Deliberative Monetary Valuation as a Political-Economic Methodology: Exploring the Prospect for Value Pluralism with a Case Study on Australian Climate Change Policy
Abstract
This research concerns the role of public deliberation in monetary valuation of the environment. The objective is to evaluate the value pluralistic potential of an innovative methodology known as "deliberative monetary valuation" (DMV). The research includes a series of theoretical discussions and an empirical study.
Recent attempts to redesign environmental valuation surveys are reviewed. The theory of deliberative democracy is explained and compared with the other intellectual current influencing the development of DMV, i.e. the science of analytic deliberation. Current practice is critically assessed to identify major problems. It is argued that capacity for value pluralism does not grow with privilege given to alternative values. The crux is the excess of pre-definitions and pre-judgements. Using deliberative methods to repair or reject the economic conception of value is problematic. Public deliberation plays an emancipatory role of exposing the contested and makes room for different frames of reference of valuing public goods. DMV is an inquiry into the level and quality of WTP articulated under value difference. Deliberative elements serve to ensure that the valuation processes be reflective and self-critical, on the part of the valuing agents and also the researcher. The practice
lacks pluralistic potential as the method has been used to reinforce an established or alternative conception of value. A discourse-based approach is proposed which defines deliberative WTP as an "agreement to pay" to highlight its interactive nature and varying ethical composition.
The empirical study involves an experimental deliberative forum on climate change policy. Twenty four ordinary Australian citizens participated in a one-day workshop to discuss a range of carbon pricing issues, including emission trading and carbon tax. Discussions were audio-recorded and responses to questions about climate change and emission mitigation, including a willingness-to-pay (WTP) request, were assessed. Results show little normative consensus on subjective values, but an initial agreement on preferences. Alternative perspectives became more accessible to participants. The improving discursive communication was related to the invocation of a communicative device that played a rhetorical function. Division was respected while a qualitative convergence on WTP decision was not precluded. Plurality of perspectives was preserved without compromising the capacity for making collective decision. In this light, the stated WTP is understood as a political or social agreement developed upon conflict and contradiction. An "agreement to pay" is illustrated.
This conception of DMV returns economics to politics. The kind of "economic" valuation is a topical and not theoretical one, invariably about money and values yet allowing varying possibilities of theorization. Seeking monetary expressions is not unacceptable where economic frame is not privileged. A pluralistic economic order requires unconstrained, self-critical paradigmatic norms being actively embraced.