Neoliberalism in Denial in Actor-oriented PES Research? A Rejoinder to Van Hecken et al. (2018) and a Call for Justice

Robert Fletcher*, Bram Büscher

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this response to Van Hecken et al. (2018), we seek to clarify the analysis (Fletcher and Büscher, 2017) they critique in the face of gross distortion and redirect the discussion back to the point we sought to make: that it is crucial to point out that PES is a neoliberal conservation paradigm, and that this acknowledgement should be made even if PES implementation is far from any neoliberal “ideal” in practice. Only by following this nuanced perspective on PES that integrates agency and structure can we acknowledge what is inherently flawed about the paradigm: namely that it constrains broader opportunities for social and environmental justice beyond how local actors subject to PES interventions creatively appropriate the mechanism. This is why we titled our original article “The PES Conceit,” as its promotion constrains these broader opportunities, even as they do not work out as planned.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)420-423
JournalEcological Economics
Volume156
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2019

Fingerprint

environmental justice
neoliberalism
social justice
analysis
justice
Justice
Neoliberalism
Denial
Paradigm
Agency and structure
Conservation
Social justice
Environmental justice

Keywords

  • Agency
  • Justice
  • Neoliberalism
  • Payment for ecosystem services
  • Structure

Cite this

@article{d3462cce6eea427783906c7620980134,
title = "Neoliberalism in Denial in Actor-oriented PES Research? A Rejoinder to Van Hecken et al. (2018) and a Call for Justice",
abstract = "In this response to Van Hecken et al. (2018), we seek to clarify the analysis (Fletcher and B{\"u}scher, 2017) they critique in the face of gross distortion and redirect the discussion back to the point we sought to make: that it is crucial to point out that PES is a neoliberal conservation paradigm, and that this acknowledgement should be made even if PES implementation is far from any neoliberal “ideal” in practice. Only by following this nuanced perspective on PES that integrates agency and structure can we acknowledge what is inherently flawed about the paradigm: namely that it constrains broader opportunities for social and environmental justice beyond how local actors subject to PES interventions creatively appropriate the mechanism. This is why we titled our original article “The PES Conceit,” as its promotion constrains these broader opportunities, even as they do not work out as planned.",
keywords = "Agency, Justice, Neoliberalism, Payment for ecosystem services, Structure",
author = "Robert Fletcher and Bram B{\"u}scher",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.007",
language = "English",
volume = "156",
pages = "420--423",
journal = "Ecological Economics",
issn = "0921-8009",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Neoliberalism in Denial in Actor-oriented PES Research? A Rejoinder to Van Hecken et al. (2018) and a Call for Justice. / Fletcher, Robert; Büscher, Bram.

In: Ecological Economics, Vol. 156, 01.02.2019, p. 420-423.

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Neoliberalism in Denial in Actor-oriented PES Research? A Rejoinder to Van Hecken et al. (2018) and a Call for Justice

AU - Fletcher, Robert

AU - Büscher, Bram

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - In this response to Van Hecken et al. (2018), we seek to clarify the analysis (Fletcher and Büscher, 2017) they critique in the face of gross distortion and redirect the discussion back to the point we sought to make: that it is crucial to point out that PES is a neoliberal conservation paradigm, and that this acknowledgement should be made even if PES implementation is far from any neoliberal “ideal” in practice. Only by following this nuanced perspective on PES that integrates agency and structure can we acknowledge what is inherently flawed about the paradigm: namely that it constrains broader opportunities for social and environmental justice beyond how local actors subject to PES interventions creatively appropriate the mechanism. This is why we titled our original article “The PES Conceit,” as its promotion constrains these broader opportunities, even as they do not work out as planned.

AB - In this response to Van Hecken et al. (2018), we seek to clarify the analysis (Fletcher and Büscher, 2017) they critique in the face of gross distortion and redirect the discussion back to the point we sought to make: that it is crucial to point out that PES is a neoliberal conservation paradigm, and that this acknowledgement should be made even if PES implementation is far from any neoliberal “ideal” in practice. Only by following this nuanced perspective on PES that integrates agency and structure can we acknowledge what is inherently flawed about the paradigm: namely that it constrains broader opportunities for social and environmental justice beyond how local actors subject to PES interventions creatively appropriate the mechanism. This is why we titled our original article “The PES Conceit,” as its promotion constrains these broader opportunities, even as they do not work out as planned.

KW - Agency

KW - Justice

KW - Neoliberalism

KW - Payment for ecosystem services

KW - Structure

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.007

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.007

M3 - Letter

VL - 156

SP - 420

EP - 423

JO - Ecological Economics

JF - Ecological Economics

SN - 0921-8009

ER -