|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Population size or growth and environmental degradation are not related in any direct way. Focussing on the poor in rural societies, we show that, in order to understand the degradation of their environments, one needs to analyse the dynamics linking changes in the labour supply, the social organisation of production, technology, and the environment. Implicated in the maintenance, breakdown, or reorganisation of local institutions of production are the differentiation in any society or community, its social psychology (of norms and reciprocal expectations), and larger economic structures. In contrast, what we call neo-Malthusian environmentalism points to aggregate regional, national or global statistics and to calculations of ultimate bio-physical limits. We argue that these give very little insight into the social/ economic/ environmental dynamics of socio-environmental change. Noting the persistent appeal of both the science and the politics of neo-Malthusian environmentalism, we interpret them as underwritten by both moralistic and technocratic conceptions of social action. The logical consequences of this discourse are unintended and undesirable effects, which contribute, contrary to the intentions of most environmentalists, to coercion and violence in the name of the environment. 1.- INTRODUCTION Sustainable development, steady state economics, and zero population growth are serious proposals. The economic and environmental problems motivating these goals are severe, and the social and economic changes their implementation seems to require are sweeping. Yet, the proponents of such steady state/ sustainable goals often picture the dynamics of unsustainability, economic growth, and population increase very simplistically. Aggregated categories and abstract analyses of statistical trends predominate over investigations of concrete and differentiating social, economic and environmental dynamics. Policies and other social or technical practices are more likely to succeed without unintended and undesirable effects if they are based on a sufficient description of the causes underlying such dynamics; any sustainable social order will have to be constructed through interventions within these dynamics (Max-Neef 1986). Serious conceptual and empirical work to understand those dynamics are needed. At the same time we recognise that simplistic or poorly-framed analyses do not just happen spontaneously. The sociology of scientific knowledge indicates that certain courses of action are facilitated over others in the very formulation of science, that is, not just in its "downstream" applications. If our analysis is to shift the direction of analysis, policy-making, and other action, we also need some interpretation that exposes the practical bases of the science behind any steady state proposals. Ideally, this would then help us contribute to building conditions favourable to alternative science and politics; that last project, however, requires much more work than one written intervention can accomplish. In order to make concrete the directions we think such analysis and interpretation should take, this paper focusses on one form of steady state environmental discourse, what we call neo-Malthusian environmentalism, and, in particular, on its account of the interrelations between the poor in rural societies and their environments. 1.1 Positioning this critique Upon entering this terrain one is quickly faced with contested definitions of who and what constitute neo-Malthusianism, with popular slogans concerning the global and local, self-evident truths about the finiteness of the earth, and the well guarded disciplinary turf of demography. Let us, therefore, clear some ground for ourselves by defining some terms and making several distinctions and provide a basic map of the surrounding area. -For us, neo-Malthusianism means more than a focus on over-Population and Population control; we shall refer to that focus as Population discourse or the Population problem. We use the term neo-Malthusianism when ultimate bio-physical limits, often global, are being invoked to strengthen claims that Population growth presents a serious problem, one that should be kept at the centre of our attention. When degradation of environment and exhaustion of resources is directly related to such Population growth we call this neo-Malthusian environmentalism (e.g., Ehrlich and Holdren 1971, Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1990, Bongaarts 1992, Meffe et al. 1993, Hall et al. 1994). -Demography, the scientific discipline spawned by and now dominating Population discourse, can be divided into three orientations (Preston 1989): a) macro-economic (concerned with the effects of Population growth on a nation's production and economic growth); b) micro-economic (concerned with allocating the true social and economic costs of having children to those who bear them); and c) reproductive health and choice (concerned with enabling mothers (sometimes fathers also) to have the number of children they desire and raise them heathily). Each of these orientations may be developed with a neo-Malthusian tone. It is macro-economic considerations, however, that are most commonly associated with neo-Malthusian environmentalism and so our discussion will speak most directly to that orientation. -Global change is a very popular term these days, but, with a view both to identifying causes and to designing policy responses, we consider global formulations to be weak and unhelpful. Global statistics and trends, or, more generally, aggregate regional or national figures, are abstractions which give very little insight into the concrete social/ economic/ environmental processes. Whatever the scale of observation, differentiation among social groups is at the centre, not just an addition to, all such processes. Let us tease out this assessment of undifferentiated thinking (including global formulations) with a simple, but powerful, scenario: Consider two hypothetical countries having the same amount and quality of arable land, the same population size, the same level of technical capacity, and the same population growth rate, say 3% per year. Country A, however, has a relatively equal land distribution, while country B has a typical 1970's Central American land distribution: 2% of the people own 60% of the land; 70% own just 2%. Both countries double their Populations very rapidly but five generations (120 years) before anyone is malnourished in country A, all of the poorest 70% in country B already is. But this