Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO08090 | Climate, Food, and the New North-South Divide
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO08090 | Climate, Food, and the New North-South Divide
    Rajesh Basrur

    25 August 2008

    download pdf

    Commentary

    Global efforts to tackle climate change and food security are hampered by North-South differences over cost sharing. But rising interdependence and the South’s new pragmatism and bargaining power are conducive to an equitable solution.

    OVER THE last two decades, a variety of labels – the end of history, the clash of civilizations, the age of terror – have been trotted out to capture the essence of the post-Cold War era. None of them accommodates an old and largely forgotten – but still relevant – conception of the world: the North- South divide.

    The gap in people’s well-being between the nations of the developed North and those of the developing South, the subject of intense political debate in the Cold War years, remains large today. The conflict of interest persists between them on the way the institutions of the global system are organized. The critical question relates to how new rules are hammered out on pressing issues relating to climate change and food security.

    On the first, the setting of emissions targets acceptable to both sides remains problematic. On the second, there is no agreement on how much support and protection is to be given to agriculture by way of subsidies and protective tariffs. How the North-South bargaining process plays out will determine global stability in years to come. The way forward is by no means easy, but there is room for optimism because the new North-South divide is less intractable than the old one.

    Conflicting Approaches to Cost Distribution

    Ironically, current public reminders of the divide have come mainly from the North, which long resisted its conceptual validity. In May 2008, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President George Bush generated a storm by attributing rising global food prices to the growth of the middle class in China and India. American policymakers and media regularly highlight the rising Chinese (and more recently, Indian) contribution to energy consumption and global warming. An article in the influential Washington Post on 28 July, 2008 pointed to China’s accelerating demand for cars and, more generally, developing countries’ growing thirst for oil, to argue that “this growth is more than offsetting the conservation measures taken in the United States, Europe and other industrialized nations”.

    While not factually incorrect, such views express a distorted perspective of global crises in the making. They in effect place the onus of resource and environmental problems on developing countries struggling to emerge from poverty and low standards of living. Developing country critics quickly counter that the North consumes far more food per head than the South – US consumption is 3,770 calories a day as compared to 2,440 calories a day for India. Similarly, according to a 2007 Energy Journal study, the number of automobiles per thousand population in the US in 2002 was 812 and expected to rise to 849 by 2030, whereas the figures for China for the same years are 16 and 269, and for India 17 and 110. The gap is diminishing, but will remain substantial.

    What is really happening? Unlike in the past, when North and South quarrelled over the latter’s demand for a “new world economic order,” the South no longer wants to transform the system, but is bargaining intensely over the distribution of costs incurred for obtaining a public good: stability. The key difference between the two sides is over allocating responsibility, which provides the basis for deciding the distribution of cost.

    The North talks about aggregate burdens and who is adding significantly to them today (the South). The South counters that it is the North which has created the problem in the first place by its high levels of consumption and production of adverse effects on a per capita basis. There is not a little irony here when we find the defenders of individual rights focusing on collective units of consumption and advocates of collective ethos stressing an individual-based calculus. But talking past each other does not address the problem.

    Old Divide, New Basis

    If all this sounds like a replay of the charged North-South debates of the 1970s, it is in fact not the same. The new North-South divide is different in three important ways. First, whereas in the past the South wanted a “new international economic order,” today it only seeks a better bargain within the existing order. Its arguments are now cast in a pragmatic rather than an ideological vocabulary. Second, in the past the South was essentially weak and had little bargaining capacity, but that is no longer true today.

    At the recent failed Doha Round talks on trade, China and India gave notice to the developed countries that the rules of the game could no longer be defined without the South’s assent and that they now had the power to shape these rules. Third, with the globalisation of production and finance and the rapid growth of trade, the degree of interdependence between North and South is much greater than it was three decades ago. Everyone has much more to lose from systemic instability.

    In its own interest, the North must be willing to bear a significant part of the burden of resolving issues relating to climate change and food security. It has a greater capacity to do so and will suffer lower relative costs in generating efficiencies in production and in cutting subsidies to inefficient producers. Besides, it has much to lose in the medium-to-long term from failing to ameliorate the negative fallout created by climate change and food crises. The adverse effects produced by shifting patterns of cultivation, resource availability and habitation will exacerbate current problems such as political instability, state failure, terrorism and insurgency, organised crime, and irregular migration.

    In addition, the cumulative effect of these trends will mean unstable markets, which will destabilise global production, trade and investment. For its part, the South must recognise that all of the above effects will hurt it more quickly and more intensely than they will the North and bring with them severe social and political crises. Both have much to lose, so self-interest is congruent with the common interest.

    Transcending the Divide

    Instead of delaying politically difficult decisions to a point when appropriate measures come too late, both sides should set in motion a process of constructing mechanisms for mutual accommodation. Relative capacity to bear costs must shape their distribution – the developed states can and should shoulder the greater portion of the burden in their own interest.

    The actual means of tackling substantive issues will have to be a mix, including market-based mechanisms such as carbon credits, phased and equitable elimination of subsidies (keeping in mind the special vulnerabilities of developing nations), and assisted technology transfers, such as the US- proposed Clean Technology Fund.

    Unlike the old North-South divide, the present one is amenable to pragmatic and far-sighted thinking. Both sides must realise that their common stakes require them to act soon. Failure to do so will only raise the costs – and worsen the consequences.

