In this early phase of my research I am reviewing the literature on shared
and individual values; values that we attribute to (ecosystem) goods and
services just for our own benefit, as well as values that we share with others.
Jasper Kenter and colleagues have done a great amount of work
on this topic in the UK, building among others on deliberative methods.
I am particularly interested in equity issues related to this topic, in the context of poverty,
community support and social capital and how it influences valuation of
ecosystem services. When the reliability of the neoclassic theory of maximising
individual utility is already questionable in our individualistic society, it
may be even more so in countries that score lower on individualism, market
integration, etc.
In times of hunger, members of rural communities in Malawi
rely on other wealthier community members for food, money or income
opportunities (towards buying food). Not that that is enough to overcome
hunger, but it gives some temporary relief. This came forward time and again in
the discussions in the Participatory
Rural Appraisal work led by Kate Schreckenberg. Raj Patel, in a talk for IDS,
showed how empowerment can help to address malnutrition and gender equality. And
how new initiatives can erode the community collaboration activities that
already exist. Does this social capital affect the preferences that people have
for the future of their communities, their area?
In the Netherlands, public support for the “participation
society” (the Dutch version of the Big Society, albeit with some differences)
started at 33% in 2004 and rose up to 43% in 2011, but then dropped
to 35% as the plans are close to implementation. We [society] all say that we
should take responsibility for ourselves and our neighbours, but when it comes down
to action, well, we [individuals] find action… less attractive. We’re too busy and
we don’t even know our neighbour’s name. Maybe we hadn’t quite thought of what
this participation society would mean in practice.
UK citizens, a majority at least, don’t get the idea of
the Big Society either. It is more than the occasional day of volunteering
for your children’s school, or the charity run (that you were going to do
anyway, also without those ‘voluntary’ contributions of your friends…). It is a
structural
change in how public services are delivered, which requires the empowerment
of voluntary and community organisations, together with local government and
private sector. It requires investment; it may be better, but not cheaper: austerity may
have motivated the Big Society, but may also eventually prohibit success. But
that’s another debate, let me get back to my research…
Now, you can have a long debate about whether we show our
true values in words or actions, or what a discrepancy between those two means.
But how I wonder if in the survey that I am planning to do people prefer
opportunities that maximise their own wellbeing, or that of their society as a
whole over a longer time. Should I interpret choices as stemming from individual
utility maximisation, or do people choose and prefer options that distribute positive
outcomes across community members, or help the least well-off? Suggestions more than welcome!
No comments:
Post a Comment