JWSR, Vol. XI, Number 1, July 2005, Complete Issue  Structural Dynamics of International Trade and Material Consumption: A Cross-National Study of the Ecological Footprints of Less-Developed Countries* journal of world-systems research, xi, , july , – http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ issn 1076–156x © 2005 Andrew K. Jorgenson & James Rice introduction Natural resource consumption and resulting environmental degradation are among the most pressing issues confronting us today. Paradoxically, nations with larger ecological footprints generally experience lower domestic levels of particular forms of environmental degradation, including deforestation, organic water pollution intensity, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions intensity (e.g. Jorgenson 2003, 2004a, 2005). Moreover, these forms of degradation negatively impact the quality of life and general well-being of domestic human populations. For example, organic water pollution resulting from monoagricultural export- oriented production in less-developed countries increases infant mortality rates, net of health expenditures, forms of human capital, and other social factors (e.g. Burns, Kentor, and Jorgenson 2003; Jorgenson 2004c; Jorgenson and Burns 2004). Th e ecological footprint / environmental degradation paradox is not neces- sarily the consequence of increased problem-solving capacity due to greater affl u- ence and development. Rather, many social scientists posit that these relationships are illustrative of structural conditions and asymmetrical processes in which more-developed countries externalize their consumption-based environmental Many social scientists argue that more- developed countries externalize their envi- ronmental costs through the tapping of resources of less-developed countries, which reduces levels of consumption in the latter while increasing forms of environmental deg- radation within their borders. However, these assertions lack systematic empirical support. This study offers a new conceptualization of the structure of international trade that may help to partly resolve this issue: weighted export f lows, which quantifies the relative extent to which exports are sent to higher- consuming, more-developed countries. Our hypothesis is that less-developed countries with higher levels of exports sent to more- developed countries exhibit lower domestic levels of resource consumption, measured as ecological footprints. In a series of regression models of per capita ecological footprints for less-developed countries in 2000, evidence is found supporting the hypothesis. The nega- tive effect of weighted export f lows on the per capita footprints of nations is robust, net of the often cited impacts of capital intensity, urbanization, domestic inequality, human capital, and other export-related characteris- tics. Results of this study provide empirical evidence of the environmental impacts of the structure of international trade and outline a new methodological approach to studying uneven ecological exchange. abstract: * Direct all correspondence to Andrew K. Jorgenson. Th e authors thank Gene Rosa and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Andrew K. Jorgenson Department of Sociology Washington State University PO Box 644020 Pullman, WA 99164-4020 jorgenson@mail.wsu.edu James Rice Department of Sociology Washington State University Andrew K. Jorgenson James Rice http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/jorgenson/ http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/jorgenson/ http://jwsr.ucr.edu/ Andrew K. Jorgenson & James Rice58 Structural Dynamics of International Trade  impacts through the tapping of natural resources and produced commodities of less-developed countries, reducing material consumption for the latter while increasing particular types of environmental destruction within their borders. Th e general argument concerns the structure of international trade, particularly the fl ows of exports from less-developed countries to more-developed countries. Yet, these interrelated assertions lack appropriate empirical evaluation. Th e present study begins to resolve the issues discussed above. Specifi cally, we test the following hypothesis: less-developed countries with greater levels of exports sent to higher-consuming, more-economically developed countries exhibit lower domestic levels of per capita consumption, measured as ecologi- cal footprints. Th is hypothesis is sensitive to the potential uneven ecological exchange dynamics promoting disproportionate utilization of natural resources by developed countries at the expense of less-developed countries. Th e ecological footprint demand exhibited by less-developed countries, therefore, is not simply the consequence of domestic driving forces, including relative affl uence and pop- ulation pressures, but also the structural relations forged through international trade. To test this hypothesis, we create an index of weighted export fl ows that quantifi es the relative extent to which exports of countries are sent to receiv- ing nations with higher levels of economic development. Creation of this index allows for a more explicit examination of potential asymmetrical processes of international trade between countries. Using ordinary least squares regression, we incorporate this new index into a series of quantitative cross-national analy- ses of the structural causes of per capita ecological footprints of less-developed countries, 2000. We include controls identifi ed by previous studies to be robust predictors of footprints, including level of economic development, urbanization, domestic income inequality, and human capital. We also consider the eff ects of other export-related factors and the extent to which domestic economies are service-based. Results of this study provide robust support for the tested hypoth- esis, and underscore the importance of addressing the structural dynamics of international trade when analyzing material consumption and other environ- mental outcomes, particularly the relative fl ow of exports and relevant attributes of receiving countries. material consumption and the externalization of environmental costs A growing body of empirical work in the social sciences addresses the struc- tural factors that explain variation in cross-national levels of total and per capita consumption of natural resources in the contemporary world-economy. Th is comprehensive approach to material consumption and its environmental impacts focuses on the ecological footprints of nations (e.g. Jorgenson 2003, 2004a, 2005, forthcoming [b]; Jorgenson and Burns 2004; Jorgenson, Rice, Crowe, and Rice forthcoming; Rice 