Kenneth Martens Friesen CHAPTER 2 SHIFTING PARADIGMS OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT Introduction For many centuries there

has been an ongoing debate about the requirements for economic development to occur. Stemming back from the time of the Enlightenment, writers including Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, Emile Durkeim, and Max Weber, have all contributed in their own way to current understandings of modern notions of development.1 The idea of a concerted government goal of developmentdid not occur, however, until the post World War II years. It was then, as described in Gunnar Myrdals 1957 Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, that there began
the emergence in underdeveloped countries of this common urge of economic development as a major political purpose, the definition of economic development as a rise in the levels of living of the common people, and the agreement that economic development is a task for government . . . All this amounts to something entirely new in history.2

The history of a discourse concerning development and the environment is equally long, if not as well documented. Some of the same writers who wrote about economic progress were concerned about the way in which this progress could eventually affect the world around them. In the decades following World War II there have been various dramatic shifts regarding perceptions of the environment. There are well-developed articulations of the history of environmental movements as a global phenomenon.3 Also, excellent typologies compare a breadth of philosophical understandings of the environment.4 Michael Colby5 has outlined five principle paradigms6 that have emerged in the debate over development and the environment. Using labels common in development literature, Colby names these five paradigms frontier economics, environmental protection, resource management,

See H.W. Arndt, Economic Development: The History of an Idea (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1987), for a thorough treatment of the evolution of the idea of development. Gunnar Myrdal, Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions (London, G. Duckworth, 1957). See, for example, John McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise: the Global Environmental Movement (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1979). See, for example, John S. Dryzek, The Politics of the Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
5 4 3 2

Colby, The Evolution of Paradigms.

Colbys use of paradigm is from Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). 1

ecodevelopment, and deep ecology. Colby argues that the first three paradigms (frontier economics, environmental protection, and resource management) represent the evolution of development thinking reflected in dominant development institutions such as the World Bank, while ecodevelopment and deep ecology represent alternative paradigms that challenge this dominant development thought. The first three of these development paradigms will be discussed in detail below. According to Colby, these three paradigms have effectively defined the way in which development and the environment agenda has been viewed by major development institutions over the past forty years. Understanding the basic features of each of these paradigms and the characteristics common to dam plans that emerge from a certain paradigm is important in the context of this dissertation, as one central purpose of this dissertation is to determine whether or not a paradigm shift regarding the environment occurred in development plans along the lower Mekong River basin between the early 1950s and the mid 1990s. Included in this discussion of development paradigms will be a section on some characteristics of dam plans that emerge from within each paradigm. The characteristics are given in the form of a dams ideal type,7 and reflect the underlying premises of the environmental paradigm from which they emerge. For the purpose of this dissertation, a modified dam plan can be said to have experienced a paradigm shift when the preponderance of characteristics of a plan fall within the confines of a new paradigm as compared to that of a previous dam plan. Following the discussion of the first three paradigms, the next section will look at a fourth that begins from a divergent basic premise from the first three. Colby uses the term ecodevelopment as a label for this fourth paradigm, a label made popular by authors such as Robert Riddell.8 Another term for ecodevelopment, originating in the writing of Piers Blaikie9 and made popular by other scholars is political ecology. This term more accurately reflect this paradigms attempt to bring together a world view that takes seriously an ecologically grounded reality, together with the issue of political and economic power, and will hence be used in this dissertation. The political ecology paradigm represents an increasingly important alternative to the dominant paradigms, and many of the individuals and groups challenging the continued expansion of dams throughout the world do so from out of this paradigm. Beginning as it does with different assumptions about the nature of development and the relation of humans to the earth, it challenges some of the fundamental precepts of the other three paradigms, and offers an alternative vision of development reflective of its starting point. Colby maintains that the fifth paradigm, deep ecology, is an important polar opposite of frontier economics.10 On one level, as Colby states, it represents a reaction to the predominant economic focus inherent in frontier economics. On another level, it can be said to predate frontier economics by many
7

The notion of ideal types harkens back to Platonic thought, which stresses that any object has a form which gives the object its essence of being. See Allan Bloom, trans., The Republic of Plato (New York: Basic Books,1968). Robert Riddell, Ecodevelopment: Economics, Ecology, and Development: An Alternative to Growth Imperative Models (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980). Piers M. Blaikie, The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries (London, New York: Longman, 1985).
10 9 8

