Topic 1: Unequal impacts of large-scale sustainability efforts

How do we reconcile the unequal distribution of impacts from sustainable projects on locally impacted peoples? Who are the winners and losers? Are such inequalities necessary and inevitable consequences of national and international-scale efforts? Can projects that systematically displace specific groups be considered sustainable if human well-being is the foundation of sustainability?

Topic 1 is an interesting set of questions, and from my perspective it is the topic that the main readings best inform.

Based on the Fratkin paper from 2001, we see several examples of outside interventions into the lifestyles and livelihoods of pastoral herders in Africa that failed. The conclusion I take from the Fratkin paper is that an emphasis on privatization and a "sedentary" lifestyle (not the US definition of sedentary, I presume) is not always the best idea.

This conclusion, and the examples Fratkin offers from the experiences of the three tribes in East Africa, echoes the insights I took from last week's presentation and readings by Lin Ostrom. Context is important, and it is difficult to decree universal solutions that will actually benefit both the environment and human well being. To that extent, these readings do seem a good addition to a section on "worked examples".

Understanding that universal protocols for sustainability are rare or mythical is good - but perhaps not as satisfying as examples of interventions that could work or have been demonstrated to work. The Fratkin and Santos-Barrett readings are certainly different from a book chapter, in that they are quite specific about one rather narrow demographic - albeit one with a clear and interesting dependent relationship to their environment, and any ecological shifts or disasters that might come with the territory.

My concern is that if there are no trends and "best practices" for engaging in external interventions aimed at sustainability, where is the value in gathering a group of scholars such as we have in our seminar many of whom are planning to inform and carry out work on sustainable development around the world? If the answer is truly "it depends on context" - then our conversation together would be very short, or purely philosophical.

The Santos-Barrett paper does offer some room for useful intervention, that could actually accomplish the goal of increasing equity and human well being. Specifically, Santos and Barrett suggest that outside interventions such as assisting herders who have low wealth (measured in terms of herd size I think) might not be bad. Previous arguments stated that outside intervention might interfere with existing social transfers. They counter argue that these transfers are not that widespread, and that they depend on factors that can be identified by outsiders, such as a family's likelihood to be able to reciprocate a gift or loan.

I like that they are targeting a specific kind of intervention, and doing useful research on it, but of course, concluding that outside intervention might not be contraindicated is not the same as saying it's great, it works, and here's how we prove it works.

Pertaining to the questions about equality, it seems that any outside intervention is inherently unequal. I feel like there may be an interesting line of discussion about the distinction between policy or charitable interventions that are designed to address existing inequality vs. those that are equal in their distribution, but do nothing to remedy existing inequality. In the papers for this weeks, the short term "winners" of certain kinds of historical or proposed intervention would be those who received aid. The "losers" might be those who were already well enough off that they were not the target of external intervention of aid.

However, in the Fratkin paper we see several examples where it seems that everyone in the target tribe or society ended up being a loser because the interventions (privatization, creation of ranches, demarcation of land ownership boundaries etc.) were poorly suited to the real needs and real possibilities of the society and the ecological environment in which they live.

A huge amount of literature has already developed around the concept of "context" and its seemingly overarching role in institutional design for sustainable development, in the "development" literature in the economics, sociology as well as political science disciplines. In this connection, I think the concepts of post-developmentalism and post-internationalism do capture some elements of the essence of "context" in their thoughts. Prof. Merilee Grindle's paper (attached) highlights this dynamics that plays out between context and content, which is also reflected in the work of David Korten with regard to blue print approach vs. learning process approach for development.

I would probably agree with Christina that if every phenomenon has to be explained to a large extent by contextual variables, is there then a generalized theory of institutions for sustainable development possible? Probably not. But herein, I would like to draw from the "mid-range" theories that Billy Turner talked about in one of the earlier classes. These reflexive theories may help in anlaytical interpretation of these phenomenon and may to certain extent "indicate" the parameters of institutional design, once again partially but not in full. To this extent, Ostrom's IAD framework is quite powerful because it tries to capture the formal as well as the informal context before designing institutions. WE may have to do with such kind of theories in sustainability science.

