hunters and pastoralists who were interested
resource users in the park) are criminalised and
resort to poaching. Trophy hunters, tourist or-
ganisations, and a variety of international wild-
life consultants and celebrities are others who
coneeive of, draw incomes or reputations
from, and represent their cases about, the re
sources in the national park. They do so aecor-
ding to their access to powerful networks and
the theories (or narratives) they promote. DO-
VE (1983, 1984) gives a number of examples
of official and alternative views of agriculture
and plants, or „weeds" in the official agricultu-
ral extension policy of Indonesia, but which
are viewed by local farmers as important re
sources in their agricultural Systems. GUHA
(1989a) has similarly critiqued the export of
American social construetions of nature, parti
cularly of wilderness (see also CRONON
1990) to national park policy in the South,
Authenticated
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
142 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie
where a completely different set of cultural,
economic and social priorities pertain (GHI-
MIRE/PIMBERT1997).
While there has long been a critique of esta-
blished environmental policies, views and
theories from radical (structuralist) critics, as
well as by many economists and sociologists
of reformist persuasions, the underlying epi-
stemology and empirical focus of post-structu-
ralism is different. Instead of attempting to
supplant one truth with another (which may be
more ideologically acceptable, or empirically
verifiable), post-structural political ecology
turns its attention to how environmental know-
ledges are produced, represented, contested
and thereby enter into politics. It seldom at-
tempts to fill the vacuum which results from
deconstruction with its own version of envi
ronmental or social truth.
For example, the theory of Himalayan envi
ronmental crisis has a long history and an ela-
borate and complex genealogy. Briefly, the
„crisis theory" Claims that population growth
in humans and livestock has caused wide-
spread deforestation through conversion of fo-
rest to agricultural land and collection of tim-
ber and forest litter. Agriculture has been ex-
tended onto steeper slopes and less resilient
areas, all causing accelerated erosion, landsli-
des, Sedimentation of rivers, culminating in
more frequent and disastrous flooding down-
stream. Policy tends to respond in a legitima-
ting mode, giving licence to a number of colo-
nially derived forestry departments to continue
in restrictive forest laws to protect the forest
from local users (METZ 1995). Three decades
of research, much of it of a high scientific Stan
dard, have failed to achieve closure on the de-
gree of accelerated erosion, its economic and
social significance, let alone what could feasi-
bly be done about it. IVES and MESSERLI's
(1989) excellent summary and synthesis of
scientific work to date came to the conclusion
that the theory, at least in its strong form of wi-
despread and critical accelerated erosion, did
not really stand up to the weight of scientific
evidence, and that much erosion was due to
geomorphological and orogenic factors. How-
ever, such was the power and impetus of this
environmental narrative, that their views met
with strong Opposition, or were simply buried
by those Professionals and institutions which
thrived on the crisis theory. A post-structural ist
re-interpretation by THOMPSON et al. (1986)
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
Heft 3-4/1999
turned the whole debate upside down, and in
stead suggested the „the institutions are the
facts", and „do not ask what the facts are, ask
what you want them to be". Various instituti
ons and individuals have a strong interest in
maintaining the „crisis theory", and also have
their characteristic problem framings and me-
thodologies. These are diverse and will con-
struct the Himalayan environment in different
ways - so, no way, no closure (GUTHMAN
1997). This is a sketch genealogy of an envi
ronmental issue, and it is typical of many
others, in which post-structuralist approaches
have opened old and myopic eyes to new ways
of thinking (e.g. deforestation in West Africa:
LEACH/ FAIRHEAD 1998/9), and in the ran-
gelands of southern Africa (COLLETT 1986,
BEHNKE/ SCOONES 1993).
However, there remain some questions to be
answered. The first is „what now?" Some po
licy implications are clear - that less policy is
a good idea, and the State is doing härm to lo
cal people, and even to the long term health of
the environment itself, by misconceived poli
cies which seek to control natural resources in
inefficient and inegalitarian ways. Beyond
this, it is difficult making any case for a more
accountable, democratic and locally controlled
environmental policy. In another arena alto-
gether, it is possible to detect the influences of
post-structuralist critiques of colonial and co-
ercive soil conservation policies in a new po
licy document produced by the British Depart
ment for International Development entitled
Policies for Soil Fertility in Africa (SCOO
NES/ TOULMIN 1999), in which local know-
ledge, sensitive Intervention (where interventi-
on of any kind is indicated) and local control
are emphasised. However, there are serious
technical and socio-economic problems which
are identified to which Solutions are proposed.
