Igoe and Brockington introduce us to some of the issues surrounding neoliberal conservation. They argue that there is a general lack of coherency in the discusson of neoliberalism and aim to lay out some of the issues involved. Appealing in its simplicity and seen by supporters as a “win-win-win…” solution where everyone benefits, the values of capitalism become the ways in which to save the environment. Pointing out that neoliberalization is better understood as processes rather than a single thing they discuss the various forms involved. One process generally seen as a cornerstone of neoliberalism, deregulation, is better understood as reregulation as states are necessary in setting up and managing private market system. For conservation this can take the form of wildlife sanctuaries as well as the emergence of BINGOS (Big Non Governmental Organizations); a small number of large organizations controls most conservation funds. One concern of this is their connection to large corporations; Monsanto, Chevron, etc-how can an environmental organization be truly effective if it is tied to corporate money?
The authors point out that some neoliberal projects have done good. However, they make it clear that this is not inherent to neoliberal policies; opening up spaces to the market can go either way. Both neoliberalism and protectionist conservation can thrive without benefiting poor people. This is the main takeaway of their article; the purpose of neoliberism first and foremost is to facilitate private markets and maximize efficiency and profit. Just as conservation does not necessarily benefit from it, neither does agriculture. A successful neoliberalized farm will maximize profit and efficiency; issues of food security, health or environment do not come into it
- Igoe, Jim and Dan Brockington. “Neoliberal Conservation; an Introduction” From Conservation and Society, vol. 5, issue 4 (2007): 432-449.