Thursday, December 2, 2010

The unitary and pluralist perspectives of employee relations

FIRST ASSESSMENT TASK
The unitary and pluralist perspectives of employee relations
            Since the 1980s, there has been a significant paradigm shift in managing employee relations (ER) to one focused on more strategic and integrated frameworks that are based on employee commitment and shared workplace interests, instead of the traditional managerial control and conflicts between employers and employees (Cully et al. 1999: 57; Kaufman 2008: 317). These ER initiatives can be traced back to the 1950s in the United States, where three human resource (HR) models became prominent, namely Fombrun, Tichy, and Devanna’s (1984) ‘matching model,’ Beer et al.’s (1984) ‘Harvard model,’ and Walton’s (1985) ‘control to commitment’ model (Farnham 1993: 34).  Similar ER changes occurred in the United Kingdom (UK), although mainly in larger organisations. Authors argued that the manager’s frame of reference impacts how these perspectives are interpreted and used or not used (Farnham 1993: 36, Ackers and Payne 1998: 533,and Gennard and Judge 2002: 52).  The three common kinds of ER perspectives are: unitarist, pluralist, and neo-unitary (Farnham 1993: 37). This essay critically evaluates only two approaches to ER namely, the unitary and pluralist perspectives and demonstrates the implications for managing successful ER in organisations adopting the unitarist perspectives.
Unitarist perspectives
Fox (1996) stated that there are two major frames of reference for ER, the unitarist and pluralist frameworks (cited in Farnham 1993: 36).  There are several main elements of the unitarist perspective. First, there is only a single source of authority in organisation, which is usually the management, and oppositionary leaders are non-existent (Ross and Bamber 2009: 25).  Second, the role of organisational leaders is to promote loyalty and commitment among workers (Farnham 1993: 36, and Ackers and Payne 1998: 540).  Third, organisations are seen as consisting of teams that are working together for mutual goals, and there are also no conflicts of interests between managers and employees (Leat 2001: 23).  The unitarist perspective believes that employers and employees can join forces for common objectives, interests, and values (Ackers and Payne 1998: 540, and Burchill 1997: 7, cited in Dzimbiri 2008: 2). Fourth, the management should exemplify strong leadership to attain organisational objectives (Farnham 1993: 36).  Fifth, trade unions are not legal intrusions to management objectives (Farnham 1993: 36).   Trade unions are not seen as essential for the harmonious managing of conflicts (Ackers and Payne 1998: 540, and  Dzimbiri 2008: 2). Sixth, conflicts in the organisation are perceived negatively; they are dysfunctional and lead to disloyalty, thereby impairing the well-being of the organisation (Giles 1989: 131; Farnham 1993: 36, and Curseu et al. 2009: 20).   Seventh, the state is autonomous and shapes industrial relations systems (IR) (Giles 1989: 131).
Strengths of unitarist perspective
A major strength of the unitarist perspective is that it explicitly wants to integrate employer and employee interests, so that it can enhance employee commitment and loyalty (Guest and Peccei 2001:209). This can be used as a basis for stakeholder management, wherein employees are seen as important stakeholders of the organisation, and so their well-being is carefully considered in ensuring the welfare of the organisation (Ackers and Payne 1998: 540).
The unitarist perspective also emphasizes the role of managers in attaining win-win situations for employees and organisations, wherein their interests can be properly aligned with each other (Giles 1989: 131). Managers are compelled to go beyond their managerial styles of managing ER and emphasise also their leadership capabilities (Ackers and Payne 1998: 539). If they can be convincing and influential leaders in the organisation, there will be no strong demand for trade unions.
Furthermore, the unitarist perspective assumes that all stakeholders are rational members, who will consider finding common interests. This belief provides a steady rationale for stressing common goals, so that a stable ER system can be achieved (Giles 1989: 131).
Finally, the unitarist perspective is essentially individualist in its ER approach, which works best for individualist IR systems (Giles 1989: 131). Many IR systems all over the world has shifted from the collectivist (trade-union-led) IR paradigms to individualist paradigms, including in the UK, and so the unitarist perspective will be particularly useful for this kind of IR perspective.
Weaknesses of unitarist perspective
A major weakness of this theory is the lack of realization that there are power inequalities between employers and employees which will generate diverse kinds of conflicts (Kessler and Purcell 2003: 315). Managers often exert greater power over their employees in determining work conditions, especially for blue-collar jobs, and instead of the workers acting as owners of power too, they will tend to accept decisions of the management and submit to the former’s power.
Furthermore, conflict is treated too negatively, and not seen as a force that reflects inequalities and which can be used as opportunities to regain work harmony (Dzimbiri 2008: 2, and Kitay & Marchington 1996: 1267). Although there are different kinds of conflicts, some authors say that there are certain kinds of conflicts that are good for organisational development. For instance, there are two kinds of conflict- one that is unhelpful to team effectiveness, also called A-conflict, and the other that is helpful to the team, termed as C-conflict (Esquivel and Kleiner 1996: 43). Task conflict, an example of task conflict, arises when team members have disparities in how tasks are defined and divided among the group, such as major decision areas and processes (Chuang et al. 2004: 28). Studies showed that task conflict can improve positive outcomes for the group (Chuang et al. 2004: 28, and Choudrie 2005: 65). Simons and Peterson (2000) asserted from their study that intragroup trust affected the relationship between tasked-related conflict and relationship conflict (cited in Chuang et al. 2004: 28).  Hence, by ‘demonising’ conflict, the unitary perspective delimits how task conflicts can also be used to enhance performance.
In addition, it is unclear how individual worker sentiments can be adequately integrated into the organisational objectives, because the unitary perspective is very normative and lacks description of how common interests can be identified and shared across organisations (Ackers and Payne 1998: 539). For instance, it does not provide any guidelines for HR, so that it can pursue unitarism effectively (Storey 2000: 12). The unitarist perspective only assumes that members are rational enough to reach solid decisions on how personal and organisational interests are to be combined.
Pluralist perspectives
First, pluralist theory believes that the workplace is composed of diverse sets of beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviours (Giles 1989: 131). Second, there are opposing sources of leadership and attachment in organisations (Farnham 1993: 36).   Third, conflicts are inevitable because there are inherent competing interests (Dabscheck 1989: 59, and Dzimbiri 2008: 3). Conflicts can even be helpful, if identified and controlled within institutional responses (Farnham 1993: 36).   Fourth, the role of the management is to mediate among competing interests (Farnham 1993: 36).   Fifth, Trade unions are legitimate representatives of employees, and they are viewed positively because they help employees emphasise their decision-making power (Leat 2001:23).   Sixth, the state promotes public interest (Kaufman 2008: 320). Seventh, ER stability can be attained through a series of concessions and negotiations between managers and employers through the collective bargaining process (Bacon and Storey 2000: 410 and Kaufman 2008: 321).
Strengths of the pluralist perspective
Unlike the unitarist, the pluralist theory emphasises that effective IR interventions can resolve conflicts (Dzimbiri 2008: 3). A consultative approach can be used by the management in responding to conflicts. Furthermore, it also considers other alternative decision-making processes (Dzimbiri 2008: 3 and Giles 1989: 131).
Conflict is not overlooked, but managed effectively through stakeholder participation (Hunter 1998: 560). Conflict can then be used to understand underlying tensions, so that they can be identified and properly addressed (Kessler and Purcell 2003: 315, and Bacon and Blyton 2007). The pluralist perspective makes use of conflict management strategies to engage groups that are in conflict, so that resolutions can be discussed and implemented (Kessler and Purcell 2003: 315).
The pluralist perspective embraces a wider array of employee relations policies (Gennard, and Judge 2002: 56). Some companies can adopt no-union policies, as long as there are employee organisations, while other companies can motivate the use of trade unions. The girth of employee relations policies can make pluralism specifically beneficial for diverse organisational and national cultures (Gennard, and Judge 2002: 56). For instance, trade unions can be effective allies also in aligning individual and organisational interests compared to the unitarist approach to ER (Badigannavar and Kelly 2005). The pluralist perspective is also suitable for collective IR systems, because it does not disregard the role of trade unions in managing employee-employer conflicts (Badigannavar and Kelly 2005).
Weaknesses of the pluralist perspective
The weakness of the pluralist theory is the inclination to dwell on on rules and procedures and disregard the processes that also contribute to the resolution of conflicts. For instance, through IR, laws can be made that impose certain ways of resolving workplace conflicts. These rules, however, cannot adapt to emerging and different workplace conditions (Gennard, and Judge 2002: 56).
In addition, the pluralist perspective is incapable of realising that the state also represents commercial interests and not just public interests (Kitay & Marchington 1996: 1267). The pluralist perspective may focus too much on worker interest, which can lead to the inefficiencies of collective bargaining processes.
Managing unitarist ER successfully
            There are different ways of managing successful ER that has adopted the unitarist approach. First, the management can focus on providing financial incentives and shared ownership, so that the former can integrate employer and employee interests (Guest and Peccei 2001: 210, and Singh and Loncar 2010).  The management can stress on different kinds of profit-sharing and share ownership that are made to ensure that every employee is provided the chance to have a “financial stake” in the company (Blinder 1990, and Guest and Peccei 2001: 210).
Second, the management can also focus in different kinds of direct employee participation and involvement in daily work activities (Guest and Peccei 2001: 210). This can include different empowering and participatory approaches to workplace management, so that individuals feel that they can have wider latitude in controlling their work processes and results (Guest and Peccei 2001: 210). The worker empowerment and participation can permit higher forms of autonomy that can maximise worker contribution (Guest and Peccei 2001: 210). The management should ensure, however, that it is not providing a superficial kind of participation, wherein major job processes are still provided top-down, because this can only decrease employee satisfaction, instead of increasing it (Chan et al. 2006, and Gollan 2006).
Third, the management can concentrate on the systematic use of “progressive, high-performance, or high-involvement” HR practices in domains of selection, training, job design, communications, performance evaluation, rewards, and others, so that they can be designed to maximise individual-organisation relationships and to produce high levels of employee commitment, loyalty, and satisfaction (Danford et al. 2008; Seibert, Silver, and Randolph 2004, and Schmidt 2009)
Conclusion
            The management follow different kinds of frame of references when dealing with employee relations. This essay focuses only on two perspectives, the unitarist and the pluralist. These perspectives have their own strengths and advantages, and they also fit different kinds of company objectives and IR systems. Unitarist perspectives assume that there is only one source of leadership and that conflict should and can be avoided through the alignment of individual and organisational interests. Trade unions are seen negatively by unitarists. This perspective also fits individualist IR. Pluralists believe that there are competing interests and that conflict can be properly managed. This perspective asserts the large role that trade unions can play in the collective bargaining process, which makes it appropriate for collectivist IR systems. Organisations that have unitarist ER can make it more effective for organisational goals through having a wide array of efforts that improve employee satisfaction, motivation, and loyalty. Some of the suggested means are profit-sharing methods and other ways that result to high-performance work systems.





















