leela.CS.ORST.EDU!atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU!casspa
From: casspa@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (Paul Cass)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Politics and Environment
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:53:04 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: atlantis.cs.orst.edu


             POLITICAL PROCESSES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS    

                             Penny Cass 
                 Politics of Environmental Problems 

    "The deepest crisis experienced by any society are those moments of
    change when the story becomes inadequate for meeting the survival
    demands of a present situation." - Thomas Berry (1)   


    A fundamental gap exists between the personal systems of thought
    invented by man and the systemic relationships of nature. 

    Our political institutions appear insufficient to the challenge of
    averting socioecological catastrophe. Our marketplace stagnantly
    evaluates social progress as the production of excess reflected in the
    GNP, measuring only efficiency not sustainability. 

    Our rituals, religions, philosophies, morals and myths provide
    inadequate behavioral guides for ecological stability. The decaying
    social infrastructure through which we rapidly move resources to the
    landfill reflects our cultural and institutional pathologies. 


    "Apart from the well-being of the earth, no subordinant life system can
    survive. So it is with economics and politics: any particular activity
    must find its place within the larger pattern or it will die and
    perhaps bring down the larger life system with it." (2)
 

    We need a comprehensive change in the control and the  direction of the
    energies and tools available to us; we need a new historical vision. 
    Sustainability requires that the human society reevaluate goals and
    redefine success. The proper forum for this public debate lies within
    political institutions not the marketplace. 

    Political institutions and models are created to cope with values and
    ideological concerns of citizens which transcend our private
    self-interest.  Increasingly, we have used market analysis rather than
    the political process to determine values, but markets provide a forum
    for the exchange of commodities not ideas. 


    "We regard ourselves as something other than a bundle of preferences in
    search of a perfect market." (3)


    Structural inadequacies exist within our political processes which
    create a gap between our societal intent and our environmental reality. 

    I will discuss how the political issues of evaluating salience (the
    degree of interest) and managing publicly-held "commons" reflect
    political arenas that have been co-opted by economic values. 

    I will discuss the mismatch between political decision-making and
    environmental problems particularly as it relates to incrementalism,
    but I will further argue that it is a category mistake to measure
    political and ideological utility with the values of the marketplace.   

 
    Measuring Salience 

    Because political actors serve at the leisure of their  constituents,
    pluralistic systems address the issues of those voices which carry the
    most force. 

    To enhance job security, and to preserve the appearance of
    responsiveness, the political elite (rule makers) and political
    institutions (particularly administrative and regulatory bodies)
    attempt to determine policy based upon salience. 

    Two methods for measuring salience are making participation costly and
    logrolling. Determining public policy by measuring salience can be
    effective in political longevity but have negative consequences for
    resource management. 

    The value of the political mechanisms for determining salience can be
    evaluated on normative grounds, but also, on an empirical basis, I
    believe it can be argued that making participation costly, and
    logrolling do not measure salience at all. 

  
    Making Participation Costly  

    Economic rationale would suggest that individuals will  participate in
    a political process to the extent of their stake in the game, that is -
    up to the point where costs outweigh benefits. 

    The value of a political outcome for a particular interest group should
    decide how extensive their participation will be at each step in the
    political arena - from initial review through rule- making to
    administrative and regulatory control. By increasing the difficulty of
    participation in various facets of the policy making process, political
    actors can determine the salience (the degree of interest and the force
    of the interest) between competing groups. 

    By increasing cost of entry into the political arena, a rule-maker can
    respond to the needs of those to whom the decision matters the most. 

    The difficulty of participation can be increased by limiting
    "standing," increasing "red tape," limiting points of public access, or
    minimizing information dispersal, etc. If the ability to participate is
    equal but increasingly costly, rational individuals will involve
    themselves to the extent that it is in their interest to do so. 

  
    Logrolling 

    Logrolling is a brokerage operation where political assets are used to
    acquire still more valuable resources. 

    In other words, politicians will engage in vote swapping by trading
    away a vote on something less important in order to gain a vote on
    something of greater importance. 

    Assuming a politician is aware of the interests of his constituents,
    observers can measure salience by comparing what is given up to what is
    gained. 

    Logrolling is, therefore, a political mechanism by which a politician
    can address the issues of the constituents who are most concerned about
    the outcome. 
  

    Evaluation of Salience as a Policy Tool 

    The political tools of measuring salience and logrolling are used to
    increase the ability to prioritize issues according to the weighted
    values of those most involved in the process. 

    The more focused and directed members of a community will have the
    greatest impact upon policy. 

    Salience allows for a systemic view of issues, because political issues
    are frequently linked to other issues. If the focus of the most
    forceful political participants is upon economic climate,
    responsiveness on a variety of issues will reflect this goal. 

