HomeEconomy of leftovers and recycling

Economy of leftovers and recycling

Économie des restes et du recyclage

Economía de los desechos y del reciclaje

Social, political and environmental dynamics in the Global South

Dynamiques sociales, politiques et environnementales dans les Suds

Dinámicas sociales, políticas y medioambientales en los países del Sur

*  *  *

Published on Friday, November 28, 2025

Abstract

Français English Español

Economies built around waste – rubbish, unsold goods, surplus, scrap, used materials – are becoming increasingly important in the Global South. This issue therefore aims to examine these forms of economic activity from three main perspectives: environmental, socio-economic and political. The objective is to bring together empirical and theoretical work that documents, compares and problematises these waste economies based on surveys conducted in Southern countries, while taking into account the circulation and cross-influences with Northern countries. These ‘waste products’ can take various forms, which the issue intends to consider in an open and pluralistic perspective.

Announcement

Français English Español

Argument

Economies built around leftovers – waste, unsold goods, surplus, scrap, used materials – are becoming increasingly important in countries in the Global South. Far from being peripheral, they are central to understanding contemporary reconfigurations of work, forms of popular organisation, urban and environmental policies, and power relations in the globalisation of materials and markets.

This dossier is part of a series of French-language works that, over the last decade, have renewed approaches to leftovers, waste and requalification practices in the social sciences (Bertolini, 1978; Beaune, 1979). It draws on three major milestones from the French context: the exhibition Vies d'ordures. De l’économie des déchets (Lives of Rubbish: The Economy of Waste) presented at the MuCEM in 2017, the thematic dossier Réparer le monde (Repairing the World) published by the journal Techniques & Culture (Furniss, Joulian, Tastevin, 2016), and the collective work edited by Elisabeth Anstett and Nathalie Ortar, La deuxième vie des objets (The Second Life of Objects) (2015). These works share a common focus on exploring the social materiality of waste, the secondary uses of objects, and forms of repair, recovery, and DIY across a wide variety of fields. This dossier proposes to extend these theoretical insights while shifting them to the Global South in order to examine forms of recycling economies in contexts marked by precarious public services, informal labour, and tensions related to the global circulation of waste and environmental standards. It is also rooted in the dynamic reflections of the interdisciplinary network ‘Waste, Values and Societies’, which explores the plurality of uses, conceptions and regulations of waste in contemporary societies, at the interface between economics, social sciences, ecology and innovation. It therefore engages in dialogue with approaches to ecological transition (Lazaric, 2023), environmental inequalities linked to management infrastructures (Durand, 2010), and forms of citizen politicisation around waste (Hajek, 2021).

The aim is to put these French-language approaches into perspective with the wealth of English-language work, particularly in the fields of discard studies, political ecology research and critical studies on the circular economy, which we will draw on in the rest of this overview. Several recent studies have focused on the recovery sector and approached the circular economy from a critical perspective (Corteel, 2024; Durand, 2024; Gregson, 2023; O'Neil, 2019; Norris, 2019; Koszewska, 2018; etc.). English-language studies grouped under the label of discard studies have renewed the critical analysis of waste by placing it within the broader context of consumption, material circulation and the production of inequalities (Liboiron, 2021; Lepawsky, 2018). This research, mainly from the fields of human geography, anthropology and environmental studies, has deconstructed the apparent neutrality of waste management systems and revealed the systemic tensions that underlie them. Josh Lepawsky (2018) has offered a detailed analysis of transnational waste circuits (particularly electronic waste), showing how waste is produced, transported, sorted and recycled according to logic that combines geopolitics, infrastructure and economic asymmetries. Kate O'Neill (2019) analyses global waste policies and their contradictions, while highlighting the challenges of outsourcing pollution to countries in the Global South. These analyses echo those of Jennifer Clapp (2001), who documents in detail the transfer of hazardous waste from rich countries to poor countries. On a more theoretical level, Zsuzsa Gille (2007) has shown that waste is not just marginal material, but objects at the heart of political and economic regimes: their definition, invisibility or valorisation contribute to the production of social order.