To return to the Himalayan case, few would
deny that there is a pervasive sense of the con-
tinuation, even the reproduction, of severe so
cial and environmental problems there too,
which may be perceived and experienced in
different ways, but not least by the poor, espe-
cially women almost everywhere and the dis-
possessed. Here too, what now?
Turning now to the epistemology and metho-
dologies of post-structuralist political ecology,
it is problematic to follow through the distinc-
tive style of writing to a consistent post-struc
turalist epistemology and methodology. Some
Authenticated
 P. Blaikie: A Review ofPolitical Ecology
of the most penetrating critiques from political
ecology in recent years adopt the new style,
but keep with, at least for some of the time, a
structuralist and realist epistemology. They at-
tempt to show that certain positions about the
environment and about causal connections bet-
ween it and society, are demonstrably wrong,
and to replace one truth, now exposed as false-
hood with a new truth - and, in my view, they
are none the worste for that, although strictly
speaking the approach is not post-structuralist
at all. For example, LEACH and MEARNS
(1996) deconstruct powerful environmental
narratives, particularly of deforestation in West
Africa, by allowing local histories as told by
local voices, to be heard and to be corrobora-
ted by inspection of the present distribution of
trees. Contrary to the conventional wisdom of
deforestation in the Ivory Coast, a counter-
story of afforestation of the Savannah appears,
and we are invited to accept that this is the re
al history - of what actually happened in the
past. Similarly, a fascinating reconstruction of
environmental history by TIFFEN et al. (1994)
in Machakos District, Kenya shows that, con
trary to colonial and post-colonial narratives of
soil erosion and deforestation, there are more
trees, more terracing, more conservation - and
more people, existing now than in the 1930s.
Lastly, FERGUSON (1990) persuasively refu-
tes the stylisation of Lesotho as an uncommer-
cialised and pre-modern society waiting for the
benefits afforded by new technologies and mo
dern institutions, by carefully going back to hi
stories of that country from the 1930s. These
show conclusively that farmers were highly
commercialised at that time, and do not con-
form to the stereotypical pre-modern and sub-
sistence-orientated peasant at all. While Fergu
son continues later to develop an authentic
post-structuralist critique of development, rea
list arguments are still deployed at crucial
points.
Thus, post-structural political ecology has re-
focused its attention upon the ways in which
interpretations and representations of the envi
ronment take place, which prevails and why.
To use FORSYTH's (1998) metaphor, attenti
on passes from „peeling the onion", or analy-
sing the environment (as critical realism might
do) by peeling off successive layers of causati-
on, to „who is holding the knife", or how, by
whom and why environmental knowledge is
produced. This focus is upon whose knowled
ge counts and why and the title of BRYANT's
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
143
(1998) latest review „Power, knowledge and
political ecology in the Third World: a review"
reflects this. The role of authoritative know
ledge and particularly that of science is que-
stioned. Some of the environmental science
applied by colonial regimes has been shown to
be fundamentally misapplied and just piain
wrong - although this deconstruction owes
much more to modernist and realist science
than to any post-modern deconstruction.
LEACH and MEARNS (1996, 14-16) and
other authors in that volume identify a number
of basic flaws in the science which informed
the discourse of soil erosion and ränge degra-
dation (SWIFT 1996 regarding desertification,
and BROCKINGTON/ HOMEWOOD 1996
for pastoralism and wildlife). These flaws in-
clude unwarranted extrapolations from the pre
sent into the future and from one locality to
another, ignoring scale affects in erosion mo-
delling, having little sense of a history of envi
ronmental and social change, and applying
modeis of environmental processes developed
in temperate conditions to tropical ones (see
BIOT et al. 1995 for a detailed scientific cri
tique of soil erosion prediction in the tropics).
Other critiques (not only post-structural but
both structural, and applied in policy circles as
well) turn to local environmental knowledge as
alternative truths, although they too should be
examined as narratives, like any other (AGRA-
WAL 1995). Nonetheless new modes of con-
structive dialogue between official and indige-
nous actors and democratisation of technical
knowledge are here to be explored (BATTER-
BURYetal. 1997).
