*Apologies for cross-posting*
*Neo-Extractivism, Resource Nationalism, and ‘New’ Geographies of Resource
Governance and Development*
AAG Annual Meeting in Boston, April 5-9, 2017
*Co-Organizers:* Meredith DeBoom (University of Colorado-Boulder) and Emily
Billo (Goucher College)
*Sponsored by: *Cultural and Political Ecology, Development Geographies,
and Political Geography Specialty Groups
*Deadline for Papers/Panel Proposals: October 13, 2017*
Despite the political and economic challenges associated with commodity
dependency, governments of many resource-rich states have placed a renewed
emphasis on resource-based development over the past ten years. In
countries such as Bolivia, South Africa, Ecuador, Namibia, Zambia, and
Argentina, opposition and ruling political leaders have called for or
implemented diverse reconfigurations of resource governance, resulting in
new forms of “networked interactions of various state and non-state
organizations and institutions operating at multiple sites and scales”
(Himley, 2008: 435). These changes have often been accompanied by renewed
rhetoric of national progress and resource nationalism, and also by
political unrest rooted in environmental degradation, inequality, and
disputes over property rights. This unrest has highlighted the tensions
often associated with state-led development and resource governance
practices, including increased criminalization of environmental protests.
Such developments at the “resource-state nexus” (Bridge, 2014) are of
particular interest to geographers given the territorial fixity of resource
deposits and the interconnections among land, resources, place-making,
livelihoods, subject formation, and the state.
To date, however, research on the (re)turn to resource-based development
has been hindered by regional and subfield-based research silos. These
sessions aim to challenge this fragmentation by bringing Latin
America-based studies of neo-extractivism (Gudynas, 2012; Burchardt and
Dietz, 2014), resource-based struggles (Bebbington and Bury, 2013), and
resource imaginaries (Coronil, 1997; Perreault and Valdivia, 2010) into
conversation with research on petro-developmentalism (Ovadia, 2016),
resource nationalism (Childs, 2015), and resource sovereignty in Africa
(Emel et al., 2011), as well as research on resource governance in other
Through a paper session and panel discussion, we aim to connect scholarship
on resource governance across a variety of regions and subfields, including
political ecology, political geography, economic geography, development
geography, legal geographies, and resource geographies. Our goal is to
better understand the commonalities and divergences across shifting
resource governance regimes and their implications for development and
social and environmental justice at multiple scales.
*1) Paper session*: we invite papers that engage with resource governance
in and across a variety of contexts. Both empirical and theoretical
proposals are welcome. Possible topics might include, but are not limited
· Continuities and divergences in resource governance under neoliberal and
post-neoliberal/post-Washington Consensus extraction regimes
· Implications of new resource governance schemes for development
challenges associated with commodity dependency (e.g., the resource curse)
· State-society relations and resource-based development
· Resource imaginaries, nationalism, place-making, and state-making
· Roles of foreign investment in domestic resource politics
· Resource extraction and the developmental or neo-developmental state
· Neo-extractivism and indigenous politics
· Scale in resource politics and associated scalar tensions
· Issues of enclosure, dispossession, property rights, and exclusion
· Criminalization of environmental protests
· Identity, subject formation, and social movements
· Sovereignty, territory, states, and extractive industries
· Methodological or fieldwork issues associated with researching resource
*2) Roundtable/panel discussion*: we invite expressions of interest by
panelists who might speak to broader theoretical debates or to the
practicalities of conducting research on resource governance.
Presenters interested in participating in the paper session are asked to
submit a paper title and an abstract of no more than 250 words to the
organizers by *October 13, 2017.*
Presenters interested in participating in the panel discussion are asked to
submit a brief description of 100-200 words overviewing the topics and
themes about which they would like to speak by *October 13, 2017.*
Please direct submissions and questions to Emily Billo (
emily.bi...@goucher.edu) and Meredith DeBoom (meredith.deb...@colorado.edu).
Bebbington, A. and J. Bury (Eds.). 2013. *Subterranean Struggles: New
Dynamics of Mining, Oil, and Gas in Latin America. *Austin: University of
Bridge, G. 2014. Resource Geographies II: The Resource-State Nexus. *Progress
in Human Geography* 38(1), 118-130.
Burchardt, H-J. and K. Dietz. 2014. (Neo-)extractivism: A New Challenge for
Development Theory from Latin America. *Third World Quarterly* 35(3):
Childs, J. 2016. Geography and Resource Nationalism: A Critical Review and
Reframing. *The Extractive Industries and Society* 3: 539-546.
Childs, J. and J. Hearn. 2016. ‘New’ Nations: Resource-Based Development
Imaginaries in Ghana and Ecuador. *Third World Quarterly*. DOI:
Coronil, F. 1997. *The Magical State: Nature, Money, and Modernity in
Venezuela. *Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Emel, J., M. Huber, and M. Makene. 2011. Extracting Sovereignty: Capital,
Territory, and Gold Mining in Tanzania. *Political Geography* 35: 35-51.
Gudynas, E. 2012. Estado Compensador y Nuevos Extractivismos: Las
Ambivalencias del Progresismo Sudamericano. *Nueva Sociedad* 237: 128-146.
Himley, M. 2008. Geographies of Environmental Governance: The Nexus of
Nature and Neoliberalism. *Geography Compass* 2: 433-451.
Ovadia, J.S. 2016. *The Petro-Developmental State in Africa: Making Oil
Work in Angola, Nigeria and the Gulf of Guinea.*
Perreault, T. and G. Valdivia. 2010. Hydrocarbons, Popular Protest and
National Imaginaries: Ecuador and Bolivia in Comparative Context.
*Geoforum *41(5): 689-699.
Rosales, A. 2013. Going Underground: The Political Economy of the ‘Left
Turn’ in South America. *Third World Quarterly *38(8): 1443-1457.
Veltmeyer, H. and J. Petras (Eds.) 2014. *The New Extractivism: A
Post-Neoliberal Development Model or Imperialism of the Twenty-First
Century? *Zed Books.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.