Reference list
Ackers, P. and Payne, J. (1998) ‘British trade unions and social partnership: rhetoric, reality and strategy.’ International Journal of Human Resource Management 9, (3) 529-550.
Bacon, N. and Storey, J. (2000) ‘New employee relations strategies in Britain: towards individualism or partnership?’ British Journal of Industrial Relations 38, (3) 407-428.
Bacon, N. and Blyton, P. (2007) ‘Conflict for Mutual Gains?’ Journal of Management Studies 44, (5) 814-834.
Badigannavar, V. and Kelly, J. (2005) ‘Labour-management partnership in the non-union retail sector.’ International Journal of Human Resource Management 16, 8 (1529-1544).
Blinder, A.S. (1990) Paying for productivity: a look at the evidence. Washington: Brookings Institution.
Chan, A.W., Tong-qing, F., Redman, T.,  and Snape, E. (2006) ‘Evaluating the multi-dimensional view of employee commitment: a comparative UK–Chinese study.’ International Journal of Human Resource Management 17, (11) 1873-1887.
Choudrie, J. (2005) ‘Understanding the role of communication and conflict on reengineering team development.’ Journal of Enterprise Information Management 18, (1) 64-78.
Chuang, Y., Church, R., & Zikic, J. (2004) ‘Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conflict.’ Team Performance Management 10, (1/2) 26-34.
Curseu, P.L., Kenis, P., & Raab, J. (2009) ‘Reciprocated relational preferences and intra-team conflict.’ Team Performance Management 15, (1/2) 18-34.
Cully, M., Woodland, S., O’Reilly, A. and Dix, G. (1999) Britain at work.  London: Routledge.
Dabscheck, B. (1989) ‘A survey of theories of industrial relations.’ In Theories and concepts in comparative industrial relations.  ed. K Barbash. South Carolina: Univ. of South Carolina Press.
Danford, A., Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Tailby, S., and Upchurch, M. (2008) ‘Partnership, high performance work systems and quality of working life.’ New Technology, Work & Employment 23, (3) 151-166.
Deery, S. And Mitchell, R. (1999) Employment relations: individualisation and union exclusion: an international study. NSW: The Federation Press.
Dzimbiri, L.B. (2008) Industrial relations in a developing society: the case of colonial, independent one-party and multiparty Malawi. Germany: Cuvillier Verlag.
Esquivel, M.A. and Kleiner, B.H. (1996) ‘The importance of conflict in work team effectiveness.’ Team Performance Management 2, (3) 42-48.
Farnham, D. (1993) Employee relations in context. Great Britain: Short Run Press.
Gennard, J. and Judge, G. (2002) Employee Relations, 3rd ed . Wimbledon: Institute of Personnel and Development.
Giles, A. (1989) ‘Industrial relations theory, the state, and politics.’ In Theories and concepts in comparative industrial relations. ed by K. Barbash. South Carolina: Univ. of South Carolina Press.
Gollan, P.J. (2006) ‘Representation at Suncorp -- what do the employees want?’Human Resource Management Journal 16, (3) 268-286.
Guest, D.E. and Peccei, R. (2001) ‘Partnership at work: mutuality and the balance of advantage.’ British Journal of Industrial Relations 39, (2) 207-236.
Hunter, L.W. (1998) ‘Can strategic participation be institutionalized? Union representation on American corporate boards.’ Industrial & Labor Relations Review 51, (4) 557-578.
Kaufman, B.E. (2008) ‘Paradigms in industrial relations: original, modern and versions in-between.’ British Journal of Industrial Relations 46, (2) 314-339.
Kessler, I. and Purcell, J. (2003) ‘Individualism and collectivism in industrial relations.’ In Industrial relations: theory and practice. ed. P.K.  Edwards. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Kitay, J.  and Marchington, M. (1996) ‘A review and critique of workplace industrial relations typologies.’ Human Relations 49, (10) 1263-1290.
Leat, M. (2001) Exploring employee relations. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ross, P. and Bamber, G.J. (2009) ‘Strategic choices in pluralist and unitarist employment relations regimes: a study of Australian telecommunications.’ Industrial & Labor Relations Review 63, (1) 24-41.
Schmidt, S.W. (2009) ‘Employee demographics and job training satisfaction: the relationship between dimensions of diversity and satisfaction with job training.’ Human Resource Development International 12, (3) 297-312.
Seibert, S. E.,  Silver, S.R., and  Randolph, W. A. (2004) ‘Taking empowerment to the next level: a multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction.’ Academy of Management Journal 47, (3) 332-349.
Singh, P. and Loncar, N. (2010) ‘Pay satisfaction, job satisfaction and turnover intent.’ Relations Industrielles / Industrial Relations 65, (3) 470-490.
Storey, J. (2000) ‘Human resource management: still marching on or marching out?’ In The realities of human resource management: managing the employment relationship. eds. J. Storey, and K. Sisson. Buckingham: Open University Press: 3-32.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

