Sociology 5161, Section 001

Environmental Inequality in the United States

Spring 2007

 

Mondays 7:00 – 9:50 p.m.

 

Professor:              Liam Downey, Ph.D.

Office/Phone:       Ketchum 218A, 303-492-8626

E-mail:                   Liam.Downey@colorado.edu

 

Office Hours:      W 1:00-3:00 and by appointment  

 

Course description and goals: Environmental inequality, environmental racism, and environmental justice are relatively new concepts that gained national attention in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to the efforts of grassroots environmental justice activists and professional researchers. Calling into question the mainstream environmental movement’s assumption that environmental degradation affects everyone equally, early environmental justice activists and researchers made several novel claims including but not limited to the following: 1) the poor, the working class, and people of color are disproportionately burdened by environmental hazards, 2) the poor, the working class, and people of color have significantly less access to environmental amenities, such as parks, open space, and wilderness areas, than do whites and wealthier individuals, 3) mainstream environmental organizations have ignored environmental problems and concerns in poor, working class, and people of color communities, 4) federal, state, and local governments have been slow to address these communities’ environmental concerns, 5) environmental inequality is inseparable from other forms of inequality, 6) environmental thought and activism need to be broadened to include all the different environments in which people live, work, and play and 7) individuals and communities should be fully represented in decision making processes that affect them.

 

Because these claims are too broad to cover in a single semester, we will focus primarily on the following questions. What are environmental inequality, environmental racism, and environmental justice? What evidence do we need to obtain and what do we need to do methodologically in order to determine whether environmental inequality is a serious social problem? What are the health effects of living near environmental hazards? Should we apply the precautionary principle in determining whether a neighborhood is environmentally safe? When environmental inequality exists, why does it exist? When it does not exist, why not? What are the structural causes of environmental inequality, both in the United States and globally? How are national and global structural forces related? How good is environmental inequality research? What needs to be done to improve environmental inequality research? What role should qualitative and quantitative research play in helping us understand environmental inequality and, by extension, other social phenomena?

 

In addition to addressing these questions, it is my hope that by the end of the semester you will have the intellectual background necessary to conduct environmental inequality research and get your research published in peer review journals.

 

Required Readings: The required readings are listed below. Most weeks you are required to do all the readings. However, we may divide the readings amongst ourselves two or three times during the semester so that we can cover more material. During one of these weeks (week 5), you will each be responsible for writing up a highly detailed review of your assigned reading.

 

CuLearn

You can find the on-line readings and an electronic copy of the syllabus on CuLearn.  I will also use CuLearn to give last minute instructions. This means that you need to log onto CuLearn on a regular basis.

 

Logging onto CuLearn:

Login through CUConnect: (1) go to https://cuconnect.colorado.edu/ (2) login using your CU Login Name and IdentiKey password; (3) after login, click on Courses tab; (4) on the left side of screen, CuLearn will display; (5) click on the link for SP2007:B1:SOCY5161 - 001; (6) click on the appropriate icon.

 

Course assignments: In addition to your reading assignments, you will write a 12-15 page final paper, write weekly reading summaries, write a detailed article review, and participate regularly in class discussion. Additional minor requirements are listed below.

Weekly reading summaries: Each week, each student will be responsible for a brief summary of all the readings (1-2 pages, double spaced, total) and a brief set of comments or questions about the readings (1/2 to 1 page total). You must submit this to me, either in my mailbox or via e-mail, by 1:00 p.m. on the Sunday before class.

Class participation: Class participation is crucial in a graduate seminar. Participation involves taking part in class discussions and asking and answering questions in class in such a way as to indicate to me that you have done the reading and are actively engaged with the material. To receive participation credit you must contribute to class discussion regularly throughout the semester and your comments must be thoughtful and insightful. In other words, quality is just as important as quantity.

 

The final paper: The final paper can take various forms. For example, you can write an empirical paper or grant proposal on any topic that falls under the broad umbrella of environmental inequality research; you can write a critical review of existing research in which you focus on a particular ‘environmental inequality/justice’ topic, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the literature in this topical area, and discuss future directions research should take; you can develop a new theoretical argument in which you attempt to explain some ‘environmental justice phenomenon/outcome’ that has not been satisfactorily explained; or you can propose some other type of paper. Whatever type of paper you choose to do, you need to submit a 2 page proposal to me on March 12 in which you summarize your topic and convince me that enough information is available for you to write a good paper (you can, of course, turn in your proposal earlier if you wish).