This research focuses in particular on the recycling of waste and its circulation (Gregson and Crang, 2010; Gregson et al., 2015) in the form of various types of waste: plastic waste, electronic waste (e-waste), textile waste, hazardous waste (Pellow, 2007) and toxic waste (Rublack, 1989; Kempel 1999), household waste, municipal waste (Zapata M.-J. & Hall M., 2013), etc. These flows often go from urban centres to the peripheries, or from cities to the countryside (Gille, 2007, 2010), and North-South flows of waste are increasingly being analysed. Analysing electronic waste flows, Josh Lepawsky (2019) debunks the simplistic idea of a unidirectional North-South flow, as it is sometimes more complex than it appears, but confirms asymmetrical trends. With regard to the circulation of plastic waste, Max Liboiron (2021) shows how forms of waste management, even under the guise of recycling or “neutral” science, can perpetuate logics of domination (Liboiron & Lepawsky, 2022). Hecht Gabrielle's (2012) analyses, which document the toxic effects of the nuclear industry in several African countries, with a detailed approach to nuclear waste and colonial infrastructure, echo those of Kate O'Neil (2001) on the export of hazardous waste and environmental conflicts in several countries in the Global South (Clapp, 2001).

Far from being limited to technical solutions, the processes of recycling, treating or circulating waste raise fundamental questions about development models, North-South relations, popular economies and forms of social innovation (Anstett & Ortar, 2015). Indeed, waste economies are most often understood at the local level (Ayimpam, 2024; Bouju, 2010), but they are sometimes part of transnational dynamics of material and object circulation, particularly from Northern to Southern countries: flows of second-hand clothing (Durant, 2024; Bertolini, 2006; Bredeloup & Lombard, 2008; Brooks, 2013), electronic waste, recyclable plastics (Anantharaman, 2024), but also transfers of environmental standards, technical expertise and governance models. These flows give rise to tensions: they produce both economic opportunities and forms of dependency, but also new social and territorial injustices (Cirelli & Florin, 2015).

This dossier also seeks to examine the political dimension of waste through the differentiated relationships of access, control, and recovery. Drawing on access theory (Ribot & Peluso, 2003), it analyses who has the power to use or transform waste, without necessarily owning it. This approach sheds light on the tensions between grassroots actors, private companies and public institutions in the regulation of waste, while also drawing on reflections on the possible communalisation of waste (Cavé, 2018; 2015). Taking into account the tensions between economic survival, health risks and environmental objectives, particular attention will be paid to the ambivalence experienced by those involved in waste recovery, as evidenced in particular by Mikaëla Le Meur's research (2021) on plastic circuits in Vietnam.

This dossier also aims to place the analysis of the economies of waste within a global context: the globalisation of materials and value chains, public waste management policies, social enterprises focused on the reuse of discarded objects, socio-environmental conflicts, climate justice, ecological transitions, etc. Indeed, waste also crystallises major geopolitical issues, as it circulates between areas of consumption and areas of treatment, thus contributing to what is known as ‘waste imperialism’ or ‘waste colonialism’ (Liboiron, 2021). The aim is to highlight the multiple scales – international, regional, national, local – (Martínez et al., 2021) through which these flows are regulated, negotiated and sometimes contested.

In the Global South, where formal waste management systems are often very limited, waste recovery, reuse and recycling practices are carried out by a variety of actors: local authorities, informal waste collectors, waste collector cooperatives, local entrepreneurs, NGOs, etc. These actors address issues of public service and environmental sustainability, but also social integration and employment, and even economic survival in situations often marked by precariousness, illegality and even exclusion. However, where fragility and vulnerability are observed, we also see the resilience of those engaged in ‘ecological work’, particularly through their mobilisation around fair conditions for the closure of open dumps where they generally do the ‘dirty work’ of sorting waste (Gregson et al., 2016; Zimring, 2004). The work of Leal (2024) and Gutberlet (2016) in Brazil, for example, shows how recyclable material collectors and sorters overcome hermeneutic barriers to negotiate public actions with local governments to promote waste picker entrepreneurship. These practices are part of a context in which the circular economy paradigm is gaining visibility internationally. However, reuse, recycling, and recovery practices in the Global South often develop on the margins of the normative models developed in the Global North, as they respond to other logics: subsistence needs, lack of effective public services, informal economy and local know-how (Ayimpam, 2024). The aim is to examine the circulation, appropriation, and tensions surrounding the circular economy framework in Southern countries, by comparing its promises with the reality of local practices and power relations.

