Winners and Losers in the Context of Global Change

Abstract

The idea that global change produces winners and losers is widely accepted. Yet there have been few systematic discussions of what is meant by “winner” or “loser,” and little attention has been given to the theoretical underpinnings behind identification of winners and losers. This is particularly true within global-change literature, where the phrase “winners and losers” is widely and rather loosely used. In this article, we explore the concept of winners and losers in the context of two aspects of global change: economic globalization and climate change. We first identify two major underlying theoretical perspectives on winners and losers: one suggests that winners and losers are natural and inevitable; the other suggests that winners and losers are socially and politically generated. We then apply these perspectives to current research on global change and demonstrate that they play a decisive role, influencing opinions on what winning and losing entails, who winners and losers are, and how winners and losers should be addressed.

Key Words:

• climate change
• globalization
• human dimensions of global change

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Norwegian Research Council's Verdinett, project 138204/520, for supporting this research. We also thank Mick Kelly, Roger Kasperson, Jeanne Kasperson, Amy Glasmeier, Chris Strehlo, Kristian Stokke, Knut H. Alfsen, and four anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes

1. The labels of “winner” and “loser” are also used to make judgments or value-laden characterizations that apply to the status quo. For example, people with high levels of education and/or income may be considered “winners” by some members of a society, as compared to people with low levels of education and/or incomes, who may be labeled as “losers.” Such characterizations do little more than describe existing or historical patterns of differentiation and inequality in the world.

2. In the case of international agreements associated with global change, such as the Kyoto Protocol, the decision by a nation to participate in the agreement is voluntary (Gruber 2000), but because many of the winners and losers from these agreements have little say in the decision-making process, they may be considered structural winners and losers.

3. “At times he [Darwin] gives the impression that the struggle for existence between forms must lead to a winner and a loser. He sees this as particularly likely between closely related species or varieties” (Harper 1991, 398).

4. O'Brien and Leichenko (2000) provide a detailed discussion of the linkages between climate change and globalization.

5. Globalization is, in fact, an all-encompassing term applied to a wide range of economic, cultural, and political processes, including, for example: the liberalization of trade policy and expansion of foreign direct investment; the fall of dictatorships and the emergence of new democracies; and the homogenization of consumer preferences and gradual disappearance of cultural distinctiveness (Schaeffer 1997; Dicken 1998; Mittelman 2000). All of these processes are associated with greater global integration, and all may have winners and losers.

6. The economic, political, and cultural dimensions of globalization are, of course, interrelated. Gilpin (2000) and others have suggested, for example, that the desire for political stability following World War II was and still is the key driver of efforts at global trade liberalization. Similarly, cultural homogenization may be linked to the advertising practices of major multinational firms seeking to expand markets for various consumer products, such as soft drinks and athletic shoes.

7. Although environmentalists have also challenged the premise of benefits from higher consumption, these arguments have coexisted with the belief, based on evidence from advanced countries, that economic growth ultimately improves environmental standards. New challenges to environmental Kuznets curves, however, suggest that, even with cleaner, more efficient production, the growth effects and the net increase in consumption associated with globalization will still have a net negative environmental impact (Tisdell 2000).

8. O'Riordan and Jordan (1999) provide an excellent example of the use of cultural theory, suggesting that interpretations of what (if anything) to do about winners and losers stem from differing “ways of life.” They categorize viewpoints on what to do about the inequitable outcomes of social processes into fatalist, individualist, hierarchist, and egalitarian points of view.