Colby, The Evolution of Paradigms, 11. 2

centuries, for many of its tenets can be found in traditional cultures around the world. Though a very diverse group, deep ecologists stress the importance of being in harmony with nature, of natures intrinsic worth, and a focus on ethical, social and spiritual aspects that have been especially overlooked in the first three paradigms.11 It is recognized by this author that many of the indigenous residents of the lower Mekong River basin may subscribe to some version of a deep ecology perspective, and is therefore a development paradigm that should not be dismissed. The focus of this dissertation is, however, on the institutions that have played a significant role in shaping the development plans of the lower Mekong River basin. Because those who may represent a deep ecology perspective have had little impact on shaping the process of development planning in the lower Mekong River basin, this dissertation will not concentrate further on this paradigm. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of evaluating these paradigms of development and the environment is to use these as reference points for understanding, not as strict rules for dividing and categorizing. As Colby maintains, there is overlap between the paradigms, with tenets of one often being part of the next. Paradigms of Development and the Environment Frontier Economics Much of the development advice given to newly emerging states in the post World War II era was based on a development paradigm rooted in various core attributes of Western thought. Some values extolled in this paradigm included the inevitability of progress, the ability of economies to perpetually expand, the infinite supply of natural resources, the unassailable belief in technology, and the possibility for humankind to control and predict nature. Colby calls this paradigm of development frontier economics, while another popular term is modernization theory. Frontier economics sees economic growth as the single objective in development. Epitomized in writers like Walt Rostow,12 economic growth is regarded as linear and unidimensional, moving from traditional society through to an age of high mass consumption. While acknowledging that a trade-off exists between economic growth and the environment, frontier economics writers claim it is not worth the economic sacrifices necessary to deal with preserving the environment. The phrase frontier economics originates from Kenneth Bouldings 1966 article that helped clarify emerging development paradigms.13 For Boulding cowboy economics symbolized the development paradigm of the 1950s. Bouldings allusion was to the western pioneer movement across the great North American prairies. For the pioneers, more land and more natural resources always lay in front of them should they decide that their present situation was not adequate. They believed strongly that they could overcome the natural world that confronted them, from animal predators to powerful rain and snow storms. And they believed that the world, rather than being static, was changing and improving around
11

Ibid., 11.

Walt W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth, A Non-Communist Manifesto (London: Cambridge University Press, 1960). Boulding, Kenneth, The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth, in Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy, ed. H.E. Jarrett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966), 3-14. 3
13

12

them, and that technology, from improved plows to the iron horse, was a major source of this change. Colbys description of frontier economics closely follows Bouldings thought. Colby argues that in the frontier economics paradigm, nature is fundamentally seen as something for humankind to exploit and dominate. Stemming from at least the time of the Enlightenment, the Western world has seen as a requisite goal the understanding of nature. The purpose of comprehending nature has not simply been out of an intrinsic interest in its mystery, however. It has rather primarily been for the purpose of predicting and controlling the natural world, as a positive way to improve the human condition. Understanding what causes disease can lead to cures. Understanding what causes birds to fly can give humans the ability to fly. In the extreme, this leads to the belief that someday a total control of nature is possible, once nature is fully understood.14 From a frontier economics perspective, natural resources are seen principally in relation to their economic value. Prior to their use in the economy, resources are seen as limitless in supply. Following their use in an economy, resources enter a limitless sink. Strictly speaking, from a frontier economics perspective there is no environment to be managed, because it is irrelevant to the economy.15 It is only when natural resources are combined with capital and labor in order to create something (or when nature itself is sold because of its aesthetic value) that economic value is created. The desire to predict and control nature sometimes leads to the belief that nature exists for the sole purpose of fulfilling human desires. Human desires are primarily expressed in terms of generating wealth, whether personal in the case of capitalism or corporate in the case of socialism. Thus, nature, seen from this anthropocentric perspective, is primarily a potential source of wealth creation. The relentless search for precious minerals throughout the colonized world in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the destruction of billions of hectares of forested land to create large farms, are but two examples of this paradigmatic emphasis. Frontier economic asserts that not only is humanitys desire to predict and control nature inevitable, but human progress is certain. Creativity is the driving source behind progress. When given the freedom to be creative, humans will devise new means to solve problems. Hence, the entire world history is filled with examples of humankinds encounter with a problem and application of an idea to solve it. The belief in the inevitability of human progress is closely connected to an unassailable belief in new technologies. From a frontier economics perspective, the replacement of traditional farming techniques with modern industrialized agriculture is something to be applauded, not criticized. The transformation of rural societies to modern countries through the industrialization process is a positive outcome of technological change, and leads to positive social change. Thus Indias first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, said in 1961:
But we have to deal with age-old practices, ways of thought, ways of action. We have got to get out of many of these traditional ways of production, traditional ways of distribution and traditional ways of consumption. We have got to get out of all that into what might be called more modern ways of doing so. What is society in the so-called advanced countries like today? It is a scientific and technological society. It employs new techniques, whether it is in the farm or in the factory or in transport. The test of a societys advance is how far it is utilizing