The dossier thus aims to examine these forms of economy from the perspective of three main types of issues:

  • Environmental, by questioning the real place of recycling in ecological transition policies in the Global South, and conflicts over the use of or access to residual resources, but also through the potential contribution of these policies to reducing waste volumes, resource sustainability and ecological transition.
  • Socio-economic, by analysing the work of recovery in its concrete forms, between precariousness, informality and social creativity; these mobilise forms of employment that are often informal, precarious, or popular, but also logics of mutual aid, integration, or value creation from materials considered worthless.
  • Political, highlighting the interplay of actors around the regulation of the ‘economy of leftovers and recycling’; the power relations between the popular economy and private companies, and mechanisms for inclusion or invisibilisation. They are often part of unevenly structured regulatory systems, revealing tensions between public governance, private interests, circular economy mechanisms and popular subsistence practices.

The aim of this dossier is to bring together empirical and theoretical work that documents, compares and problematises these economies of leftovers based on surveys conducted in countries of the Global South, while taking into account the circulation and cross-influences with countries of the Global North. These ‘leftovers’ can take various forms, which the dossier intends to consider in an open and pluralistic manner. We will focus in particular on:

  • solid and liquid waste (household waste, wastewater, used oil, plastics, food waste, electronic waste, hazardous waste);
  • second-hand goods (clothing, domestic equipment, vehicles, furniture, books, etc.);
  • industrial or agricultural waste (by-products, surpluses, unsold goods, processing residues);
  • biomedical or sanitary waste (pharmaceutical residues, used hospital equipment);
  • waste resulting from disasters, conflicts or public policies (demolitions, expropriations, destruction of stocks, etc.);
  • recovered residual materials (compost, fertiliser, bio-waste, sludge);
  • invisible or marginalised waste (human waste, excreta, sanitary waste, organic waste, stigmatised waste);
  • and more broadly, any material, substance, object, or product that has been disqualified, relegated or reclassified, whose value, use, or legitimacy is socially contested or reconstructed.

It is aimed at researchers in the social sciences (sociology, economics, anthropology, geography, political science, history, law, etc.) who critically examine the links between waste and development, as well as inequalities and resistance to recycling. It thus aims to place the study of the socio-economics of waste, recycling, and recovery in a cross-cutting perspective, situating them within the broader dynamics of the globalisation of flows (material, financial, normative), sustainable development policies, environmental justice and social innovation. The aim is not to naturalise the category of “waste”, but to understand its uses, trajectories, and challenges through the power relations that shape them.

Proposed thematic areas

Contributions are expected to be organised around several complementary areas, which may include contributions rooted in different contexts in the Global South, while taking into account the circulation, influences and effects of global dynamics:

Area 1 – Work, informality, and actors in popular recycling

This theme invites contributions documenting the trajectories, practices, and forms of organisation of waste pickers, sorters, rag-and-bone men, scrap metal dealers, collectors, associations, and cooperatives. It will examine:

  • The division of labour in waste recovery chains,
  • The forms of moral or political economy that underpin them,
  • The dynamics of inclusion, exploitation or recognition,
  • The relationships between grassroots actors, NGOs, municipalities and private companies.
  • Waste recovery (repair, recycling, reuse) 

Emphasis may be placed on strategies for empowerment, resistance or collective mobilisation.

Axis 2 – Actors, regulations, and waste management policies

This axis proposes to examine public policies for the treatment and management of waste in cities in the Global South, not in isolation but in conjunction with private companies, informal actors and mixed regulatory mechanisms.

  • How are collection, sorting, and recovery policies designed, implemented and justified?
  • What are the dominant models (public, private, hybrid), and how do they integrate (or not) informal actors?
  • What forms of governance emerge through these mechanisms (participation, exclusion, conflicts of interest)?

The aim is to understand the political and institutional issues that structure these recycling economies.

Axis 3 – Global circulation of waste and transnational markets

This axis proposes to examine the logic behind the international circulation of ‘waste’, particularly from North to South:

  • Export of second-hand clothing, plastics or electronic waste
  • Importation of technical devices, standards or environmental labels
  • Role of intermediaries, grey areas of regulation, trade, or health conflicts
  • Etc.

Contributions may highlight value chains, patterns of dependency or subordination, but also local appropriations of these flows.

Axis 4 – Representations of waste, social ecologies and imaginaries of sustainability

Finally, this last axis proposes to open up critical approaches, to explore the symbolic, cultural and political dimensions of leftovers and waste, by questioning:

  • Social representations, moral or aesthetic categorisations (dirty, useful, noble, dangerous, recyclable).
  • Social, political, environmental or commercial imaginaries associated with recovery practices: sustainability, abundance, scarcity, toxicity, fear, contempt, hope, or protest.
  • Popular ecologies, tensions between the promises of the circular economy and social realities.
  • Territorial struggles linked to the establishment of sorting centres, landfills or industrial facilities, conflicts around places and symbols of waste: landfills, resource centres, popular second-hand markets and imported waste (electronics, electrical goods, second-hand clothing, mechanical goods, domestic equipment, etc.).