 

Detailed article review: On Feb. 8, you will turn in a detailed article review of one of the Feb. 12 readings (to be assigned/chosen on Feb. 5). In this review, you will summarize the findings, advances, main contributions, strengths and weaknesses of your assigned article. You will also discuss the methods, data, study area, unit of analysis, and comparison population used in your reading. I will forward these reviews to the entire class and everyone will read them before class meets on the 12th.

 

Assignments                                                                         Due Dates                                             % Of Final Grade

1. Final paper

   a. 2 Page Proposal                                                            March 12th                                                  5%

   b. Final Paper                                                                    April 30th                                                   35%

 

2. Weekly Reading Summaries                                         Sundays, 1:00 p.m.                                  35%

3. Article Review                                                                  February 8th                                              10%

3. Class Participation                                                          All semester                                               15%

 

If you miss class, you will lose half a letter grade off your final grade for the first class you miss and a full letter grade for each additional class you miss!!!

 

Additional course requirements:

1.       Students are responsible for reading all the assigned books and articles.

2.       Class attendance is mandatory and expected of all students

3.       Class participation is expected. As noted above, class participation makes up 15% of your grade.

 

Weekly Topics and Readings

 

*Week 1 (Jan. 15): Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday.

 

 

*Week 2 (Jan. 22): Course Introduction and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement.

 

Important questions: What factors led to the rise of the environmental justice movement? What links does this movement have to earlier social movements? What does social movement theory have to say about the rise of the environmental justice movement? What major claims do movement activists make? How do environmental justice movement activists compare their movement to the traditional environmental movement? How do environmental justice activists view the relationship between humans and the natural world? How do their views compare to traditional environmentalist views on the relationship between humans and the natural world? (The readings are listed on the next page)

 

 

 

 

Readings

1.       Bryant, Bunyan and Paul Mohai. 1991. “Environmental Racism: Issues and Dilemmas.” Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Office of Minority Affairs. Read pages 36-39, 51-55, 61-65.

2.       Bryant, Bunyan and Paul Mohai. 1992. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-9 in Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse, edited by B. Bryant and P. Mohai. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

3.       Bullard, Robert D. 1994. “Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color.” San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Read pages xv-xxiii and 279-285.

4.       Dorceta Taylor, 2000.” The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm”. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 43(4), 508-580.

5.       Hofrichter, Richard. 1993. Toxic Struggles: The Theory and Practice of Environmental Justice. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. Read pages ix-xi, 1-9.

6.       Principles of Environmental Justice: developed at the First People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit.

 

 

 

Week 3 (Jan. 29): Defining and Operationalizing Environmental Inequality and Determining Whether or Not it Exists.

 

Important Questions: What are environmental inequality, environmental racism, and environmental justice? What is racism? How do we know environmental inequality, environmental racism, and environmental justice when we see them? How do we prove they exist? How do our operationalizations of these terms, and our determination of whether they exist, change depending on the definitions of environmental inequality, environmental racism, and environmental justice we employ? What reasonable definitions of these terms can we develop? What evidence do we need to prove that different forms of environmental inequality exist?

 

Readings

1.       Grossman, Karl. 1994 “The People of Color Environmental Summit”, pp. 272-298 in Bullard, Robert D (Ed.) Unequal Protection: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color. Pp. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Read pages 275-279.

2.       Holifield, Ryan. 2001. “Defining Environmental Justice and Environmental Racism.” Urban Geography 22:78-90. Read pp. 78-80 only.

3.       Terms and definitions from University of Michigan website, with an additional definition from Bryant and Mohai’s edited 1991 book.

4.       Pulido, Laura. 2000. “Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90:12-40.: Read pp. 12-20 only (we will read the rest of the article later in the semester)

5.       Pulido, Sidawi, and Vos. 1996. “An Archaeology of Environmental Racism in Los Angeles,” Urban Geography 17(5): 419-439. Read pages 422-423 only.

6.       Downey, Liam. 1998. “Environmental Injustice: Is Race or Income a Better Predictor?” Social Science Quarterly 79:766-778.

