Modernity and environmental economics: A sociological critique

Abstract

In many countries there have recently been virulent protests against industrial developments. However all of these projects have undergone some form of economic valuation or cost‐benefit analysis. Clearly the large numbers of protestors regard these valuations simply as a political ante.

This paper is concerned with the role of market mechanisms vs. political institutions regarding questions of environment. It considers a fundamental policy dispute between the UK Government and the European Commission on the question of valuation, and explores the political consequences of environmental valuation on the political and policy process. The debate over the measurement of environmental value raises fundamental social and political questions, given that valuation emanates from a positivist approach to social science and a formalism which distinguishes modernist society.

The advocacy of positive economics was for the most part misconstrued though. The logic of positive economics leads to regulation and planning conclusions, not to laissez‐faire. The political theory of positivism is characterized by the scientization of politics, and by the notion of decision‐making by policy scientists; a politics of technocracy. The seemingly technical question of environmental valuation should really be viewed as a sociological question concerning democracy. Much of environmental economics actually proposes a planning supplement to market mechanisms, which leads to an artificial boundary between market and environmental plan, and also uses subjective concepts in an objective manner, leading to paradoxes such as defensive expenditures.

The New Right alternative to valuation and regulation—its attempt to steer environmental policy back to markets—is to view environmental economics as a question of property rights. This renders economic aggregates such as GMP meaningless. It also raises a new ethical and political dimension to the debate.

Environmental decisions are political decisions. A discourse on rights is discourse in the language of citizenship. What is required is a new conception of the political process as revolving around dialogue. However we abo need to consider the social in order to appreciate the political, and we need to focus upon conceptions of citizenship and community in order to inform the environmental debate.