Papers addressing environmental justice, Southern epistemologies or popular ecologies are welcome.

Proposal for a documentary section

In addition to the scientific articles, the coordinators plan to include a documentary section at the end of the dossier to showcase ethnographic, visual or audio material on recycling practices and ways of life around waste.

Participation in Issue no. 264 (2027/2) of the RIED   

Submitting the proposal  

The authors must submit an abstract in French, English, or Spanish, presenting their proposal in approximately 8,000 characters (with spaces), i.e. about 1,000 words or two pages.   

The Word file for the abstract must be entitled “AUTHOR’S SURNAME-Proposal-264,” and must include:  

  • the title: short and precise, 70 characters maximum (with the possibility of adding a subtitle);  
  • the research question, the theoretical framework, the fieldwork, and the main results;   
  • the bibliographical references (not included in the character count).

For each author, a second file entitled “AUTHOR’S SURNAME-info” must include their first name and last name, their discipline, status, institutional affiliation, email address, and the name of the corresponding author. 

For the proposals to be examined, it is essential that they follow these guidelines. Their suitability to the call for papers will be determined by the guest editors and the journal’s editorial board.  

Submitting the paper  

The authors whose proposals have been selected will be invited to send a first draft of their article, which must absolutely follow the Guidelines for Authors. The articles will then be submitted to a double-blind peer review by two external reviewers who are experts on the topic.  

The articles (45,000 characters with spaces, excluding the abstract and references) may be written in French, English, or Spanish. They must be original work. They may however have been presented at a conference (with proceedings), as long as they have been adapted to the format required by the Revue internationale des études du développement, but the author must not submit their paper to another journal simultaneously.  

The references cited must be presented in APA format.  

Publication Calendar  

The authors agree to comply with the calendar.  

The proposals must be submitted to:  

  • ayimpam@gmail.com
  • sayoleal@gmail.com
  • revdev@univ-paris1.fr,

by April 15, 202.

  • The authors preselected by the editors and the editorial committee will be notified by the editorial team the week of May 5, 2026.  
  • The first version of the article, following the journal’s guidelines for authors, must be submitted by the authors to the aforementioned email addresses by July 11, 2026.
  • The evaluation process will take a few months; each – anonymous – article will be submitted to a double blind peer review by two external reviewers who are experts on the topic. Requesting a first version of the article does not constitute a commitment from the journal to publish the aforementioned article, which must be approved by the editorial committee, following the different steps in the evaluation process. No 264 2027-2 is expected to be published June 2027.

Guest editors

  • Sylvie Ayimpam, researcher affiliated with the Institut des Mondes Africains (IMAf) in anthropology and lecturer at the University of Aix-Marseille, France
  • Sayonara Leal, associate professor of sociology, Department of Sociology, University of Brasília (UnB), Brazil

Bibliography  

Anantharaman M., 2024, « Les ramasseurs de déchets, grands perdants du récit dominant sur la pollution plastique ». MIT Press. The Conversation. Publié : 1 décembre 2024, 16:09 CET.

Anstett É., Ortar N., 2015. La deuxième vie des objets. Recyclage et récupération dans les sociétés contemporaines. Paris, Éditions Petra.

Ayimpam S., 2024, « Recycler les rebuts textiles. Organisation et savoir-faire dans le tri de la fripe à Lomé (Togo) », EchoGéo [En ligne], 70 | 2024.

Beaune J.-C. (dir.), 1999. Le déchet, le rebut, le rien. Seyssel, Champs Vallon.

Bertolini G., 2006. « Les vêtements d’occasion et leurs pérégrinations. » Géographie et cultures [En ligne], n° 56.

Bertolini G., 1978. Rebuts ou ressources ? La socio-économie du déchet. Paris, Entente, 152 p.

Bouju J., 2010, « La leçon des ordures. Ou l’affrontement politique entre une municipalité « sourde » et des citadins « muets » (Bobo-Dioulasso) » : in Mathieu Hilgers and Jacinthe Mazzocchetti (eds.), 2010, Révoltes et oppositions dans un régime semi-autoritaire. Le cas du Burkina Faso, Paris : Karthala : 151-173.