Many of the tensions surrounding „truth" ab
out the environment and what is „really going
on" turns on purely epistemological questions.
The post-structural alternatives to logical posi
tivist methods and various realist positions are
also enmeshed in controversy. GANDY (1996)
takes the view that post-structuralist approa-
ches face serious problems when applied to the
environment, that nature's agency is extra-dis-
cursive and can only be treated discursively
with difficulty. DEMERITT (1998), PROC-
TOR (1998) and CASTREE (1997) argue for a
socially constructed view of nature, although
there remains a wide ränge of constructionisms
from the hardest, which denies all ontological
reality and the possibility of extra-discursive
agency of nature, to the weakest which admits
a degree of truth, which pragmatically may be
accepted for the time being. These issues are
Authenticated
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
144 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie
important but, as these authors admit, any de-
gree of closure is still far off. There may be a
case for choosing that method of constructing
nature which is most conducive to the promoti-
on of a just, accountable, egalitarian and de-
mocratic environmental future (BLAIKIE
1999). This is not easy, since all those political -
ly desirable characteristics may require a diffe-
rent logic of the social constniction of nature. It
also assumes a modernist objective and a belief
in the possibility of progress, which may not
accord with more sceptical post-modern wrting
on development and the environment.
Conclusion
It is difficult to map the boundaries of political
ecology through the identification of a shared
subject matter, methods, epistemology, ideolo-
gy or a view about the State of modernism its-
elf. This is not surprising, considering the long
history and heterodox roots of the subject, nor
is it a particularly dismaying outcome. While a
set of characteristics of classic political ecolo
gy may be identified, these have come about
through a haphazard process of precedent and
its diverse intellectual origins, which have led
subsequently to political ecology meaning
most things to most people. Definitions and the
establishment of boundaries in intellectual pro-
duction are seldom very useful anyway and in-
hibit cross-fertilisation and innovation. Rather,
the boundaries have formed by default, as it
were, through disjunctures between academic
disciplines, and between academia as a whole
and other arenas, such as policy making, inter
national Conferences, activists, NGOs and so
cial movements (old and new). This issue then
turns on audiences for political ecology, and
why the knowledge is being produced at all,
and for what purpose. If there are any moder
nist objectives which have survived post-mo
dern critiques and can be owned and stated ex-
plicitly by authors, they may be centred on as-
sisting the securing of better futures in a most
unjust and unequal world. This objective im-
plies that there are both political and technical
means to reach it. By adopting an epistemolo
gy which avoids relativism and unreconstruc-
ted pluralism, it may be possible to address
specific audiences in languages they recognise
to identify real and feasible choices. This epi
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
Heft 3-4/1999
stemology may be characterised as a form of
„weak social constructivism", which Claims
that environment is socially constructed but
that provisional truths may be shared for a whi
le between the actors involved. This suggesti-
on is not an exclusive one, and recognises that
political ecology, as a branch of knowledge
produced within academia, has many other
Professional and intellectual agendas too. To
follow this path is difficult, and visions of the
future will have to pick their way between me-
re rhetorical flourish, empty calls to the ram-
parts and tarne reformism.
The implication of the burgeoning of political
ecology does have problems, however. The re
levant literatures are truly immense, and refe-
rencing them becomes a more or less random
process. It has led to treatments of the subject
in geography to over-generalisation and, in so-
me of the post-structuralist literature, to decon-
structions which resemble more of a high-level
bombing campaign rather than detailed (and,
where relevant, an evidence-based) critique.
However, the necessary detail and cross-disci-
plinary grasp is a formidable task, and it is here
that the notion of political ecology may still be
useful, in the sense that, as presently studied, it
has brought upon itself these new problems,
but which it can also help to solve. This can be
explained by the discursive approach develo-
ped by HAJER (1995). In this work, he dis-
cusses the environmental politics of „acid
rain" with particular reference to the Nether
lands and the United Kingdom. The issue of
trans-national airborne pollution is so wide and
complex, and is not understood in its scientific,
legal, administrative, political entirety by any
one person. Therefore, what is needed to ensu-
re engagement is a discursive device, which
different people can share, can feel they under-
stand enough to bring their own experiences
and interpretations of a diverse and complex
body of knowledge, and to engage in discour-
se. This device is an emblem, which is emoti-
ve, simple and appealing. In the same way, po
litical ecology is an emblem, with the possibi
lity of a closer and more fruitful engagement of
natural and social sciences than hitherto, of
new and innovative ways of understanding al
ternative constructions of nature and society,
and of critique of authoritative knowledge and
unequal power, both discursive and material.