is not just an issue of relative timing of the crisis in the two countries. The likely level at which B's poor would first experience what others call Population pressure would be food shortages linked to inequity in land distribution (see Durham 1979; Vandermeer 1977). Inevitably, given that no real country is like country A, the crises to which actual people have to respond come well before and in different forms from the crisis predicted on the basis of the aggregate Population growth rates and calculations of ultimate bio-physical limits. Anyone focussing on Population control policies could justifiably be viewed by the poor in a country like B as taking sides with those who benefit from the inequitable access to productive resources. The point here is not just that in any district, country, or ecosphere there are richer and poorer people, but that groups with different wealth and power exist, change, and become involved in crises because of their dynamic interrelations. -From this scenario we can identify three analytic/policy orientations, differing in the units of analysis and the implied limits: a) uniform units (which can be simply aggregated) with biophysical limits; b) stratified units. The economic squeeze on the poor leads them to face biophysical limits; the rich, while buffered for some time from such limits, can take anticipatory action or help the poor in facing their limits; c) differentiating units, linked in their economic/ social/ political dynamics; limits are thus social. We will concentrate on the contrast between uniform and differentiated analyses, because stratified accounts, while acknowledging the existence of rich and poor, often do not provide an account of the dynamics of formation and maintenance of inequality. Without such dynamics they occupy an uncertain middle ground. Are the policies and other social or technical practices proposed for the poor any different from those from a uniform analysis? If so, we need to know more -- how and why are the proposals supposed to work? If not, then this essay's critique applies. -In criticising uniform, aggregate analyses we must also make clear that, for us, the contrast to global is not local. The local can easily be viewed as a place to become marginalised with respect to more fundamental global trends, or, at best, as a mere instance of those trends. Instead we advocate differentiated analyses that are “locally-centred” and “trans-local.” That is, one should begin from local situations to keep always in sight the concrete (always differentiating), interconnected social, economic, and environmental dynamics, knowing, however, that understanding these dynamics will require tracing of their trans-local, -regional and -national linkages. After all, to continue the scenario above, the land distribution of country B had a history, and probably resulted from land being taken to produce for export, often by foreign or transnational corporations. Understanding locally-centred situations and appreciating how they are concretely interlinked is a task of much greater complexity than global analysis, or any account of processes using aggregate and undifferentiated categories. Moreover, the most appropriate point(s) of intervention or engagement are not at all clear in advance of examining the particularities of the situation and the resources one would bring into it. Nevertheless, the work needs to be done; "think globally, act locally” does not do that job. -The contrast between global and locally-centred/ trans-local is not an issue of simplification for the sake of generality vs. accumulation of detail, synthesis vs. focussing on particular cases, first approximations vs. more qualified accounts, or choice of temporal and spatial scale. Locally-centred/ trans-local analysis entails a qualitative change in perspective. Let us illustrate this using some schematic diagrams of the relation between Population growth, production and environmental degradation (Figures 1). --INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE -- The upper graph of figure 1 corresponds to the global formulation of the Population problem. It shows production increasing as Population increases until some ultimate bio-physical threshold is reached. Above this, the resource base and the environment begin to become stressed and production cannot keep up with population growth. Eventually environmental and resource degradation reduces the absolute production capacity, and a Population collapse may occur. Although technological progress may shift the bio-physical threshold to the right, it cannot do this indefinitely; it is natural to reach a production plateau -- according to Vitousek et al. (1986) humans in 1986 consumed 40% of the earth's primary production; the 100% threshold cannot be too far off at present Population growth rates. In the lower graph of figure 1 bio-physical thresholds have already been reached in various places at various times and the local peoples have initiated processes of re-organising social institutions (in the broad sense of the term) and technology so that production could keep pace. (In fact, the world's Population would never have been able to reach the level of 40% primary production consumption without such processes). At any Population size the balance could be upset if the bases for these institutions and for use of technology were undermined. When this process falters and environmental/ resource stress or degradation occurs, there are always social forces (analyzed in section 2) to account for the erosion. (The forces integrate both local and external changes, i.e., are locally-centred/ trans-local.) Conversely, given that people work with and modify institutions and technology to respond to crises, they will have the most chance of recovering some balance if they appreciate the social origins of the crises they have been and will be confronting. Two different notions of balance are represented in the contrasting formulations (figure 1, upper vs. lower). The conventional view of the Population-resource use system is that the different forces stimulating the Population to exploit its resources push the system out of its basic condition of balance to which it will return if the forces diminish. We might picture this as being like a ball in a basin (which becomes shallower as one moves through the stages of the upper graph in figure 1.) If, however, the forces push the system over a threshold, one considers the resource to be overexploited.
Approximate Word count = 7664
Approximate Pages = 30.7
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|