Previously Christina Ingersoll wrote:

How do we reconcile the unequal distribution of impacts from sustainable projects on locally impacted peoples? Who are the winners and losers? Are such inequalities necessary and inevitable consequences of national and international-scale efforts? Can projects that systematically displace specific groups be considered sustainable if human well-being is the foundation of sustainability?

Topic 1 is an interesting set of questions, and from my perspective it is the topic that the main readings best inform.

Based on the Fratkin paper from 2001, we see several examples of outside interventions into the lifestyles and livelihoods of pastoral herders in Africa that failed. The conclusion I take from the Fratkin paper is that an emphasis on privatization and a "sedentary" lifestyle (not the US definition of sedentary, I presume) is not always the best idea.

This conclusion, and the examples Fratkin offers from the experiences of the three tribes in East Africa, echoes the insights I took from last week's presentation and readings by Lin Ostrom. Context is important, and it is difficult to decree universal solutions that will actually benefit both the environment and human well being. To that extent, these readings do seem a good addition to a section on "worked examples".

Understanding that universal protocols for sustainability are rare or mythical is good - but perhaps not as satisfying as examples of interventions that could work or have been demonstrated to work. The Fratkin and Santos-Barrett readings are certainly different from a book chapter, in that they are quite specific about one rather narrow demographic - albeit one with a clear and interesting dependent relationship to their environment, and any ecological shifts or disasters that might come with the territory.

My concern is that if there are no trends and "best practices" for engaging in external interventions aimed at sustainability, where is the value in gathering a group of scholars such as we have in our seminar many of whom are planning to inform and carry out work on sustainable development around the world? If the answer is truly "it depends on context" - then our conversation together would be very short, or purely philosophical.

The Santos-Barrett paper does offer some room for useful intervention, that could actually accomplish the goal of increasing equity and human well being. Specifically, Santos and Barrett suggest that outside interventions such as assisting herders who have low wealth (measured in terms of herd size I think) might not be bad. Previous arguments stated that outside intervention might interfere with existing social transfers. They counter argue that these transfers are not that widespread, and that they depend on factors that can be identified by outsiders, such as a family's likelihood to be able to reciprocate a gift or loan.

I like that they are targeting a specific kind of intervention, and doing useful research on it, but of course, concluding that outside intervention might not be contraindicated is not the same as saying it's great, it works, and here's how we prove it works.

Pertaining to the questions about equality, it seems that any outside intervention is inherently unequal. I feel like there may be an interesting line of discussion about the distinction between policy or charitable interventions that are designed to address existing inequality vs. those that are equal in their distribution, but do nothing to remedy existing inequality. In the papers for this weeks, the short term "winners" of certain kinds of historical or proposed intervention would be those who received aid. The "losers" might be those who were already well enough off that they were not the target of external intervention of aid.

However, in the Fratkin paper we see several examples where it seems that everyone in the target tribe or society ended up being a loser because the interventions (privatization, creation of ranches, demarcation of land ownership boundaries etc.) were poorly suited to the real needs and real possibilities of the society and the ecological environment in which they live.

 

I would certainly echo Christina's comments in the sense that my first reaction to both papers was that they demonstrate the need for context dependent development interventions.  However, I would add to her comments that one possible "best practice" for designing development interventions may be participation by the community. This is a concept I first heard of through Tara (who likely has more to add here) and is somewhat controversial in the development literature.  The idea is to have the beneficiaries of development assistance involved in project planning and implementation.

Tara shared with me the attached paper, which I think is worth thinking about when we consider designing interventions that support sustainability.  My limited read of the literature is that participatory approach may be most useful at project initiation, as a way to understand the dynamics of the community, as well as motivate community participation.  However, they certainly require a flexiblity on the part of the donor, among other challenges. 

In terms of the inequality issues addressed in Fratkin and Santos-Barrett, and by Christina above, a participatory approach can be helpful in identifying the heterogeneity within a community.  Yet, given that those with greater endowments are likely going to be more powerful in a group setting, they may advocate interventions which disproportionally benefit them, perpetuating or exacerbating inequality.

A second advantage of participatory approaches, or in-depth, context dependent study of a community during program design, is that it can demonstrate the ways in which communities are tied ot each other.  In general, I am skeptical of any approach that comes in and gives money to some (e.g., the poorest), and not to others.  The dynamics of markets within local communities can be complex, and in some instances, this will lead to scenarios where someone may no longer have a market for his or her good, simply shifting the poverty from one group to another.

