Jill Lindsey Harrison

Just Values or Just Value? Remaking the Local in Agro-Food Studies

In this chapter, the authors take a close look at the current discourse of food system relocalization. From the perspective of theories of justice and theories of neoliberalism, food relocalization is wrapped up in a problematic, and largely unexamined, communitarian discourse on social justice. The example for Californias localized governance of pesticide drift demonstrates that localization can effectively make social justice problems invisible. The authors also look at the EU context, where a different form of localization discourse emphasizes the local capture of rents in the value chain as a neoliberal strategy of territorial valorization. Examining Marsden et al.s case study of one of these localization projects in the UK, the authors argue that this strategy does not necessarily lead to more equitable forms of rural development. In fact, US and EU discourses are basically two sides of the same coin. Specifically, in neoliberal biopolitical form, they both obscure politics, behind either the discourse of “value” in the EU or “values” in the US. Rather than rejecting localism, however, the authors conclude by arguing for a more “reflexive” localism that harnesses the power of this strategy while consciously struggling against inequality in local arenas.

Neoliberal environmental justice: mainstream ideas of justice in political conflict over agricultural pesticides in the United States

Numerous scholars have used political philosophy to characterise the US environmental justice (EJ) movement’s conception of justice. I build upon that work by identifying and critically evaluating the ideas of justice that manifest in mainstream (non-EJ) environmental politics. I do so through a comparative analysis of two groups of activists concerned with the threats posed by pesticides to human health in California. Mainstream agri-environmental activists’ narratives and practices evince libertarian and communitarian ideas of justice that support the neoliberalisation of an already compromised regulatory system, as they motivate and legitimise policies, practices, and discourses that undermine the state’s environmental protections and shift environmental responsibility to individuals. In contrast, California’s EJ activists, like the broader EJ movement, marshal a pluralist notion of justice as distribution, recognition, participation, and capabilities, which rejects the neoliberal project and explicitly criticises the social inequalities and relations of oppression that help produce environmental inequalities.

Coopted environmental justice? Activists’ roles in shaping EJ policy implementation

In this article, I augment scholars’ explanations for why agencies’ environmental justice (EJ) programs often fail to meet EJ movement principles. Other scholars have shown that countermovement actors within the state and from industry have coopted EJ policy implementation by reframing ‘EJ’ away from activist principles. Drawing on insights from social movement theorists who have shown that social movement outcomes are shaped also by movements’ own internal struggles, I focus here on the cleavages among EJ activists and how those factions shape EJ policy implementation outcomes. I do so through an analysis of agencies’ EJ grant programs in the United States. I use agency documents to describe how most of the programs were implemented in problematic ways that deviate from long-standing EJ movement priorities, and I use qualitative interviews with movement leaders influential over other EJ advocates and agency EJ efforts to help explain those outcomes. I demonstrate that EJ policy implementation often deviates from long-standing EJ movement priorities not only because of cooptation by countermovement actors and other factors that scholars have rightly noted, but also because some leading EJ activists are reframing what EJ means in problematic ways and shaping agency EJ efforts to accord with that vision.

‘We do ecology, not sociology’: interactions among bureaucrats and the undermining of regulatory agencies’ environmental justice efforts

ABSTRACT Environmental justice (EJ) scholars have argued that agencies’ EJ efforts have done little to accomplish core goals of the EJ movement: democratizing decision-making and reducing environmental inequalities. Scholars explain that agencies’ EJ efforts are undermined by industry and political elites hostile to environmental regulations, shortcomings of existing EJ policy, and limited technical tools. I augment these explanations by taking a constructionist approach, identifying interactions through which bureaucrats – with each other and with me – defend or contest their agency’s EJ reform efforts. Drawing on interviews with agency staff and observations of agency meetings, I show that EJ staff – those tasked with leading their agencies’ EJ efforts but wielding little authority over their colleagues – experience working in an environment in which colleagues can challenge and dismiss EJ and those who promote it. I thus argue that scholars aiming to explain why agencies’ EJ efforts have failed to meet EJ advocates’ expectations must attend not only to factors other scholars have rightly noted but also to interactions among staff through which some define EJ as anathema to agency practice and hence stifle proposed EJ reforms.

The Environmental Protection Agency in the Early Trump Administration: Prelude to Regulatory Capture

We explore and contextualize changes at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the first 6 months of the Trump administration, arguing that its pro-business direction is enabling a form of regulatory capture. We draw on news articles, public documents, and a rapid response, multisited interview study of current and retired EPA employees to (1) document changes associated with the new administration, (2) contextualize and compare the current pro-business makeover with previous ones, and (3) publicly convey findings in a timely manner. The lengthy, combined experience of interviewees with previous Republican and Democratic administrations made them valuable analysts for assessing recent shifts at the Scott Pruitt-led EPA and the extent to which these shifts steer the EPA away from its stated mission to “protect human and environmental health.” Considering the extent of its pro-business leanings in the absence of mitigating power from the legislative branch, we conclude that its regulatory capture has become likely-more so than at similar moments in the agency’s 47-year history. The public and environmental health consequences of regulatory capture of the EPA will probably be severe and far-reaching.