2005; Rosa, York, and Dietz 2004; York, Rosa, and Dietz 2003). Th e ecological footprint measures the amount of biologically produc- tive land required to support the consumption of renewable natural resources and assimilation of carbon dioxide waste products of a given population (e.g. Chambers, Simmons, and Wackernagel 2002). More specifi cally, national foot- prints consist of the area of cropland required to produce the crops consumed, the area of grazing land required to produce the animal products, the area of forest required to produce the wood and paper, the area of sea required to produce the marine fi sh and seafood, the area of land required to accommodate housing and infrastructure, and the area of forest required to absorb the carbon dioxide emis- sions resulting from energy consumption (Wackernagel et al. 2002). Footprints are measured in area units where one footprint equals one hectare. Th is natural capital accounting framework captures indirect eff ects of consump- tion that are diffi cult to measure, and the approach does not require knowing specifi cally what each consumed resource is used for. However, footprints do not identify the locations where the consumed resources originate. Jorgenson (2003, 2004a, 2005) analyzes the structural causes of per capita ecological footprints, and fi nds that a country’s level of per capita consumption is largely a function of its relative position in the international stratifi cation system, level of urbanization, domestic income inequality, and human capital. Th rough the unpacking of relative international power into its relevant geopolitical- economic components, Jorgenson (2005) empirically illustrates that economic power in the form of capital intensity, military technological power, and overall export dependence are the structural driving forces of per capita resource con- sumption. Social scientists pay considerable theoretical and empirical attention to the environmental impacts of economic development (e.g. Burns, Kick, and Davis 2003; Burns, Kentor, and Jorgenson 2003; Chase-Dunn and Jorgenson 2003; Foster 1999, 2002; Jorgenson forthcoming [a]; Jorgenson and Kick 2003; Moore 2003; O’Connor 1998; Schnaiberg 1980; Schnaiberg and Gould 1994; Wallerstein 1999). Relative economic power generally takes the form of capital intensity (i.e. GDP per capita), which often refers to the ability of a country to be more com- petitive in the global marketplace (Kentor 2000). Countries with higher capital intensity generally contain articulated consumer markets that consume greater levels of material resources ( Jorgenson 2003, 2004a; York, Rosa, and Dietz 2003). To maintain profi ts, producers must constantly expand production, which requires additional ecological material inputs (O’Connor 1998). Schnaiberg Andrew K. Jorgenson & James Rice60 Structural Dynamics of International Trade  and urbanized regions contain intensifi ed articulated consumer markets relative to more agrarian areas. However, urban processes in less-developed countries vary substantially from more-developed nations. Many urbanized regions in less-developed countries are characterized by outdated manufacturing sectors that are exported from more-developed countries coupled with a shift towards export-oriented development (Grimes and Kentor 2003; Portes et al. 1997; Smith 1996). Furthermore, many less-developed countries have experienced increased roles as nodes in the exportation of natural resources from regional extractive economies (Bunker 1985; Smith 1996). Th us, the complicated processes of underdevelopment, emerging dependent industrialization, and economic stagnation limit the domestic levels of natural resource consumption in less-developed countries. Moreover, this is further exac- erbated by their classically dependent, extractive-oriented domestic characteris- tics and export-oriented production of goods for articulated consumer markets in higher-consuming, more-developed countries (e.g. Bunker 1985; Hornborg 2001; Jorgenson 2003, 2004a, 2004b). Neoclassical economic perspectives suggest that the overall structure of domestic economies greatly determines their overall environmental impacts. More specifi cally, it is assumed that nations with more service-based economies consume less material resources and emit less waste into regional ecological sys- tems and the biosphere (e.g. Ehrhardt-Martinez, Crenshaw, and Jenkins 2002; Grossman and Krueger 1995; OECD 1998). However, York, Rosa, and Dietz (2003) fi nd no evidence indicating that nations with relatively greater service- based economies consume fewer resources, and likewise, Jorgenson (2004d, forthcoming [a]) and Burns and Jorgenson (2004) fi nd no evidence suggesting that less-developed nations with relatively more service-based economies experi- ence lower rates of deforestation and methane emissions intensity, net of other factors. Many social scientists argue that more-affl uent nations reduce their impacts on the environment within their own borders through the importation of resources and the exportation of wastes, a process commonly referred to as the “Netherlands Fallacy” (e.g. Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1990; Ehrlich and Holdren 1971; Frey 1998; Jorgenson forthcoming [b]). Developed countries possess the inter- national political-economic power and institutional infrastructure to achieve improvements in domestic environmental conditions while continuing to impose negative externalities globally (e.g. Andersson and Lindroth, 2001; Chase-Dunn 1998; Chew 2001; Foster 1999; Jorgenson, Rice, and Crowe forthcoming). Th e Netherlands fallacy suggests that domestic environmental conditions are not necessarily an accurate refl ection of the aggregate environmental burdens engen- dered by domestic standards of living and rates of material consumption. It is (1980) and Schnaiberg and Gould (1994) characterize these processes as the heart of the treadmill of production. Producers are usually headquartered in devel- oped countries, and outsource production and resource extraction to export- dependent countries. Th e expansion of production and consumption usually takes the form of global commodity chains in which resources are added or mod- ifi ed at every chain (Gereffi and Korzeniewicz 1994; Jorgenson forthcoming [b]; Princen, Maniates, and Conca 2002). Produced commodities are usually trans- ported to and consumed by developed countries with high capital intensity, and the majority of profi ts derived from these goods further increase the economic development of market economies that house the headquarters of producers (e.g. Bornschier and Chase-Dunn 1985; Kentor and Boswell 2003). Many social scientists argue that less-developed countries generally have lower domestic levels of material consumption and ecological footprints because they tend to export produced commodities and raw materials to higher- consuming, more-developed countries (e.g. Clapp 2002; Conca 2002; Jorgenson 2003; Jorgenson, Rice, and Crowe forthcoming; Princen 2002; Rice 2005). Th e latter contain productive economies and articulated markets while less- developed countries generally consist of more extractive oriented economies and disarticulated markets (Boswell and Chase-Dunn 2000; Bunker 1985).