    The stability of the system is enhanced by the incremental policy steps
    which result, as a politician continually measures the changing
    salience of his constituents. Because legitimacy is frequently
    transferred from the process to the policy, political quiescence is
    obtained from those uninvolved constituents and value is given to those
    most concerned with the actual policy.  

    Critics of salience-inspired policy often refer to the  undemocratic
    nature and the frustration of majority opinion. More importantly,
    public policy based upon salience is reactionary, and remedial; unable
    to initiate long-term planning. 

    Crisis-oriented decision-making does not necessarily correspond with
    risk  assessment.  Public and media reaction to a crisis is immediate
    and develops more salience than other issues requiring long-term
    solutions. 

    Thus, an airplane crash will be allocated proportionally more resources
    than transportation safety issues, even though fewer people die in
    airplanes than cars. 

    The crisis oriented nature of salience will mis-allocate political
    resources in favor of remedial management instead of addressing
    politically complex issues. 

    Toxic waste dumps and cancer research have received a large allocation
    of time, money and attention by legislative, administrative and
    judicial bodies. This abundance of salience occurs because of people's
    fear of health effects, particularly cancer, from introduced
    environmental contaminants. 

    The allocation of resources to these issues has been massive despite
    scientific evidence that issues of species loss, ozone depletion or
    global warming could have far more disastrous effects on larger numbers
    of people.  

    Scientific risk assessment, attempting to focus on long-term problems
    collides with short-term, immediate, and perhaps transitory salience. 

    Even a simple utilitarian view of maximizing the greatest good for the
    greatest number would demand focus relating to sustainability. 

    Policy formulation by salience and logrolling are inappropriate
    political tools for addressing collective or commons issues which do
    not have the fluidity of specific values in trading for political
    concessions. 

    Votes regarding distribution of costs and benefits from the commons do
    not produce great political capital, because they can not easily be
    bartered to influence power transactions between political actors. 

    The salience of a particular commons issue, such as clean air, makes it
    a less clearly defined resource for trade than a northwest timber vote
    swapped for a northeast transportation vote. 

    A simple aggregate of special interests competing in equally accessible
    arenas is responsive  and defines tractable problems, but creates
    contradictory and  redundant efforts with vague goals. 

    The inconsistency between public fears and scientific analysis, while
    working in the media spotlight of a crisis, will create symbolic
    legislation. 

    Legitimacy is achieved by holding extensive hearings and creating
    voluminous records to document diligence and objectivity, while doing
    little to confront the complexities and trade-offs inherent in
    environmental decision-making. 

  
    Can Salience be Measured by Making Participation Costly? 

    Arguments can be developed that logrolling and making  participation
    costly do not, on empirical grounds, measure salience at all. 

    Acting as a consumer or within the marketplace, individuals may desire
    to maximize their self-interest. As citizens, however, people have
    ideological concerns and values, such as justice, courage, integrity,
    satisfaction and sustainability for which no market exists. 

    Two differing political paradigms exist between atomistic preferences
    and holistic considerations. Decisions which focus upon the values of
    one paradigm preclude issues of the opposing view from even being
    addressed, or will result in symbolic rather than allocative attention. 

    One paradigm subscribes to a "private-regarding ethos," where effort is
    made to maximize for individual value assuming this will contribute to
    universal economic viability of the whole. 

    The other paradigm has a  "public-regarding ethos," an organic view of
    the political process which strives to bestow indivisible public goods
    on the community as a whole.  

    Economic incentives largely favor political participation by those
    sharing the first paradigm. Industrial interests bear relatively low
    costs to participation compared to individuals subscribing to the
    second paradigm. 

    Citizens who spend their energies in the quest for collective goods may
    care so deeply about issues that they absorb great individual costs. 

    Actors for economic interests are rarely required to bear costs
    individually for participation. 

    Thus, environmental and consumer groups, made up largely of volunteers,
    have their tax-exempt status removed if they lobby, but corporate
    lobbying can be a tax write-off as a business expense. 

    How can salience be measured when costs are borne only by some of the
    competing interests? 

    Competition between interest groups, necessary to a pluralistic view of 
    political institutions, does not account for the fact that salience on
    one issue, will relate to salience on other issues. 

    The very ingredients that make economic development attractive to a
    political institution sets it apart from collective-oriented political
    issues. Issues do not constitute mutually independent areas of
    activity. 

    Promotion of one activity will commit resources to a chain of
    activities and diminish consideration of antagonistic issues. 

    Political salience can not be measured when access to the process is
    unequal or when the sacrifice required falls more heavily on some. 

    Further, the power reputations of some political actors may deter
    would-be actors from entering the arena, and thus issues of salience
    are not addressed. 


