Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
A multi-decade study led by researchers from the University of Sydney has unveiled concerning trends in international trade that are exacerbating inequalities between the Global North rich countries and Global South developing countries.
The research identifies both positive and negative trends driven by international trade but does highlight the role that high-income countries play in driving polarizing trends, undermining progress towards reaching the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
[...] As the world approaches the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the research underlines the urgent need for countries to recognize their influence beyond national borders.
The research lead for the study is Associate Professor Arunima Malik from the Center for Integrated Sustainability Analysis in the Faculty of Science, and Discipline of Accounting, Governance and Regulation in the Business School.
She said, "Sustainable Development Goals are nationally focused and therefore tend not to take international effects into account. This misses the fact that in today's globalized world, consumption in one region can significantly affect the well-being of people in countries far away."
The study takes a global approach to supply chains and is the first to assess the trends over an extended period of the global environmental and social impacts from international trade.
The findings reveal that high-income countries often outsource environmentally and socially detrimental production to low-income nations, resulting in the shifting of burdens that disproportionately affects developing regions.
Co-author Professor Manfred Lenzen, Professor of Sustainability Research at the Center for Integrated Sustainability Analysis, said, "Our findings indicate the Global North's outsourcing practices are contributing to a widening divide between countries that benefit from trade and those that bear the brunt of its adverse effects."
This dynamic not only perpetuates economic disparities, but also exacerbates social and environmental challenges in the Global South.
"It isn't all negative. International trade can also have positive impacts," said co-author, Dr. Mengyu Li, a Horizon Fellow also at the Center for Integrated Analysis in the Faculty of Science. "While trade can promote economic growth and reduce poverty, it can also lead to increasing pollution, waste, resource depletion and social inequalities, especially in the Global South."
The research, which spans three decades from 1990 to 2018, employs a systematic quantitative assessment of 12 selected Sustainable Development Goals. The authors say that the lack of defined consumption-based indicators aligned with the SDG framework has hindered a comprehensive understanding of these trends.
As an alternative, the authors propose the use of consumption-based proxies to analyze global supply chain dynamics, trends and their implications for progress towards the UN SDGs.
The study identified the biggest polarizing effects in SDG13 (Climate Action), SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG2 (Zero Hunger). The biggest equalizing effects were identified for SDG8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG1 (No Poverty).
Provided by University of Sydney
More information: Arunima Malik et al, Polarizing and equalizing trends in international trade and Sustainable Development Goals, Nature Sustainability (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41893-024-01397-5
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 13 2024, @08:46PM (4 children)
The first thing I think about isn't what they're studying but who funds these vague and ambiguous research institutions. Who's actually paying 5-10 graduate level salaries to put out analyses?
In this case, it's the king of England himself [accountingforsustainability.org], which is perhaps the least shady result I've ever seen looking into one of these.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday August 13 2024, @11:03PM (2 children)
Because you think the British royals' money isn't sketchy AF [thelist.com]?
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday August 14 2024, @01:03AM
I was trying to damn by faint praise, but it occurs to me that not everyone has gone through this exercise enough to see all the ones that track back to the US State Department and the Heritage foundation, and specific industry lobbying groups.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 15 2024, @01:05AM
In contrast if some research had some dubious CIA related objectives then the research being CIA funded might be relevant.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SomeRandomGeek on Tuesday August 13 2024, @09:16PM (8 children)
The academic doublespeak in the summary makes it incomprehensible. In particular, it is not clear who is harmed, and who benefits. Are they saying that if I, as a person in the Global North, buy something made in the Global South, that the people who made and sold it are harmed? Why did they make and sell it? Or are they saying that those peoples' neighbors are harmed? As compared to what? How did they measure the non-trade control case? Or are they saying that policies that were applied in the Global North are being circumvented by doing the work in the Global South, where those policies don't exist?
Life is hard in the Global South, and many people there are willing to compromise on environmental issues and social justice in order to put food on the table. Life is easier in the Global North, but many people here are still willing to compromise on environmental issues and social justice in order to put food on the table. That is not the result of trade.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday August 13 2024, @10:52PM
I stopped reading when I read "global north" and "global south".
Global north and south are euphemisms for developed and developing countries - which, themselves, are euphemisms for rich and poor countries.
