Christian Hunold

Justice, Democracy, and Hazardous Siting

In this essay we examine some issues of justice associated with the siting of hazardous industrial facilities. Utilitarian justifications of siting decisions are inadequate because they fail to address questions of fairness. Approaches that consider questions of distributive equity provide a better framework for siting justice, but are still incomplete. Limiting questions of justice to the distribution of benefits and burdens fails to examine the justice of procedures for deciding such issues of distribution. We argue that justice requires a participatory communicative democratic process for siting hazardous facilities, in two respects. It is prima facie unjust to impose a risk on citizens without their having participated in the siting process. Participatory communicative democratic procedures in facility siting, moreover, when structured according to specific norms of discussion and inclusion, are likely to yield the most just outcomes. We propose procedural as well as substantive conditions for such democratic procedures, and briefly apply these conditions to evaluate the siting of a landfill in Switzerland.

Environmental Transformation of the State: The USA, Norway, Germany and the UK:

Modern states underwent two major transformations that produced first, the liberal capitalist state and second, the welfare state. Each was accompanied by the migration of a previously confrontational movement into the core of the state. In the creation of the liberal capitalist state, the bourgeoisie could harmonize with the states emerging interest in economic growth. In the creation of the welfare state, the organized working class could harmonize with the states emerging interest in legitimating the political economy by curbing capitalisms instability and inequality. We show that environmental conservation could now emerge as a core state interest, growing out of these established economic and legitimation imperatives. This examination is grounded in a comparative historical study of four countries: the USA, Norway, Germany, and the UK, each of which exemplifies a particular kind of interest representation. We show why the USA was an environmental pioneer around 1970, why it was then eclipsed by Norway, and why Germany now leads in addressing environmental concerns.

Urban agriculture and ecological citizenship in Philadelphia

Green political theory has discovered urban areas as important spaces for the cultivation of ecological citizenship. Here, we explore urban agricultures contribution to ecological citizenship, a concept that emphasises opportunities for public participation in, and social learning about, environmental decisions. Our analysis is based on participant-observation and open-ended interviews with the leaders and community participants of seven urban agricultural organisations in Philadelphia. Following a brief discussion of urban ecological citizenship and our study design, we discuss how urban agriculture promotes participation and learning.

Corporatism, Pluralism, and Democracy: Toward a Deliberative Theory of Bureaucratic Accountability

This essay proposes a deliberative model of bureaucratic accountability and assesses its feasibility. Conventional wisdom suggests that a deliberative theory of bureaucratic accountability has little utility outside corporatist contexts. I reject this view because recent changes in patterns of interest representation have transformed both corporatist and pluralist bureaucracies into more hospitable environments for public deliberation. Contrary to the claims of democratic corporatists, recent pluralist practices of interest representation also seem to be compatible with public deliberation. Hence, movement toward greater openness in administrative decision-making is possible from both liberal pluralist and corporatist starting points. Corporatism clearly has no monopoly on democratic deliberation. There has been a vast expansion of bureaucratic discretion during the twentieth century, fueled by the rise of vaguely worded framework legislation (Kerwin; Peters, 77–78). Framework legislation delegates to the public bureaucracy the authority to formulate rules and regulations intended to convert the legislature’s will into legally binding decisions. In carrying out this task, administrative agencies routinely make decisions not expressly provided for by statutes. The result—lawmaking by unelected public officials—is one of the great challenges facing democracy today. How best to control bureaucratic discretion has been a recurring subject of scholarly debates and practical reforms, but the problem has nonetheless persisted (however, see Bryner). Some observers 1 want to rein in bureaucratic discretion by strengthening the oversight role of the legislature. Due to the limited oversight capacity of legislatures, however, this approach is less promising than one might think. Moreover, the main problem with bureaucratic discretion is not administrative power as such but its undemocratic exercise (Richardson 1997, 1998). Administrative agencies have ample influence on the substance of public policy, and—while one might wish to shift the balance of power between the legislature and the bureaucracy in favor of the former—legislatures appear to be in decline. Thus, I propose to conceptualize the democratic control of bureaucratic discretion without relying directly on the