See, for example, E. F. Murphy, Governing Nature (Chicago, Ill.: Quadrangle Books, 1967) for a treatise on humankinds ability to control nature.
15

14

Colby, The Evolution of Paradigms, 8. 4

modern techniques. Modern technique is not a matter of just getting a tool and using it. Modern technique follows modern thinking. You can't get hold of a modern tool and have an ancient mind. It won't work.16

Frontier economics seemed to work well as a development paradigm in both economically developed and developing countries through much of the 1950s and into the 1960s. There was no obvious environmental reckoning. The earths bountiful supply of natural resources did seem limitless, as did the ability of the earth to absorb the increasing amounts of waste perpetuated by this development paradigm. Engineers applied new ideas and technologies learned in the West to the large development projects they supervised in developing countries. Progress was obvious and dramatic: roads were built; agricultural projects were completed; industries begun. The developing world (the term itself connotes ideas expressed in frontier economics) was moving forward, and would, it was assumed, eventually reach the economic standards found in North America and Europe. Dams plans that originate in each of the development paradigms reflect the underlying assumptions of the paradigm. Dam plans that originated from within a frontier economics paradigm are characterized by their singular focus on economic growth, together with their lack of concern for environmental or social consequences. Since, from a benefit-cost perspective, dams are considered to be a relatively cheap form of energy production,17 dams are seen, within the frontier economic paradigm, as the most cost-effective means of producing economic growth. As dams represent the anthropocentric desire to control nature itself, they are inevitably large. Dams that fall under this paradigm are also large because economic growth is key, and the larger the dam, the greater the potential for growth. As time moves on, dam plans within this paradigm are often larger and larger, representing the inevitability of progress and the affirmation of technological change. They are planned primarily by engineers who concentrate on the technical components of dam-building and economists who are concerned with benefit/cost ratios.18 Dam plans drawn up from within this paradigm of development may often be multi-purpose in nature, as economic growth is maximized through both large-scale hydro-power production and irrigation of vast tracts of land. The greatest environmental and social consequences of multi-purpose dams are the displacement of large numbers of people, and the disruption of the natural river ecosystem. Dam builders using the frontier economic paradigm, however, would not consider these consequences as valid in the selection of a dam site. Economic growth and the economic transformation from an agricultural to industrial base requires sacrifices. The end result, however, of a larger gross domestic product, is the only criteria by which to judge whether a particular dam should be built. Environmental damage that might result in the construction of a particular dam is not factored into a decision to build a dam because the environment is not considered a valid variable in a economic benefit/cost calculation.

16

From Arndt, Economic Development: The History of an Idea.

Edward Goldsmith and Nicholas Hildyard, The Social and Environmental Effects of Large Dams, vol. 1 (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1984), 7. Robert Goodland, Environment and Development: The Big Dams Debate (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1995), 26. 5
18

17

Environmental Protection In the early 1960s there began to be some signs that all was not well with the frontier economics paradigm. Environmental disasters that caused multiple deaths occurred in the early 1960s, including a sulfurous fog in Donora, Pennsylvania, that killed 20, a winter smog in London that killed 445, and a pitheat collapse in South Wales that killed 144.19 Numerous oil spills and the increasing concern over radiation from overground nuclear tests furthered concern and drew increasing attention to the potential harm of the frontier economics approach to development and its disassociation with the environment. Also in this period, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a stinging indictment of chemical pesticides and their effects on human health and the environment.20 While other reports had been released and books written about the subject, Carson was able to put the argument in the public arena with both detailed facts and moral persuasion.21 Other writers began to bring additional concerns over the frontier economic paradigm into the public arena. Though many ideas were not new, the public now confronted them in a new era filled with social turmoil. In 1968 Garret Hardin predicted that a tragedy of the commons would inevitably occur as human freedom to procreate intersected with the earths carrying capacity, and freedom of industry to pollute intersected with the earths capacity to absorb mountains of pollution.22 Barry Commoners The Closing Circle23 focused on how technological change was in fact the cause, not the solution, to many of the environmental problems faced in the modern world. Commoner argued that rather than population increases, it was huge increases in synthetics and packaging, and the use of disposable products, pesticides, and detergents that were largely to blame for the great increases in contaminated air, water, and food.24 Though Commoners anti-technology solutions (commitment to more basic, less technologically dependent lifestyle) argued for a development approach far more radical than those in the environmental protection paradigm would necessarily agree with, Commoners writings helped push the environment and development debate to focus on the fact that there was a trade-off between growth and the environment and that this trade-off could not be ignored. The debate that emerged between advocates of the frontier economic paradigm and advocates of the environmental protection paradigm was well illustrated in 1972 when the United Nations convened in Stockholm for the Conference on the Human Environment. Those coming from the environmental protection paradigm, many of whom were from the industrialized north, argued for safeguarding natural resources, establishing standards of environmental management, controlling levels of pollution, and using