In other words, I figured this article was going to talk politically-correct newspeak aplenty and I'm not interested. Your assessment confirms mine.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Mykl on Tuesday August 13 2024, @11:32PM
No silly. It's very simple:
- It's bad if we send work to poor countries because those people have to deal with local issues arising from that work
- It's bad if we don't send work to poor countries because we're not helping them to rise out of poverty and become self-sustaining
- It's bad if we give charity to poor countries because we are trying to influence them and their cultures and impose our values on them in the bargain
- It's bad if we don't give charity to poor countries because we have an obligation to help our fellow humans
There is nothing you can do internationally that will be viewed favourably. Though it should be noted that international trade seems to have worked well for China and the Chinese people over the past few decades (compared to where they were before that).
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 14 2024, @12:46AM (5 children)
>Life is easier in the Global North, but many people here are still willing to compromise on environmental issues and social justice in order to put food on the table
Or pick up that oat milk latte on the way to soccer practice,
or stay in their 72F air conditioned house while illegal immigrants mow their grass in the 98F (feels like 117F) sun,
or purchase grapes grown 7000 miles away from their grocery store,
or purchase chocolates,
or purchase electric vehicles with lots of bulk Cobalt in the batteries,
or, or, or...
Bottom line: many people everywhere are willing to compromise on environmental issues and social justice for little or no reason at all.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2024, @01:51AM (4 children)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 14 2024, @12:04PM (3 children)
Policies such as:
https://cwa-union.org/news/desantis-signs-anti-worker-bill-against-heat-regulation-florida [cwa-union.org]
?
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2024, @11:08PM (2 children)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 14 2024, @11:23PM (1 child)
In Florida, counties and cities that might choose to enact such regulations total under 500. Weather exposure is a pretty localized phenomenon, what matters in the Keys, or Everglades is quite different from what matters in the state capitol. Couple this recent grandstanding outrage provocation with the recent banning of references to climate change in official state documents, including legislation, and the picture is clear: this is a popularity play for the figureheads, nothing about benefits for the residents or even most businesses.
Our neighbor proudly displays a "Trump Snowflake removal service" sign in his yard. In my book, this asshat who comes around threatening to shoot neighbors' domestic cats when his chickens are "being murdered in the middle of the night" (by wildlife, not cats) is the biggest snowflake I know, but then projection of their own insecurities does seem to be a core value among MAGA cheerleaders.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 15 2024, @12:45AM
You also mentioned Texas which has almost 1500 such towns and counties. Multiple states easily get into the thousands.
Second, your assertion about weather is nonsense. Heat exposure is a very limited issue with only a few weather factors that are relevant. Nor do most local governments have the experience and knowledge to draft relevant regulations.
Finally, this all ignores that there's federal level regulation that already covers this. It wouldn't be very relevant to workers whether they were regulated by federal or local. Labor unions might be a different matter, but this would be far from the first time that workers and labor unions had conflicting interests.
A hypocrite in Florida? Don't care.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday August 14 2024, @01:31AM
So who isn't benefitting again? The poor countries that are rapidly elevating themselves to developed world status (incidentally disproving the claim of a widening divide) or the rich countries that get to export "detrimental" production? My bet is that this is ignorant propaganda that doesn't get what trade is about - exchanges that benefit all parties.
Similarly, we can look one-sided at the costs - poor world recipients of said detrimental production or rich world labor and capital whom have to compete with those poor people (and their capital).
There's no point to it until you look at the relative cost/benefit of each side. The detrimental production, for example, is no more detrimental than the local production and it pays better - that's a no brainer for a poor country looking to rapidly improve its circumstances. Similarly, there's a lot of jobs that just aren't worth doing at developed world cost of labor. But they are worth doing at poor world cost of labor.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rich on Wednesday August 14 2024, @03:12PM (1 child)
With this development progress issues, there are a few countries that had a similar development post-WWII. They were more or less war-torn, with a dictatorship that transitioned in the 70s and 80s.
- Greece, ancient superpower, founders of modern civilzation
- Spain, ancient superpower, used to rule like half of the world
- South Korea, part of greater Japan
- Taiwan, also part of greater Japan
I'd say they had similar starting conditions, with the Asians maybe at slight disadvantage, because they are insular states with no land connection.
Greece is a sorry social aid case of the EU now, Taiwan is the #1 electronics high tech place. Both Greece (Onassis!) and South Korea were in the shipping business. South Korea still is. How can it be explained where these countries ended up?
Or what about Nigeria? They are adept enough at computers to make a section in their criminal code ("419") world famous, yet I have still to see any piece of legit software from there, free, or commercial. Writing software doesn't have a barrier to entry anymore, except for the skill of the author. One could write an office suite on sub $100 gear now (and maybe actually should, to make the result perform well, but that's another story).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 15 2024, @01:30AM
My take is that it's about the economy. Greece and Spain ignored their economies except as something to tax for their political schemes. Taiwan and South Korea didn't make that mistake.