How is escape from being possible?



In “The Ego and the Totality,” Emmanuel Levinas believes that an individual being can understand itself to be a total being, “only if it is thoughtless” (25). This is conceived through the freedom or violence of human beings. When people want to understand the expression of violence, Levinas states that this can be done through viewing being that has life in the totality that exists as a totality (25). The thinking being integrates into this totality, its needs and enjoyments. The totality becomes both the immediate element and the medium, where the living being is transformed to a concrete man (25). Furthermore, Levinas argues that every human experience can be described through phenomenological description; every human experience is from the beginning meaningful and can be understood through the process of intentionality. However, Levinas stresses that the embodied (sentient) self has a need to escape from the intentional ego.  The escape from this being can be approached from a phenomenological description. This paper contents that Levinas asserts that escape from being is possible by breaking that most radical and steadfastly binding of chains that link I to oneself until autonomy is finally attained.
Levinas is heavily influenced by Husserl's phenomenological method, which revolved around the centrality of the “transcendental ego.” Husserl’s approach to essence, however, is too intellectual for Levinas and he moves away from this approach to being and transcendence to create his own counter-ontology. Levinas redefines transcendence as a need for escape. This escape involves the living being that is not absence of consciousness (Levinas 26). But this consciousness has problems; it has a “purely inner world whose center in occupies” (Levinas 26). It is a consciousness that is not involved in placing itself relative to an exteriority, does not understand itself as a part of the whole, and it also lacks the consciousness to which the unconscious corresponds (Levinas 26). In addition this living consciousness is completely inward, wherein if the exteriority strikes it, it will be killed; hence, it is rather free or dead (Levinas 26). This centrality makes it difficult to escape the being, when it is inward looking and does not correspond to something exterior to it. In a sense, the being possesses a certain power over its power over the self. Breaking apart will not be immediate for it can be fatal to the consciousness of the being (Levinas 27). The possibility of creating a thought of freedom is considered a “miracle” (Levinas 28). This miracle divides the biological consciousness and becomes the intermediate between the “the lived and the thought” (Levinas 28). The miracle, however, does not suffice for the commencement of the thought (Levinas 28). The thinking individual should still be able to posit the self to the totality, and in relation to it, which, as a result, defines the self with respect to the parts (Levinas 28).
Levinas approaches being differently, through the being for which the principal experiences of being are of its embodied, but not physiological, existence. Levinas differs from Heidegger’s approach, because the former provides primary priority to embodiment and its lived “moods” and also to the humans' unsuccessful attempts to escape the being that people belong to. Levinas believes that a human being experiences itself as if thrown into its world, without control over its commencement and ending. His approach to transcendence can be viewed in the humans’ constant urge to over the limits of their physical and social circumstances. His transcendence is not concerned of transcendence-in-the-world, but more focused on the transcendence through and because of awareness. This viewpoint of transcendence opens the question of mortality the finiteness of being. For transcendence, Levinas stresses: “Transcendence is what faces us…the essence condition for propositional truth is not in the disclosure of a being, or of the being of beings, but the expression of an interlocutor to whom I tell both the being he is and the being of his being” (Levinas 43). One confronts the identical in the being and escape cannot be easily attained, until the individuality of the “me” is apparent and accepted. Levinas states: “The individuality of the ego is distinguished from every given individuality by the fact that its identity is not constituted by what distinguishes it from others, but by its self-reference” (Levinas 43).
Recognition of the being is important. When one says “I think,” it means that there is an opposition to being. Levinas stresses, however:  “But if this recognition were a submission to him, the submission would take all its worth away from my recognition” (Levinas 43). The face of being affirms the existence of one self, but the negation of being cannot be done in a face-to-face manner says Levinas (43).  Levinas introduces the importance of speech: “Speech is thus a relationship between freedoms which neither limit nor negate, but affirms one another. They are transcendent with respect to each other” (Levinas 43).  The speech between these beings beholds a more radical phenomenological analysis.
Levinas argues that to escape, one must get out of oneself and break the most radical and steadfastly binding of chains that link I to oneself until autonomy is finally attained. The human life has to cross from the intentional to the experience of totality of one’s consciousness that is outside the being.  Levinas puts being in a cultural and historical context and to ask about the meaning of the finite and the infinite.  People are admittedly finite, as they contemplate the being as finite. Levinas says: “The idea of infinity is then not only one that teachers what we are ignorant of. It has been put into us…it is experience in the sole radical sense of the term: a relationship with the exterior, with the other, without this exteriority being able to integrated into the same” (Levinas 54).  People can escape this being through contemplating on the self and the being, and the relationships that must be withdrawn to identify the self. With the self identified in relation to its parts and the consciousness that it is part of, the self can be projected to escape from the being.
            Levinas also indicates the escape from the being itself and the beings that people are. He proceeds that the “the thinker who has the idea of infinity is more than himself, and this inflating, this surplus, does not come from within, as in the celebrated project of modern philosophers, in which the subject surpasses himself by creating” (Levinas 54). The escape comes from the escape from participation into this existence of infinite thinking. From the beginning, the “fact of existing” pertains to that of concrete human existence. In saying that existence is firstly human, Levinas underscores Heidegger's Being, or the “being of that which is,” provides an answer to the formal ontological question, to which determinations like finiteness and infinity, not to declare escape and transcendence, apply only indistinctly. He believes that the being extracts itself from this finiteness. Levinas's prolonged insistence that being is incessant presence, not, as Heidegger insisted, an occurrence of disclosure and departure.
Escape symbolizes a positive, dynamic need. But needs are not correspondent to suffering. Within numerous needs is the expectation of their fulfillment. Levinas pushes people to reconceptualize human need through discussing fullness rather than privation. He provides another definition of existence itself. He asserts that need is the ground of our existence. That means that transcendence, in Levinas' understanding of it, is continually directed toward something that is outside and more than the self. The great motivation is to escape from this material situation and embodiment. Levinas's counter-ontology redefines Heidegger's Being toward the amalgamated duality of sentient self and intentional ‘I’, here and now, not anticipated toward its ultimate departure in death
             Autonomy is also a process that can be used to escape from being. Freedom through escape can succeed through “the soul’s monologue” that has attained “universality” (Levinas 49).  The self will have to encompass first the totality of being until the dialectic of the soul conversing to itself realizes the dialogue (Levinas 49). Levinas says: “It is doubtless than for this reason that Descartes will say that the soul might be the origin of the ideas that relate to exterior things, and thus account for the real” (Levinas 49). The universality exists and the definition of the monologue proceeds exterior to the self. As a result, the being can withdraw from the monologue and exist outside of its being and its consciousness.
Levinas believes that every human experience can be described through phenomenological description; every human experience is from the beginning consequential and can be understood through the process of intentionality. However, Levinas stresses that the embodied (sentient) self has a need to escape from the intentional ego.  The escape from this being can be approached from the phenomenological description. Levinas asserts that escape from being is possible by breaking that most radical and persistently binding of chains that link I to oneself until autonomy is finally attained. From the discourse between the self and the being, relationships and context are identified and clarified, until the escape begins and leaves the limits of being’s consciousness.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Africa: e-Waste issues


