NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/pagan/14714

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 17.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!rutgers!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!leela.CS.ORST.EDU!atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU!casspa
From: [e-mail] (Paul Cass)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Politic and Environment
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:51:53 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Lines: 303
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 Berry1
       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
1Berry, Thomas.  The Dream of the Earth.  San Francisco: Sierra
Club Books.  1988, p. xi.
   2ibid. p. 44.
3Sagoff, Mark, Tom Regan, ed.  "Ethics and Economics in
       Environmental Law," Earthbound:  New Introductory Essays in
       Environmental Ethics. New York: Random House.  1984. p.
       174.
4Crenson, 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.
5Shrader-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
               [e-mail]