19

McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 57. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett),1962. McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 56.

20

21

Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, Science 162 (December 13, 1968), 1243-48. Barry Commoner, The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology (New York: Knopf, 1971).
24 23

22

McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 71. 6

science and technology to promote environmental protection.25 They argued that while economic growth was important, the negative by-products of growth could not be ignored, and that unless there were controls in place, the environment would be forever ruined. The most prudent course for those from this paradigm was finding the most cost-effective means of dealing with environmental problems while remaining committed to maximum economic growth. Those coming the frontier economic paradigm, however, remained skeptical about the call for increased environmental concern, and for the need to embrace this new environmental protection paradigm. The debate was thus often framed by those in the frontier economic paradigm as environment versus development. Those in the South saw little reason to forego their own ambitious development agenda for the sake of aiding concerns of the North. Many national delegates from industrializing countries expressed outrage and contempt at the implication that their own development goals should be scaled back to compensate for the Norths exploitative environmental record. The Jamaican rapporteurgeneral of the conference stated that there was a lingering fear that Stockholm was merely another ploy by the developed countries to avoid supporting the development revolution.26 With this view, many developing countries chose to implement policies of effective environmental protection, planning and enforcement only very slowly.27 In many industrialized countries, however, the result of the increased awareness of environmental degradation was a public call for environmental protection. Rather than fundamentally change the underlying economic assumptions which drove industrialization, however, people primarily began to call for protection against the negative by-products industrialization had wrought. They called for protection against agricultural chemicals and pesticides, and for protection against oil spills and nuclear fallout. They called for more careful use of natural resources and the cleanup of areas already degraded by industrialization. Responding to this call for increased environmental protection was seen fundamentally as an added cost to development. Solving environmental problems, whether resource exploitation or pollution, remained an externality to the economy.28 These externalities had to be paid for. It was most often the public which had to pay, through decreased quality of life and/or increased taxes.29 People, most often those with the least political and economic clout, were forced to live near toxic waste sites and overflowing landfills. Taxes paid for the clean-up of industrial waste, polluted canals, rivers, and oceans. In this environmental protection paradigm, it was recognized that someone must pay for pollution, but not necessarily the ones who created it. As the environmental protection paradigm began to take root, the public in many industrialized nations began to realize there was indeed a cost to be paid for the type of development being implemented. Unlike the free natural resources promised by the frontier economic paradigm, it was becoming clear that the environment did have a price. The public began to demand that environmental costs be stated prior

25

Ibid., 103.

Keith Johnson, A Second Copernican Revolution, Uniterra 1 (1982), 4-5 as quoted in Ibid., 99.
27