Title:
Africa as a dumping ground for e-waste:
PHH Theory, from threats to economic and policymaking opportunities
Outline:
1.            Introduction
1.1         Problem Statement
1.2         Research Objectives
1.3         Research Methodology
1.4         Scope and Limitations
1.5         Relevance of the Study
1.6         Chapter Summaries

2.            Review of Literature
2.1         e-waste: International Setting
2.2         Africa and e-Waste Regulation
2.3         PHH Theory and Moore’s theory
2.4         Implications of PHH for e-Waste Trade
2.5         Formalization of e-waste market

3.            Africa as e-Waste Importer
3.1    SWOT analysis
3.1.1     Strengths
3.1.2     Weaknesses
3.1.3     Opportunities
3.1.4     Threats

3.2         PHH in Africa: Threats and Opportunities
3.2.1     Strength-Opportunities Strategies using PHH
3.2.2     Policymaking Requirements

4.            Trade Agreements and Multilateral Environmental Agreements
4.1         Existing Trade Agreements
4.2         Existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements
4.3         Weaknesses in Existing Trade Agreements and Multilateral Environmental Agreements

5.            Recommendations
5.1         PHH and Understanding e-waste
5.2         Changing from informal to formal e-waste market
5.2.1     Trade agreements and multilateral environmental agreements
5.2.2     e-waste and Economic development
5.2.3     e-waste and Policymaking development