7.       Professor Downey will discuss Downey, Liam. 2005. “Assessing Environmental Inequality: How the Conclusions We Draw Vary According To the Definitions We Employ,” Sociological Spectrum. Vol. 25(3): 349-369.

 

 

Week 4 (Feb. 5): Quantitative urban environmental inequality research: A review of the literature.

 

Important questions: What pattern of results have environmental inequality researchers uncovered? Are results consistent across studies? If not, how do we explain contradictory findings? Some scholars argue that evidence for the existence of environmental inequality is weak and inconsistent. If they are right, how do we explain why the evidence is weak and inconsistent? What methods do researchers use? What methodological problems exist for environmental inequality researchers? What methodological disagreements exist in the field? How could we improve on the methods employed by researchers? What definitions of environmental inequality, environmental racism, and racism do researchers use? What important subordinate social groups do researchers ignore?

(Readings listed on the next page)

 

Readings

1.       Szasz, Andrew and Michael Meuser. 1997. “Environmental Inequalities: Literature Review and Proposals for New Directions in Research and Theory.” Current Sociology 45:99-120.

2.       Bowen, William. 2002. “An Analytic Review of Environmental Justice Research: What Do We Really Know?” Environmental Management 29:3-15.

3.       Ringquist, Evan J. 2005. “Assessing Evidence of Environmental Inequities: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24(2): 223-247.

4.       Mohai, Paul. 1995. “The Demographics of Dumping Revisited: Examining the Impact of Alternate Methodologies in Environmental Justice Research”. The Virginia Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 14: 615-653. Read pp. 615-638 only.

5.       Sadd, James, Manuel Pastor, J. Thomas Boer, and Lori D. Snyder. 1999. “Response to Comments by William M. Bowen.” Economic Development Quarterly 13:135-140.

6.       Krieg, Eric J. 1998. “Methodological Considerations in the Study of Toxic Waste Hazards.” The Social Science Journal, Vol. 35(2): 191-201. Read pp. 191-195 only.

 

 

Week 5 (Feb. 12): Quantitative urban environmental inequality research: more recent and methodologically sophisticated work.

 

Important Questions: What new methods do researchers employ? How have researchers improved upon earlier work? What new social groups are included in the research? What are the shortcomings of quantitative work? What knowledge does qualitative work give us that quantitative work fails to give us? How might quantitative and qualitative work complement each other? How can we explain the pattern of results found in quantitative environmental inequality research? In other words, how do we explain environmental inequality when it exists? How do we explain the absence of environmental inequality when it does not exist?

 

Readings: Everyone will read the four articles listed below, write a weekly summary of these articles, and write a detailed review of an additional article. The reviews are due Feb. 8th and will be distributed to everyone on the Friday before class. You have to read all the reviews before class on the 12th.

1.       Downey, Liam. 2006. “Environmental Racial Inequality in Detroit.” Social Forces 85(2):771-796.

2.       Pastor, Manuel Jr., James L. Sadd, and Rachel Morrello-Frosch. 2004. “Reading, Writing, and Toxics: Children’s Health, Academic Performance, and Environmental Justice in Los Angeles”. Environment and Planning C: Government Policy 22: 271-290.

3.       Morrello-Frosch, Rachel and Bill M. Jesdale. 2006. “Separate and Unequal: Residential Segregation and Estimated Cancer Risks Associated with Ambient Air Toxics in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114:1-8.

4.       Downey, Liam and Marieke Van Willigen. 2005. “Environmental Stressors: The Mental Health Impact of Living Near Industrial Activity,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 46: 289-305.

Each of us will review one of the following articles, both in writing and in class

1.       Downey, Liam. Forthcoming 2007. “Environmental Inequality in Metropolitan America,” Urban Studies.

2.       Downey, Liam. 2005. “Single Mother Families and Industrial Pollution,” Sociological Spectrum. 25(6): 651-675.

3.       Mennis, Jeremy and Lisa Jordan. 2005. “The Distribution of Environmental Equity: Exploring Spatial Nonstationarity in Multivariate Models of Air Toxic Releases.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95:249-268.