26

Colby, The Evolution of Paradigms, 15. Ibid., 16. Ibid. 7

28

29

to the proposed implementation of a development project. Environmental impact assessment reports were thus born.30 The traditional way to measure these costs was through benefit-cost analysis. This had been the means to determine the economic viability of development projects throughout the world for many decades. Environmental impact assessments initially simply added to the cost portion the additional expense for the necessary technological improvements or modifications necessary to reduce pollution or waste to whatever was deemed acceptable levels. If the economic benefits were not acceptable after the environmental costs had been added, the project was deemed unacceptable. The environment was thus seen as an added expense of development, and the environmental agenda tacked on to already planned-for development. Dams planned from within the framework of the environmental protection paradigm reflect a taking into account the environmental destruction caused by the construction of a dam. Within this paradigm, producing the most cost-effective economic growth is still considered the most important attribute of any potential dam. But whereas environmental concerns are non-existent in the frontier economic paradigm, dams planned from within the environmental protection paradigm stress the need to include the added costs environmental and social damage that occur as a result of its construction. Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are the most common tool used by dam planners to do this. EIAs are supposed to provide dam planners and decision-makers that ability to see what the cost of a dam will be when one factors in the cost to resettle the displaced population, to maintain water quality after a dam is built, and to pay for items like fish ladders and the cost of dredging reservoir sediment. Dams built from within this paradigm feature engineers and economists, together with an EIA at the end of the project, and possibly with sociologists and environmentalists cooperating with the dam planners.31 Resource Management The document that perhaps best defines the ideals of the resource management paradigm is the World Commission on Environment and Developments (WCED) Our Common Future.32 Published in 1987, the WCED brought together senior political and scientific officials to report on the interrelationship between many social, economic, cultural, and environmental problems and issues. Our Common Future presented what the Commission viewed as the rapidly deteriorating ecological state of the world, as well as what it considered would need to be done to reverse the course of destruction. Fundamental to its conclusion was the call for sustainable development, which it defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.33 This definition soon became the shorthand definition of the resource management paradigm. The Commission listed seven strategic imperatives towards achieving sustainable development: reviving global economic growth; changing the quality of that growth to be more
30

Tyson Roberts, An EIA of EIA, in Watershed 1, no. 3 (March - June 1996), Goodland, Environment and Development: The Big Dams Debate, 26.

47-48.
31

World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
33

32

Ibid., 43. 8

equitable; meeting essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water, and sanitation; ensuring a sustainable level of population; conserving and enhancing the resource base; reorienting technology and managing risk; and merging environment and economics in decision making.34 The fact that reviving economic growth was a primary objective of the newly emerging resource management paradigm reflected its economic roots in the frontier economic paradigm. The resource management paradigm does not view economic growth as antithetic to the notion of sustainability. Rather, to organizations like the World Bank and other institutions which claim to have embraced the resource management paradigm, economic growth is often seen as the touchstone of successful environmental management.35 The shift in thinking that has occurred, however, is the role the environment plays in achieving and maintaining economic growth. In the environmental protection paradigm, protecting the environment and increasing economic growth are viewed as competing agendas. Increasing support for the environment through government regulation implies decreased economic growth. In the resource management paradigm the reverse is held true. Within this paradigm there is growing recognition that efficient and sustainable management of environmental resources is indeed critical to economic development.36 Thus, the implication regarding environmental stewardship is inverted: rather than being anti-development, the resource management paradigm states that economic growth depends on environmental concern.37 The only relevant way that the resource management paradigm has to measure this concern is by using standard economic tools. Environmental factors must somehow be translated into economic terms. To do so, all types of capital and resources---biophysical, human, infrastructural, and monetary are included into calculations of national accounts, productivity, and development planning.38 Getting the prices right39 is the cry for economists within this paradigm -- all the prices, including what frontier economics had always assumed to be externalities. Using cost-benefit analysis, but expanded to include environmental externalities, those within the resource management paradigm attempt to determine the use and non-use value of environmental resources such as forests and rivers, the cost of pollution or congestion on increased health care, decreased productivity, increased mortality rates, less pleasurable recreation experiences, etc.

34

Ibid.

See, for example, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Development and the Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). Barbier, Edward B., Valuation of Environmental Resources and Impacts in Developing Countries, in Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice, ed. Turner, R. Kerry (London: Belhaven Press, 1993), 319.
37 36

35

Colby, The Evolution of Paradigms, 19 Ibid., 19

38

Robert Repetto, The Global Possible: Resources, Development, and the New Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). 9