One additional challenge is that even we understand the sources of inequality, we may not have the power to change them - for example, inequality may have to do with not only initial endowments but also intrinsic differences in skill, motivation, etc. 

Previously Christina Ingersoll wrote:

How do we reconcile the unequal distribution of impacts from sustainable projects on locally impacted peoples? Who are the winners and losers? Are such inequalities necessary and inevitable consequences of national and international-scale efforts? Can projects that systematically displace specific groups be considered sustainable if human well-being is the foundation of sustainability?

Topic 1 is an interesting set of questions, and from my perspective it is the topic that the main readings best inform.

Based on the Fratkin paper from 2001, we see several examples of outside interventions into the lifestyles and livelihoods of pastoral herders in Africa that failed. The conclusion I take from the Fratkin paper is that an emphasis on privatization and a "sedentary" lifestyle (not the US definition of sedentary, I presume) is not always the best idea.

This conclusion, and the examples Fratkin offers from the experiences of the three tribes in East Africa, echoes the insights I took from last week's presentation and readings by Lin Ostrom. Context is important, and it is difficult to decree universal solutions that will actually benefit both the environment and human well being. To that extent, these readings do seem a good addition to a section on "worked examples".

Understanding that universal protocols for sustainability are rare or mythical is good - but perhaps not as satisfying as examples of interventions that could work or have been demonstrated to work. The Fratkin and Santos-Barrett readings are certainly different from a book chapter, in that they are quite specific about one rather narrow demographic - albeit one with a clear and interesting dependent relationship to their environment, and any ecological shifts or disasters that might come with the territory.

My concern is that if there are no trends and "best practices" for engaging in external interventions aimed at sustainability, where is the value in gathering a group of scholars such as we have in our seminar many of whom are planning to inform and carry out work on sustainable development around the world? If the answer is truly "it depends on context" - then our conversation together would be very short, or purely philosophical.

The Santos-Barrett paper does offer some room for useful intervention, that could actually accomplish the goal of increasing equity and human well being. Specifically, Santos and Barrett suggest that outside interventions such as assisting herders who have low wealth (measured in terms of herd size I think) might not be bad. Previous arguments stated that outside intervention might interfere with existing social transfers. They counter argue that these transfers are not that widespread, and that they depend on factors that can be identified by outsiders, such as a family's likelihood to be able to reciprocate a gift or loan.

I like that they are targeting a specific kind of intervention, and doing useful research on it, but of course, concluding that outside intervention might not be contraindicated is not the same as saying it's great, it works, and here's how we prove it works.

Pertaining to the questions about equality, it seems that any outside intervention is inherently unequal. I feel like there may be an interesting line of discussion about the distinction between policy or charitable interventions that are designed to address existing inequality vs. those that are equal in their distribution, but do nothing to remedy existing inequality. In the papers for this weeks, the short term "winners" of certain kinds of historical or proposed intervention would be those who received aid. The "losers" might be those who were already well enough off that they were not the target of external intervention of aid.

However, in the Fratkin paper we see several examples where it seems that everyone in the target tribe or society ended up being a loser because the interventions (privatization, creation of ranches, demarcation of land ownership boundaries etc.) were poorly suited to the real needs and real possibilities of the society and the ecological environment in which they live.

 

Previously Elizabeth Walker wrote:

I would certainly echo Christina's comments in the sense that my first reaction to both papers was that they demonstrate the need for context dependent development interventions.  However, I would add to her comments that one possible "best practice" for designing development interventions may be participation by the community. This is a concept I first heard of through Tara (who likely has more to add here) and is somewhat controversial in the development literature.  The idea is to have the beneficiaries of development assistance involved in project planning and implementation.

Tara shared with me the attached paper, which I think is worth thinking about when we consider designing interventions that support sustainability.  My limited read of the literature is that participatory approach may be most useful at project initiation, as a way to understand the dynamics of the community, as well as motivate community participation.  However, they certainly require a flexiblity on the part of the donor, among other challenges. 

