4.7 Article

Marketization induced overgrazing: The political ecology of neoliberal pastoral policies in Inner Mongolia

期刊

JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES
卷 86, 期 -, 页码 309-317

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.06.008

关键词

Pastoralism; Overgrazing; Political ecology; Neoliberalism; China; Inner Mongolia

资金

  1. Renmin University of China , P.R. China [16XNI004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines how neoliberal environmental logics in China have led to severe overgrazing issues in grassland governance. Market-based policies intended to reduce livestock numbers have actually decreased production returns for herders, exacerbating the problem of overgrazing.
Neoliberal environmental logics have increasingly characterized China's grassland governance since the 1980s. The government has implemented a series of policies premised on the assertion that intensification and marketization will alleviate grassland degradation caused by overgrazing by increasing returns on production and thus enabling herders to raise fewer livestock. However, after several decades, overgrazing is more severe than ever. This study explains this outcome through the lens of political ecology. Based on qualitative and quantitative analysis of data from field research in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, this study explores how marketbased policies that aimed to allow herders to destock by improving returns on production have instead decreased production returns and exacerbated overgrazing. Results show that the development of market-based intensive production and herders' marginalized political-economic position have together eroded their ability to benefit from livestock production, causing a simple reproduction squeeze and a cycle of indebtedness that forces herders to overgraze. Overgrazing is not a result of herders' lack of knowledge or care for the grasslands. Instead, it is caused precisely by state policies aimed at increasing economic efficiency for the purpose of environmental improvement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据