Deliberative Ecological Economics for Environmental Governance

1. Environmental Change and Governance MA Environmental Humanities 2011-12 Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic Class 7 Deliberative ecological economics for environmental governance Christos Zografos, PhD Institute of Environmental Science & Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain christos.zografos@uab.cat

2. Introduction • Main point • Communicative rationality (a rationality different from HE) can be the basis for a more inclusive and legitimate way of making environmental (public) decisions • Why should you know this? • Because this type of decision-making has a potential to be more democratic • Outline • Difference: HE vs. communicative action (rationality) • Why communicative rationality is important for good environmental governance • Limitations of communicative rationality and deliberative decision-making • Class Activity: the course

3. How (in what aspects) is communicative action different to homo economicus? Why is this important for deliberative decision-making? ASSIGNMENT QUESTION

4. HE as instrumental rational action Instrumental action Example The ‘rational’ herder Instrumental action Action as means to achieve pre-determined goals • Central aspect of HE view of human behaviour: understanding of human action as instrumental • Action = a means for achieving given/ predetermined goals • Material outcomes • Satisfaction of values

5. Habermas (1970) • Distinguished between two modes of action that correspond to enduring interests of human species • Work: modes of action based on rational choice of efficient means, i.e. instrumental and strategic action • Interaction: ‘communicative action’ in which actors behave on basis of “consensual norms (rules set up to facilitate getting a consensus)

6. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy • Communicative action: • speakers behave and pursue (individual or joint) goals • on basis of shared understanding that goals are reasonable or merit-worthy • Strategic action succeeds: when actors achieve their individual goals • Communicative action succeeds: when actors freely agree that their goals are reasonable/ they merit cooperative behaviour • Communicative action is thus a consensual form of social interaction

7. Communicative action • Underlying: the essence of rational action is not always instrumental (achieve individual goals) but it can also be to reach understanding between oneself and other actors, or society in general (Dryzek, 2000) • Type of action involved with communicative rationality may thus reflect logics that go beyond instrumental seeking of pre-defined ends

8. Democratic life • Democratic life emerges in situations where institutions enable citizens reach such understanding • By rationally debating matters of public importance: deliberation • Deliberation: consider/ decide on an issue by: • Discussing it • Listening to others (incl. but not limited to ‘expert’-knowledge) opinions • Reflecting on what others have said • Consider changing your initial views on topic/ decision, on the basis of what you’ve heard • Deliberation of matters of public importance: most legitimate and useful guide to public decision-making

9. Democratic life Institutional action Examples Public forums to discuss questions of neighbourhood life where people with different customs and moral principles (e.g. religion, entertainment) is at stake Public forums to discuss wind farm siting decisions: people change their opinions/ preferences in response to what they hear been said • Institutions: must create conditions for communicative rationality to emerge and pursue consensus • Consider/ contrast to: WB creates conditions for trading externalities

10. Deliberative governance Deliberative public spheres: forums Example: Nat’l Issues Forums (USA) “non partisan, nationwide network of organizations and individuals who sponsor public forums and training institutions for public deliberation.” Everyday citizens get to deliberate on the various issue through NIF forums, e.g. civil rights,education, energy, government, etc. “Think, Deliberate, Act.” is the slogan on the NIF website • Type of public decision-making that creates public spaces (public spheres): • where deliberation over future decisions is enabled • and consensus solutions are sought

11. Deliberation • Genuine deliberation to take place: requires • Absence: of power and direct/ indirect coercion • Absence: strategic (e.g. manipulative) behaviour • Presence: rational argumentation and critical discussion • To: foster reflection and to enable shift in preferences

12. Deliberative governance • More inclusive and bottom-up potential of deliberative democracy • Potential for more consensus/ less conflictive solutions • Potential for more legitimate decisions: multiple views into account • Advantages: decisions that are inclusive and have been deliberated upon are likely to be • More legitimate (more democratic) • More effective in their application: meet with less ‘resistance’ as quest for consensus allows modifying initial proposals

13. Environmental governance • The approach poses that legitimate and effective environmental governance (way of making public decisions re: environmental change) should involve creating such deliberation public spheres • E.g. in form of forums • This approach of involving multiple actors has better potential than HE • Environmental justice: more views (than narrow HE rationality) are taken into account • Consensus: implies that views shift in an acceptable, voluntary manner

