Having a free market economy is an essential component of ecological modernisation; it is proposed that this type of market economy will foster innovation and allow for industrial efficiency. In light of this, one of the issues the study investigated revolved around understanding how civil society feel about South Africa’s capitalist development path with regards to environmental justice. It was found here that there exists some disjuncture between the views and opinions of civil society. Some seek reform of the economic system while others propose solutions that work within the capitalist system.
Of the twenty six (26) participants, interestingly, nine (9) participants felt that their knowledge on the subject was inadequate and so could not make an informed response. This is surprising given the nature of work these participants do, and the issues they face in their daily fight for justice. Even though nine (9) respondents felt they could not respond to this question seventeen (17) did. The responses, as detailed by these seventeen (17) varied and illustrations were made of the various impacts that capitalism has had on environmental justice. Table 4.9 presents each of these themes.
133 Table 4.9: Capitalism and environmental justice concerns
The effects of capitalism on achieving environmental justice Total Number of citations
Percentage
Increases inequality/breeds selfishness and injustice 17 45 Empowers corporations to the detriment of the environment and
society
At odds with the environment/Externalises the environment Short term, profit oriented
Limits incentives for alternative means of production
8 21
Side-lines people and limits their power 4 11
Capitalism has no influence on justice 3 8
Developmental concerns trump environmental concerns 3 8 Top heavy decision making alienates justice concerns 2 5
Less transparency 1 3
Total 38 100
(Source: fieldwork material, 2015).
For the majority of the respondents to this question the capitalist market system has influenced environmental justice concerns in a number of ways, and a few of these concerns will be discussed here. The vast majority of responses (45% from Table 4.9) to this question made it very clear that following a capitalist market system has been unfavourable in terms of promoting justice. For some respondents, the mere fact that we have made such an economic policy decision demonstrates that we are simply not interested in environmental justice concerns. Additionally, this displays the prominence of corporate interests in the country, and how these interests trump justice concerns to the extent that social issues are not given their due consideration.
Numerous respondents detailed that this profit orientated approach is very much a development path that is geared towards the privileged and is very much ‘anti-poor’. One participant goes on to say that the fact that we have made these economic decisions means we have chosen a top down governance approach, and environmental justice is very much a bottom up approach. Given that environmental justice is so focused on alleviating the burden placed on the poor these two discourses in theory and practice are not aligned.
134 This pro-privileged development, as pointed out by three (3) responses (11%), leads to a power disparity between corporates, government and society, and it is this power disparity that acts to impede the realisation of a just society through top heavy decision making processes (2 responses; 5%). It was identified that government is bent on attracting corporate investment in the country, and has demonstrated its alignment to this in ways that impede justice. Statements to substantiate this argument were made with regards to corporate tax breaks that are given, weak regulations that are put in place, where regulations exist they are not enforced, and all this is done in a bid to create a safe haven for industry. Corporate power on the other hand, as noted by one respondent, is wielded against both society and government in the crudest forms. Corporates have played an active role in transforming government into a weak regulatory body. This is a display of the, “power of profit to pollute”; pollution that actively places a burden on certain members of society (Pers.com, 2015ad).
The regard that government has for economic growth and corporate led development, and the brazen way corporates exploit the inherent power they have, is illustrated so plainly in this very personal account as told by one of the interviewees in response to how capitalism influences environmental justice concerns:
In my own environment, ten kilometres away from me, there are three refineries and they have been allowed to grow there in amongst a residential area and the impact on that is huge. There are people, well I have been a teacher in the past and that’s the reason that got me so involved, because I think it was around about 1994 when previously white schools opened their doors to people of other races and for the first time we had students from this cats alley. One day there was a sports day and all the coloured girls fell on the wayside and they were heaving and they had asthma and they had to be rushed off to hospital and I couldn’t understand what was happening. I didn’t understand that because of where they live they had decreased lung capacity, they couldn’t breathe. So they were very keen to participate in the sports day, but they were unable to, and then ultimately it grew until there was three students in my class who died of leukaemia. So one day you’ve got somebody coming back to school with no hair because she’s had chemotherapy and radiation and then a week later she’s dead. Then I knew that something terrible was happening and that’s how I
135 discovered how dangerous it is that they’ve put all this manufacturing and
refineries in the middle of a residential area. So I think that it’s a tragedy. I think that it is one of the most horrific things that the government has ever done (Pers.com, 2015ae).
It is acknowledged that being a developing nation does place government in a precarious position. One respondent acknowledges that we need to develop to provide basic services and jobs for our citizens, therefore we do need to attract investment. Balancing the need for development and corporate investment with environmental justice has not been an easy task. Government was identified as making some attempt to address social concerns through various policies, however, operating within a capitalist market economy has not made this a clear cut pathway to encompass development, the environment and the needs of society. The interplay of these three aspects was so beautifully illustrated by a member of CSO2, as he notes that the new Integrated Development Plan, as proposed by government, has put in place committees to fast track EIA’s for big developments to ease for developers. But, whilst the:
capitalist model has provided a lot of opportunity, [it] has also side-lined a lot of people, as soon as someone kind of steps up and says hang on this is against, for instance section 24 or something like that, they will go ok well you are then excluded from the conversation and you are not a part of the benefit stream because you are against this huge kind of bulldozer that is capitalism in South Africa.So it becomes a very big ‘us and them’ conversation and I don’t know how you balance that though, it’s a very slippery slope, you need it in order, especially 25% unemployment. I admire the kind of ingenuity behind the national development plan, but it’s definitely not a one hit wonder that’s just going to solve all these problems (Pers.com, 2015af).
