Green Visions and Democratic Constraints the Possibility and Design of Democratic Institutions for Environmental Decision-Making
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Green Visions and Democratic Constraints The Possibility and Design of Democratic Institutions for Environmental Decision-making James Ka-lei Wong 11 March 2013 (Revised Edition) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Government at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 DECLARATION I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 86,540 words. I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by Jean Morris and Chris Steele. James Ka-lei Wong 2 ABSTRACT This thesis addresses a recurrent question of our time – whether democracy can secure environmental sustainability – by drawing on literatures in the normative theory of democracy, social choice theory and environmental politics. I propose a basic, yet substantial organising principle, the ‘dilemma of green democracy’, which maps out the possibility of realising green outcomes under democratic constraints. Interdisciplinary ideas from neighbouring disciplines are also imported for the purpose of studying the design of good environmental-democratic institutions. The analytical framework is an integrated one, comprising formal choice theory and normative democratic theory. The first part of the thesis focuses on the possibility of environmental- democratic institutions. Chapter 1 introduces the dilemma of green democracy – a conflict between three plausible desiderata for environmental democracy – and suggests several proposals for avoiding the dilemma. It concludes that, as long as the dilemma is resolved, it is logically possible to construct environmental-democratic institutions. Chapters 2, 3 and 4 assess the desirability of the different proposals in terms of procedure and outcome. The general conclusion is that whether these proposals are desirable depends on a number of conditions and/or contextual factors. The second part of the thesis examines the substantive issues in designing environmental-democratic institutions. Chapter 5 discusses how the discursive dilemma in social choice theory and the normative ends of deliberation constrain the inputs of such institutions. Chapter 6 demonstrates how the concept of distributed cognition, drawn from cognitive/computer science, reconciles the tension between technocracy and democracy. Chapter 7 suggests how the theory of cognitive dissonance, drawn from psychology, challenges the epistemic performance of practicable (environmental-) deliberative-democratic institutions. The overall conclusion is two-fold. First, democracy can, at least in principle, secure environmental sustainability, provided that the dilemma of green democracy is resolved. Second, interdisciplinary ideas are useful for designing good democratic institutions for collective environmental decision-making. This conclusion has implications not only for intellectual enquiry, but also for institutional design in practice. 3 To my family, Louis, Lisa and David Wong 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As the marathon of the London Olympic Games is about to begin, I am reaching the finish line of this intellectual marathon. It has been a long journey, and at some point it became harder than anticipated. Despite the hurdles, I feel truly blessed that, in these 1,800 days, I was never left to run alone. I am grateful to my supervisor, Christian List. He led me into the fascinating world of formal political theory, and guided me through the whole research and my personal development. His passion for knowledge, open-mindedness and boundless enthusiasm have always been a considerable source of motivation. I also thank my advisor, Kai Spiekermann, for his insightful feedback on my thesis as well as his encouragement along the way. I must thank Po-chung Chow who showed me the wonder of political philosophy in my undergraduate years, and encouraged me to pursue postgraduate studies. Without him, I would not have realised the opportunity of this rewarding intellectual path. My thanks are also due to Cécile Fabre, Katrin Flikschuh, Andrew Vincent and Wilson Wong for their help and support in starting my MSc and PhD. I also thank my PhD examiners, Professor Graham Smith and Dr. Katie Steele, for their insightful comments on my thesis, as well as the intellectually stimulating dialogues in the oral examination. I feel privileged to have spent my time at the London School of Economics (LSE) with a number of incredibly talented teachers and colleagues. I thank the members of the Political Theory Group, especially Zsuzsanna Chappell, Chien-kang Chen, Philip Cook, James Gledhill, Paul Kelly, Chandran Kukathas, Alex Leveringhaus, Alison Mallard, Anne Phillips, Rachel Tsang and Baldwin Wong; the members of the Choice Group, particularly Nick Baigent, Luc Bovens, Richard Bradley, Franz Dietrich, Esha Senchaudhuri, Katie Steele, Chris Thompson and Alex Voorhoeve; and other members of the community, notably Anar Ahmadov, Natalie Beinisch, Sonia Bussu, Farimah Daftary, Vesselin Dimitrov, Ninfa Fuentes, Ting Luo, David Marshall, Neil McLean, Chris New, José Olivas-Osuna, Outi Ruusuvirta, Mike Seiferling, Nick Vivyan, Marta Wojciechowska and Eric Woods. Some chapters of this thesis were presented at conferences and workshops in Australia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. I am lucky to have met a number of 5 inspirational people, and would like to thank especially the following: Nicole Curato, Maria Dano, John Dryzek, Bob Goodin, Jonathan Kuyper, Alex Lo, Simon Niemeyer and Hayley Stevenson at the Australian National University; and David Birks, Hannah Blumhardt, Andrew Dobson, Stephen Elstub, Joel Kassiola, Simon Kaye, Sherilyn MacGregor, Asami Miyazaki, Michael Morrell, Stijn Neuteleers, Ian O'Flynn, Michael Otsuka, Maggie Penn, Graham Smith, Laura Valentini, Albert Weale, Poppy Winanti and Jo Wolff. My heartfelt appreciation goes to many of my friends who shared my joy and sorrow and gave me the strength to carry on, in particular Gloria Chan, Menzie Chang, Benny Chao, Gloria Choi, Mike Chow, Elspeth Cheung, Rachel Cheung, Loretta Chiu, Cally Choi, May Chu, Amjad Elbeshier, Margaret Fung, Brenda Hui, Baker Ibrahim, Alice Kong, Virginia Lam, Stephen Law, Peggy Lee, Cheuk-hang Leung, Connie Leung, Karry Ling, Christopher Lo, Janet Lo, Juliana Ming, Piang Phanprasit, Max Shuen, Gladys Tang, Kiwi Ting, Hin Wong, Gillian Yau, Raymond Yuen and Sammy Zhou. Special thanks go to Chris Li, Hebbe Yu and Patrick Yu, who helped me survive through some tough times in London, as well as Sze-ling Cheng and Elaine Wong, who were always there to listen to me across the miles. I am also grateful to the LSE, the Great Britain-China Educational Trust, the Political Studies Association (U.K.), the European Consortium for Political Research and the Southern Political Science Association for their generous scholarships and travel grants. I would like to dedicate this thesis to my family, Louis, Lisa and David Wong. It would not have been possible to complete this intellectual journey without their patience, trust and tremendous support – both financially and emotionally. Lastly, and by no means least, I thank Victoria Chuk for her unfailing positivism, care and love. 6 CONTENTS Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 5 Contents ....................................................................................................................... 7 List of Tables ............................................................................................................... 9 List of Figures ............................................................................................................ 10 Preface ........................................................................................................................ 11 PART I: The Possibility of Environmental-democratic Institutions CHAPTER 1: A Dilemma of Green Democracy ....................................................... 16 1.1 Origin of the problem ......................................................................................... 17 1.2 A conceptual dilemma ........................................................................................ 22 1.3 How to avoid the dilemma I: Relaxing robustness to pluralism ........................ 24 1.4 How to avoid the dilemma II: Relaxing consensus preservation ....................... 31 1.5 How to avoid the dilemma III: Relaxing green outcomes .................................. 41 1.6 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................... 46 CHAPTER 2: Relaxing Robustness to Pluralism ...................................................... 48 2.1 Relaxing robustness to pluralism: The idea....................................................... 49 2.2 The desirability