6.                    Conclusions

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
As the digital age continues to flourish, modern society witnesses a new breed of environmental problems. Before, the primary environmental concerns were waste, acid rain, ozone layer depletion, and global warming. Nowadays, a new kind of waste has emerged as growing international concern- waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) or electronic waste (e-waste) (Nnorom & Osibanjo, 2008, p.1472). Globalization has significantly enhanced the production and consumption of electrical and electronic equipment, as multinational companies (MNCs) and transnational corporations (TNCs) expanded their economies of scale by manufacturing products for global markets (Ndzibah, 2009, p.271). The U.S. produced as estimated amount  2.2 to 3 million tons of e-waste in 2000, which consisted of 859,000 tons of video products, 348,000 tons of audio products and 917,000 tons of information technology products (Gibson &Tierney, 2006, p.322), while an Australian report stated that there is an estimated 234 million items of ewaste in Australian landfills by the end of 2009, which indicated an increase of 41 million more items than which has been estimated in 2008 (Angel & Brindley, 2009, p.2). In the U.S., only around 9% of the e-waste was reused or recycled (Gibson &Tierney, 2006, p.322). It is clear that developed countries produce a great deal amount of e-waste, which can they cannot manage.
The growth of e-waste can be partially explained by Moore’s Law. This is based on a paper that Gordon Moore, Intel Co-Founder, published 45 years ago. In this paper, Moore predicted that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit would double each year (which was later changed to a doubling that will occur every 18 months). This prediction provided the foundation for another prediction: that doubling the number of transistors would also improve the performance of CPUs twice over every 18 months (Hutcheson, 2009, p.13).   Moore, however, was hesitant to call this is a law and emphasized that it was an observation (Hutcheson, 2009, p.13).   It was Carver Mead who called it “Moore’s Law” (Hutcheson, 2009, p.13).  
Moore’s vision is that engineers will find cost-efficient ways to double the component density of these transistors, which will make end products more affordable in the long run (Alesso & Smith, 2008, p.31). As electrical and electronic products become cheaper, more and more consumers can afford them (Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management [SAICM], 2009). The environmental implication of this law can be summed up in this statement: Moore’s law predicts the fast rate of obsolescence of technology, which renders more waste in a short period of time, because consumers would also be vulnerable to consuming new technology in shorter durations too. Statistics provided evidence to this observation. In 2005, the EPA provided estimations that the US produced between 1.5 and 1.9 million tons of e-waste (such as computers, TV’s, VCR’s, cell phones, monitors, and others), while the UN Environment Programme noted that around 50 million tons of e-waste is globally produced annually (Carroll, 2008).
The developed countries are the foremost producers and consumers of electrical and electronic equipment, although developing countries, such as China, are becoming world manufacturers also. Recently, developed countries have become more conscious of environmental degradation and have designed stricter environmental regulations. Many have decided to ship off their wastes to pollution havens- the developing countries. The European Commission (EC), for instance, has formulated European Union (EU) legislation that limits the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (Directive 2002/95/EC) and promotes the collection and recycling of such equipment (Directive 2002/96/EC) (European Commission, 2010). These directives have been implemented, since February 2003.  The EC recognizes that these directives did not necessarily translate to widespread e-waste recycling or reusing by EU member states: “… only one third of electrical and electronic waste in the European Union is reported as separately collected and appropriately treated. A part of the other two thirds is potentially still going to landfills and to sub-standard treatment sites in or outside the European Union” (European Commission, 2010).
Africa, China, and India are some of the target destinations of WEEE, because they have zero to lax environmental regulations regarding WEEE (Jain & Sareen, 2006; Osibanjo, & Nnorom, 2008; Streicher-Porte et al., 2005). This transnational export of wastes is argued as a negative impact of globalization. Since trade is liberalized, it seems that pollution practices and exports/imports have been liberalized, as well.
e-waste presents opportunities and threats to receiving developing countries. On the one hand, e-waste threatens the health of the people and environmental conditions of developing countries (Jain & Sareen, 2006; Osibanjo, & Nnorom, 2008; Streicher-Porte et al., 2005).  e-waste is an environmental concern, because it produces distinctive kinds of environmental damages. An environmental analysis of e-waste reveals that it has high levels of lead, mercury, and cadmium (as well as other toxins), all of which can have detrimental effects on plant, animal, and human health (Kellenberg, 2008, p.3). On the other hand, e-waste presents the opportunities of responding to a new kind of market, the e-waste market, which can be formalized to produce greater economic benefits for pollution havens (Neumayer, 2001; Taylor, 2005).  e-waste importation can be regarded as a service provided to developed countries and other nations that do not want to pay for the externalities of keeping and processing e-waste.
The transfer of WEEE from developed to developing countries have contributed to the formation of pollution havens hypothesis (PHH). The PHH can be used to assess environmental externalities in places where e-waste dumping takes place. The pollution havens hypothesis assumes that environmental laws have a strong effect on industrial locations and that different kinds of regulations among countries will, at the minimum, produce specialization and potentially large capital movements to the country with laxer regulations (AkbostanciTunç, & Türüt-Asik, 2004, p.1). This hypothesis indicates that the existence of pollution havens would impact industrial production and trade patterns (AkbostanciTunç, & Türüt-Asik, 2004, p.1). The “dirty industries” will have a larger share in the developing countries, while its share of “clean industries” will decline (AkbostanciTunç, & Türüt-Asik, 2004, p.1). The PHH is viewed as an effective framework for analyzing e-waste management and policymaking for Africa, so that e-waste market threats can be turned into opportunities.
PHH is currently hotly debated, because of its large-scale implications on trade agreements and multilateral environmental agreements (Neumayer, 2001; Taylor, 2005). It can help explain e-waste problems, as well as suggest solutions that can make e-waste a more profitable form of business for e-waste importers (Neumayer, 2001; Taylor, 2005).  Africa, which will be the focus of this study, will particularly benefit from the PHH and its inclusion in trade and investment agreements. Since the region has been a large importer of WEEE, it should consider the benefits it must reap from taking in this externality from other countries.
Research Objectives
The opportunities and threats indicate how e-waste importation can produce environmental and health problems for Africa, but Africa can also take advantage of this externality, as the PHH suggests. This paper aims to help Africa turn the threats of pollution havens into opportunities for economic and legislative development, so that it can reap advantages from e-waste importation, without necessarily absorbing hefty externalities.
The research objectives are:
1)    To evaluate the threats to and opportunities for Africa in turning the informal e-waste market into a formal market
2)    To explore trade agreements and multilateral environmental agreements and how they can be used to the advantage of Africa
Research Methodology
The research methodology involves a critical review of literature regarding the pollution havens hypothesis (PHH) and how it can help alleviate the negative effects of WEEE on African society. The review will be taken from articles from scholarly databases such as EBSCO and ScienceDirect, as well as the Internet. This will allow the author of this study to maximize the time constraint needed to finish the paper. It can also provide an extensive research that would otherwise not be physically possible, if done manually in a traditional library setting.
Scope and Limitations
This paper cannot cover all kinds of WEEE. Instead, it will focus on TV, PCs, and mobile phones, which are products that highly valued and consumed by Africans. This paper is also limited to the resources it can find for this study. It is possible that it may overlook other studies, especially if they are not within the access of the author. It is also hard to acquire more descriptive primary resources for the African situation of WEEE, because African governments have not systematically documented and/or monitored their e-waste importation and practices, due to lack of such policies. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2007) stressed that majority of developing countries belong to the second stage of development of WEEE/ E-waste management framework, wherein important WEEE policies are missing or weak. The statuses of WEEE/E-waste in the majority of African and Latin American countries are not available, according to UNEP. Finally, this paper can also not offer a comprehensive and global solution to the e-waste problem. Instead, it attempts to help Africa turn the threats of pollution havens into opportunities for economic and legislative development.
Relevance of the Study
The relevance of this study is that it aims to help Africa develop its policymaking infrastructure, so that it can benefit from being an e-waste importer. The legislative solutions can be integrated into trade and investment agreements, as well as multilateral environmental agreements, so that Africa would not be significantly disadvantaged as it possibly increases its dirty industries to accommodate e-waste importation capacities. The paper attempts to provide recommendations on policies that African governments can consider making as national policies for managing e-waste, so that it can be classified as an entire industry that needs to be regulated on its own.
Furthermore, this paper will contribute to the growing studies on PHH, by adding a legislative nature to the PHH literature. Most of the literature is geared toward economic analysis (such as Akbostanci et al., 2004 and Taylor, 2005), but this paper will go beyond economics and investigate the policymaking impacts and benefits of PHH. It uses the economic perspective, nonetheless, to justify recommended policies. Finally, it aims to help turn the informal e-waste market into a more formal market that can be integrated into the economic development course of Africa. Thus, this paper will be relevant both to the economy of Africa and to the literature of PHH conceptualization and policymaking.
Chapter Summaries
            Chapter 2 presents the review of literature. The main purpose of this chapter is to review studies on PHH theory and e-waste in the international and national setting. Chapter 2 reviews the e-waste status in the international setting. It determines who the main exporters and importers are. It also describes Africa’s e-waste regulation system. It depicts studies on PHH theory and Moore’s law, as well as what these studies indicate about the implications of e-waste trade. Chapter 2 also explores studies on e-waste and its relationship with socio-economic development. Finally, it explores studies on formalized markets and how to apply it to e-waste trade.
            Chapter 3 illustrates the SWOT analysis for Africa as an e-waste importer. The main purpose of this chapter is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of Africa as a competitive entity for the e-waste industry. In addition, it discusses PHH in Africa. Chapter 3 also identifies the strength-opportunities strategies using PHH. It also identifies policymaking requirements that are needed to attain these strategies and make them work for Africa’s benefit.
            Chapter 4 explores present trade agreements and multilateral environmental agreements. It also analyzes weaknesses in existing trade agreements and multilateral environmental agreements of Africa.
            Chapter 4 discusses recommendations. It first makes recommendations on how PHH can be used to understand e-waste scenario in Africa. Second, it suggests actions for win-win situations, wherein both exporting and importing countries reap benefits from a well-regulated e-waste industry. The recommendations at this juncture will focus on the suggested arenas that can lead to the formalizing the e-waste market: Trade agreements and multilateral environmental agreements, e-waste and Economic development, and e-waste and Policymaking development.
           