¹ Moreover, less-developed countries with extractive economies are often highly dependent on a small number of primary exports, most notably agricultural products and other natural resources (e.g. Burns, Kentor, and Jorgenson 2003; Jorgenson 2004c; Tucker 2002). Dependence on agricultural exports lessens the well-being of human populations in many less-developed countries (e.g. Jorgenson and Burns 2004). Less-developed countries with higher levels of domestic income inequal- ity exhibit relatively lower ecological footprints ( Jorgenson 2004a). Th is type of outcome is often explained by two interrelated factors. First, the majority of the population has substantially lower income levels, and second, the domestic market focuses on the exportation of raw materials and commodities produced by means of dependent industrialization (e.g. Beer and Boswell 2002; Evans 1979; Jorgenson 2003). Overall, countries with higher levels of urbanization consume greater amounts of material resources ( Jorgenson 2003; York, Rosa, and Dietz 2003). Th ese areas require more resources to maintain the overall built infrastructure, ¹. Disarticulated economies depend on external markets while articulated econo- mies are more able to focus on domestic markets ( Jorgenson a; Bunker ). Andrew K. Jorgenson & James Rice62 Structural Dynamics of International Trade  argued that any particular country’s environmental impact, positive or negative, is not simply the consequence of domestic factors but also its structured rela- tions with other countries. To more fully conceptualize the complexity of con- sumption related dynamics in a globalizing world, it is increasingly important to examine zero-sum relations among countries and the socio-economic and envi- ronmental costs that are diff erentially incurred as a result (Hornborg 2001, 2003; Jorgenson 2005; Rice 2005). Th e broadening and deepening of international trade provides a means by which intra-national patterns of production and consumption become domesti- cally disassociated, particularly in regards to concomitant environmental impacts (Anderrson and Lindroth 2001; Chew 2001; Jorgenson 2004d, forthcoming [b]; Rothman 1998:185; Ekins 1997). Most social scientifi c studies of diff erent forms of environmental degradation analyze the eff ects of overall levels of exports (e.g. Burns et al. 1994; Jorgenson 2005; Kick et al. 1996; Rudel 1998), while other stud- ies address the possible environmental and economic impacts of dependence on exports to a limited number of trading partners (e.g. Galtung 1971; Kentor 2000; Kentor and Boswell 2003). However, the structural processes and outcomes theorized by political-economic scholars and environmental sociologists focus upon the environmental impacts of the structure of exports, particularly the fl ow of raw materials and produced commodities from less-developed countries to higher-consuming, more-developed countries.² A related perspective deals with material fl ows analysis. Th is orientation is quite popular in ecological economics. Researchers working in this area have cre- ated meticulous natural capital accounting frameworks for measuring various international fl ows of bioproductive mass and other resources, but their analyses are almost exclusively descriptive by design (e.g. Fischer-Kowalski 1998; Fischer- Kowalski and Amann 2001; Muradian and Martinez-Alier 2001). Many ecologi- cal economists derive assumptions about uneven ecological exchange without directly testing and empirically identifying the actual connections between high resource consumption in developed countries and low consumption (and con- comitant environmental degradation) in less-developed countries (e.g. Fischer- Kowalski and Amann 2001; Muradian and Martinez-Alier 2001; Muradian, Eisenmenger, and Giljum 2003; Proops et al. 1999). Moreover, other relevant political-economic and social factors are not considered. summary of recent findings, theoretical arguments, and present hypothesis A growing body of social scientifi c research indicates that the amount of material resources a country consumes is largely a function of its level of eco- nomic development, urbanization, and other domestic social factors. Many of these studies identify a paradoxical series of relationships: countries with higher material consumption measured as ecological footprints experience lower domes- tic levels of environmental degradation. Researchers and theorists argue that these relationships are illustrative of macro-structural conditions in which more- developed countries externalize their consumption-based environmental costs through the infl ows of material resources in the form of produced commodi- ties and raw materials from lower-consuming, less-developed countries. Th ese international dynamics of environmental externalization result in the reduction of resource consumption within the borders of less-developed countries. Put dif- ferently, less-developed countries often have lower ecological footprints because they largely focus on the export of produced goods and raw materials to higher- consuming, more-developed countries. Suppressed environmental consumption, therefore, is partly a consequence of asymmetrical processes enacted through international trade relations, shaping inequitable access to and utilization of global natural resources. However, these arguments lack systematic empirical evaluation. In the subsequent analyses, we begin to address these disconnects between theories of uneven ecological exchange and prior quantitative cross-national research. Specifi cally, we test the following hypothesis: less-developed countries with higher levels of exports sent to more-developed (i.e. higher-consuming) nations exhibit lower domestic levels of resource consumption, measured as per capita ecological footprints. Prior to the analyses, we create an index of weighted export fl ows, which allows for the direct testing of the hypothesis. construction of weighted export flows We create a comprehensive index weighted by attributes of receiving coun- tries: export fl ows weighted by per capita GDP. Th e index is