Being a developing country therefore means balancing social concerns with the power of capital. This power is perhaps far more prevalent in this context than in the developed North; who are often times the source of foreign direct investment in developing nations. However, one participant argues that with the correct leadership, being a developing country is not necessarily an excuse for environmental injustice. This participant went on to detail how there are developing countries, like Rwanda, who have chosen to place a strong emphasis on environmental conservation. Therefore, it is the focus that government chooses to take that has
136 a great deal of impact on the type of development pursued. Therefore, “there is definitely room, with the right kind of leadership, to create good environmental practice which will essentially affect, in a positive way, the social fabric of South Africa (Pers.com, 2015ag).
As a developing nation that has ascribed to the capitalist market economy the attainment of environmental justice has been hampered. In light of this, a few of the candidates offered solutions to deal with environmental justice concerns. For the most part solutions offered are ones that propose a nuanced capitalist system. Two respondents from CSO1 and CSO13, however, called for an entire overhaul of the system, calling for a socialist revolution. Whilst this is desirable for these two respondents, it would mean an entire collapse of ecological modernisation, or at minimum, a rethinking of the role of government as the promoters of industrial progression rather than capital.
It is clear to see from the arguments outlined here that capitalism as a system of governance, does have a role to play in perpetuating environmental injustice in the country. Therefore, it is important to question whether or not this system, and ecological modernisation, are appropriately used in a developing country. At present, from the views outlined above, it cannot. Furthering on from this, civil society were asked to pose solutions to the issues they had found resulting from the use of the capitalist system of governance. This was done in order to identify whether or not civil society would maintain this system or wish to have it overhauled entirely.
Majority of the solutions offered work within the current capitalist system, and when examined, are steps that should be taken to try and balance out the power imbalance between government and corporations, and society and the environment. Respondents noted that, within the development context, more weight needs to be attributed to the value of a working environment and the ecosystem services it provides. One (1) respondent offered a potential pathway to achieve this, stating that this can be done through analysing the environment and deciding what kind of development that environment can sustain, and make all development decisions based on the capacity of the environment. This is a change from the current system where development decisions are made before the environment is assessed. This is problematic, as a second respondent has seen that once a development decision has been made there is an inherent vested interest in seeing it go forward, even if this is at the expense of the environment and society. One (1) response from a member of CSO3 simply called for an overhaul in the bargaining power of society to address this issue.
137 A further solution offered by civil society which falls within the scope of ecological modernisation is that of increasing the costs of development when it fails to be inclusive. In this manner laying the burden of exclusive development on the corporation is much like the polluter pays principal of ecological modernisation. This can be done by charging social impacts to the company, for example the costs of healthcare, that result from degradation.
A further respondent argued that the problem stems from a lax approach to policy and not necessarily capitalism. However, where capitalism was highlighted as a cause for concern in attaining a just society one of the solutions was simply to regulate industry properly. In order to do this the respondent notes that we require regulatory institutions that are independent, who can regulate without the bias that currently plagues government as a regulator. These problems highlight the inappropriateness of the power dynamics at play when using a capitalist market economy, and therefore ecological modernisation, in a developing world context. However, given that majority of civil society participants have put forward solutions that work within this system it is worth exploring the potential for improvement. Also important to take into consideration here is that many of the solutions posed deal with government as a regulator in this system and do not call for an overhaul of the system in its entirety.
In a complete turnabout from the responses and solutions posed above it can be seen in Table 4.9 that only 8% of the responses given highlight the fact that capitalism is not the reason for injustice in South Africa. One (1) respondent from CSO15 argued that environmental injustices are perpetuated regardless of the economic system a country ascribes to, and to illustrate the point China was used as an example. The identification of perpetual environmental injustices, according to this participant, is not as a result of capitalism, but rather the failure of stakeholder groups to address the distribution of resources and wealth. This is further echoed by a second participant from CSO8 who maintains that it is a crisis in the upper echelons of the management of the country, and the mismanaged spending of corporate taxes. Having an active and effective government is therefore a matter of importance for these participants, arguably more important than the economic system ascribed to. Once again the role of government is interrogated and needs to be revisited.
Civil society do tend to see capitalism as a cause of environmental injustice in South Africa, but by posing solutions that work within this very system they also, to an extent, confirm its
138 continued use. Only two (2) respondents called for a social revolution. If majority had called for such a change it would most definitely have to be concluded that ecological modernisation and the capitalist system it works within would most definitely need to be abandoned as inappropriate in this context. However, this has not been the case and therefore a nuanced approach to governance is what is needed. An approach that seeks to improve the role of government as a means to addressing environmental injustice. Whilst these issues were not interrogated for the purposes building the framework, these solutions are important to include in any environmental justice framework for ecological modernisation.
4.5.2. The appropriateness of science and technology in achieving justice: concerns and