Authenticated
 P. Blaikie: A Review ofPolitical Ecology
Literature
ABEL, N.O.J./ BLAIKIE, P.M. (1986): Elephants, peo-
ple, parks and development: the case of the Luangwa
Valley, Zambia". In: Environmental Management,
(10)6,735-751.
AGRAWAL, A. (1995): Dismantling the divide bet-
ween indigenous and scientific knowledge". In: Deve
lopment and Change, (26)3, 413-439.
ANDERSON, D./GROVE, R. (eds)(1987): Conserva-
tion in Africa: People, Policies and Practice. Cambrid
ge.
ANDERSON, D./ MILLINGTON, A.C. (1987): Politi-
cal ecology of soil conservation in anglophone Africa.
In: Millington, A.C./ Mutiso, S.K./ Binns, J.A. (eds):
African Resources. Vol. 2: Management. Reading.
(= Department of Geography, University of Reading).
APTHORPE, R./ GASPER, D. (1996): Arguing Deve
lopment Policy: Names and Discourses. London.
BASSETT, TJ. (1988): The political ecology of pea-
sant-herder conflicts in the northern Ivory Coast. In:
Annais of the Association of America Geographers,
(78)3, 453-472.
BATTERBURY, S./ FORSYTH, T./ THOMSON, K.
(1997): Environmental transformations in developing
countries: hybrid knowledge and democratic policy. In:
Geographical Journal, (163)2, 126-132.
BEHNKE, R.H./ SCOONES, 1./ KERVEN, C. (1993):
Range Ecology at Disequilibrium: New Models of Na-
tural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African
Savannas. London. (= Overseas Development Institu
te).
BEINART, W. (1984): Soil erosion: conservation and
ideas about development: a Southern African explorati-
on. In: Journal of Southern African Studies, 11, 52-83.
BELL, M./ ROBERTS, N. (1991): The political ecolo
gy of dambo soil and water resources in Zimbabwe. In:
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 16,
301-318.
BIGGS, S. (1989): Resource poor farmer participation
in research: a synthesis of experience from nine agri-
cultural research Systems. The Hague (= ISWAR/OF-
COR Comparative Study Paper No.3).
BIOT, Y./ BLAIKIE, P.M./ JACKSON, C./ PALMER-
JONES, R. (1995): Rethinking Research on Land Deg
radation in Developing Countries. Washington, D.C. (=
World Bank Discussion Paper, No.289).
BLACK, R. (1990): Regional political ecology' in theo-
ry and practice: a case study from northern Portugal. In:
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 15,
35-47.
BLAIKIE, P.M. (1985): The Political Economy of Soil
Erosion in Developing Countries. London.
BLAIKIE, P.M. (1987): The SADCC countries' histori-
cal experience of soil conservation and peoples' partici
pation in it: some lessons for future policy. Maputo.
(=Commissioned paper for a seminar on People's Parti
cipation in Soil & Water Conservation, 2-6 March
1987).
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
145
BLAIKIE, P.M. (1989): Explanation and policy in land
degradation and rehabilitation for developing countries.
In: Land Degradation and Rehabilitation, (1)1, 23-37.
BLAIKIE, P.M. (1994): Political Ecology in the 1990's:
an Evolving View of Nature and Society. East Lansing.
(= CASID Distinguished Speaker Series No.13. Michi
gan State University).
BLAIKIE, P.M. (1999): Reading maps in the dark: en
vironmental policy in the Hindu Kush - Himalaya regi-
on". Honolulu. (= Paper read at the Annual Meeting of
the Association of America Geographers, Hawaii,
March 25th., mimeo).
BLAIKIE, P.M./ BROOKFIELD, H.C. (1987): Land
Degradation and Society. London and New York.
BLAIKIE, P.M./ JEANRENAUD, S.J. (1996): Biodi-
versity and Human Weifare. Geneva. (= UNRISD Dis
cussion Paper No.72).
BROWN, K. (1998): The political ecology of biodiver-
sity, conservation and development in Nepal's Terai:
confusing meanings, means and ends. In: Ecological
Economics, 24, 73-87.
