By Wanyee Ahmed Kinuthia

The entire structure of modern civilization is derived from or depends on the use of natural resources. These resources include land, water, minerals, fossil fuels, forests, marine resources, and biological resources. Without them, we would have no skyscrapers, no planes, no ships, no cars, no bridges, no weapons, no electronics, no consumer products, no central heating, no air-conditioning and none of the provisions of running water and sewage disposal that we take for granted.[1]

Pursuant to the above, Article 2 of the United Nations 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples states: “all peoples have the right to self–determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” However, the conditions of economic development and democracy have been profoundly and adversely affected by “economic globalization”, particularly due to the tremendous increase in the power of corporations relative to that of communities and labour.

According to research conducted by Global Justice Now, 69 of the world’s top 100 economic entities are corporations as opposed to countries – “global corporations are increasingly wealthier than many countries, with Walmart, Apple and Shell richer than Russia, Belgium and Sweden.”[2] The group also found that “the world’s top 10 corporations have a combined revenue of $285 trillion (£215 trillion), more than the 180 ‘poorest’ countries combined.”[3]

At the turn of the century, the largest 500 corporations accounted for about 80 percent of foreign investment, 70 percent of world trade and 30 percent of world output. Furthermore, about a third of international trade was conducted by TNCs within their own organizations – that is, a subsidiary in one country selling to and/or buying from a subsidiary in another, or trading with the head office.[4] Thus, economic globalization may be more appropriately referred to as “corporate globalization.”[5]

However, corporate globalization poses serious problems for communities and the environment, largely due to “the lack of constraints and accountability that current political economic models favour.”[6] Large-scale projects generally subordinate the rights of those affected to “the agendas of corporate interests and the logic of the market.”[7] TNCs often pay lip service to the guidelines contained in legislation, while many governments are either unable to ensure that these companies comply with regulations or willfully turn a blind eye to infractions, thereby “leaving affected communities with no recourse or access to justice.”[8]

Such impunity arises from what has been called the “governance gap” – or “enforcement vacuum”[9] – which is defined as a lack of sanctioning and reparation.[10] The “governance gap” is also referred to as the “regulatory gap,” which results from the lack of binding rules or regulations, especially at the global level.[11] In “smaller, less-scrutinized corporations, the adoption of governance arrangements is less organized or systematic and often significantly departs from the norms set by larger companies…The limited attention that these firms receive from investors, as well as other important market participants (such as analysts, media, and public and private enforcers) suggests that they often operate free from any meaningful disciplinary forces.”[12]

Corporations are generally structured to remain free of any legal responsibility to operate in moral, humane, or any other ways that are beneficial to communities, workers, or the environment.[13] Corporations are institutions that are based on three main principles: the absolute need to make profits; the need to grow continuously and expand in terms of territory and functionality; and their need to remain as unrestricted as possible in their operations.[14] In fact, corporations not only exist exclusively to maximize returns to their shareholders,[15] they are designed to extract and concentrate this wealth into the hands of a few.[16]

Therefore, rather than generating substantial and uninterrupted revenue flows at predictable levels, or providing employment and infrastructure that can help build nationally integrated markets to meet domestic requirements, the corporate extractive industry primarily serves the interests of TNCs.[17] Indeed, “the dynamics of imperialism, promoted by TNCs in the political and economic internationalization of capital, continue to shape the relations between mineral economies and the international economy.”[18] In the context of economic globalization – characterized by liberalisation, privatisation and deregulation – extractive projects mainly enable wealthy TNCs to extract resources and profits from poor nations.[19]

Consequently, the most significant impact of corporate globalization has been excessive inequality worldwide. Almost half of the world’s wealth is owned by the richest 1% of the population. According to Oxfam, the 10 richest individuals own more than the poorest 3.1 billion people.[20] Even within the industrialized countries, the rich-poor gap continues to grow – for example, the United States is the world’s richest country, yet it has the widest gap between the rich and the poor.[21] Moreover, according to the U.S.’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), economic/corporate globalization will create an “even wider gap between regional winners and losers than exists today.”[22]

