Search results

AbstractStimulating plastic waste valorisation is suggested as an important way to address the growing waste problem in low‐income countries. However, policy interventions have not led to substantial waste valorisation, and the reasons for this have not been thoroughly analysed. We address this through a qualitative study of plastic waste in urban Zambia, which is representative of the policy and practice challenges in African plastic waste management. Using extensive data gathered through interviews, site visits and stakeholder meetings, we first conduct a business ecosystem analysis which provides a holistic view on value creation, capture, and destruction processes across all actors involved in the plastics lifecycle. Next, we map the barriers to value creation and capture by the system's main actors. Aggregation of these barriers reveals a low‐value trap, in which individual actors are disincentivized to increase waste valorisation activities. Finally, we analyse the reasons why policies aimed at waste valorisation have failed to break through this status quo. We find that policies have insufficiently addressed the barriers that keep the low‐value trap in place. Hence, they have not acted effectively on the root causes of systemic stagnation. By combining a business ecosystems analysis with an identification of barriers facing the individual actors in that ecosystem, our study is able to show why substantial plastic waste valorisation has not emerged despite policy incentives. Our analysis points toward concrete policy actions aimed at value redistribution and value increase, as key leverage points in the system to increase valorisation.

This article criticizes recent Bottom (or, Base) of the Pyramid (BoP) approaches for 'cancelling out politics' by obscuring unequal power relations at different societal levels and painting an optimistic picture of win-win outcomes that will make (some of) the world's biggest corporations richer while simultaneously adding a few crucial pennies to the pockets of the poor. The article is thus positioned within a growing stream of literature critical of BoP ideas, but it goes further than existing critiques by arguing that the current BoP discourse serves an important ideological function for global capital, specifically producing a discursive depoliticization of its corporate interventions in the lives of the world's poor. We argue that the poverty-reduction outcome of a BoP venture is contingent on its practice on the ground, which will inevitably be shaped by local and global power relations. In particular, we point to three cultural-political issues overlooked by the BoP discourse, which are vital in understanding the practice of business ventures at the BoP: adverse power relationships within poor communities; social-epistemological hierarchies between the poor and outsiders who administer poverty-reduction interventions; and local vulnerabilities induced by global currents in products, services, information and ideologies.