This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Worlding Electronic Waste Main Menu Chapter 1 | Introduction Chapter 1 summary and figures. Chapter 2 | Waste/Non-Waste Chapter 2 summary and figures. Chapter 3 | The Discard Test Chapter 3 summary and figures. Chapter 4 | Charting Flows of Electronic Waste Chapter 4 summary and figures. Chapter 5 | Looking Again in a Different Way Chapter 5 summary and figures. Chapter 6 | Weighty Geographies Chapter 6 summary and figures. Visit MIT Press

Figure 2.1

8994

Debate Graph view of actors, issues, and documents relevant to the controversy over the Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movements of Electrical and Electronic Waste and Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste under the Basel Convention. Click here to open the full image in separate browser window.

This page has paths:

Chapter 2 | Waste/Non-Waste Josh Lepawsky
Contents of this path:
1. Figure 2.1
2. Figure 2.2
3. Figure 2.3
4. Figure 2.4
5. Figure 2.5
6. Figure 2.6
7. Figure 2.7
8. Figure 2.8
9. Figure 2.9
10. Figure 2.10
11. Figure 2.11
12. Figure 2.12
13. Figure 2.13
14. Figure 2.14 This diagram provides a qualitative representation of actors' partisanship for a preferred worlding. Horizontal lines extending from each actors' name indicate their apparent willingness to negotiate over the two options. The position of a given actor's name within its horizontal line (e.g., "EU") indicates its relative preference within the overall range it appears willing to negotiate. The two options (Mono-Bloc World and Global Value Chain World) do not sit at opposite ends of a smooth continuum. Instead, the jaggedness of the arrow between them is intended to visually represent that the two options are separated by a patchy, distributed, and non-coherent set of options. The further down horizontally actors are positioned, the less they share of a common worlding.