 
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
Chapter two presents the review of literature. The main purpose of this chapter is to examine studies on PHH theory and e-waste management in the international and national setting. I will try to determine who the main exporters and importers of e-waste are. It also describes Africa’s e-waste regulation system.
E-waste management in the International and National Setting
E-waste: Definitions
For the past few decades, the electronics industry has changed the world, making electrical and electronic products indispensable to modern living. These appliances include domestic equipments, such as refrigerators, washing machines, mobile phones, personal computers, printers, toys and TVs, which people often dispose of and replace every few years or so.
Moore’s Law helps explain the phenomenal explosion of electronic products. Gordon Moore, Intel Co-Founder, published a paper on Moore’s Law 45 years ago. In this paper, Moore predicted that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit would double each year (which was later changed to a doubling that will occur every 18 months). This prediction provided the foundation for another forecast: that doubling the number of transistors would also improve the performance of CPUs twice over every 18 months (Hutcheson, 2009, p.13).   Moore, however, was hesitant to call this is a law and emphasized that it was an observation (Hutcheson, 2009, p.13).   It was Carver Mead who called it “Moore’s Law” (Hutcheson, 2009, p.13).  
Moore’s vision is that engineers will find cost-efficient ways to double the component density of these transistors, which will make them more powerful and affordable in the long run (Alesso & Smith, 2008, p.31). As electrical and electronic products become cheaper, more and more consumers can afford them (Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management [SAICM], 2009). As a result, the product life cycle of popular electronic devices has drastically shortened. An example is Intel’s processors. In 1997, the Intel Pentium II 233 MHz processor was released. Two years after that, the Intel Pentium III 500 MHz was launched. More powerful processes meant enhanced computing power and speed, which attracted consumers to update their computers regularly.
The environmental implication of Moore’s Law cannot be understated. Shorter product life cycles meant more electronic waste or e e-waste. More e-waste meant greater burdens for solid waste management. Statistics provide evidence to this observation. See Figure 1 for the growth of computer product sales in the U.S. from 1980 to 2006. Figure 1 shows how sales from desktops rose steeply from the year 1992 to 2000. Sales of desktops continued to increase until 2000, after which sales stabilized. The growth of sales in LCDs is staggering, wherein sales continued to rise from 2002 onwards. Laptops and printers also experienced increasing sales from 2002 and beyond.

Given that numerous consumers change electronic devices periodically, especially those who are technologically “updated,” it is not surprising that e-waste continues to increase at alarming rates as well. Before we proceed in discussing e-waste at the international, as well as selected regional and national levels, it will be important to define e-waste. Its definition provides the scope of e-waste as a new kind of solid waste.
A broad definition for e-waste refers to it as consisting of electronic and electrical devices that no longer have operational and economic value to consumers (Anandakrishnan, Jadhav, & Jagtap, 2008, p.29). A more detailed definition of e-waste comes from the study of Yoshida and Yoshida, which adapts the definition of WEEE (waste electronic and electrical equipment), a more common term used by the European Union (EU) (2010). WEEE pertains to a new kind of waste type, a category that comprises of precious metals and toxic substances as lead (Pb) and polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs), and those whose components entail separate sorting and special treatment for waste management (Yoshida & Yoshida, 2010, p.21). The European Union gave a directive on managing WEEE, which provides the categories of e-waste: large and small household appliances; IT and telecommunications equipment; consumer equipment; lighting equipment; electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools); toys, leisure and sports equipment; medical devices (with the exception of implanted and infected products); monitoring and control instruments; and automatic dispensers. From this list of WEEE, people can only imagine the volume of e-waste produced by one nation every year, especially if it is assumed that people buy something from these categories several times a year (i.e. toys and consumer equipment).
Composition of e-waste
E-wastes contain several persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances (PBT) including heavy metals such as lead, nickel, chromium, mercury and persistent organic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls in capacitors in the older models which are still in the market, and brominated flame retardants. Thus globalization of e-waste has adverse environmental and health implications in the downstream end of the electrical and electronic equipment supply chain entailing disposal of waste, as developing countries are economically challenged, lack the infrastructure for sound hazardous waste management including recycling, or effective regulatory frameworks for hazardous chemicals and wastes management.
E-waste contains valuable ferrous (e.g., iron), non-ferrous (e.g., aluminium, copper) and precious and special (e.g., gold, palladium, platinum, silver, indium, gallium) metals that can be obtained from dismantling of computer cases, frames, wires, cables and other components. The rising value of these materials makes recycling more economically viable and attractive.
Product Lifecycle: From Products to E-Wastes
The pattern of product use forms the methodological framework used in this study. This pattern begins at the point the product is purchased and ends with its final disposition. Figure 2 depicts the framework used in this analysis. As shown in the figure, the first phase of a product’s life begins with the purchaser or “first user” of the product. After the first use is Phase 2, in which the product may be given or sold to someone else for reuse, be stored (e.g., in a closet or basement) for a period of time, or undergo some combination of reuse and storage. Phase 2 may include the transfer of the product from one person to another, either as a gift or a sale, but only if this transfer is from individual to individual as opposed to involving a third party, such as an electronics recycler, broker, or donation organization. Phase 3 is the point at which the last user is ready to remove the product from a private home or business. This change can result from the desire to replace or otherwise stop using the product or the desire to remove the product from storage. It is at this point that we state that the product is ready for EOL management and it is transferred to a third party, such as a recycler or donation organization or it is disposed. Once the product is in the hands of a recycler, the product may be sold for reuse “as is” or after some refurbishment. The resale may occur domestically or by firms outside the United States. Electronic devices that are not candidates for resale are dismantled or shredded, and the resulting material is separated into secondary material streams and recovered. Recovered materials from the recycling process are used to make new products, and the residuals of the processing stage are disposed of in a landfill or incinerator. Material recovery may occur domestically or abroad.

Re-use/ Counterfeiting
Re-use constitutes direct second-hand use or use after slight modifications are made to the original functioning equipment-memory upgrades, etc. These computers are later sold in very small numbers at some recycling stores or are given to schools, or non-profit organizations. These older units obviously have a limited life span and will end up as e-waste sooner or later.
Domestic Recycling
The recycling of hazardous materials anywhere creates a serious pollution challenge. It was estimated that in 1998, 11% of computers were being recycled (including those sent for export). And the amount was growing at about 18% per year. It was 12.75 million computers recycled in 2002. The corporate need to destroy confidential information on discarded computers is another incentive to recycle.
Dismantling and Scrapping
Removal of part containing dangerous substances (CFCs, Hg switches, PCB); removal of easily accessible parts containing valuable substances (cable containing copper, aluminium, steel, iron, precious metal containing parts, e.g. contacts). Scrapping of ferrous metal, non-ferrous metal and plastic is done. This separation is normally done in a shredder process.
Export to Developing Countries
The most often overlooked and ignored E-waste management option - export to developing countries under the name of "recycling". There are three primary reasons why E-waste is increasingly flooding Asian countries:
• The labor costs are very low (India- $1.00 per day);
• Environmental and occupational regulations are careless or not well enforced; and
• It is legal in the countries like U.S., despite international law to the opposing, to allow export of hazardous E-wastes with no controls whatsoever.
UK e-Waste Scenario
The United Kingdom (UK) generates around 15% of the EU’s total waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE) (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology [POST], 2007, p.1). Around 940,000 tons of UK’s 300 million tons of waste a year come from domestic sources. See Table 1. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), reported: “On average, each UK householder disposes of approximately four pieces of WEEE a year. This type of waste is growing three times faster than any other municipal waste stream” (p.1).
Table 1: Tonnages and units of WEEE discarded in the UK in 2003
Type
Tonnage discarded
(thousands of tons)
Units discarded
(millions)
Large household appliances
644
14
Consumer
equipment
120
12
Small household
appliances
80
30
IT & telecoms
equipment
68
21
Other
28
17
TOTAL
940
94

