Diagnosing Global South underrepresentation in integrated assessment models through circular economy integration
This paper utilizes the integration of circular economy strategies into Integrated Assessment Models to diagnose the self-reinforcing cycle of Global South underrepresentation, identifying multi-dimensional challenges and proposing a collaborative framework to achieve recognitional and epistemic justice in global climate policymaking.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
To understand the future of our planet, scientists rely on powerful computer tools called integrated assessment models. Think of these as vast, digital laboratories where researchers simulate how the global economy, energy systems, and the environment interact over decades. These simulations are not just academic exercises; they form the backbone of international climate agreements and national policies, helping leaders decide which paths to take to avoid the worst effects of climate change. However, a critical flaw has long plagued these tools: they are built primarily by experts in wealthy, industrialized nations, often overlooking the realities, priorities, and knowledge systems of the Global South. This gap matters because the strategies that work in Europe or North America do not always fit the needs of developing regions, where the challenges of poverty, energy access, and rapid growth are immediate and pressing.
Recently, a new frontier has opened in this field: the integration of the circular economy. This concept involves designing systems where materials are reused, repaired, and recycled to minimize waste and emissions, rather than being thrown away after a single use. As scientists rush to add these material cycles to their climate models, a team of researchers at Utrecht University asked a vital question: are they repeating the same old mistake of leaving the Global South out of the conversation? They wanted to know if the new models for circularity would finally include the diverse ways people in developing nations already reuse and repair goods, or if they would simply impose a new set of rules designed for the wealthy world.
To find the answer, the researchers conducted twenty in-depth interviews with two distinct groups of experts. One group consisted of the model builders themselves, the scientists designing the new circular economy features for global climate simulations. The other group included energy system modellers who specialize in the specific contexts of the Global South. By listening to both sides, the team uncovered a troubling pattern. They found that the people building the models often focus on technical details, such as ensuring global data adds up correctly, while the experts from the Global South are primarily concerned with whether these models can help their own governments make practical decisions about development and jobs.
The study revealed that this disconnect creates a self-reinforcing cycle of exclusion. Because the people setting the research agenda are mostly from the Global North, the resulting models often reflect Northern priorities and assumptions. When these models are presented to policymakers in the Global South, they frequently feel irrelevant or unrealistic because they ignore local development goals or the informal economies where much of the reuse and repair actually happens. Consequently, local governments lose interest in using these tools, and funding for local modelling capacity dries up. Without money and support, local experts cannot build their own models or challenge the global ones, leaving the cycle of underrepresentation intact.
The researchers identified twelve specific types of hurdles that keep this cycle going. Some are technical, such as the lack of detailed data on informal markets or the difficulty of representing small-scale repair activities in a global computer program. Others are deeper and more structural, involving who gets to speak at the table. The study showed that funding structures often require European partners, making it hard for researchers from the Global South to join major projects. Even when they are included, they are sometimes treated as data providers rather than equal partners who help shape the questions being asked. This means that the new models for circular economy risk locking in a version of the future that works for the wealthy world but fails to account for the ingenuity and necessity-driven practices of the rest of the planet.
To break this cycle, the authors propose a three-part solution that goes beyond simply adding more data. First, they call for better technical tools, such as shared databases and flexible computer models that can talk to each other, allowing local details to inform global pictures. Second, they suggest changing the scenarios themselves to reflect the actual goals of developing nations, such as job creation and food security, rather than just focusing on emission targets. Finally, and most importantly, they argue for a fundamental shift in how these projects are run. This means moving away from short-term, project-based funding that leaves local teams vulnerable, and toward long-term partnerships where researchers from the Global South lead the research agenda, not just follow instructions.
The paper concludes that fixing this problem is urgent. The decisions made today about how to model circular economy strategies will shape the rules and assumptions of climate policy for years to come. If the Global South remains absent from this process, the models will continue to produce results that lack legitimacy in the very regions where they are needed most. The researchers emphasize that true progress requires more than just better software; it demands a commitment to recognizing the value of different ways of knowing and ensuring that the people who live the realities of the Global South are the ones helping to design the tools that will guide their future.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.