Bredeloup S., Lombard J., 2008. « Mort de la fripe en Afrique ou fin d'un cycle ? » Revue Tiers Monde, n° 194, p. 391-412.

Brooks A., 2013, « Stretching global production networks: The international second-hand clothing trade ». Geoforum, n° 44, p. 10–22.

Cavé J., 2018, « En quête des communs urbains. La gestion conflictuelle des déchets au Brésil ». Revue internationale des études du développement, 233(1) : 117-137.

Cavé J., 2015, La ruée vers l’ordure. Conflits dans les mines urbaines de déchets, Paris, Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

Cirelli C. et Florin B., 2015 « Introduction. Vivre des déchets » In : « Sociétés urbaines et déchets : Éclairages internationaux », Tours : Presses universitaires François-Rabelais [en ligne].

Cirelli C. et Maccaglia F., 2021, « Penser le politique par les déchets », Géocarrefour [Online], 95/1 | URL : http://journals.openedition.org/geocarrefour/16866.

Cirelli Claudia, Maccaglia Fabrizio, 2022, « Les déchets, un secteur pour appréhender les asymétries et les relations de pouvoir inhérentes aux interdépendances ? », entretien avec Caillaud Kevin, Nessi Hélène, Rulleau, Bénédicte, Flux n° 128 DOI: 10.3917/flux1.128.0075

Clapp Jennifer, 2001, Toxic Exports: The Transfer of Hazardous Wastes from Rich to Poor Countries, Cornell University Press, 2001.

Coortel D., 2024, Faire avec les déchets. Vivre et travailler dans un monde abîmé, Vulaines-Sur-Seine, Éditions du Croquant.

Douglas M., 2005. De la souillure, études sur la notion de pollution et de tabou. Paris, La Découverte.

Durand E., 2024, L’envers des fripes. Les vêtements dans les plis de la mondialisation. Paris, Premier Parallèle, 160 p.

Durand M., 2010, Gestion des déchets et inégalités environnementales et écologiques à Lima (Pérou): entre vulnérabilité et durabilité. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Rennes 2, 458 p.

Gille Z., 2010, « Actor Networks, Modes of Production, and Waste Regimes: Reassembling the Macro-Social », Environment and Planning, Economy and Space, n° 42(5):1049–1064.

Gille, Z., 2007, Du culte du déchet à la déchetterie de l'histoire : la politique du déchet dans la Hongrie socialiste et postsocialiste. Indiana University Press.

Gregson N, 2023, The Waste of the World: Consumption, Economies and the Making of the Global Waste Problem, London, Bristol University Press.

Gregson N., Crang M., et al., 2016. « Doing the ‘dirty work’ of the green economy: Resource recovery and migrant labour in the EU ». European Urban and Regional Studies [En ligne], vol. 23, n° 4, p. 541-555.

Gregson N., et al. 2015, « Interrogating the circular economy: the moral economy of resource recovery in the EU », Economy and society, n° 44 (2): 218-243.

Gregson N. & Crang M., 2010 « Materiality and Waste: Inorganic Vitality in a Networked World », Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, n° 42 (5): 1026–1032.

Grüneisl K., 2024. « Becoming ‘farazat’: Re-examining feminisation from a Tunis used clothes sorting factory ». EPA: Economy and Space, vol. 56, n° 3, p. 736-750.

Gutberlet Jutta, 2016, Urban Recycling Cooperatives: Building resilient communities, NY, Routledge.

Hajek I., 2021, « Récup’, glanage, zéro déchet : une nouvelle conception du politique ? », Géocarrefour [Online], 95/1 | 2021.

Hansen K., 2000. Salaula: The World of Secondhand Clothing and Zambia. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Hecht G., 2012, Being Nuclear: Africans and the Global Uranium Trade. Cambridge (MA), MIT Press

Jolé M., 1991. « Gérer ses résidus en public. R'bati, Slaoui, et habitants de Temara aux prises avec leurs déchets », Les Annales de la Recherche Urbaine, n° 53, p. 33-39.

Joulian F., Tastevin Y.-P., Furniss J. (ed.), 2016. « Réparer le monde. Excès, reste et innovation », Revue Techniques et culture [En ligne], n° 65-66. 

Kempel W., 1999, « The negotiations on the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal: a national delegation perspective ». International Negotiation, 4: 411-431.