    Finally, as Crenson says, "if popular sovereignty is contingent upon
    leadership competition, then it will not extend to those matters on
    which leaders choose not to compete." (4)


    Incrementalism 

    The incremental decision making model describes public policy as being
    a variation on past policy. 

    Incremental decision making creates political stability, as
    modifications are made to increase or decrease attention on past
    commitments. Incremental policy allows for multiple points of access to
    the system, while reducing conflict which would occur from major policy
    shifts. 

    Inherent in incrementalism is a preservation of the status quo, a
    responsiveness in addressing remedial or crisis situations, and a
    political expediency which precludes radical change by relying upon the
    familiar. 

    Such meliorism does not encourage formation of societal goals or
    values, does not engage in overall, long-term planning, does not
    adequately weigh the  consequences of disparate action in different
    arenas, and does not enable discarding of ineffective policies with
    high sunken costs.  

    Incrementalism is structurally inherent in a pluralist system of
    competing private interests. It describes the marginal policy shifts
    which are syntheses of various, divergent inputs. 

    Incrementalism enforces institutional rigidities, such that each sector
    of public policy is dealt with in isolation, each responding to the
    interests of its constituents. 

    Thus, we spend millions to encourage cessation of smoking, while
    subsidizing the tobacco growers. 

    This myopic rigidity is also found in our inability to share
    information regarding toxic substances with other countries. 

    We ban a chemical in our ecosystem but value the chemical as an export
    to a developing country.  

    Because incrementalism is responsive to multiple points of access,
    policy is formulated to handle immediate public concerns rather than
    promoting increased communication about benefits versus sacrifices
    inherent in a  decision. 

    When scientific assessment and public fear input different values to
    the political system, symbolic legislation and short-term answers are
    the result.  


    Conceptual Analysis of Political Processes 

    Laissez faire economic theory is ethical egoism - a high value is
    placed upon individual liberty and national sovereignty. 

    The values we reveal as individuals competing in the marketplace are
    not the same as the values expressed in polls and ideological
    convictions. 

    EPA's Ruckelshaus encountered this distinction in the public's "outrage
    factors" which prevented what he described as "rational, scientific
    assessment of environmental problems." 

    Factors of immediacy, control, voluntariness, and benefit play a large
    role in people's willingness to accept risk. 

    A simple cost accounting, the aggregate of the greatest harm to the
    greatest number, does not sufficiently define risk, nor does an
    aggregate of individual interests adequately define the public
    interests. 

    Environmental issues can not be properly addressed by  describing the
    distribution of benefits and costs, or public goods (and bads) as a
    function of economic understanding and individual liberty. 

    Using the reverse of Baden's logic in "Myths, Admonitions and
    Rationality," neither economic (privatization) or political (coercion)
    tools can be used to address the "tragedy of the commons" independent
    of a cultural value or ethic involvement. 

    Normatively, political models would describe methods for supporting
    ideological concerns of society. Empirically, political models are but
    slightly different from economic models. 

    Cost-benefit analysis and marketplace ideology are tools for achieving
    goals, not for defining them in the first place.  

    Societies "willingness to pay" is not a value, or a definition of a
    value, or a reason to value anything. It is rather the response society
    has to make, collectively and individually in order to acquire or to
    keep many of the things we do value.  

    Maintaining an aggregate view of the public interest as a compilation
    of individual private interests is political science preempted by
    economics. 


    The role of political science is to give people the tools to make
    informed value judgements. "A social- scientific account of what people
    do is never in itself sufficient grounds for a philosophical account of
    what they ought to do." (5)
 

    In order to provide people with political institutions sufficient to
    cope with environmental challenges, political scientists need to pull
    themselves away from entrancement with the economic vision and begin to
    elaborate an organic, holistic definition of the "public good." 

    For indeed, survivability is an intrinsic good, and political models
    must be responsive to ecological processes to ensure sustainability. 


References 

(1) Berry, Thomas. The Dream of the Earth. San Francisco: Sierra 
    Club Books. 1988, p. xi. 

(2) ibid. p. 44.   

(3) Sagoff, Mark, Tom Regan, ed. "Ethics and Economics in 
    Environmental Law," Earthbound: New Introductory Essays in
    Environmental Ethics. New York: Random House. 1984. p. 174. 

(4) Crenson, Matthew. The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of
    Non-Decisionmaking in the Cities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins   
    University Press. 1971. p. 180. (Also, the terms "private- 
    regarding ethos" and "public-regarding ethos" are Crenson's.

(5) Shrader-Frechette, K.S., Tom Regan, ed. "Ethics and Energy" 
    op.cit. p. 126 

-- 
                           * * * * * * *
"It is possible to join forces, to identify common goals, and to agree on
 common action." - U.N. World Commission on Development and Environment
		    casspa@jacobs.cs.orst.edu

//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??