Which pairing correctly matches the idea that extraction is connected to distant places through global networks?

Which pairing correctly matches the idea that extraction is connected to distant places through global networks?

• A. Bridge (2011) and Chagnon et al. (2022)
• B. Kimmerer (2013) and Pierotti & Wildcat (2000)
• C. Blaser (2014) and Escobar (2020)
• D. Liboiron (2021) and Barbier (2021)

Answer: (A)

The idea being tested is that extraction operates through global circuits that tie distant places together via networks of finance, trade, and infrastructure. Resources pulled from a local site don’t stay there; they move through pipelines, ships, ports, banks, and processing hubs, linking the site of extraction to markets and decision-makers far away and spreading effects across borders. That pairing works best because Bridge analyzes how resource extraction is organized through these spatial and temporal networks, showing how distant places are integral to the flow of resources. Chagnon and colleagues extend this with concrete examples of how global networks shape governance, environmental risks, and social outcomes across borders, reinforcing the view that extraction is embedded in transnational connections rather than being a purely local process. The other authors tend to focus on Indigenous knowledge, relational ethics, or broader political-ecology critiques that don’t as directly illustrate the long-distance, networked nature of extraction and its global linkages in the same way.

The idea being tested is that extraction operates through global circuits that tie distant places together via networks of finance, trade, and infrastructure. Resources pulled from a local site don’t stay there; they move through pipelines, ships, ports, banks, and processing hubs, linking the site of extraction to markets and decision-makers far away and spreading effects across borders.

That pairing works best because Bridge analyzes how resource extraction is organized through these spatial and temporal networks, showing how distant places are integral to the flow of resources. Chagnon and colleagues extend this with concrete examples of how global networks shape governance, environmental risks, and social outcomes across borders, reinforcing the view that extraction is embedded in transnational connections rather than being a purely local process.

The other authors tend to focus on Indigenous knowledge, relational ethics, or broader political-ecology critiques that don’t as directly illustrate the long-distance, networked nature of extraction and its global linkages in the same way.