BRYANT, R.L. (1997): The Political Ecology of Fore-
stry in Burma. London.
BRYANT, R.L. (1998): Power, knowledge and political
ecology in the third world: a review. In: Progress in
Physical Geography, (22)1, 79-94.
BRYANT, R.L./ BAILEY, S. (1997): Third World Poli
tical Ecology. London.
BROCKINGTON, D./HOMEWOOD, K. (1996): De-
bates concerning Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania.
In: Leach, M./Mearns, R. (eds.): The Lie of the Land :
Challenging Received Wisdom on the African Environ
ment. Oxford a. o., 91-104.
BUNKER, S.G. (1985): Underdeveloping the Amazon:
Extraction, Unequal Exchange and the Failure of the
Modern State. Urbana-Champaign.
BÜTTEL, F./ TAYLOR, P. (1994): Environmental So-
ciology and global environmental change: a critical as-
sessment. In: Redelift, M./ Benton, J.T. (eds.): Social
Theory and Global Environment. London, 228-255.
CARNEY, J. (1993): Converting the wetlands and en-
gendering the environment: the intersection of gender
with agrarian change in the Gambia. In: Economic Geo
graphy, (69)4, 329-348.
COLCHESTER, M. (1994): Salvaging Nature: Indige-
nious Peoples, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conser
vation. Geneva. (= UNRISD Discussion Paper No.55).
COLLETT, D. (1987): Pastoralists and Wildlife: image
and reality in Kenya, Maasailand. In: Anderson, D./
Grove, R. (eds): Conservation in Africa: People, Poli
cies and Practice Cambridge, Chapter 6, 129-145.
CONCA, K. (1993): Environmental change in the
strueturing of world politics. In: Lipschutz, R.D./ Con-
ca, K. (eds.): The State and Social Power in Global En
vironmental Politics. New York, 306-326.
CONCA, K./ DABELKO, G.D. (eds.)(1998). Green
Planet Blues: Environmental Politics from Stockholm
to Kyoto. Boulder, Col.
Authenticated
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
146 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie
CROLL, E./ PARKIN, D. (eds.)(1992): Bush Base, Fo-
rest Farm: Culture, Environment and Development.
London.
CRONON, W. (1990): Modes of prophesy and produc-
tion: placing nature in history. In: Journal of American
History,76, 1122-1131.
CRUSH, J. (1995): Power of Development. London
and New York.
DEMERITT, D. (1998): Science, social constructivism
and nature. In: Braun, G./ Castree, N. (eds.): Remaking
Realities: Nature at the Millenium. London, 173-193.
DO VE, M.R. (1983): Swidden agriculture and the poli-
tical economy of ignorance. In: Agroforestry Systems,
(1)1,85-99.
DOVE, M.R. (1984): Government versus peasant
beliefs concerning Imperata and Eupatorium: a structu-
ral analysis of knowledge, myth, and agricultural ecolo-
gy in Indonesia. Honolulu. (= East-West Center, mi-
meo).
ELLEN, R.F. (1982): Environment, Subsistence and
System: the Ecology of Small-scale Social Formalities.
Cambridge.
ESCOBAR, A. (1995): Encountering Development: the
Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton.
ENZENSBERGER, H.M. (1974): A critique of political
ecology. In: New Left Review, 84, 3-31.
FAIRHEAD, J./ LEACH, M. (1998): Reframing Defo-
restation. London.
FERGUSON, J. (1990): The Anti-Politics Machine.
Minneaopolis.
GANDY, M. (1996): Crumbling land: the post-moder-
nity debate and the analysis of environmental problems
In: Progress in Human Geography, (20)1, 23-40.
GHIMIRE, K.B./ PIMBERT, M.R (eds.)(1997):. Social
Change and Conservation: Environmental Politics and
Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas. Lon
don.
GOULD, K.A./ WEINBERG, A.S./ SCHAIBERG ,A.
(1993): Legitimating impatience: Pyrrhic victories of
the modern environmental movement. In: Qualitative
Sociology, (16)3, 207-46.
GRANER, E. (1997): The Political Ecology of Com
munity Forestry in Nepal. Saarbrücken. (= Freiburg
Studies in Development Geography, No. 4).
GUHA, R. (1989a): Radical American environmenta-
lism and wilderness preservation: a Third World cri
tique. In: Environmental Ethics, Spring, 71-83.