In terms of the inequality issues addressed in Fratkin and Santos-Barrett, and by Christina above, a participatory approach can be helpful in identifying the heterogeneity within a community.  Yet, given that those with greater endowments are likely going to be more powerful in a group setting, they may advocate interventions which disproportionally benefit them, perpetuating or exacerbating inequality.

A second advantage of participatory approaches, or in-depth, context dependent study of a community during program design, is that it can demonstrate the ways in which communities are tied ot each other.  In general, I am skeptical of any approach that comes in and gives money to some (e.g., the poorest), and not to others.  The dynamics of markets within local communities can be complex, and in some instances, this will lead to scenarios where someone may no longer have a market for his or her good, simply shifting the poverty from one group to another.

One additional challenge is that even we understand the sources of inequality, we may not have the power to change them - for example, inequality may have to do with not only initial endowments but also intrinsic differences in skill, motivation, etc. 

 

Previously Christina Ingersoll wrote:

How do we reconcile the unequal distribution of impacts from sustainable projects on locally impacted peoples? Who are the winners and losers? Are such inequalities necessary and inevitable consequences of national and international-scale efforts? Can projects that systematically displace specific groups be considered sustainable if human well-being is the foundation of sustainability?

Topic 1 is an interesting set of questions, and from my perspective it is the topic that the main readings best inform.

Based on the Fratkin paper from 2001, we see several examples of outside interventions into the lifestyles and livelihoods of pastoral herders in Africa that failed. The conclusion I take from the Fratkin paper is that an emphasis on privatization and a "sedentary" lifestyle (not the US definition of sedentary, I presume) is not always the best idea.

This conclusion, and the examples Fratkin offers from the experiences of the three tribes in East Africa, echoes the insights I took from last week's presentation and readings by Lin Ostrom. Context is important, and it is difficult to decree universal solutions that will actually benefit both the environment and human well being. To that extent, these readings do seem a good addition to a section on "worked examples".

Understanding that universal protocols for sustainability are rare or mythical is good - but perhaps not as satisfying as examples of interventions that could work or have been demonstrated to work. The Fratkin and Santos-Barrett readings are certainly different from a book chapter, in that they are quite specific about one rather narrow demographic - albeit one with a clear and interesting dependent relationship to their environment, and any ecological shifts or disasters that might come with the territory.

My concern is that if there are no trends and "best practices" for engaging in external interventions aimed at sustainability, where is the value in gathering a group of scholars such as we have in our seminar many of whom are planning to inform and carry out work on sustainable development around the world? If the answer is truly "it depends on context" - then our conversation together would be very short, or purely philosophical.

The Santos-Barrett paper does offer some room for useful intervention, that could actually accomplish the goal of increasing equity and human well being. Specifically, Santos and Barrett suggest that outside interventions such as assisting herders who have low wealth (measured in terms of herd size I think) might not be bad. Previous arguments stated that outside intervention might interfere with existing social transfers. They counter argue that these transfers are not that widespread, and that they depend on factors that can be identified by outsiders, such as a family's likelihood to be able to reciprocate a gift or loan.

I like that they are targeting a specific kind of intervention, and doing useful research on it, but of course, concluding that outside intervention might not be contraindicated is not the same as saying it's great, it works, and here's how we prove it works.

Pertaining to the questions about equality, it seems that any outside intervention is inherently unequal. I feel like there may be an interesting line of discussion about the distinction between policy or charitable interventions that are designed to address existing inequality vs. those that are equal in their distribution, but do nothing to remedy existing inequality. In the papers for this weeks, the short term "winners" of certain kinds of historical or proposed intervention would be those who received aid. The "losers" might be those who were already well enough off that they were not the target of external intervention of aid.

However, in the Fratkin paper we see several examples where it seems that everyone in the target tribe or society ended up being a loser because the interventions (privatization, creation of ranches, demarcation of land ownership boundaries etc.) were poorly suited to the real needs and real possibilities of the society and the ecological environment in which they live.

 

 

I would like to address the last question in Topic 1: “Can projects that systematically displace specific groups be considered sustainable if human well-being is the foundation of sustainability?”