4.       Ihlanfeldt, Keith and Laura Taylor. 2003. “Externality Effects of Small-Scale Hazardous Waste Sites: Evidence from Urban Commercial Property Markets.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47:1-23.

5.       Derezinski, Daniel D., Michael G. Lacy, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2003. “Chemical Accidents in the United States, 1990-1996.” Social Science Quarterly 84:122-143.

6.       Ash, Michael and T. Robert Fetter. 2004. “Who Lives on the Wrong Side of the Environmental Tracks? Evidence from the EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model.” Social Science Quarterly 85:441-462.

7.       Stretesky, Paul and Michael Lynch. 2002. “Environmental Hazards and School Segregation in Hillsborough County, Florida, 1987-1999.” The Sociological Quarterly 43:553-573.

8.       Morello-Frosch, Rachel, Manuel Pastor, and James Sadd. 2001. “Environmental Justice and Southern California's 'Riskscape': The Distribution of Air Toxics Exposures and Health Risks Among Diverse Communities.” Urban Affairs Review 36:551-578.

9.       Mennis, Jeremy. 2002. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Create and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Population and Risk for Environmental Justice Analysis.” Social Science Quarterly 83:281-297.

Reading list continues onto the next page.

10.    Chakraborty, Jayajit and Marc Armstrong. 2001. “Assessing the Impact of Airborne Toxic Releases on Populations with Special Needs.” Professional Geographer 53:119-131.

11.    Atlas, Mark. 2002. “Few and Far Between? An Environmental Equity Analysis of the Geographic Distribution of Hazardous Waste Generation.” Social Science Quarterly 83:365-378.

 

 

 

Weeks 6 and 7 (Feb. 19 and 26): General readings in urban ecology, social stratification, and racial and ethnic inequality: using sociological theory to explain environmental inequality.

 

Important questions: What factors shape race and class inequality in urban settings? How are race and class inequality and conflict related to one another? How do race and class conflict and inequality shape urban space? What does industrial location theory tell us about where firms site industrial facilities? What do urban and race theory tell us about the location of social groups in urban space? How are local urban conditions related to broader national and global conditions?

 

Week 6 readings (Feb. 19)

1.       Hayter, Robert. 1997. The Dynamics of Industrial Location. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Read pages 79-81, 83-85, 111-112, 137-140, 161-162; quickly skim pp. 85-98

2.       Gordon, David M., Richard Edwards, and Michael Reich. 1982. “Segmented Work, Divided Workers.” New York: Cambridge University Press. Read pages ix-xii, 1-34.

3.       Wilson, William Julius. 1978. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Read pages ix-xii and 1-23.

4.       Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Read pp. 1-16.

5.       Massey, Douglas. 1990. “American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.” American Journal of Sociology 96:329-357. Read pp. 329-337.

 

Week 7 readings (Feb. 26)

1.       Portes, Alejandro and Robert D. Manning. 1986. “Immigrant Enclaves: Theory and Empirical Examples” in Susan Olzak and Joane Nagel (eds.), Competitive Ethnic Relations. Read pages 47-51 and 61-66.

2.       Massey, Douglas. 1985. “Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Review.” Sociology and Social Research 69:315-350. Read pp. 315-321 and 339-340.

3.       Piore, Michael. 1970. “The Dual Labor Market”. Pp. 435-438 in the 2nd edition of the Grusky reader.

4.       Beck, E. M., Patrick M. Horan, and Charles M. Tolbert. 1978. “Stratification in a Dual Economy: A Sectoral Model of Earnings Determination.” American Sociological Review 43:704-720. Read pages 704-708 and 717-718.

5.       Waldinger, Roger. 1996. Still the Promised City? African-Americans and New Immigrants in Postindustrial New York. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Read pages 1-32.

6.       Sugrue, Thomas J. 1996. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Read pages 125-141, 143-149, 181-190, 194-203, 209-218, 231-249.

 

 

 

Week 8 (March 5): Quantitative Explanatory Readings.

 

Important questions: What theories and models do researchers use to explain why environmental inequality exists or does not exist? What methods do researchers use to determine why environmental inequality exists? What hypotheses and models do they test? How successful are these researchers at meeting their stated goals? How could we improve upon their research? What does this research teach us about why environmental inequality exists? What do we still need to learn? Given what you know about urban and race theory, how would you explain the existence of urban (or rural) environmental inequality? How would you design a study to determine why environmental inequality exists? What questions would you want to answer that have been poorly answered or left unasked? How would qualitative work improve upon the quantitative work we read this week?