GUHA, R. (1989b): The Unquiet Woods: Ecological
Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya. Ber
keley.
GUTHMAN, J. (1997): Representing crisis: the theory
of Himalayan degradation and the project in post-Rana
Nepal. In: Development and Change, 28, 45-69.
HAJER, M.A. (1995): The Politics of Environmental
Discourse. Oxford.
HANNIGAN, J.A. (1995): Environmental Sociology.
London and New York.
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM
Heft 3-411999
HECHT, S./ COCKBURN, A. (1989): The Fate of the
Forest: Developers, Destroyers and Defenders of the
Amazon. London.
HEWITT, K. (ed.)(1983): Interpretation of calamity
from the Viewpoint of Human Ecology. London.
HOBEN, A. (1995): Paradigms and politics: the cultu-
ral construction of environmental policy in Ethiopia. In:
World Development, 236, 1007-22.
IVES, J.D./ MESSERLI, B. (1989): The Himalaya Di
lemma: Reconciling Development and Conservation.
London.
JASONOFF, S. (1990): The Fifth Branch: Science Ad-
visors as Policymakers. Cambridge, Mass.
JAROSZ, L. (1993): Defining and explaining tropical
deforestation: shifting cultivation and population gro-
wth. In: Economic Geography, (69)4, 366-379.
LEACH, M./ FAIRHEAD, J. (1998/9): Fashioned
forest pasts and the occlusion of history: landscape,
conservation and politics in the historigraphy of
West Africa. Berkeley. (= Paper presented at a
Conference „Constructivism and realism in environ-
ment and development", Berkeley/University of Cali
fornia).
LEACH, M./ MEARNS, R. (eds.) (1996): The Lie of
the Land: Challenging Received Wisdom on the Afri-
can Environment. Oxford and Portsmouth, New
Hampshire.
LATOUR, B./WOOLGAR, S. (1979): Laboratory Life:
The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton.
LIPSCHUTZ, R.D./ CONCA, K. (eds.) (1993): The
State and Social Power in Global Environmental Poli
tics. New York.
LITFIN, K.T. (1994): Ozone Discourses: Science and
Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. New
York.
LONG, N./ LONG, A. (eds.) (1992): Battlefields of
Knowledge. London.
MEARNS, R. (1991): Environmental Implications of
Structural Adjustment: Reflections on Scientific Me-
thod. Brighton. (= IDS Discussion Paper No.28. Insti
tute of Development Studies, Sussex).
METZ, J.J. (1995): Development in Nepal: Investment
in the Status quo. In: Geo Journal, (35)2, 175-84.
MILLINGTON, A. (1987): Environmental degradation,
soil conservation and agricultural policies in Sierra
Leone. In: Anderson, D./ Grove, R. (eds.): Conservati
on in Africa: People, Policies and Practice. Cambridge,
229-248.
MOORE, D.S. (1993): Contesting terrain in Zimbab-
we's Eastem Highlands: political ecology, ethnography
and peasant resource struggles. In: Economic Geogra
phy, (69)4, 380-401.
O'KEEFE, P. (1975): African Drought: a Review. Brad-
ford. (= University of Bradford, Disaster Research Unit
Occasional Paper No.8).
O'RIORDAN, J./ JÄGER, J. (1996). The Politics of
Climate Change: a European Perspective. London,
Routledge.
Authenticated
 P. Blaikie: A Review ofPolitical Ecology
O'RIORDAN T./ JORDAN, AJ. (1995): The precau-
tionary principle in contemporary environmental poli-
tics. In: Environmental Values, (4)3, 191-212.
PEET, R./ WATTS, M.J. (eds.)(1996): Liberation Eco-
logies: Environment, Development, Social Movements.
London.
PELUSO, N.L. (1992): Rieh Forests, Poor People: Re-
source Control and Resistance in Java. Berkeley.
PELUSO, N.L. (1993): Coercing conservation: the po-
litics of State resource control. In: Lipschutz, R.D./
Conca, K. (eds.): The State and Social Power in Global
Environmental Politics. New York, 46-70.
PEPPER, D. (1984): The Roots of Modern Environ-
mentalism. London.
PRYCE, R. (1977): Approaches to the study of man and
environment. In: Fundamentals of Human Geography.
Milton Keynes. (= The Open University, Unit 2, Sec-
tion l,CourseD204).