calculated for 1990, and quantifi es the relative extent to which exports are sent to more-developed countries. Data required for the construction of the weighted index include rela- tional measures in the form of export fl ows and attributional data that quan- tify characteristics of receiving countries. Export fl ows data are taken from the International Monetary Fund’s 2003 Direction of Trade Statistics CD ROM data- base. All fi gures are reported in current US dollars. Attributional data required for the construction of the indices include GDP per capita, which quantifi es a ². For relatively similar arguments concerning the structure of international trade and other outcomes, such as economic development and domestic income inequality, see Kentor and Boswell ; Rubinson and Holtzman ; Smith and White ; and Snyder and Kick . Andrew K. Jorgenson & James Rice64 Structural Dynamics of International Trade  country’s level of economic development. Th ese data are taken from Maddison (2001), and are in constant 1995 international dollars. Th e weighted export fl ows index is calculated as: N D i = ∑p ij a j j=1 Where: D i = weighted export f lows for country i p ij = proportion of country i’s total exports sent to receiving country j a j = attribute of receiving country j (e.g. GDP per capita) Th e fi rst step is to convert the fl ows of exports to receiving countries into proportional scores. More specifi cally, exports to each receiving country are trans- formed into the proportion of the sending country’s total exports. Th e trans- formation into proportions allows for cross-national comparisons of per capita levels of resource tapping that are not partly attributable to overall population diff erences between nation-states, sometimes referred to as “the China eff ect” in the international economic inequality literature (e.g. Babones 2002; Firebaugh 1999) or cross-national diff erences in the scale and intensity of environmental outcomes (e.g. Redclift and Sage 1998; Roberts 2001). Th e second step involves multiplying each proportion by the corresponding receiving country’s attribute of interest (per capita GDP). Th e third step is to sum the products of the cal- culations in step two. Th e sums of these products quantify the relative level of exports sent to more-developed countries that generally exhibit larger ecological footprints. methods Our primary goal is to test a hypothesis derived from fundamental argu- ments of environmental sociologists and political-economic scholars concerning uneven ecological exchange between nations. Th is involves the development of an empirical indicator that quantifi es the relative extent to which less-developed countries send their exports to nations with greater economic development. We incorporate this new index into a series of cross-national analyses of per capita ecological footprints for less-developed countries. Like other studies that restrict their analyses to less-developed countries, we argue that the domestic social infrastructure and relative position of less-developed countries in the world-economy create conditions in which the social and environmental impacts of political-economic characteristics vary substantially between developed and less-developed countries. For example, a developed country might send a high proportion of exports to other developed countries, but its relatively powerful position in the world-economy enables the developed country to import natural resources and produced commodities from less-developed countries.³ Moreover, developed countries generally possess domestic infrastructures and technologies that enable them to reduce some forms of environmental degradation within their borders (e.g. Burns, Kick, and Davis 2003; Kick et al. 1996). We employ OLS regression and listwise deletion in all reported analyses. For comparison, the models we use here are similar to those tested in other recent studies of national-level footprints. Th ey include measures of economic devel- opment, urbanization, domestic inequality, human capital, domestic economy structure, and other export-related characteristics. Dependent Variable Combined ecological footprint per capita, 2000, is the comprehensive measure of the total area required to produce the commodities consumed and assimilate the wastes generated for a given nation. Th ese data are taken from Venetoulis, Chazen, and Gaudet (2004). Independent Variables ⁴ Weighted Export Flows, 1990 (natural log). Th ese data quantify the relative extent to which a nation’s exports are sent to more economically developed coun- tries. We log this variable to correct for skewness. ³. Indeed, the value of the constructed weighted export fl ows index for Canada (as well as many other developed nations) is relatively high compared to many less- developed countries. Th is is similar to other political-economic characteristics, including foreign capital penetration and foreign investment concentration (Grimes and Kentor ; Jorgenson forthcoming[a]; Kentor and Boswell ) ⁴. An anonymous reviewer posed a concern about our use of independent variables mostly for the year , which creates a  year time lag between these predictors and the dependent variable. Th e reasoning for this lag is primarily pragmatic and to ease interpretation of the fi ndings for readers. Measures for some of the independent vari- ables are not available for more recent years, particularly export partner concentration and domestic income inequality. However, in a series of unreported analyses, we employ more recent measures of the remaining independent variables. Results for those analyses diff er very little from those reported in the current study. Th us, we choose to report fi nd- ings for the analyses that involve the consistent  year time lag. Moreover, the dependent variable of the current study, per capita ecological footprints for , is correlated . with per capita footprints for . Th e  measures have been used as dependent variables in most relevant published studies (e.g. Jorgenson , a, ; Jorgenson and Burns ; York, Rosa, and Dietz ). Andrew K. Jorgenson & James Rice66 Structural Dynamics of International Trade  Countries Included in the Analyses We focus the analyses on less-developed countries categorized by the World Bank (2000). Specifi cally, we include countries not categorized as high income by the World Bank’s income quartile classifi cation. To maximize the use of avail- able data, we allow sample sizes to vary among tested models.