Furthermore, since corporate globalization is solely based on the principle of economic growth, corporations must constantly produce and sell products, as well as continually prowl the marketplace in search of profits, in order to achieve continual growth.[23] However, one feature of resource extraction is that all reserves are inevitably depleted over time, as their output gradually declines. Extractive companies must therefore continually discover or acquire new reserves in order to sustain a fairly stable output during the course of their operations.[24]

As resource extraction intensifies, the total available supply of many key materials will also diminish, leading to a corresponding increase in prices and increased conflict over critical resources such as oil, uranium, and certain rare earth metals.[25] Community resistance is then framed as a security threat that can potentially interrupt access to strategic resources. This argument in turn informs the penchant to label those who mount such resistance as “terrorists.”[26] Michael Watts argues that primitive accumulation and militarism have been coupled to the “war on terror,”[27] which has provided the context for labelling armed groups such as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) “a terrorist organization with possible links to other international terrorist organizations targeting Western…interests.”[28] This has also been the case with Niger’s indigenous Tuareg and the fabrication of a Sahara-Sahelian front in the U.S-led “war on terror”.[29]

“Accumulation by Dispossession”

“Accumulation by dispossession” refers to the persistence and increase of accumulation practices that Karl Marx had regarded as ‘primitive’ or ‘original’ during the birth of capitalism. These include “the commodification and privatization of land and the forceful eviction of peasant populations; conversion of various forms of property rights (common, collective, state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights; suppression of rights to the commons…colonial, neo-colonial and imperial processes of appropriation of assets (including natural resources).”[30]

Marx had conceptualized primitive accumulation as an evolutionary stage having occurred in the development of capitalism, which resulted in many Marxist scholars treating the concept of primitive accumulation more as a historical event rather than a theoretical approach.[31] This treatment continued until David Harvey resurrected primitive accumulation within the rubric of “accumulation by dispossession” for modern day social analysis. According to this framework, “the features of primitive accumulation that Marx mentions have remained powerfully present within capitalism’s historical geography.”[32] That is, today’s peasant populations are displaced by many of the same unscrupulous means that disbanded them in Europe during the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. According to Harvey, “new imperialism…appears as nothing more than the revisiting of the old, though in a different place and time.”[33]

For more details on “accumulation by dispossession” by the corporate mining / extractive industry, please see the author’s master’s thesis HERE / HERE.

References 

[1] Lanning, G., & Mueller, M. (1979). Africa Undermined: Mining Companies and the Underdevelopment of Africa. Harmondsworth, U.K: Penguin Books Ltd.

[2] Sweet, P. (2016). Corporations dominate world’s top 100 economic entities. Accountancy Daily – https://www.accountancydaily.co/corporations-dominate-worlds-top-100-economic-entities

[3] Ibid

[4] Madeley, J. (2000). Hungry For Trade: How the Poor Pay for Free Trade. Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing Ltd

[5] Cavanagh, J., & Mander, J (eds). (2004). Cavanagh, J., & Mander, J (eds). (2004). Alternatives to Economic Globalization: A Better World Is Possible. A Report of the International Forum on Globalization. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. p.272

[6] Oliver-Smith, A. (2010). Defying Displacement: Grassroots Resistance and the Critique of Development. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press

[7]Ibid                                                                                               

[8] Rebbapragada, R., & Kalluri, B. (2009). The Samatha judgement: Upholding the rights of Adivasi women. In Mehta, L (ed) Displaced by development: Confronting marginalization and gender injustice. New Delhi, India: Sage

[9] Campbell, B. (2008). Regulation & Legitimacy in the Mining Industry in Africa: Where does Canada Stand? Review of African Political Economy (35)117, 367-385. The “governance gap” or “enforcement vacuum” has also been referred to as the “regulatory gap,” which results from the lack of binding rules or regulations, especially at the global level – due to economic globalization [Re: Bexell, M., & Morth, U (eds). (2010). Democracy and Public-Private Partnerships in Global Governance. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan]

[10] Ruggie, J.G. (2008). Protect, respect and remedy: A framework for business and human rights. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. A/HRC/8/₅ 7 April

[11] Bexell, M., & Morth, U (eds). (2010). Democracy and Public-Private Partnerships in Global Governance. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan

[12] Kastiel, K., & Nili, Y. (2022). The Corporate Governance Gap. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance – https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/02/01/the-corporate-governance-gap/

[13] Cavanagh, J., & Mander, J (eds). (2004).