REDCLIFT, M./ BENTON, T. (eds.)(1994): Social
Theory and the Global Environment. London.
ROCHELEAU, D.E./ STEINBERG, P.E./ BENJAMIN,
P.A. (1995): Environment, development, crisis and Cru
sade: Ikambani, Kenya 1890-1990. In: World Develop
ment, (23)6, 1037-1052.
ROE, E.M. (1995a):Introduction: Special Section 'De
velopment narratives. In. World Development, (23)6,
1005-1006.
ROE, E.M. (1995b): Except Africa: postscript to a Spe
cial section on development narratives. In: World De
velopment, (2)6, 1065-70.
SACHS, W. (ed.)(1993): Global ecology: a New Arena
of Political Conflict. London.
SCHNAIBERG, A./ GOULD, K.A. (1994): Environ
ment and Society. New York.
SCHROEDER, R.A. (1993): Shady practice: gender
and the political ecology of resource stabilisation in-
Gambian gardens/orchards. In: Economic Geography,
(69)4, 349-365.
SCOONES, I./TOULMIN, C. (1999): Policies for Soil
Fertility Management in Africa. London (= IDS/IIED,
A Report for the Department of International Develop
ment, London).
SHIVA, V. (1989): Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and
Development. London.
SPAARGAREN, G./ MOL, A.P.J. (1992a): Sociology,
environment and modernity: ecological modernisation
as a theory of social change. In: Society and Natural
Resources, 5, 323-44.
SPAARGAREN, G./ MOL, A.P.J. (1992b): Concepts of
environment and nature in the context of the risk so-
ciety. Woudshoten. (= Paper at the Symposium „Cur-
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services
147
rent developments in environmental sociology". Inter
national Sociological Association, Woudshoten,
Netherlands).
SUSSKIND, L.E. (1994): Environmental Diplomacy:
Negotiating More Effective Global Agreements. Ox
ford and New York.
SWIFT, J. (1996): Desertification: narratives winners
and losers. In: Leach, M./ Mearns, R. (eds.): The Lie of
the Land: Challenging Received Wisdom on the Afri-
can Environment. Portsmouth, New Hampshire and
Oxford, 73-90.
TIFFEN, M./ MORTIMER, M./ GICHUKI, F. (1994):
More People, Less Erosion: Environmental Recovery in
Kenya. Chichester.
THOMPSON, M./, WARBURTON, M./ HATLEY, T.
(1986): Uncertainty on a Himalayan Scale. London.
WATTS, M.J. (1997): Classics in Human Geography
Revisited: the Political Economy of Soil Erosion. In:
Progress in Human Geography, (21)1, 75-80.
WATTS, M.J./ MCCARTHY, J. (1997): Nature as artifi-
ce, nature as artefact: development, environment and
modernity in the late twentieth Century. In: Lee, R./
Wills, J. (eds.): Geographies of Economies. London and
New York, 71-86.
WATTS, M.J./ PEET,R. (1993/4): Theme Issue: Envi
ronment and Development, Parts 1 and 2. In: Economic
Geography, (69) 4, (70) 1.
WELLS, M.P./ BRANDON, K./ HANNAH, L. (1992):
People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management
with Local Communities. Washington, D.C. (= World
Bank/WWF/USAID).
WEISS, E.G./ JACOBSON, HJ. (1998): Engaging
Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International
Environmental Accords. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
WISNER, B. (1978): Man-made Famine in Eastern
Kenya: the Inter-relationship of Environment and De
velopment. Brighton. (= IDS Discussion Paper No. 96.
Institute of Development Studies, IDS Discussion Pa
per No. 96).
WOLF, E. (1972): Ownership and political ecology. In:
Anthropological Quarterly, 45, 201-205.
WYNNE, B. (1994): Scientific knowledge and the glo
bal environment. In: Redelift, M./Benton, T. (eds.): So
cial Theory and the Global Environment. London, 169-
189.
ZIMMERER, K. (1993): Ecology. In: Earle, C./Kenter,
M. (eds.): Concepts in Human Geography. Lanham,
Maryland, 161-188.
ZIMMERER, K.S. (1994): Human geography and the
„new ecology":the promise and prospect of integration.
In: Annais of the Association of American Geographers,
84,108-25.
Authenticated
Download Date | 2/22/16 11:52 AM