⁵ Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and Table 2 presents correlations for all variables included in the analyses. findings and discussion Results of the analyses are provided in Table 3. Our most noteworthy fi nd- ing is that weighted export fl ows has a signifi cant negative eff ect on per capita Gross Domestic Product per capita (natural log), 1990 is included in nearly all cross-national studies of ecological footprints, and measures a country’s level of economic development. Th ese data are obtained from Maddison (2001), and are measured in 1990 international dollars. Consistent with most studies, we log these data to correct for skewness. Gross Domestic Product per capita Change, 1980–1990 controls for the extent of a country’s average annual rate of economic development. We calculate average annual percent change scores using Maddison’s (2001) data. Urban population, 1990 (residualized) controls for the percentage of a coun- try’s population residing in urban areas. Th ese data are taken from the World Bank (2000). To correct for its high collinearity with GDP per capita, we regress this variable on per capita GDP and use the residuals as measures of urbaniza- tion, which allows for analyses of its eff ects, independent of level of economic development. Exports of goods and services as percentage of total GDP, 1990 (natural log) measures overall levels of exports and controls for the extent of a country’s inte- gration into the world-economy. Th ese data are obtained from the World Bank (2000). We log this variable to correct for skewness. Domestic income inequality, measured as gini coeffi cients, controls for the distribution of income within countries. Th e year of measurement for gini coef- fi cients vary slightly across countries, but range in the early 1990s. Th ese data are taken from the World Bank (2001). Secondary school enrollment, 1990 (residualized) is an indicator of human cap- ital, and is defi ned as the ratio of total secondary school enrollment, regardless of age, to the population of the age group corresponding to this level of education. Th ese data are obtained from the World Bank (2000). Like urban population, we residualize these data to correct for its high collinearity with GDP per capita. Services as percentage of total GDP, 1990 controls for the extent to which a domestic economy is services based. Th ese data are taken from the World Bank (2000). Export partner concentration, 1990 quantifi es the percentage or proportion of total exports to the single largest importing country. Th ese data are obtained from the World Bank (1996). Other studies model this indicator as a form of trade dependence in which high levels of export partner concentration make the host country more vulnerable to international market forces and allow the country receiving the largest proportion of their exports to obtain more favorable economic and environmental outcomes (e.g. Hirschman [1945] 1971; Jorgenson 2004d; Kentor and Boswell 2003). Hence, the implementation of this statisti- cal control reduces the likelihood of invalid inferences concerning the tested hypothesis. ⁵. Saudi Arabia and South Korea were found to be outliers and excluded from the reported analyses. Andrew K. Jorgenson & James Rice68 Structural Dynamics of International Trade  ecological footprints of less-developed countries. Th e eff ect is almost identi- cal in magnitude and statistically signifi cant across all models, which provides strong support for the tested hypothesis. Th is fi nding, coupled with the often identifi ed paradoxical relationships between the footprints of nations and levels of domestic environmental degradation, provides evidence of the externaliza- tion of consumption-based environmental costs by more-affl uent nations (Frey 1998; Hornborg 2001; Jorgenson 2003, 2004a; 2005; Jorgenson and Burns 2004; Princen, Maniates, and Conca 2002; Rice 2005). Turning to the other predictor variables, we fi nd that level of economic development positively aff ects per capita footprints, while the eff ect of rate of development is non-signifi cant across all tested models. Th e former fi nding is consistent with recent cross-national studies of footprints (e.g. Jorgenson 2003, 2004a, 2005; Rice 2005; York, Dietz, and Rosa 2003). Level of urbanization positively aff ects per capita footprints in Models 1 through 3, but becomes non- Table 3 – Standardized Coefficients for Analyses of Ecological Footprints Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Sample Size 69 57 54 52 44 Weighted Export Flows, 1990 -.171* (-2.314) [1.111] -.176* (-2.150) [1.167] -.177* (-2.100) [1.149] -.182* (-2.147) [1.203] -.214* (-2.131) [1.400] Gross Domestic Product per capita, 1990 (log) .739*** (9.447) [1.243] .751*** (8.482) [1.358] .761*** (8.153) [1.410] .883*** (8.955) [1.621] .889*** (8.538) [1.507] Gross Domestic Product per capita change, 1980-1990 .099 (1.092) [1.657] -.060 (-.615) [1.644] -.074 (-.708) [1.782] -.178 (-1.689) [1.861] -.218 (-1.741) [2.179] Urban Population, 1990 (residualized) .338*** (3.764) [1.639] .254* (2.547) [1.728] .237* (2.136) [1.994] .086 (.743) [2.231] .039 (.292) [2.437] Exports / GDP, 1990 (log) .110 (1.381) [1.293] .138 (1.583) [1.322] .133 (1.471) [1.316] .082 (.898) [1.376] .093 (.946) [1.332] Domestic Inequality -.106 (-1.265) [1.226] -.108 (-1.139) [1.466] .020 (.201) [1.662] .097 (.870) [1.721] Secondary Education, 1990 (residualized) -.027 (-.312) [1.192] .002 (.024) [1.262] -.011 (-.110) [1.479] Services / GDP, 1990 -.163 (-1.777) [1.403] -.127 (-1.313) [1.296] Export Partner Concentration, 1990 -.045 (-.401) [1.720] Constant (.225) .475 .635 (.292) .787 (.338) .100 (.047) 1.614 (.564) 2Adjusted R .665 .677 .672 .694 .690 Note: T-Ratios are in parentheses; VIFs appear in brackets; ***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05 Per Capita, 2000 in LDCs Andrew K. Jorgenson & James Rice70 Structural Dynamics of International Trade  non-signifi cant predictors of per capita footprints. Coupled with our most note- worthy fi nding concerning the eff ect of weighted export fl ows, these results sug- gest that the overall structure of exports is of more relevance to understanding variation in the ecological footprints of nations and perhaps the attendant forms of environmental degradation. More specifi cally, export fl ows and the attributes of receiving countries are central considerations when analyzing the variety of consumption-based environmental impacts of international trade. Proponents of comparative advantage theory and other neoliberal perspec- tives (e.g. Magee 1980; Ricardo [1821] 1951) might argue that the fi ndings of this study, particularly the negative eff ect of weighted export fl ows on the per capita footprints of less-developed countries, illustrate the overall environmental “ben- efi ts” of trade (i.e. “trade specialization”). However, cross-national