Political Economy
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS #1: POWER
•What forces determine the characteristics of the forest
industry?
• What factors motivate forest companies?
• Who has power over forestry in British Columbia?
Why? What is the basis of power, how is power exerted?
• Who lacks power regarding forestry issues in
British Columbia? Why?
Discussion Group Questions #2: Social Class.
• What social class do you belong to? Why? (What is
the basis for your answer.)
• What social class does your family belong to (e.g.,
parents and siblings)? Why? (What is the basis for
your answer.)
• How might social class be related to forestry issues?
Marchak defines political economy as follows:
"political economy involves the study of power
derived from or contingent on a system of
property rights: the historical development of
power relationships; and the cultural and social
embodiments of them.”
Carroll argues that in examining the connection
between economic and political power in
Canadian society, three important questions may
be asked:
1. What is the basis of economic power?
2. How is economic power translated into
political power?
3. What is Canada's specific location in the world
system?
Dependency theory focuses on the metropolishinterland relation between a dominant country
or region and a subordinate one.
The subordinate country or region's economic
backwardness is thought to contribute to the
relative affluence of the metropole.
The staples approach viewed hinterland
development as shaped by the pattern of
demand and level of technology in the
metropole and by the geography and resources
of the hinterland which trades its raw material
staples for manufacture goods from the
metropole.
Staples refer to the raw materials or semiprocessed goods, such as fur, fish, lumber,
wheat, oil, and minerals, which are produced
within hinterland economies mainly for export.
Hinterland refers to an underdeveloped region or
country from which an economically developed
metropole extracts resources.
Interregional or international divisions of labour,
sometimes lead to a "staples trap".
This refers to a situation whereby a hinterland's
specialization in staple exports perpetuates its
dependence on imported manufactured goods.
The hinterland by perpetually exporting raw
materials, fails to develop its own industries.
This explanation is often used to describe British
Columbia.
The Treadmill
of Production
Schnaiberg, working within the tradition of political
economy, has developed a theoretical model for
analyzing the causes and consequences of production
for the natural environment.
In his theoretical model, entitled the treadmill of
production, ecosystem elements are converted
by capitalists through market exchanges into
profits.
Capitalists then reinvest some of these profits in
more productive physical capital.
This requires still greater ecosystem access in
order to keep equipment operating at an
economically efficient rate.
(This process is what has led to the depletion of
B.C. salmon fishing stocks; see Pearse 1982).
The implementation of advanced equipment
inevitably leads to changes in the structure of an
industry because it raises the capitalintensification of production and hence requires
a growing share of national production in order
to remunerate capital owners.
These increased costs require greater production
and in turn necessitates expanded ecosystem
exploitation.
According to the treadmill model, there are further
demands on production besides the need to
cover capital costs (and profits).
Enough surplus must be generated to supply an
adequate level of wages to maintain consumer
demand (for the capitalist system to function)
and to generate enough tax revenue to cover the
social expenditures of the state.
The need for increasing exchange value tends to
accelerate "the environmental demands of
modern treadmills".
Schnaiberg and other political economists
consciously working within the "new ecological
paradigm" argue that it is the commitment of the
dominant institutions (as well as ideological
commitment) to growth that is the root of
alienation of humans from natural ecological
systems.
George Bush Sr. ironically reinforced this notion
with his comments at the Rio Earth Summit.
Criticized for refusing to sign important accords
on global warming and endangered species,
Bush responded by stating:
"Twenty years ago, some spoke of limits to
growth. Today we realize that growth is the
engine of change and the friend of the
environment."
Schnaiberg discusses various structural theories
of the state. He argues that modern western
states have experienced serious internal
conflicts regarding environmental issues.
On the one hand the state serves as a facilitator of
capital accumulation and economic growth.
On the other, it acts as a social legitimator of the
socioeconomic structure for its citizens (see
O'Connor 1973).
Schnaiberg:
The former role commits the state to looking at
environmental resources for their exchangevalues.
Conversely, the latter leads the state to view
ecosystems' capacities to produce the use-values
(as habitat and/or biosocial resources) of various
constituents, who are among the political
constituencies of state actions.
The “Treadmill of Production”.
Ecosystem
Exploitation
Profits
Capital
Investment
In More
Efficient
Equipment
Need for Adequate
Wages to Maintain
Consumer Demand
and Generate
Tax Revenue
Accelerated
Ecosystem
Exploitation
The Societal-Environmental Dialectic
Schnaiberg, drawing upon the intellectual tool of
dialectical analysis (developed by Hegel, and
Marx), proposes the condition of a societalenvironmental dialectic. He argues that
economic growth (the thesis) is a basic value of
contemporary western societies, while
"ecological disruption" (the antithesis) "is a
necessary consequence of economic expansion.
A tension emerges between these two forces
because while economic growth is valued,
"ecological disruption is harmful to human
society".
The “Societal-Environmental Dialectic”.
ECONOMIC
GROWTH
(the thesis)
ECOLOGICAL
DISRUPTION
(the antithesis)
POSSIBLE SYNTHESES
1. An “Economic” Synthesis.
2. A “Managed Scarcity” Synthesis.
3. An “Ecological” Synthesis.
Schnaiberg notes that there are three possible
resolutions (or syntheses) of this dialectic:
(1) an economic synthesis which ignores
ecological disruptions and attempts to maximize
growth;
(2) a managed scarcity synthesis which deals
with the most obvious and harmful
consequences of resource-utilization by
imposing controls over selected industries and
resources;
(3) an ecological synthesis in which "substantial
control over both production and effective
demand for goods" is used to minimize
ecological disruptions and maintain a "sustained
yield" of resources.
Schaniberg argues that which of these outcomes
emerges depends upon the economic structure
of a society
He argues that the following are important in determining
which synthesis will prevail:
"(1) social/economic/political actors' interests in various
elements of ecosystems, and
(2) the power that each group of actors has in pushing its
interests in various economic markets and/or political
arenas, and
(3) emergent institutional structures that reflect these
interests and powers.”
“In short, we need to understand how the motives
(consciousness) and power (control capacities)
of various social class segments shape the
dynamics of political-economic conflicts and
lead to particular syntheses, as classes and class
segments seek to control ecosystems for their
own interests."
Schnaiberg argues that the modern treadmill of
production produces an enduring systemic bias
towards the economic synthesis, and against the
ecological synthesis because major social
institutions continue to maintain and transmit
the dominant belief: the necessity of economic
growth.
Schnaiberg states that there are two central
questions that arise for the dominant classes and
economic institutions: (1) how to generate more
surplus, and (2) how to allocate the surplus that
is generated.
At the level of the state, "regressive" (inequalitymagnifying) societies are likely to continue the
"economic" synthesis while "progressive"
(equality-fostering) societies are least resistive
to the "ecological" synthesis
Schnaiberg notes that the U.S., with its "nonredistributive" ideology, has tended to engage in
the "managed scarcity” solution to
environmental and resource problems