Source: Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling, 2005
Disposal of WEEE
For some kinds of WEEE, there are recognized markets for recycling and/or reuse (POST, 2007, p.1). For instance, a number of large household appliances (‘white goods’) such as refrigerators and washing machines are recycled on a wider basis because of the following reasons: regulations imposed in 2002 requiring that waste fridges and freezers are processed to eliminate ozone depleting substances before scrapping; they are recycled for their precious scrap metal content (POST, 2007, p.1).
For other consumer items that are smaller, such as small household appliances, power tools or electronic toys, the market for re-use, or for their component materials to be recycled in the UK, is not yet that developed (POST, 2007, p.1).  There are also limited benefits in recycling them (POST, 2007, p.1).  This means they come into the domestic waste stream unprocessed, typically in landfill (POST, 2007, p.1). The UK signed new legislation in January 2007, to decrease WEEE, to sustain greater recycling and re-use, and to advance the monitoring of final disposal of materials. However, recycling of many kinds of e-waste remain underdeveloped (POST, 2007, p.1).
The European Directive for WEEE
The dumping and low rates of recycling of electronic and electrical appliances, numerous of which containing toxic factors, may create environmental hazards (POST, 2007, p.1). In order to avert the hazards that come with WEEE, the EU approved the latest producer responsibility legislation in 2002, an EU Directive for WEEE (2002/96/EC) (POST, 2007, p.1). Under this, producers are made responsible for their product at the end of their useful life (POST, 2007, p.1).Its main goal is to reduce the environmental impact of an electronic product’s entire life, not just at the point where it becomes waste (POST, 2007, p.2). This directive aims that by exerting the end-of-life cost on producers, this will act as a motivation for them to create longer-lived products, that utilize fewer resources and dangerous materials, spawn less waste, and are safer and easier to recycle (POST, 2007, p.2).  It also provides mechanisms, by which household and commercial WEEE should be classified, collected, treated and documented (POST, 2007, p.2).  Two more EU Directives also apply to the management of electrical and electronic goods and they are the following:
·                     The Energy Using Products Directive (2005), which was implemented last 2007. It does not relate to waste but seeks to enhance the environmental performance of energy-using products during their whole life, by acknowledging the environmental performance at the design phase (POST, 2007, p.2).
·                     The Restriction on the Use of Hazardous Substances Directive was implemented in the UK in July 2006. It controls the employment of particular hazardous materials that are frequently used in electrical products, such as lead, mercury and some types of flame retardants (POST, 2007, p.2).
The enforcement of the WEEE Directive Transposition of the Directive is the responsibility of the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR, previously the Department for Trade and Industry or DTI), while the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is accountable for licensing WEEE treatment facilities (POST, 2007, p.2). The Environment Agency (EA) is the enforcement organization in England and Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Scotland and the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland (POST, 2007, p.2).
The UK aims to accumulate a minimum level of WEEE, amounting to 4kg/person/year, and attain a number of other recovery, recycling, reuse and treatment targets. The legislation necessitates the division of WEEE from other waste streams, so that dangerous substances can be eliminated, while mounting recycling rates. WEEE treatment does not have to happen in the UK provided as long as the EU standards are attained and the waste export rules are followed.
Consumer awareness.
The WEEE Directive implemented the new labeling of equipment with a symbol of a crossed-out wheelie bin to designate that the goods should not be discarded alongside municipal waste (POST, 2007, p.2). Aside from this, there is no other indication of how the public is informed of how WEEE will be handled by either local retailers, or local authority waste facilities (POST, 2007, p.2). The DBERR and the EA conducted awareness raising events in 2007, but these are focused on improving compliance by businesses instead of educating householders (POST, 2007, p.2). Greenpeace tries to improve the awareness of consumers about the use of hazardous chemicals in electronic goods.
Developing Countries/Regions
            China. In China, the use and obsolescence of both electronic and electrical equipment have risen expediently in the recent years, especially as the economic expanded rapidly. China has also started certain measures to manage e-waste problem since it experienced rapid industrialization and urbanization in the 1990s. See Figure 2.  Route 1 in Figure 2 shows leaves Europe and proceeds to Africa and China. Route 2 shows the concentration of e-waste in several parts in China, from e-waste coming from the U.S. These routes show how e-trade has become an international business, wherein e-waste predominantly comes from developed countries and flows into developing countries.