39

Policies like the polluter-pays principle40 relate to the philosophic principle behind greatly expanding benefit-cost analysis. The polluter-pays principle attempts to ensure that the total economic cost of pollution is paid by the producer. This is a shift from the environmental protection paradigm, which often assumed it was the government (and hence taxpayers) who would pay for the damages and pollution. In the resource management paradigm it is thought better that producers be held responsible for internalizing the total economic cost of pollution emissions. Thus, there is much greater emphasis to build in more effective pollution control measures. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Europe adopted the polluterpays principle in 1972, though its actual implementation can be considered spotty at best. The polluterpays principle was also a key feature of the Rio Declaration (Principle 16) at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in1992. Related to the expansion of benefit-cost analysis to incorporate a wide variety of former externalities, is the need, according to the resource management paradigm, to conserve and wisely manage existing resources. Like the supporters of the frontier economic and environmental protection paradigms, however, those who promote the resource management paradigm put a high degree of trust in technology. Technological progress is trusted as a benefactor of development, and as a means to prevent future disaster.41 There remains a strong belief, as in both frontier economics and the environmental protection paradigm, that technology has the ability to deliver humankind from its own destruction. Dams planned from within the resource management paradigm continue to be required to provide maximum cost efficiency, because economic growth remains the key to effective development. But because economic growth now requires there to be a sustained effort at conserving natural resources and causing the least disruption possible to the environment and to social cohesion, dam plans display an increased sophistication and sensitivity to environmental and social concerns. As a result there is much greater stress on assessing the total cost of a dams construction prior to its construction, to factor in all the environmental and social costs of dam construction. There is, however, acceptance of the belief that the industrialization process that large dams foster are not inherently inimical to sustainable development. If the true total cost of a dams construction is taken into account, and if that cost turns out to be less than the economic benefits that would be created from constructing the dam, a dam is assumed to be sustainable. One researcher who has spent much time thinking about the sustainability of dams is Robert Goodland, a researcher at the World Bank. In his work he has attempted to distinguish better dams from worse ones through measuring a dams hydropower efficiency. For Goodland, the method to do this is very straightforward: determine the electricity output per area of land flooded by the reservoir, together with the number of involuntarily displaced persons per output of electricity. The plotted results, Goodland argues, capture much, if not most, of the difference between environmental sustainable hydro plants, and unsustainable ones.42 See Edward Dommen, The Four Principles for Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development, in Fair Principles for Sustainable Development, ed. Edward Dommen (Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1993) for a more complete summary of this and other principles of environmental policy which reflect a resource management paradigm.
41 40

Colby, The Evolution of Paradigms, 18. Ibid., 39. 10

42

Goodland also argues that a dam plan from the resource management paradigm will incorporate a broader cross-section of people than a dam built within the frontier economic or environmental protection paradigms. Not only will engineers and economists be present, but also sociologist and environmentalists, as well as non-government organizations and affected persons, reflecting the transparent and increasingly participatory nature of the development project.43 Significant sustainability issues that need to be addressed prior to a dams serious consideration include a dams effect on involuntary resettlement, sedimentation, fish populations, biodiversity, the amount and type of land preempted, water quality and downstream hydrology, and regional integration.44 When this is done, there is often little justification for building multi-purpose dams that require a large reservoir.45 Rather, ideal dams from within the resource management paradigm are ones with high outputs from small reservoirs (those in canyons), and especially those which do not flood land which is occupied by people, used for agriculture, or inhabited by animals.46 Dams that are run-of-the-river47 types that do not disrupt a rivers natural flow are highly promoted by planners within the resource management paradigm. Political Ecology The political ecology paradigm begins from a fundamentally different starting point than the three previous paradigms, all of which stem from an extension of an industrialized vision of development, and hold to the belief that the macroeconomy is the fundamental unit of analysis. Herman Daly, a prominent economist from the political ecology paradigm, distinguishes political ecology from the other paradigms when he states that the preanalytic vision of this paradigm is that the macroeconomy is not the whole, but is itself a subsystem of a larger finite and nongrowing ecosystem.48 Political ecology thus begins its analysis by addressing the relationship between the economic system and the global resource and environmental base. The consequence of this distinction can hardly be overstated. While the resource management paradigm provides an improvement in natural resource accounting methods over the previous two paradigms, resource management continues with the same assumption concerning the relation of the economy to the larger world, and thus provides little basis for thought about ultimate limits and scale of an economy. The political ecology paradigm, however, begins with the assumption that there are certain

43

Goodland, Environment and Development: The Big Dams Debate, 26. Ibid., 50.

44

Robert Goodland, The Environmental Sustainability Challenge for the Hydro Industry, Hydropower and Dams, Issue One (1996), 38.
46

45

Ibid., 39.

It will be seen in chapter 6 that the term run-of-the-river (sometimes called run-of-river) is itself a very politicized term, with adherents of various paradigms making claims about whether a certain type of dam qualifies as a true run-of-the-river type.
48