14. QUESTIONS • Do we really behave like this (communicative rationality), i.e. seek consensus and to reach understanding between ourselves and others? • Any personal examples of this happening? Where? When (in what situations)? • Do you think it possible for forums to work , i.e. for deliberation to take place? Requires: • Absence: of power and direct/ indirect coercion • Absence: strategic (e.g. manipulative) behaviour • Presence: rational argumentation and critical discussion • To: foster reflection and to enable shift in preferences

15. Block 2 DELIBERATIVE DECISION-MAKING: LIMITATIONS AND CRITICISM

16. Environmental planning literature • On-the-ground experience with deliberative forums for environmental planning • Power relations • Not left at the door of deliberative forums the moment that actors enter them • But instead brought into and shape deliberation processes

17. Environmental planning literature • Dramaturgical behaviours in deliberative forums • front-stage performances/ modes of interaction adopted by actors hide very different power-shaped reality that exists at a back stage • E.g. business representatives in some forums who avoid openly expressing their values and objectives thinking that they may be too conflictive • instead prefer alternative communicative channels to make their ‘substantive‘ representations to influential bodies such as government agencies • Emphasis: ways to improve + innovate fora format: • deviates attention from thorny issues such as the study of forums‘ actual impacts on existing institutions and structures of decision-making

18. Environmental planning literature • Need to address more basic questions re: • distribution of political power (inside and outside forums) • institutional capacity for democratic change

19. Response from DD • Limitations: power, dramaturgical behaviour • Are these (where power persists) really deliberative decision-making situations/ conditions? • Is it not exactly this type of behaviours (strategic) that DD arrangements try to avoid via ‘proper’ deliberative design? • Limitations: what about institutional take-up of forums’ decisions? • I don’t think there is an answer to this… It’s key and it’s not happening • Moreover, this relegates existing deliberative governance practices into superficial, add-on legitimation of power asymmetries

20. Flyvbjerg: Habermas vs. Foucault • Works of Habermas and Foucault: underline basic tension in modernity; tension: • What should be done vs. what is done • Normative vs. real • Quest for consensus: central in Habermas’ ideas of how politics should happen • Conflicts: • Dangerous, corrosive, destructive of social order • Need contain and resolve them • Understandable for e.g. Nazi Germany experience

21. Flyvbjerg: Habermas vs. Foucault • Conflicts: alternative view (Hirschman, 1994) • social conflicts produce the valuable ties that hold modern democratic societies together • provide them with the strength and cohesion they need • social conflicts are the true pillars of democratic society • Conflict implies the existence of different/ multiple views in society re: an issue • Suppressing conflict = suppressing freedom (Foucauldian) • Privilege to engage in conflict is part of freedom

22. Flyvbjerg (1998) • In real social and political life: conflict will not ‘naturally’ (i.e. on its own) give way to a communal all-embracing ideal such as Habermas’s • Preference shift +consensus after rational argument->deliberation->reflection • Political consensus: not always legitimate goal • Cannot be brought to neutralise group commitments, priorities, etc. • Contrary: the more democratic a society, the more it • allows groups to define own, different, perhaps conflicting ways of life • legitimates inevitable conflicts (of interest, value) that arise between groups

23. Flyvbjerg (1998) • If societies that suppress conflict are oppressive then theories that marginalise or ignore conflict are potentially oppressive too! • In practical terms and as regards deliberative decision-making (e.g. forums) the concern is that the result of struggling to find shared values through deliberative processes may sometimes be the silencing/ suppression of values instead of giving them voice/ legitimacy/ space, etc.

24. Response from DD • Criticism: quest for consensus = value suppression • Forums don’t have to suppress views; they need to first give them space and then allow for negotiation • Forums precisely seek to legitimise difference, but try to go one step further to find legitimate ways to negotiate it as “living together but differently” (Healey, 1993) is a fact/ reality we cannot (or shouldn’t?) try to avoid • Nevertheless, they are entrenched to a normative ideal, and it may be too ideal, but that’s the point of ideals!

25. CLASS ACTIVITY What Stuck? • An “Aha” moment • A pleasant surprise • Something that you had to struggle with to understand • Something you don’t agree with • Something that you agree with strongly • Something you thought was particularly interesting • Something you didn’t expect • An insight or solution • Something you want to know more about • A question that you have We are now at end of course (conceptual part – tomorrow methodology), so I’d like some feedback which we can use to have a quick course review Get into groups, discuss and provide answers to following points (15 min) Then, present your answers in the class (5 min each group) Finally: respond and summarise main points