Post-Fordist governance of nature: The internationalization of the state and the case of genetic resources – a Neo-Poulantzian perspective

ABSTRACT

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

KEYWORDS:

• Global environmental governance
• biodiversity politics
• historical-materialist
• regulation approach
• state theory
• internationalization of the state
• WTO
• CBD
• FAO

Notes

1 We use the term International Political Economy for the whole range of approaches and develop then a critical understanding which sometimes is labeled Global Political Economy (GPE; cf. Palan, 2000). We use the terms GPE and critical IPE synonymously.

2 Thus, the term is similar to the terms market or state failure; see Jessop (2002).

3 We are well aware that we argue against the background of experiences of the global North. However, the theoretical reflections on international hegemony, regulation and the internationalized state might be universal since the powerful governments of the global North mainly structure the international political terrains.

4 Aglietta (1979, 2000); Boyer (1990, 2000); Lipietz (1987); Jessop (1990); Esser et al. (1994b); Brand and Raza (2003); Scherrer (2003).

5 We must therefore differentiate between two processes whose conceptual distinction in English is not easy: ‘regulation’(in German: regulation) is not the same than ‘regulating’ (in German: Regulierung), whereas the second term is closer to the normal use of the term regulation.

6 An exception is the so-called Grenoble School of the regulation approach around G. de Bernis which focused on international economic relations but did not theorize the political at all (cf. Becker, 2002; Robles, 1994).

7 As one reviewer who is familiar with the topic at the EU level recommended, it would be useful in further research to see if there is stronger coordination of the political positions of major players like the EU in different forums.

8 The situation might change actually because of the deadlock in the TRIPS negotiations. It seems that WIPO is gaining importance.

9 We can borrow, from John Braithwaite and Peter Drahos (2000, ch. 24), the concept of forum-shifting which means that a political actor, especially the US, can shift strategies from one organization to another, to leave an organization, to pursue strategies towards several ones.