Green Political Theory and the State: Context is Everything

Green political theory generally emphasizes universal values and associated projects at the expense of particular contexts. However, these contexts affect the plausibility and attractiveness of theoretical projects. In light of the current spectrum of green political thinking from anarchist to statist poles, this paper shows that sometimes statist strategies make sense, sometimes more confrontational action is required, and sometimes a mix is appropriate. The kind of context highlighted is state structure as it faces civil society. Comparative historical analysis of four countries (the United States, Norway, Germany, and the United Kingdom) is brought to bear.

‘Hasta la vista, baby!’ The Solar Grand Plan, environmentalism, and social constructions of the Mojave Desert

Proposals for large-scale solar thermal plants in Southern California have won enthusiastic government support. Public debate on this technologys environmental consequences has been notably muted, however. Why have environmentalists found it so difficult to secure ecologically sound siting processes for large-scale solar thermal plants? Instead of representing a shift toward environmental stewardship and sustainability, the discourse of the ‘Solar Grand Plan’ to develop renewable energy in Southwestern deserts parallels high-modernist narratives of the past century. Using discourse analysis, three different conceptions of space and place that shape the debate are identified. The Grand Solar Plan champions solar development as clean energy. This has generated a conservationist narrative that seeks to minimize habitat and landscape destruction but has yet to have a substantial impact on policy – although this may be starting to change. This lack of impact is explicable in terms of a third, culturally dominant discourse of the desert as barren and useless.

Green Political Theory and the European Union: The Case for a Non-integrated Civil Society

Contrary to established ideas about the European Unions (EU) democratic deficit, a conception of European civil society based on contestation and communication within and across multiple public spheres is good for green politics and ecological democracy in the EU. This article shows that the European Commissions own proposals for restructuring its relationship to civil society organizations follows a trajectory from “passive inclusion” to “active inclusion” of civil society groups. This historical sequence, I argue, is associated with weakening civil societys capacity to serve as a reservoir of democratic innovation in the EUs system of multilevel governance. I aim to show that efforts to green and democratize the EU are better served by a non-integrated European civil society.

Deliberative Policy Analysis and Policy-making in Urban Stormwater Management

Abstract The Philadelphia Water Department is the first US water utility to propose a ‘green stormwater infrastructure’ (GSI) approach to managing urban stormwater. Given that many actors individually make decisions regarding the surface texture of urban watersheds, planning and installing an urban-scale GSI programme is both complex and uncertain. Whether and how water utility officials interact with watershed stakeholders introduces important questions about methodologies for participation, both in the policy process and the analysis thereof. We critically examine a participatory process employed in a Philadelphia neighbourhood in terms of Deliberative Policy Analysis (DPA). Informed by interpretive methodology, our analysis is two-fold: (1) we examine the potential as well as the challenges of using DPA in the analysis and practice of policy-making and, at the same time, (2) we consider the use of DPA under adverse circumstances, including extreme inequality and distrust. We outline some ways in which DPA is better suited than more traditional forms of policy analysis to address the complexity and uncertainty inherent in environmental issues as well as some ways in which DPA is particularly challenging. We heed a call for a reorientation of policy analysis that brings empirical and normative inquiry into closer interaction.

Canada's Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Problem: Voluntarism Reconsidered

Voluntary siting methods are no more successful than conventional regulatory or market-based methods in siting new low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facilities. The promise of voluntarism, I argue, is diminished by the excessively local conception of public participation that typically informs voluntary siting attempts. This is evident in Canadas search for an LLRW disposal facility in Ontario. Placing strong boundaries around municipalities for purposes of public participation violates two key conditions of democratic siting policy - maximising social inclusiveness and ensuring a large unit of review. Selecting a larger unit of public deliberation would have permitted a more socially inclusive participatory analysis of the political, economic and social implications of managing radioactive wastes. A regional approach to LLRW management can therefore provide a more just and democratic framework for resolving siting disputes that jointly involve neighbouring communities.