    About the Author

    Rajesh M. Basrur is Associate Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He previously taught at the University of Mumbai, India. His most recent book is South Asia’s Cold War (2008) 

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Non-Traditional Security / Global

    Commentary

    Global efforts to tackle climate change and food security are hampered by North-South differences over cost sharing. But rising interdependence and the South’s new pragmatism and bargaining power are conducive to an equitable solution.

    OVER THE last two decades, a variety of labels – the end of history, the clash of civilizations, the age of terror – have been trotted out to capture the essence of the post-Cold War era. None of them accommodates an old and largely forgotten – but still relevant – conception of the world: the North- South divide.

    The gap in people’s well-being between the nations of the developed North and those of the developing South, the subject of intense political debate in the Cold War years, remains large today. The conflict of interest persists between them on the way the institutions of the global system are organized. The critical question relates to how new rules are hammered out on pressing issues relating to climate change and food security.

    On the first, the setting of emissions targets acceptable to both sides remains problematic. On the second, there is no agreement on how much support and protection is to be given to agriculture by way of subsidies and protective tariffs. How the North-South bargaining process plays out will determine global stability in years to come. The way forward is by no means easy, but there is room for optimism because the new North-South divide is less intractable than the old one.

    Conflicting Approaches to Cost Distribution

    Ironically, current public reminders of the divide have come mainly from the North, which long resisted its conceptual validity. In May 2008, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President George Bush generated a storm by attributing rising global food prices to the growth of the middle class in China and India. American policymakers and media regularly highlight the rising Chinese (and more recently, Indian) contribution to energy consumption and global warming. An article in the influential Washington Post on 28 July, 2008 pointed to China’s accelerating demand for cars and, more generally, developing countries’ growing thirst for oil, to argue that “this growth is more than offsetting the conservation measures taken in the United States, Europe and other industrialized nations”.

    While not factually incorrect, such views express a distorted perspective of global crises in the making. They in effect place the onus of resource and environmental problems on developing countries struggling to emerge from poverty and low standards of living. Developing country critics quickly counter that the North consumes far more food per head than the South – US consumption is 3,770 calories a day as compared to 2,440 calories a day for India. Similarly, according to a 2007 Energy Journal study, the number of automobiles per thousand population in the US in 2002 was 812 and expected to rise to 849 by 2030, whereas the figures for China for the same years are 16 and 269, and for India 17 and 110. The gap is diminishing, but will remain substantial.

    What is really happening? Unlike in the past, when North and South quarrelled over the latter’s demand for a “new world economic order,” the South no longer wants to transform the system, but is bargaining intensely over the distribution of costs incurred for obtaining a public good: stability. The key difference between the two sides is over allocating responsibility, which provides the basis for deciding the distribution of cost.

    The North talks about aggregate burdens and who is adding significantly to them today (the South). The South counters that it is the North which has created the problem in the first place by its high levels of consumption and production of adverse effects on a per capita basis. There is not a little irony here when we find the defenders of individual rights focusing on collective units of consumption and advocates of collective ethos stressing an individual-based calculus. But talking past each other does not address the problem.

    Old Divide, New Basis

    If all this sounds like a replay of the charged North-South debates of the 1970s, it is in fact not the same. The new North-South divide is different in three important ways. First, whereas in the past the South wanted a “new international economic order,” today it only seeks a better bargain within the existing order. Its arguments are now cast in a pragmatic rather than an ideological vocabulary. Second, in the past the South was essentially weak and had little bargaining capacity, but that is no longer true today.

    At the recent failed Doha Round talks on trade, China and India gave notice to the developed countries that the rules of the game could no longer be defined without the South’s assent and that they now had the power to shape these rules. Third, with the globalisation of production and finance and the rapid growth of trade, the degree of interdependence between North and South is much greater than it was three decades ago. Everyone has much more to lose from systemic instability.

    In its own interest, the North must be willing to bear a significant part of the burden of resolving issues relating to climate change and food security. It has a greater capacity to do so and will suffer lower relative costs in generating efficiencies in production and in cutting subsidies to inefficient producers. Besides, it has much to lose in the medium-to-long term from failing to ameliorate the negative fallout created by climate change and food crises. The adverse effects produced by shifting patterns of cultivation, resource availability and habitation will exacerbate current problems such as political instability, state failure, terrorism and insurgency, organised crime, and irregular migration.

    In addition, the cumulative effect of these trends will mean unstable markets, which will destabilise global production, trade and investment. For its part, the South must recognise that all of the above effects will hurt it more quickly and more intensely than they will the North and bring with them severe social and political crises. Both have much to lose, so self-interest is congruent with the common interest.

    Transcending the Divide

    Instead of delaying politically difficult decisions to a point when appropriate measures come too late, both sides should set in motion a process of constructing mechanisms for mutual accommodation. Relative capacity to bear costs must shape their distribution – the developed states can and should shoulder the greater portion of the burden in their own interest.

    The actual means of tackling substantive issues will have to be a mix, including market-based mechanisms such as carbon credits, phased and equitable elimination of subsidies (keeping in mind the special vulnerabilities of developing nations), and assisted technology transfers, such as the US- proposed Clean Technology Fund.

    Unlike the old North-South divide, the present one is amenable to pragmatic and far-sighted thinking. Both sides must realise that their common stakes require them to act soon. Failure to do so will only raise the costs – and worsen the consequences.

    About the Author

    Rajesh M. Basrur is Associate Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He previously taught at the University of Mumbai, India. His most recent book is South Asia’s Cold War (2008) 

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Non-Traditional Security

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info