47

Herman Daly, Beyond Growth (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997), 27. 11

ecological preconditions that must be in place for development that is sustainable to occur, especially living within an ecosystems carrying capacity. The political ecology paradigm argues that the growth of the economic subsystem is limited by the size of the larger ecosystem. From the political ecologists point of view, a primary focus on economic growth, as advocated in the other three paradigms,49 is seen as ultimately short-sighted. It argues that this fundamental tenet of the other paradigms, the belief that an ever-expanding economy is compatible with the notion of sustainability, is misplaced. Metaphorically, the frontier economic and political ecology perspectives on energy flows were originally contrasted in the article by Kenneth Boulding, The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth.50 Boulding argues for the need to transition from a cowboy economy, where no limits are placed on the natural world and energy flows, to a spaceship economy, with a materially closed system and human behavior that is long-term oriented, conservative and prudent.51 Because there are assumed to be limits in the ecosystem, political ecology sees natural resource exploitation very differently than advocates of the other three development paradigms. The other paradigms assume that the combination of the market and technology will provide alternatives if one natural resource becomes depleted. The political ecology paradigms questions what it sees as blind faith in the marketplace and in technology. Herman Daly argues that a more prudent alternative is to exploit renewable resources on a sustained yield basis, and in general to not drive renewable resources to extinction since they will become ever more important as nonrenewables run out. Daly argues that non-renewable resources should be exploited, but at a rate equal to the creation of renewable substitutes. Nonrenewable investments should be paired with renewable investments and their rates of return should be calculated on the basis of their income component only, since that is what is perpetually available for consumption in each future year.52 The political ecology paradigm is further distinguished from the resource management paradigm in its assumptions about causes for environmental resource degradation. The political ecology paradigm takes strong issue with the assumption of the other three paradigms that the poor are most often to blame for environmental degradation. The other paradigms assume that the poor, whether because of lack of alternatives, population pressures, or poor land management capacity, destroy their immediate environment through destructive practices like slash and burn agriculture. The political ecological paradigm argues that the reality is much more complex than this. There are often ways that local communities control access to their natural resources, though it may not be obvious to outsiders.53 Outsiders, especially national governments and multinational corporations, are able to come

The first strategic imperative for sustainable development in the Brundtland Commission, for example, is the need to revive economic growth. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 49.
50

49

Boulding, The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth, 3-14. Ibid. Herman Daly, Steady-State Economics (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1991),

51

52

256. The Ecologist, Whose Common Future? Reclaiming the Commons (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1993). The title Whose Common Future? is a 12
53

in and destroy commonly-held resources without allowing participation by local communities.54 Inequitable distribution of resources may cause the poor to destroy their environment, not because they do not know better, but because most of the natural resources are in the hands of wealthy landholders and they have few alternatives.55 Given the right preconditions, the political ecology paradigm argues that the poor are remarkably good stewards of their environment, rather than the oft-depicted degraders.56 It is actually local villagers who often resist the environmentally destructive designs of multinational corporations and national governments (e.g., the indigenous Chipko movement to save trees from the logging industry in northern India).57 As is clear in these examples, the political ecology paradigm is also very intentional at looking at the political and social milieu in which an economic system operates. The political ecology paradigm assumes that development is not only a technical or economic matter. Development concerns, from the political ecology perspective, are often more a matter of power and political will than simply wise management of resources. Michael Redclift, for example, notes that there are many papers and statements emerging from the resource management paradigm that espouse the need for participation and environmental concern. The fundamental question that political ecologists say needs to be addressed, however, is whose needs are going to be met and whose are not; who will participate and who will not; and which lobbies, interest groups, and economic and political entities will be hurt by environmental compatibility.58 Redclift points to the neo-classical economic case of trade, in which the argument is made that gains from trade outweigh losses and make all states winners. Redclift argues that reality is far from theory here, however. Gains are often unevenly divided between countries or trading blocks, there is not a process which works to equalize the advantages and disadvantages of individual countries in trading regimes, and rules for trade and trading patterns are established by the industrialized countries.59 In his critique of resource management, Sharachchandra Lele argues that a main ingredient left out is the deeper socio-political changes (such as land reform) or changes in cultural values (such as

critical reference to the World Commission on Environment and Developments Our Common Future.
54

The Ecologist, Whose Common Future?

David Korten and Jessica Vivian, NGOs and Sustainable Development: No Magic Bullet, World Development xx?? Robin Broad, The Poor and the Environment, Friends or Foe?, World Development 22 (June 1994), 811-822. Alan Thein Durning, Saving the Forests: What Will it Take? (Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute, 1993). Michael Redclift, Sustainable Development: Explaining the Contradictions (London; New York: Methuen,1987), 34.
59 58 57 56

