Neoliberal Nature, Ecological Fixes, and the Pitfalls of Comparative Research

The entanglement of markets and nature has become the focus of a rapidly growing body of scholarship. The urgency of this debate arises from the recent proliferation of marketized forms of natureöfrom carbon emissions markets to debt-for-nature swaps to water privatization. The fierce controversies which ensue make for complicated analytical and political terrain. The ideological differences run deep, as evidenced by the array of terms deployed: free market environmentalism, liberal environmentalism, (marketized) environmental governance, green neoliberalism, to name just a few. An increasingly substantial portion of the literature on this topic is produced by critical geographers (Heynen et al, 2007; Himley, 2008; Mansfield, 2008a). Their `neoliberal nature' approach generally adopts a critical stance towards the doctrine of neoliberalism, underpinned by a theoretical commitment to Marxian analyses of nature, in which institutional political economy is frequently inflected with insights drawn from political ecology. Scholars of `neoliberal nature', almost without exception, conduct fine-grained case studies of the effects of neoliberalization on conventional resources (eg fish, water, forests) in site-specific contexts. The combination of a critical conceptual stance with powerfully detailed empirical analyses is the hallmark of this `nature' approach. Yet it is precisely these aspects of the neoliberal nature research agenda which, Noel Castree has recently argued, are characterized by serious shortcomings (2008a; 2008b; see also 2005, 2006). Castree's comments are in line with other recent critiques (see Bakker, 2005; Braun, 2008; Harris, 2009; Himley, 2008; Littlefield et al, 2008). But his work stands out for its attempt to inject a degree of analytical precision into the debate. My critique, as developed below, is predicated upon broad agreement with Castree's goals, but disagreement with some of his suggested strategies. Let me preface my critique by summarizing key aspects of Castree's arguments. Castree identifies three interrelated `analytical traps' to which he argues the neoliberal nature literature, as a whole, is subject. First, Castree argues that the literature is characterized by a failure to sufficiently articulate the relationships between neoliberalization and the environment. Second, he asserts that many analyses are guilty of conceptual conflation of different types of neoliberal practices. Third, he contends that scholars of neoliberal nature are guilty of methodological myopia, as evidenced by a lack of commitment to synthetic, cross-sectoral studies, compounded by a lack of rigour with respect to the criteria upon which comparative analyses might be based. The result is that the neoliberal nature research agenda is hobbled, both conceptually and politically. In response, Castree's first paper (2008a) addresses the first analytical trap identified above, and presents a conceptual framework which explains why nature is being neoliberalized (his second paper, to which I will refer below, deals with the last two traps). Castree's primary goal in articulating this conceptual framework (which he terms a `̀ comprehensive and integrated Polanyian ^Marxian explanation of nature's neoliberalisation'') is to demonstrate why neoliberalism is necessarily an environmental project which has `̀ the nonhuman world as a key part of its rationale'' (Castree 2008a, page 143). Commentary Environment and Planning A 2009, volume 41, pages 1781 ^ 1787