(Readings are listed on the next page)

 

 

 

Readings

1.       Downey, Liam. 2005. “The Unintended Significance of Race: Environmental Racial Equality in Detroit,” Social Forces. Vol. 83(3): 971-1007.

This article is based on my dissertation. I will discuss the qualitative historical aspects my dissertation in class.

2.       Pastor, Manuel, James Sadd, and John Hipp. 2001. “Which Came First? Toxic Facilities, Minority Move-In, and Environmental Justice.” Journal of Urban Affairs 23:1-21.

3.       Shaikh, S. and J. Loomis. 1999. “An Investigation into the Presence and Causes of Environmental Inequity in Denver, Colorado.” Social Science Journal 36:77-92.

4.       Been, Vicki and F. Gupta. 1997. “Coming to the Nuisance or Going to the Barrios? A longitudinal Analysis of Environmental Justice Claims.” Ecology Law Review 24:1-56.

5.       Oakes, John Michael, Douglas L. Anderton, and Andy B. Anderson. 1996. “A Longitudinal Analysis of Environmental Equity in Communities with Hazardous Waste Facilities.” Social Science Research 25:125-148. Read tables carefully, skim text.

6.       Downey, Liam and Kyle Crowder. 2006. “NIH Research Proposal.”

 

 

Week 9 (March 12): Qualitative Explanatory Readings.

 

Important questions: What theories and models do researchers use to explain why environmental inequality exists or does not exist? What methods do these researchers use to determine why environmental inequality exists? What hypotheses and models do they test or develop? How successful are these researchers at meeting their stated goals? How could we improve upon their research? What do we learn from this research? What does this research teach us about environmental inequality that quantitative research fails to teach us? What do we still need to learn? How would you design a qualitative study to determine why environmental inequality exists? Do qualitative and quantitative environmental inequality research, as currently practiced, complement each other? If not, should they? Can we understand environmental inequality using a single methodological approach or a single methodological style (i.e. qualitative vs. quantitative)?

 

Readings

1.       Pulido, Laura. 2000. “Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90:12-40. Read pages 12-14 and 20-34.

2.       Perfecto, Ivette. 1992. “Pesticide Exposure of Farm Workers”, Pp. 177-204 in Bryant, Bunyan and Paul Mohai (Eds.) Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

3.       Szasz, Andrew and Michael Meuser. 2000. “Unintended, Inexorable: The Production of Environmental Inequalities in Santa Clara County, California.” American Behavioral Scientist 43:602-632. Read pages 602-608, 616-617, and 625-629.

4.       Pellow, David. 2000. “Environmental Inequality Formation: Toward a Theory of Environmental Injustice.” American Behavioral Scientist 43:581-601.

5.       Hurley, Andrew. 1995. Environmental Inequalities: Class, Race, and Industrial Pollution in Gary, Indiana, 1945-1980. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Read pages xiii-xv, 1-14, 154-182.

6.       Boone, Christopher. 2002. “An Assessment and Explanation of Environmental Inequity in Baltimore.” Urban Geography 23:581-595.

7.       Boone, Christopher G. and Ali Modarres. 1999. “Creating A Toxic Neighborhood In Los Angeles County: A Historical Examination of Environmental Inequity”. Urban Affairs Review. Vol. 35(2): 163-187. Read pages 163-166 and 181-183.

8.       Professor Downey will discuss Downey, Liam. Forthcoming 2007. “Environmental Inequality in Metropolitan America,” Urban Studies.

 

Week 10 (March 19): Experts Versus Non-Experts: Scientists, Community Activists, and Pollution.

 

Important questions: What role should scientific experts (such as you) and the scientific approach play in environmental justice activism and environmental inequality research? What role should community activists and the ‘community activist’ approach play in environmental inequality research? Is there a proper balance between the scientific approach and ‘community activist’ approach? How important is the 95% confidence level? Should we stick with 95% scientific certainty or should we be more flexible? If flexibility is required, how much flexibility and when is it necessary? How do the arguments presented in these readings about scientific proof affect our appraisal of environmental inequality research? Do they suggest that environmental inequality is worse than researchers believe? Do they suggest that the negative effects of residential proximity to environmental hazards is worse than researchers believe? Should we integrate the precautionary principle into public policy and law? How would this affect public policy and legal disputes? How would integrating the precautionary principle into environmental inequality research affect our appraisal of that research and the seriousness of environmental inequality as a social problem?

