14 pages., Food ecologies and economies are vital to the survival of communities, non-human species, and our planet. While environmental communication scholars have legitimated food as a topic of inquiry, the entangled ecological, cultural, economic, racial, colonial, and alimentary relations that sustain food systems demand greater attention. In this essay, we review literature within and beyond environmental communication, charting the landscape of critical food work in our field. We then illustrate how environmental justice commitments can invigorate interdisciplinary food systems-focused communication scholarship articulating issues of, and critical responses to, injustice and inequity across the food chain. We stake an agenda for food systems communication by mapping three orientations—food system reform, justice, and sovereignty—that can assist in our critical engagements with and interventions into the food system. Ultimately, we entreat environmental communication scholars to attend to the bends, textures, and confluences of these orientations so that we may deepen our future food-related inquiries.
37 pages., Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic is the most recent example that global development problems can occur anywhere, rebutting the assumption of a world divided into developed and developing countries. Recent scholarship has coined the term “global development” to capture this changing geography of development problems.
Purpose
Our article contributes to these debates by proposing a novel empirical approach to localize global development problems in country contexts worldwide.
Methods and approach
Our approach rests on a universal understanding of “development.” We identify countries that are particularly relevant for global problem-solving and consider not only the problem dimension but also countries’ capacities to address these problems.
Findings
Our results show that countries with the most severe combinations of problems are as diverse as Afghanistan, Nigeria and the United States. Two thirds of countries with above-average contributions to global problems are authoritarian regimes. We also find that middle-income countries have hardly anything in common apart from their income level.
Policy implications
Our analysis shows that traditional development concepts of a binary world order and of foreign aid as financial transfer to remedy imbalances are not enough to address constellations of global problems and capacity that have long evolved beyond rich and poor.