[14] Ibid

[15] Bakan, J. (2005). The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. London, U.K: Constable & Robinson Ltd. See also: Rowland, W. (2012). Greed, Inc.: Why Corporations Rule the World and How We Let It Happen. Markham, ON: Thomas Allen Publishers

[16] Korten, D. (2002). Predatory corporations. In Evans, G., Goodman, J., & Lansbury, N (eds) Moving Mountains: Communities Confront Mining and Globalisation. London, U.K: Zed Books

[17] Bush, R. (2010). Mining, Dispossession, and Transformation in Africa. In Fraser, A., & Larmer, M (eds) Zambia, Mining, and Neoliberalism: Boom and Bust on the Globalized Copperbelt. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan

[18] Ibid. p.254

[19] Butler, P., et al. (Date Unavailable). Africa’s Blessing, Africa’s Curse: The Legacy of Resource Extraction in Africa. Produced in collaboration with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), KAIROS, Canada (orders@kairoscanada.org), and Third World Network Africa (twnafrica@twnafrica.org).

[20] Oxfam. (2022). What is global inequality? – https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/what-is-global-inequality/

[21] International Labour Organization of the United Nations (ILO). (2004). Cited in: Cavanagh, J., & Mander, J (eds). (2004).

[22] Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2000). Global Trends, 2015. Langley, VA: Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

[23] Gibbs, T., & Leech, G. (2009).

[24] Ali, S.H. (2003). Mining, the Environment, and Indigenous Development Conflicts. Tucson, Az: The University of Arizona Press

[25] Klare, M.T. (2002). Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC

[26] Obi, C.I. (2010). Oil Extraction, Dispossession, Resistance, and Conflict in Nigeria’s Oil-Rich Niger Delta. Special Issue – Rethinking Extractive Industry: Regulation, Dispossession, and Emerging Claims. Canadian Journal of Development Studies (30)1-2, 219-236.

[27] Watts, M. (2006). “Empire of oil: Capitalist Dispossession and the scramble for Africa.” Monthly Review, September

[28] Pham, P. (2007). Next front? Evolving United States-African relations in the “War on Terror” and beyond. Comparative Strategy 26(1), 39-54. See also: Lubeck, P.M., Watts, M.J., & Lipschutz, R. (2007). Convergent Interests: U.S. Energy Security and the “Securing” of Nigerian Democracy. http://ciponline.org/NIGERIA_FINAL.pdf (Accessed on 2^nd January, 2024)

[29] Keenan, J. (2010). Africa unsecured? The role of the Global War On Terror (GWOT) in securing US imperial interests in Africa. Routledge, Critical Studies on Terrorism (3)1, 27-47. See also: Keenan, J. (2008). Uranium Goes Critical in Niger: Tuareg Rebellions Threaten Sahelian Conflagration. Review of African Political Economy (35)117, 449-466; Wilson, A. (2013). US Interventions in East Africa: From the Cold War to the ‘war on terror.’ http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/amrit-wilson/us-interventions-in-east-africa-from-cold-war-to-war-on-terror (Accessed on 2^nd January, 2024)

[30] Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards A Theory Of Uneven Geographical Development. London, U.K: Verso. p.43

[31] Glassman, J. (2006). ‘Primitive accumulation, accumulation by dispossession, accumulation by “extra-economic” means.’ Progress in Human Geography 30(5): 608-625.

[32] Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press. p.145-146

[33] ————- (2013).  A Companion to Marx’s Capital. London, UK: Verso