Knaebel G., 1991. « Le rangement du résidu » [En ligne sur Persée]. Les Annales de la Recherche Urbaine, n° 53, p. 22-31.

Koszewska M., 2018. « Circular Economy. Challenges for the Textile and Clothing Industry ». Autex Research Journal [En ligne], vol. 18, n° 4, p. 337-347.

Lazaric N., 2023, « Transition écologique et recyclage des matières : enjeux organisationnels et économiques », in Brette O., Buhler T., Lazaric N., Maréchal K. Repenser les habitudes urbaines pour la durabilité, Grenoble, PUG : 45–67.

Leal Sayonara, 2024, « Da mediatização do sofrimento social à experiência pública de injustiça: testemunhos online de catadores de materiais recicláveis em torno da desativação do Aterro do Jóquei, no Distrito Federal », Ciências Sociais Em Revista, 60(2). https://doi.org/10.34024/csr.2024.60.2.17401.

Leal Sayonara, 2018, « Résistance et capacité d ́agir dans un dispositif de compensation : les ramasseurs de déchets face à la désactivation de la Décharge de l'Estrutural (Distrito Federal, Brésil) », Séminaire "Risques, violences et réparation", EHESS, Paris.

Le Meur M., 2021, Le Mythe du recyclage, Paris, Éditions Premier Parallèle.

Le Roux T., Jarrige F., Le Lay S. 2016, « Le rôle des déchets dans l’histoire. Entretien avec François Jarrige et Thomas Le Roux par Stéphane Le Lay»”, Mouvements, n° 87 (3): 59-68. https://doi.org/10.3917/mouv.087.0059.

Lepawsky Josh, 2018 Reassembling Rubbish, Reassembling Rubbish: Worlding Electronic Waste, Massasuchetts University Press MIT.

Liboiron M, 2021, Pollution is colonialism, Durham, Duke University Press.

Liboiron M. et Lepawsky J., 2022, Wasting, Systems and Power, The MIT Press.

Martínez J., Romero S, Ramasco J. & Estrada E, 2021, The WorldWide‑ Waste Web, Scientific Reports, 11, 8501.

Messal S., 2014, « Des objets et des déchets loin d’être en reste », Géographie et cultures, 91-92 | 2014, 213-228.

Norris L., 2019. Waste, dirt and desire: Fashioning narratives of material regeneration. The Sociological Review Monographs, vol. 67, n° 4, p. 886-907.

Norris L., 2012. Trade and transformation of second-hand clothing: Introduction. Textile, vol. 10, n° 2, p. 28-143.

O’Neil K., 2019, Waste, Polity Press.

Ortar N., Anstett E. (dir.), 2017, Jeux de pouvoir dans nos poubelles. Économies morales et politiques du recyclage au tournant du XXIème siècle, Paris : Petra.

Pellow D.N., 2007, Resisting Global Toxics. Transnational Movement for Environmental Justice, Cambridge, The MIT Press.

Ribot J. C., & Peluso N. L., 2003, « A Theory of Access », Rural Sociology, 68(2): 153–181.

Rublack S., 1989, Controlling transboundary movements of hazardous waste: the evolution of a global convention. The Fletcher Forum, 13.

Stamatopoulou-Robbins, Sophia (2020), Waste Siege: The Life of Infrastructure in Palestine. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Wynne B. (Ed.), 1987, Risk management and hazardous waste: Implementation and the dialectics of credibility. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Zapata M.-J. & Hall M., 2013, Organising Waste in the City. International Perspectives on Narratives and Practices. Bristol University Press.

Zimring C., 2004, “Dirty work: How hygiene and xenophobia marginalized the American waste trades, 1870-1930”, Environmental History, vol. 9, n° 1: 80-101.


Date(s)

  • Wednesday, April 15, 2026

Keywords

  • recyclage, réutilisation, restes, rebuts, déchets, environnement, pollution, circulation, gouvernance, sud

Reference Urls

Information source

  • Marilyne Efstathopoulos
    courriel : revdev [at] univ-paris1 [dot] fr

License

CC-BY-4.0 This announcement is licensed under the terms of Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0 .

To cite this announcement

Sylvie Ayimpam, Sayonara Leal, « Economy of leftovers and recycling », Call for papers, Calenda, Published on Friday, November 28, 2025, https://doi.org/10.58079/158l7

Archive this announcement

  • Google Agenda
  • iCal
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search