Speech docs – michigan ap – ndt 2013 r1 neg v louisville vw

Vote neg to eschew neoliberal frameworks—they’re unsustainable and insulate decisionmaking from deliberation and alternative assumptions needed to solve

Download 0.5 Mb.
Size0.5 Mb.
1   ...   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   ...   165

Vote neg to eschew neoliberal frameworks—they’re unsustainable and insulate decisionmaking from deliberation and alternative assumptions needed to solve

Adaman and Madra 2012 – *economic professor at Bogazici University in Istanbul, **PhD from UMass-Amherst, economics professor (Fikret and Yahya, Bogazici University, “Understanding Neoliberalism as Economization: The Case of the Ecology”, http://www.econ.boun.edu.tr/content/wp/EC2012_04.pdf, WEA)
The reduction of ecological valuation through a market mechanism (or various techniques) to amere aggregation of individual subjective valuations—which is the main premise of neoliberalideology—may be inappropriate for complex and uncertain phenomena ridden withincommensurabilities and inter- and intra-generational distributional conflicts, such as global ¶ warming, where individual valuations will have clear implications for all living beings. Indeed, ¶ in making decisions with substantial consequences pertaining to our current life as well as our ¶ future (such as the overall growth rate, distributional trajectories, technological path, ¶ consumption habits, risk attitude [say, vis-à-vis nuclear energy]), the market response or the ¶ aggregation of individuals’ valuation through a set of available techniques (e.g., the contingent ¶ valuation) may substantially differ from what could be derived through collective deliberation ¶ and negotiation of various stakeholders including the scientific community (see, e.g., ¶ Özkaynak, Adaman and Devine, 2012). This criticism applies not only to neoliberal positions ¶ that favor the current unequal distribution of power but also to the Post-Walrasian one which ¶ although concerned with distributional issues keeps relying on individualist ontologies of ¶ calculative and calculable agency. Indeed, there is a growing theoretical and applied literature ¶ arguing that in incommensurable cases, where all relevant aspects cannot be captured in a singledimension (such as those derived from monetary cost-benefit analyses), a multi-criteriamethodology would seem better placed, as it will be possible to involve not only economic butalso political, moral, scientific and cultural inputs from a variety of stakeholders (see, e.g., ¶ Martinez-Alier, Munda and O’Neil, 1999; Munda, 2008). The key promise of the multicriteria decision-making tool and other similar participatory and deliberatory dispositifs is that ¶ rather than finding a “solution” to a conflictual decision, they shed light on the multifaceteddimensions of the problem at hand and thus facilitate the consensus-building process frombelow (see, e.g., Adaman, 2012). In this regard, they constitute a formidable path to beexplored as an alternative to the surreptitiously normative neoliberal governmental dispositifs, ¶ designed by experts from above, under the assumption that all actors are calculative andcalculable.

The current indiscriminate application of neoliberal policies over the entire scope of the social ¶ field has brought about such political, economic, cultural and ecological devastation that any ¶ type of reform suggestion along the line to halt this process is met with much welcoming bymany of us—even if some of them are still acting as if economic incentives are the only viablepolicy tool in town. Consider the case of carbon markets, for example, where the cap is ¶ decided either through a scientific body or through aggregating individuals’ preferences. The ¶ fact of the matter is that, far from addressing the inefficiencies that emanate from opportunistic ¶ and manipulative activities, these mechanisms are vulnerable precisely because they end upsoliciting manipulative, predatory, and rent-seeking behavior (because they are designed tofunction under such behavioral assumptions in the first place). In other words, these solutionssubject a commons such as global climate into the economic logic of markets and ¶ “performatively” turn it into an object of strategic-calculative logic (MacKenzie, Muniesa and ¶ Siu, 2007; Çalışkan and Callon, 2009; MacKenzie, 2009; Çalışkan and Callon, 2010; see also ¶ Spash, 2011). Consider, furthermore, the case of price-per-bag policies. Laboratory ¶ experiments and anthropological evidence both suggest that charging a price for some activity ¶ that should in fact be treated as a duty or a commitment may well create perverse results (see, ¶ e.g., Campbell, 1998; Bowles and Hwang, 2008). Monetizing the pollution-generating activity ¶ instead of limiting the use of plastic bags (along with an awareness program) may well result in ¶ an increase of the unwanted activity. Similarly, while nationalization is the trend in areas of ¶ natural resource extraction and energy production, many continue to argue for privatizationand private-public partnerships instead. Nevertheless, the problem with the private versus ¶ public dichotomy, given our reading of the contemporary state as an agent of economization, is ¶ precisely that both forms, to the extent that they are informed by the different variants of ¶ neoliberal reason, serve to isolate these critical areas from the deliberations and political ¶ demands of various stakeholders and the general public, limiting the only channels forcommunication available to them to the price (or price-like) mechanisms. However, perhaps ¶ most importantly, neither can be immune towards all sorts of rent-seeking activities that occurbehind the close doors of the technocracy that operates in the area where state shades into ¶ market in the various forms of dispositifs.

Needless to say, economic activities that generate pollution and consume energy are not recent ¶ phenomena that are exclusive to what is now increasingly being called the neoliberal era. If ¶ anything, postwar Keynesian developmentalism was possible precisely because of the ¶ availability of cheap oil, and is responsible for an enormous amount of environmental pollution ¶ and ecological degradation (Mitchell, 2011). In this sense, it would be wrong to presentneoliberal as being the only responsible mode of governmentality for the dual crises of climate ¶ change and natural resource depletion. Yet, this does not change the fact that the neoliberalreason (in its free-market and mechanism-design variations) is pushing its agenda in an erawhere both of these crises are reaching catastrophic levels, and it is highly questionable whetherneoliberal methods of handling the environmental pollution and the extraction crisis will becapable of addressing long-term concerns.

Directory: download -> Michigan -> Allen-Pappas+Neg
Michigan -> The interest convergence framework is offense against their movements claims at all levels of analysis—the Black Panthers proves. Delgado ’02
Michigan -> Interpretation – Financial incentives must be positively linked to rewards – they cannot be negative Harris, 89
Michigan -> R8 neg v michigan state cz 1nc
Michigan -> Doubles—Neg vs Wake lw 1NC
Michigan -> Round 1—Neg vs nyu gz 1NC
Michigan -> Indefinite detention means holding enemy combatants until the cessation of hostilities – authority for it is codified in the ndaa
Michigan -> Round 2 v. Wake 1nc
Michigan -> Global nuclear expansion now – dozens of countries
Allen-Pappas+Neg -> Michigan ap – nu 2013 r1 neg v concordia nw
Allen-Pappas+Neg -> Michigan ap wake forest 2012 neg speeches round 2 neg v george washington bs 1nc Off

Download 0.5 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   ...   165

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2023
send message

    Main page