 

Readings

1.       Tesh, Sylvia. 2000. Uncertain Hazards: Environmental Activists and Scientific Proof. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Read pages 1-39, 62-80, 100-115.

2.       Brown, Phil and Edmin J. Mikkelsen. 1997. No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia, and Community Action. Berkeley: University of California Press. Read pages 125-163.

3.       Morello-Frosch, Rachel, Manuel Pastor, and James Sadd. 2002. “Integrating Environmental Justice and the Precautionary Principle in Research and Policy Making: The Case of Ambient Air Toxics Exposures and Health Risks among Schoolchildren in Los Angeles.” Annals, AAPSS :47-68. Read pages 47-51 and 60-62.

4.       CHEJ Web page: “Don’t’ Pay By The Polluters’ Rules”.

5.       Law journal reading on risk assessment?

 

 

 

 

***Week 11: No Class on March 26th (spring break)***

 

 

Week 12 (April 2): No class will be held on April 2.

 

 

 

Week 13 (April 9): Global Environmental Inequality.

 

Important questions: Is there global environmental inequality? If so, what form does it take and what are its structural determinants? How do its structural determinants compare with the structural determinants of environmental inequality in the United States? How are global and national environmental inequality structurally related? Can we use Portes and Manning’s ideas about modes of incorporation to understand global environmental inequality?

 

Readings:

1.       Kimbrell, Andrew. 1996. “Biocolonization: The Patenting of Life and the Global Market in Body Parts”. Pp. 131-145 in Mander, Jerry and Edward Goldsmith (Eds.) The Case Against the Global Economy. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Read pp. 131-133 & 139-145.

2.       Shiva, Vandana and Radha Holla-Bhar. 1996 “Piracy By Patent: The Case of the Neem Tree”. Pp. 146-159 in Mander, Jerry and Edward Goldsmith (Eds.) The Case Against the Global Economy. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

3.       Finnegan, William. 2002. “Leasing the Rain”. The New Yorker, pp. 43-53. Read first page and the first paragraph of the second page of the article.

4.       Klare, Michael. 2002. Resource Wars. New York: Metropolitan Books. Read pp. 190-195 & 213 to the bottom of 219 AND skim pages 195-213.

5.       Clapp, Jennifer. 2001. Toxic Exports: The Transfer of Hazardous Wastes from Rich to Poor Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Read pp. 1-38 & quickly skim 104-125.

6.       Korten, David C. 1995. When Corporations Rule the World. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Read pages 173-181.

7.       Bello, Walden, Shea Cunningham, and Bill Rau. 1999. Dark Victory: The United States and Global Poverty. Oakland: Food First. Read pages 7-9, 18-35 and 51-71.

8.       Chirot, Daniel and Thomas D. Hall. 1982. “World Systems Theory”. American Review of Sociology. Read pages 81-87.

9.       Portes, Alejandro. 1976. “On the Sociology of National Development: Theories and Issues”. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82(1), pp. 55-85. Read pp. 59-60 and 74 to the bottom of 79.

10.    Wallach, Lori and Patrick Woodall. 2004. Whose Trade Organization? A Comprehensive Guide to the WTO. New York: The New Press. Read pp. 19-22, 25-26, 36-39, 41-47, 239-251.

 

 

Week 14 (April 16): No Class on April 16.

 

 

 

Week 15 (April 23): Environmental Inequality on Native American Reservations.

 

Important questions: Is there environmental inequality on Native American reservations? If so, what form does it take? How does environmental inequality on Native American reservations compare with global environmental inequality and with urban environmental inequality in the United States? What are the structural causes of environmental inequality on Native American reservations? Are Native American, global, and national environmental inequality structurally related? If so, how? Can we use Portes and Manning’s ideas about modes of incorporation to understand Native American, global, and national environmental inequality?

 

Readings:

1.