55

Ibid., 56. 13

overconsumption in the North) that are either ignored or paid lip-service.60 He notes that access to resources, overconsumption, and types of technology use are all contributors to environmental degradation, and hence should be part of any development discussion. Lele complains that the resource management paradigm has too narrow a focus on technical, managerial, and economic solutions. Rather than stressing the need for larger structural change, the policy-making principles from the resource management paradigm focus on designing for efficiency, proper resource pricing, managing common resources, and building management capability.61 The political ecology paradigm begins with different assumptions about the relationship between the economic system and the global resource and environmental base. It views the world through more complex lenses than the primarily economic ones of the frontier economic, environmental protection, and resource management paradigms. And the political ecology paradigm attempts to take seriously the importance of power in any development activity. Taking it full circle, from the global to the local, the political ecology paradigm sees the most sustainable development occurring where local communities exercise the greatest possible control over their own resources. As stated by Stephen Viederman, in his definition of sustainability:
Sustainability is a community's control of capital, in all of its forms--natural, human, human-created, social, and cultural--to ensure to the degree possible that present and future generations can attain a high degree of economic security and achieve democracy while maintaining the integrity of the ecological systems upon which all life and production depend.62

Under the political ecology paradigm, the process for dam selection itself is taken a step beyond other paradigms. Grinne Ryder, researcher for Probe International in Canada, identified aspects of the process that should be included in the decision-making process for dam planning from the political ecology perspective: respect for customary resource rights, full disclosure of all documents regarding any proposed project, the right for a hearing for those affected or potentially affected to challenge the proponents project justifications, the right to fair compensation, and the right to fair and timely notice of a proposed development.63 Likewise, Robert Goodland notes that under a political ecology perspective, besides the comprehensive set of actors involved in a dam project from the resource management perspective (engineers, economists, sociologists, environmentalists, and NGOs), there must first be public acceptance by the affected people of any dam project that emerges from within this paradigm.64

Sharachchandra M. Lele, Sustainable Development: A Critical Review, World Development 19, no.6 (June 1991), 613.
61

60

Ibid., 613

Stephen Viederman, Knowledge for Sustainable Development: What do We Need to Know in A Sustainable World: Defining and Measuring Sustainable Development, ed. Thaddeus C. Trzyna (Sacramento, Ca.: International Center for the Environment and Public Policy, 1995), 37. Grinne Ryder, Speech given at Sustainable Development in Indochina: The Challenge to Make it Responsible, Participatory, People Centered and Equitable, 30 May - 1 June 1996, The American University, Washington, D.C.
64 63

62

Goodland, Environment and Development: The Big Dams Debate, 26. 14

Naturally, dams constructed from within this paradigm, if truly following the guidelines set above, would most likely be of very different design than those found in any other paradigm. As noted by Viederman, there is a strong emphasis on local control and community ownership of development, a characteristic that directly confronts the other paradigms top-down approach to development. Rather than look for examples in the modern development era, Edward Goldsmith and Nicholas Hildyard look to successful traditional irrigation schemes to find examples of successes. They note that the ones that endured the test of time were the ones where societies provided an appropriate fit between their cultivation techniques, their land tenure system and the regions existing ecological conditions.65 The dams were small enough for local communities to manage. Irrigation agriculture was limited to seasonal rather than perennial irrigation, reducing water-borne diseases and the problems of soil-salinization. Irrigation agriculture allowed at least part of the natural forest cover to remain intact, reducing drought and providing more soil stability. Water consumption was balanced with water availability, never overextending the natural resource constraints of a given region. Irrigation systems were designed and managed by local groups rather than experts from far away. And finally, irrigation systems were designed for producing food for local consumption rather than providing the water to produce food for export to far away countries.66 The obvious implication for Goldsmith and Hildyard is that for dams to be considered sustainable today, the plans must follow these same guidelines. Conclusion This chapter has given an overview of four paradigms of development in relation to their understanding of the environment. The frontier economic, environmental protection, resource management, and political ecology paradigms all provide unique understandings of the relationship between humankind and its environment. The purpose of this overview was to provide the groundwork to help answer two central questions in the remainder of the dissertation: what were the paradigms of development and the environment that were followed by the planners of the three different eras of dam planning on the lower Mekong River basin, and, was there a paradigmatic shift that took place over the course of dam planning over the past forty years? Additional closely related questions follow these first two. If a paradigm shift did occur, what were its causes? And, conversely, if a change did not occur, why not? The following chapter sets the stage to answer those questions. Chapter 3 gives a broad geographical and historical overview of the lower Mekong River basin. The purpose of the overview is to give the reader a better comprehension of the larger political, social, and economic world from which plans to develop the Mekong River emerged.

65

Goldsmith and Hildyard, The Social and Environmental Effects of Large Dams, Ibid., 316-327. 15

316.
66