Africa. In July 2000, the Group of Eight Developed countries, G8, created the ‘Okinawa Charter on Global Information Society’ at the Okinawa Summit in Japan. This is a proposal to link the ‘digital divide’, which seeks to enhance access to communication technologies in the world's poorer countries. This Charter and other related efforts advanced information and communication technologies (ICT) in developing countries including Nigeria (Sarkisyan, 2007).
In 2000, Nigeria had merely 500,000 major lines operational from a capacity of 700,000 and barely 30,000 analogue mobile telephony lines equipped with one of the lowest teledensity rates in the world (Osibanjo & Nnorom, 2008, p.199). This has drastically changed after the coming of four operator of the global system for mobile communication (GSM) (Osibanjo & Nnorom, 2008, p.199). At present, more Nigerians own mobile telephones and the mobile phone is playing a large part in the development of the Nigerian economy (Osibanjo & Nnorom, 2008, p.199). Mobile telephony has even expanded more than landline telephony, making mobile phones more ubiquitous than landlines (Osibanjo & Nnorom, 2008, p.199).
The study by Osibanjo and Nnorom (2008) explored the international material flow and waste production in the mobile telecom sector, the development of mobile telecom in Nigeria and the current waste management practices for wastes from the sector in the country.  Their survey indicated that on the average, mobile phone users in Nigeria buy a new mobile phone battery and charger twice a year (p.204). This creates total waste of 3000 t and 9500 t correspondingly for the period 2001–2006. By 2007, a projected 8 million mobile phones that could weigh around 1200 t would have become outdated in the country (Osibanjo & Nnorom, 2008, p.204). They also observed the lack of safe and integrated e-waste management system in Nigeria. They suggested that in order to attain effective management of e-waste, there must be a well-coordinated network for the collection and recycling of e-wastes.  In another study, Nnorom and Osibanjo (2008) examined material flows and management practices in Nigeria. Findings showed that the majority of developing countries including Nigeria lack a comprehensive system for separation, storage, collection, transportation, and disposal of waste and it also does not have an effective enforcement of regulations that concern hazardous waste management. There is also no particular legislation for management of e-waste and there is negligent enforcement of present of general waste management. E-waste recycling and importing is also considered as an informal market, lacking in efficient technologies and hi-tech recycling means. Thus, e-waste management is largely done through low-end management means, such as dumping in open dumps, backyard recycling and dumping into water bodies. These studies indicate poor e-waste management legislation and formal market networks in Nigeria, which can reflect the same across Africa which accepts e-waste from other countries.
PHH Hypothesis
There has been emerging focus on the pollution haven hypothesis (PHH), although there is no agreement on what pollution haven truly is (Kellenberg, 2008). Public opinion showed that a country with poor environmental regulations easily offer a pollution haven (Neumayer, 2001, p.147). Neumayer (2001) argued that this cannot be an accurate definition, because people cannot expect that all countries will apply the same standards of environmental management. He noted that this will be the same kind of definition provided by Eskeland and Harrison (1997, p. 4):
The pollution haven hypothesis is, perhaps, best seen as a corollary to the theory of comparative advantage: as pollution control costs begin to matter for some industries in some countries, other countries should gain comparative advantage in those industries, if pollution control costs are lower there (for whatever reason).
Neumayer (2001) stressed that cost differentials alone will lead to overlooking other reasons, wherein some countries still have low environmental standards, but they still do not draw sufficient foreign capital (p.147).
            Neumayer (2001) proposed a different definition of PHH: “A country provides a pollution haven if it sets its environmental standards below the socially efficient level or fails to enforce its standards in order to attract foreign investment from countries with higher standards or countries that better enforce their standards” (p.148). Using economic terms, “environmental standards are at their socially efficient level if for each different pollutant the standard is set such that the marginal social benefit of an increase in pollution is just equal to the marginal social cost of such an increase” (p.148). In other words, if environmental standards are inefficiently low, then there is unwarranted pollution relative to people’s preferences. Given this definition, he reviewed the existence of pollution havens using the review of literature. Findings showed that PHH is hard to prove, when developing countries do not low environmental standards for purposes of inviting e-waste. Author concluded that since discrimination between efficiently low environmental standards and authentic pollution havens is rather complicated to accomplish, the more imperative it becomes that policy options dealing with (possible) pollution havens are development friendly, not open to abuse, and not unreasonably restrictive—precisely the criteria on which support for political-institutional capacity building and local empowerment could thrive.
            The study by Kellenberg (2008) explored consumption externalities, backhauling, and pollution havens. He made a theory of consumer-generated waste trade that is affected by changes in endogenously determined shipping costs. Trade deficits, shipping market qualities, country attributes, and physical attributes of final goods are revealed to play an imperative role in shipping costs, a decisive constituent for a country’s resolution to export harmful waste or dispose of it at home. Findings showed that when the shipping industry is illustrated by imperfectly competitive firms with capacity limits, asymmetries can endogenously happen between the headhaul and backhaul shipping rates between the countries (Kellenberg, 2008, p.6). These asymmetries can rationalize that the North will be better off in transporting its waste to the South. This is because lowering shipping costs from North to South increases the incentive of just paying lower tax for waste disposal in the South, including shipping costs, instead of paying higher tax in the North (Kellenberg, 2008, p.6). However, the study also noted that when the South is incapable of enforcing the optimal Pigouvian tax, South welfare falls even more; and incurs a loss in trade in shipping cost and disutility from waste pollution (Kellenberg, 2008, p.6). This study shows the importance of setting the right taxes of accepting e-waste in Africa, which nonetheless, should be lower than the shipping costs of managing e-waste in the North.
            Taylor (2005) aimed to “unbundle” the PHH. The result of this unbundling can be seen in Figure 2. The hypothesis provides as given the country characteristics such as access to a variety of production technologies, opportunities for abatement, and country specific endowments of productive factors. These country characteristics, including the world prices, establish national income which in turn is included into the strictness of environmental regulation at a). The mapping is made by a social planner who applies an efficient solution needed by the set of identical agents in the economy. The efficient solution is then applied through a tax on pollution (or any other efficient mechanism). This tax influences the costs of goods production in the economy. This article is important in understanding the trade-offs involved for countries that choose to be pollution havens. He makes three important conclusions: 1) environmental regulation is critical to production and trade flows, 2) regulatory effects are imperative but trade in dirty goods is also affected by a multitude of other factors: capital abundance, industry factor intensities, the quality of governance as measured by say corruption, and other political economy determinants, and 3) relationship between trade, technology and the environment is not well understood but could be very central to e-waste trade (Taylor, 2005, pp.25-26).
Figure 2: Unbundled PHH
Source: Taylor (2005, p.8)





Conclusion
The generation of e-waste has exploded, as Murphy’s law showed how easy it is to improve electronic products through technology, thereby cutting life cycles short. Current technology also makes it cheaper to produce more advanced products, which also attracts continuous consumption of new electronic products. The downside of producing and purchasing new products is the rise of e-waste. E-waste, however, produces an incentive for developing countries as a new source of income. It is possible that they can accommodate this externality and gain additional streams of revenues.
Studies showed that e-waste will continue to grow at an unprecedented rate and that pollutions havens can gain from international e-waste trade. The pollutions haven hypothesis helps explain the migration of e-waste from developed countries to developing countries, as the latter employ less efficient environmental laws. These environmental laws, however, do not always assure optimal income for developing countries. Taxes and agreement should be present, wherein the importers of e-waste can accommodate this externality at a lower marginal social cost.









References
Anandakrishnan, R., Jadhav, N.G., & Jagtap, R.N. (2008). Recycling of electronic waste. Popular Plastics & Packaging, 29-31.
Eskeland, G. S., & Harrison, A. E. (1997). Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis (Working Paper 1744). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling. (January 2005). Status Report on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from www.icer.org.uk/
Kellenberg, D.K. (2008). Consumption externalities, backhauling, and pollution havens. The University of Montana. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://economics.ca/2008/papers/0871.pdf
Neumayer, E. (2001). Pollution havens: An analysis of policy options for dealing with an elusive phenomenon. Journal of Environment & Development, 10 (2), 147-177.
Li, J., Tian, B., Liu, T., Liu, H., Wen, H., & Honda, S.(2006). Status quo of e-waste management in mainland China. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 8 (1), 13-20.
Liu, Y. (no date). Recycling and waste management case study of China: E-waste recycling industry. Retrieved October 10, 2010, fromhttp://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/events/greenjobs/download/paper25.pdf
Nnorom, I.C. & Osibanjo, O. (2008). Electronic waste (e-waste): Material flows and management practices in Nigeria. Waste Management, 28 (8), 1472-1479.
Osibanjo, O. & Nnorom, I.C. (2008). Material flows of mobile phones and accessories in Nigeria: Environmental implications and sound end-of-life management options.  Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28 (2-3), 198-213,
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). (2007). Electronic Waste. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn291.pdf
Sarkisyan, D. B. (2007). International cooperation in building the global information society. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 34 (5), 264-271.

Schluep, M., Hagelueken, C., Kuehr, R., Magalini, F., Maurer, C., Meskers, C., Mueller, E., & Wang, F. (2009). Recycling from e-waste to resources. United Nations Environment Programme & United Nations University.
Taylor, M.S. (2005). Unbundling the pollution haven hypothesis. University of Calgary Department of Economics Discussion Paper 2005-15.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Electronics waste management in the United States. Retrieved October 10, 2010, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/app-1.pdf
Yoshida, F. & Yoshida, H. (2010). Japan, the European Union, and waste electronic and electrical equipment recycling: Key lessons learned. Environmental Engineering Science, 27 (1), 21-28.