Based on my reading (and re-reading…and re-re-reading) of Dasgupta’s chapters, I understand his definition of “sustainable development” to be a situation in which, holding shadow prices constant, wealth is non-declining at a particular time t.  Because wealth is just the weighted sum of capital assets (including natural capital, human capital, manufactured capital) that uses the asset’s shadow price as its weight, this implies that the shadow prices are the rates at which the capital assets can substitute for each other.  To operationalize this with an example, suppose the following:

A dam is proposed that would have the following consequences:

Flood 100 hectares

Displace 2000 people

Provide irrigation water for 50 hectares of agriculture

Provide electricity for a town of 5000 (allowing for increased computer use and therefore more “social networks” with the outside world)

Provide a stable source of drinking water for a town of 5000

To determine if this is a sustainable path, one would have to calculate the change in wealth, based on the shadow-price weighted changes in the assets.  Of course, this raises all kinds of questions, including:

Is water for irrigation the same natural capital asset as water for drinking (even though “water is water” until it is removed from the reservoir behind the dam)?

Is the vegetation produced by agriculture the same in “natural capital” terms as the vegetation from the non-agricultural flooded area?

Are the social networks created by electrifying a nearby town (via connections to the outside world) the same as the social networks destroyed by displacing 200 people from the dam site?

If the last question is answered in the affirmative, the dam would be considered “sustainable” even though it displaces people.  This is because there is a net increase in social capital and, assuming that the shadow price of social capital is positive (additional units bring benefits rather than costs), then “wealth” is increasing, and this change would be considered “sustainable”—despite the displacement of people.

Although I admit that I may be misunderstanding Dasgupta (if so, please point out my flawed logic!), it seems to me that the Dasgupta definition of “sustainability” does NOT account for the systematic displacement of groups, if the lost capital from the displacement is considered to be the same capital that is gained by others (ie. the idea that the "social capital of the displaced people is the same as the social capital gained by more networks in the city, facilitated by electricity").  If, however, we choose excruciatingly precise divisions of different forms of capital assets (for example, delineating “social capital” into “childhood friendship networks”, “elementary school educational networks”, “electronic/computer-based/Facebook networks”, “sibling networks”, etc), then it may be possible to provide a finer interpretation of “sustainability” based on a finer definition of “capital asset changes”.  However, how one actually parses this out in a non-political and non-agenda-driven way, and then actually measures or models these very specific types of assets in a way that allows us to compute a shadow price, is completely unclear.

To be honest, I am perplexed by the question. If the definition of sustainability is something like "meeting the needs of the current generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Brundtland 1987), then isn't it completely paradoxical to suggest that there can be sustainability projects that compromise the ability of members of the current generation to meet their needs? Far from inevitable, I think one could argue that projects that result in the exacerbation of inequalities are simply unsustainable. One can assert this position ethically, but it can also be justified instrumentally - ever growing inequality may vary well be unsustainable because it will ultimately result in revolution.

Of course, this says nothing of unintended consequences and differing perceptions of need, not to mention the possibility that systematic displacement could actually leave people better off and reduce inequity in some cases. This is, however, entering messy territory. I had the opportunity to spend some time with nomadic herders on the Tibetan Plateau a couple of years ago and conduct some research on resettlement. The Tibetans I spoke with were typically apprehensive and skeptical of resettlement, and experienced the negative consequences when it took place (including persistent dependence and unemployment and loss of culture). In contrast, the Chinese government (genuinely in my opinion) believes that they are actually helping them to 'overcome their backwardness', increasing their sustainability by improving access to education and providing decent homes. The question then is whose definition of sustainability is legitimate? 

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, but I would argue that the eyes of those directly impacted should be heavily weighted. That is, sustainability is an 'essentially contested concept' (Gallie 1956), but the contestations of some (those at the heart of the matter in my opinion) should be privileged. This is where 'public participation' becomes critical; defining and shepherding sustainability is not a (purely) technocratic process, but a process of mediating between different conceptions and delineating a path forward.

Previously Christina Ingersoll wrote:

How do we reconcile the unequal distribution of impacts from sustainable projects on locally impacted peoples? Who are the winners and losers? Are such inequalities necessary and inevitable consequences of national and international-scale efforts? Can projects that systematically displace specific groups be considered sustainable if human well-being is the foundation of sustainability?