studies provide evidence that nations with lower footprints experience higher domestic levels of particular forms of environmental degradation and serious health problems, including elevated infant mortality rates (e.g. Jorgenson 2003; Jorgenson and Burns 2004; see also Lofdahl 2002). Undoubtedly, the health and well-being of populations are largely a function of access to adequate shelter and consumption of minimal levels of food ( Jenkins and Scanlan 2001; Jorgenson 2005), both of which are included in the composite footprints analyzed in the present study. Th us, the per capita footprints of nations could be treated as a partial indica- tor of human quality of life (Rice 2005; see also Prescott-Allen 2001). Moreover, a large proportion of the less-developed countries included in the current study exhibit footprints below their bio-capacity per capita⁶ (Venetoulis et al. 2004; Wackernagel et al. 2002). Indeed, their relatively low levels of globally sustainable consumption and high levels of domestic environmental degradation are charac- teristics of underdevelopment stemming from asymmetrical exchanges between developed and less-developed countries (e.g. Chase-Dunn 1998; Emmanuel 1972; Hornborg 2001; Jorgenson 2005; McMichael 2004). For less-developed countries to share in the development outcomes exhib- ited by richer, more powerful countries they fi rst must secure access to greater levels of material consumption within the confi nes of the biologically productive limits of the global environment. Asymmetrical processes of ecological exchange, however, highlight the challenges in doing so when the structure of export fl ows increases the material consumption opportunities of more economically devel- signifi cant and close to null when including services and export partner concen- tration as additional controls. We speculate that the non-signifi cant eff ect in the two most fully-controlled models is partly an artifact of the reduced sample size and the use of traditional linear regression techniques, rather than indirect eff ects models that treat urbanization as a mediating variable, partly a function of economic development and other social factors (e.g. Jorgenson 2003; Jorgenson and Burns 2004; Kentor 2001). However, the eff ect of urbanization is not the central focus of the current study. Domestic income inequality proves to be a non-signifi cant predictor of foot- prints of less-developed countries when controlling for the structure of export fl ows, which contradicts the fi ndings of other recent studies (e.g. Jorgenson 2003, 2004a). Like York, Dietz and Rosa (2003), we fi nd no evidence indicating that nations with more service-based economies consume lower levels of material resources. Th e eff ect of level of exports is non-signifi cant across all tested models, and export partner concentration also proves to be a non-signifi cant predictor of ecological footprints. Th us, the cumulative structure of export fl ows and the attributes of receiving countries are of more relevance than the overall level of exports or diversity of trading partners. conclusion Th is study provides a new approach to the analysis of international trade, material consumption, and concomitant environmental degradation. Foremost, we created an index that measures the relative extent to which exports of less- developed countries are sent to higher-consuming, more developed countries. Using this new index, we tested and confi rmed the hypothesis that less-devel- oped countries with higher levels of exports sent to more-developed countries exhibit lower domestic levels of resource consumption, measured as per capita ecological footprints. Th is fi nding is illustrative of the theorized structural condi- tions in which higher-consuming countries externalize their consumption-based environmental costs through the tapping of raw materials and produced com- modities from less-developed countries, which tempers material consumption levels, thereby restricting the ecological footprints of the latter countries (e.g. Jorgenson 2005; Rice 2005). Consistent with other recent studies of national footprints, level of economic development and urbanization positively aff ect per capita footprints of less- developed countries while the eff ect of size of service sector is non-signifi cant (e.g. Jorgenson 2003, 2004a; York, Rosa, and Dietz 2003). Th e latter fi nding crit- ically challenges neoclassical economic arguments concerning the environmental impacts of domestic economic conditions (e.g. Grossman and Krueger 1995). Th e overall level of exports and relative diversity in trading partners prove to be ⁶. Global bio-capacity per capita is calculated by dividing all the biologically pro- ductive land and sea on earth by the total world population, which provides a general global estimate of human sustainable levels of consumption. Andrew K. Jorgenson & James Rice72 Structural Dynamics of International Trade  oped trading partners at the expense of less-developed countries. Arguably, such uneven consumption dynamics are not only complicit in promoting increasing global environmental demand but also linked to the diminishing opportunities of less-developed countries to achieve socio-economic stability and domestic ecological protection. Th e next steps in this research agenda involve studying the eff ects of the structure of export fl ows on particular forms of environmental degradation, including deforestation, organic water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Th ese future analyses coupled with the fi ndings of the present study will pro- vide more comprehensive evidence of the uneven interrelationships between the divergent levels of resource consumption among nations and high levels of particular forms of environmental degradation within the borders of lower-con- suming, less-developed countries. references Andersson, Jan Otto, and M. Lindroth. . “Ecologically Unsustainable Trade.” Ecological Economics :–. Babones, Salvatore. . “Population and Sample Selection Effects in Measuring International Income Inequality.” Journal of World-Systems Research :–. http://jwsr.ucr.edu Beer, Linda, and Terry Boswell. . “The Resilience of Dependency Effects in Explaining Income Inequality in the Global Economy: A Cross-National Analysis, –.” Journal of World-Systems Research :–. http://jwsr.ucr.edu Bornschier, Volker, and Christopher Chase-Dunn. . Transnational Corporations and Underdevelopment. New York, NY: Praeger. Boswell, Terry, and Christopher Chase-Dunn. . The Spiral of Capitalism and Socialism: Toward Global Democracy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Bunker, Stephen G. . Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Failure of the Modern State. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Burns, Thomas J., Edward L. Kick, David A. Murray, and Dixie A. Murray. . “Demography, Development, and Deforestation in a World-System Perspective.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology :–. Burns, Thomas J., Jeffrey Kentor, and Andrew K. Jorgenson. . “Trade Dependence, Pollution, and Infant Mortality in Less Developed Countries.” pp. – in Crises and Resistance in the st Century World-System, edited by Wilma A. Dunaway. Westport, CT: Praeger. Burns, Thomas J., Edward Kick, and Byron Davis. . “Theorizing and Rethinking Linkages between the Natural Environment and the Modern World-System: Deforestation in the Late t Century.” Journal of World-Systems Research :–. http://jwsr.ucr.edu Burns, Thomas J., and Andrew K. Jorgenson. . “Effects of Rural and Urban Population Dynamics and National Development on Deforestation Rates, – .” Paper presented at the mini-conference of the International Sociological Association sections on the environment and community, San Francisco, CA, August, . Chambers, Nicky, Craig Simmons, and Mathis Wackernagel. . Sharing Nature’s Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications. Chase-Dunn, Christopher. . The Effects of International Economic Dependence on Development and Inequality: A Cross-National Study. American Sociological Review :–. Chase-Dunn, Christopher. . Global Formation: Structures of the World-Economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Chase-Dunn, Christopher, and Andrew K Jorgenson. . “Regions and Interaction Networks: An Institutional-Materialist Approach.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology :–. Chew, Sing C. . World Ecological Degradation: Accumulation, Urbanization, and Deforestation  b.c.–a.d. . Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Clapp, Jennifer. . “The Distancing of Waste: Overconsumption in a Global Economy.” pp. – in Confronting Consumption, edited by Thomas Princen, Michael Maniates, and Ken Conca. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Conca, Ken. . “Consumption and Environment in a Global Economy.” pp. –  in Confronting Consumption, edited by Thomas Princen, Michael Maniates, and Ken Conca. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dixon, William, and Terry Boswell. . “Dependency, Disarticulation, and Denominator Effects: Another Look at Foreign Capital Penetration.” American Journal of Sociology :–. Ehrhardt-Martinez, Karen, Edward M. Crenshaw, and J. Craig Jenkins. . “Deforestation and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Cross-National Investigation of Intervening Mechanisms.” Social Science Quarterly :–. Ehrlich, Paul, and John Holdren. . “Impacts of Population Growth.” Science :–. Ehrlich, Paul, and Anne Ehrlich. . The Population Explosion. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Ekins, P. . “The Kuznets Curve for the Environment and Economic Growth: Examining the Evidence.” Environmental Planning :–. Emmanuel, Arghiri. . Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Evans, Peter. . Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Firebaugh, Glenn. . “Empirics of World Income Inequality.” American Journal of Sociology :–. Fischer-Kowalski, Marina. . “Society’s Metabolism: The Intellectual History of Material Flows Analysis, Part I.” Journal of Industrial Ecology :–. http://jwsr.ucr.edu http://jwsr.ucr.edu http://jwsr.ucr.edu Andrew K. Jorgenson & James Rice74 Structural Dynamics of International Trade  Fischer-Kowalski, Marina, and Christof Amann. . “Beyond IPAT and Kuznets Curves: Globalization as a Vital Factor in Analysing the Environmental Impact of Socio-Economic Metabolism.” Population and Environment :–. Foster, John Bellamy. . “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundation for Environmental Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology :–. Foster, John Bellamy. . Ecology Against Capitalism. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Frey, R. Scott. . “The Export of Hazardous Industries to the Peripheral Zones of the World-System.” Journal of Developing Societies :–. Galtung, J. . “A Structural Theory of Imperialism.” Journal of Peace Research :–. Gereffi, Gary, and Miguel Korzeniewicz, eds. . Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism. Westport, CT: Praeger Publsihers. Grimes, Peter, and Jeffrey Kentor. . “Exporting the Greenhouse: Foreign Capital Penetration and CO₂ Emissions –.” Journal of World-Systems Research :–. http://jwsr.ucr.edu Grossman, Gene, and Alan Krueger. . “Economic Growth and the Environment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics :–. Hirschman, Albert. [] . National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Homer-Dixon, Thomas. . Environment, Scarcity, and Violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hornborg, Alf. . The Power of the Machine: Global Inequalities of Economy, Technology, and Environment. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Hornborg, Alf. . “Cornucopia or Zero-Sum Game? The Epistemology of Sustainability.” Journal of World-Systems Research :–. http://jwsr.ucr.edu International Monetary Fund. . Direction of Trade Statistics. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund Publications Services. Jenkins, Craig, and Stephen Scanlan. . “Food Security in Less-Developed Countries, -.” American Sociological Review :–. Jorgenson, Andrew K. . “Consumption and Environmental Degradation: A Cross-National Analysis of the Ecological Footprint.” Social Problems :– . Jorgenson, Andrew K. a. “Uneven Processes and Environmental Degradation in the World-Economy.” Human Ecology Review :–. Jorgenson, Andrew K. c. “Global Inequality, Water Pollution, and Infant Mortality.” Social Science Journal :–. Jorgenson, Andrew K. d. “Material Consumption, Unequal Ecological Exchange, and Environmental Degradation: A Cross-National Study of Deforestation in Less-Developed Countries.” Paper presented at the  Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, California. Jorgenson, Andrew K. . “Unpacking International Power and the Ecological Footprints of Nations: A Quantitative Cross-National Study.” Sociological Perspectives (in press). Jorgenson, Andrew K. Forthcoming [a]. “Global Warming and the Neglected Greenhouse Gas: A Cross-National Study of the Social Causes of Methane Emissions Intensity, .” Social Forces. Jorgenson, Andrew K. Forthcoming [b]. “Global Social Change, Natural Resource Consumption, and Environmental Degradation.” In Global Social Change: A Reader, edited by Christopher Chase-Dunn, Salvatore Babones, and Susan Manning. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Jorgenson, Andrew K, and Edward Kick. . “Globalization and the Environment.” Journal of World-Systems Research :–. http://jwsr.ucr.edu Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Tom Burns. . “Globalization, the Environment, and Infant Mortality: A Cross-National Study.” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations :–. Jorgenson, Andrew K., James Rice, Jessica Crowe, & Julie Steinkopf Rice. Forthcoming. “Integrating Material Consumption into Macrosociological Analyses of Environmental Degradation.” In Globalization and the Environment, edited by Andrew K Jorgenson and Edward Kick. Leiden: Brill Press. Kentor, Jeffrey. . Capital and Coercion: The Economic and Military Processes that have Shaped the World-Economy –. New York, NY: Garland Press. Kentor, Jeffrey. . “The Long-Term Effects of Globalization on Population Growth, Inequality, and Economic Development.” Social Problems :–. Kentor, Jeffrey, and Terry Boswell. . “Foreign Capital Dependence and Development: A New Direction.” American Sociological Review :–. Kick, Edward L., Thomas J. Burns, Byron Davis, David A. Murray, and Dixie A. Murray. . “Impacts of Domestic Population Dynamics and Foreign Wood Trade on Deforestation: A World-System Perspective.” Journal of Developing Societies :–. Lofdahl, Corey. . Environmental Impacts of Globalization and Trade. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Maddison, Angus. . The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. Paris: Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Magee, Stephen. . International Trade. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. McMichael, Phillip. . Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. Third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Moore, Jason. . “The Modern World-System as Environmental History? Ecology and the Rise of Capitalism.” Theory and Society :–. Muradian, Roldan, and Joan Martinez-Alier. . “South-North Materials Flow: History and Environmental Repercussions.” Innovation: :–. Muradian, Roldan, Nina Eisenmenger, and Stefan Giljum. . “Global and European Trade Patterns of Pollutiong Sectors: A Physical Approach.” Paper presented at the conference titled “World-System History and Global Environmental Change”, Lund, Sweden. O’Connor, James. . Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York, NY: Guilford Publishing. http://jwsr.ucr.edu http://jwsr.ucr.edu http://jwsr.ucr.edu Andrew K. Jorgenson & James Rice76 Structural Dynamics of International Trade  Smith, David A., and Douglas White. . “Structure and Dynamics of the Global Economy: Network Analysis of International Trade –.” Social Forces :–. Snyder, David, and Edward Kick. . “Structural Position in the World System and Economic Growth, –: A Multiple-Network Analysis of Transnational Interactions.” American Journal of Sociology :–. Tucker, Richard. . “Environmentally Damaging Consumption: The Impact of American Markets on Tropical Ecosystems in the Twentieth Century.” pp. –  in Confronting Consumption, edited by Thomas Princen, Michael Maniates, and Ken Conca. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Venetoulis, Jason, Dahlia Chazan, and Christopher Gaudet. . Ecological Footprint of Nations . Oakland, CA: Redefining Progress. Wackernagel, Mathis, Niels B. Schulz, Diana Deumling, Alejandro Callejas Linares, Martin Jenkins, Valerie Kapos, Chad Monfreda, Jonathan Loh, Norman Meyers, Richards Norgaard, and Jorgen Randers. . “Tracking the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences :–. Wallerstein, Immanuel. . “Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit.” pp. – in Ecology and the World-System, edited by Walter Goldfrank, David Goodman, and Andrew Szasz. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. World Bank. . World Tables. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank. , . World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. York, Richard, Eugene Rosa, and Thomas Dietz. . “Footprints on the Earth: the Environmental Consequences of Modernity.” American Sociological Review :–. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. . Globalization and the Environment: Perspectives from OECD and Dynamic Non- Member Economies. New York, NY: OECD. Portes, Alejandro, Carlos Dore-Cabral, and Patricia Landolt, eds. . The Urban Caribbean: Transition to the New Global Economy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Prescott-Allen, Robert. . The Well-Being of Nations. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Princen, Thomas. . “Consumption and Externalities: Where Economy Meets Ecology.” pp. – in Confronting Consumption, edited by Thomas Princen, Michael Maniates, and Ken Conca. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Princen, Thomas, Michael Maniates, and Ken Conca. . “Confronting Consumption.” pp. – in Confronting Consumption, edited by Thomas Princen, Michael Maniates, and Ken Conca. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Proops, J., G. Atkinson, B. Schlotheim, and S. Simon. . “International Trade and the Sustainability Footprint: A Practical Criterion for its Assessment.” Ecological Economics :–. Redclift, Michael, and Colin Sage. . “Global Environmental Change and Global Inequality: North / South Perspectives.” International Sociology :–. Ricardo, David. [] . On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Third edition In The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, volume , edited by P. Sraffe and M.M. Dobb. Reprint. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rice, James. . “Ecologically Unequal Exchange: International Trade and Uneven Cross-National Environmental Consumption in the World-System.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Pacific Sociological Association, Portland, Oregon. Roberts, Timmons. . “Global Inequality and Climate Change.” Society and Natural Resources :–. Rosa, Eugene, Richard York, and Thomas Dietz. . “Tracking the Anthropogenic Drivers of Ecological Impacts.” Ambio :–. Rothman, Dale. . “Environmental Kuznets Curves–Real Progress or Passing the Buck?” Ecological Economics :–. Rubinson, Richard, and Deborah Holtzman. . “Comparative Dependence and Economic Development.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology :– . Rudel, Thomas K. . “Is There a Forest Transition? Deforestation, Reforestation, and Development.” Rural Sociology :–. Schnaiberg, Allan. . The Environment. New York: Oxford University Press. Schnaiberg, Allan, and Kenneth Gould. . Environment and Society: The Enduring Conf lict. New York, NY: St Martin’s Press. Smith, David A. . Third World Cities in a Global Perspective: The Political Economy of Uneven Urbanization. Boulder, CO: Westview. Jorgenson & Rice