Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Marie Stilling
(University of Oslo)
Stine Engen (University of Oslo)
Kristin Asdal (University of Oslo)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
Short Abstract:
This panel asks how novel ways of taking nature into account may engender different ‘versions of economization’ that possibly transform economic practices, tools and procedures. We invite contributions examining the sites, tools and possible conflicts surrounding such economic transformation.
Long Abstract:
This panel aims to bring together valuation approaches and the turn to nature in economic practices. In line with the conference theme, the panel asks how different ways of taking nature into account may engender different ‘versions of economization’ (Asdal and Huse 2023) that format and possibly transform the economy and its practices, tools, and procedures. We ask how and if this may bring about a change within the economic practices and theories themselves and how we can open up studies of economic practices to bring in the objects and organisms that are valued in novel ways. We invite empirical contributions that examine the sites of such economic experiments, valuations and transformations and studies that investigate how these are engendered, possibly hindered, and sometimes surrounded by tensions and conflicting modes of valuation.
How do economic actors value nature? And how are actors outside the economy acting upon economic expertise, their tools, motivations and models? By which tools and techniques are nature brought into economy – and how are they developed and experimented with? What ‘versions of economization’ do these tools and procedures bring about? And which value conflicts (Doganova et al. 2014) arise when nature is taken into economic account?
As the climate and biodiversity crises become ever more evident, new economic practices seem to take nature into account in novel ways. Business concepts such as ‘the triple bottom line’ and ‘regenerative design’ are used to develop business models that generate social and environmental value in addition to economic value. Financial actors envision the notion 'climate' risk to incorporate nature into finance, while simultaneously considering climate changes a risk to finance itself. How do such concepts tie into more familiar valuation devices such as ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘natural capital’, created and contested as tools to account for an other-than-economic productivity?
Accepted papers:
Session 1Stine Engen (University of Oslo)
Long abstract:
The years since the 2008 financial crisis have seen a reassessment of what type of events constitutes financial risk and if this risk can be measured using traditional probabilistic models. Climate change is now for example considered as financial risk – so-called “climate risk” – and has accordingly become an issue for central banks. To investigate how central bankers frame the climate issue, this paper conducts a detailed analysis of the document “The green swan: central banking and financial stability in the age of climate change”, published in 2020 by The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and Banque de France. It is shown how climate risk is understood as “uncertainty”, building on complexity theory and the influential notion of the black swan, which is highly critical of precisely central bank expertise. In the figure of “the green swan”, however, climate change is somewhat paradoxically both an uncertain, and a certain event. Following Tellmann (2016), it is argued that rather than as a limit to knowledge, uncertainty works as a “tool of critique”, incorporating critique of economic expertise to generate and reorganise knowledge production on the issue. Thus, because of the certainty of crisis, the uncertainty of the issue is not a problem for central banks but rather something which showcases the need for their institutional authority. The central bank authority on the issue is in this way not tied to probabilistic modelling, but rather a “non-political”, “expert” role that aims to govern the climate issue by valuing it as risk.
Alexandre Violle (Mines Paris) Brice Laurent (Mines ParisTech) Roman Solé-Pomies (MINES ParisTech)
Long abstract:
By developing models that focus on the circulation of money for the sake of growing national economies, economists have contributed to make material and energy resource needs invisible (Mitchell, 1998). This paper refines the notion of invisibility by highlighting different versions of economics that explicitly take materiality into account, yet with consequences for the kind of public issues made visible or invisible. We investigate the 2023 EU Critical Raw Materials Act and a study of material needs for energy transition conducted in 2022 by RTE, the French electricity grid operator. The two initiatives associate economic and technical expertise and state explicit transition objectives, yet they do in different ways. The Act anticipates European demand for critical materials, seeks to diversify the EU's sources of materials supply, and encourages member states to use their own resources. RTE tackles the material dependence on resources while insisting on sobriety and the responsibility of the French state about resource use. As they define different roles for econometrics, geology, and other expert contributions, these two approaches produce different ways of economizing minerals as resources, and eventually perform two different economies, namely a European economy that must grow at all costs and a French economy that must become 'sober'. By analyzing these two studies as valuation tools that problematize public concerns, we discuss the invisibility effects of economic knowledge.
Tara Dourian (INRAE (Institut national de recherche pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement))
Long abstract:
The preservation of biodiversity is politically recognized as a major social and environmental issue, and as a pillar of food system transformation. However, biodiversity loss, both wild and cultivated, continues to take place. This leads to question the extent and ways in which biodiversity is valued in society by different actors. This PhD work seeks to contribute to the emerging research field of biodiversity valuation and values, and more specifically cultivated biodiversity, by drawing on theories and concepts of STS and economic sociology. Valuation is considered here as a fundamentally social practice, and as a central feature of market-making. Using qualitative, participatory methods, valuation is studied within two emerging multi-actor networks around two "local" bean varieties. Although each case is contextually and historically situated, two dimensions are simultaneously examined in each : (1) the valuation process itself, as inextricably tied to the types of actors which compose the networks and the social relations built between them, and (2) the types of value(s), both economic and non-economic, embedded in the market-making process. Whilst these two beans pertain to a common species, they are genetically diverse, and therefore provide an interesting comparison, shedding light on synergies and differences between the two valuation processes. Some guiding questions are : How are networks around these two varieties constructed, and which values are collectively taken into account (and neglected) in the market-formation process ? Will each variety bring about distinct values and market configurations ? What can these differences tell us about biodiversity valuation ?
Heidi Lehtiniemi (Finnish Environment Institute Syke)
Long abstract:
During the early 2020s there has been an increasing interest in biodiversity across the whole society, especially in the private sector. Followingly, there is also a growing pressure to measure biodiversity impacts caused by various human activities. Given that biodiversity is, by default, diverse and complex, it can be assessed, measured, and valued in a multitude of ways. In this presentation, we examine what happens when biodiversity is translated into the language of business and analyze the development of a biodiversity value measurement system related to biodiversity offsetting in Finland. We focus on habitat experts’ perceptions of the development process. Biodiversity offsetting was introduced into Finnish legislation in 2023 and the rules for measuring the ecological value of nature were created. While many existing offsetting systems have chosen a more practice-oriented approach, the Finnish development process was science-led, and the development was conducted collaboratively with habitat experts. As a result, the framework became more complex and detailed than in many other countries. Based on interviews of the habitat experts about their experience, motivation, epistemic stand, and reflection of the process, we explore the recognized benefits, disadvantages, or risks of the created measuring system. Further, we analyze whether and how operationalization of the value of nature affects habitat experts’ notion of biodiversity, and whether all relevant values were included in the framework. Lastly, we explore limitations of the scientific definition and understanding of nature, and the implications this might have on biodiversity and the biodiversity offsetting system.
Cornelius Heimstädt (Humboldt University of Berlin)
Long abstract:
As planetary crises intensify, entrepreneurs need to demonstrate that their startups are sustainable in order to attract investors, partners, and customers. However, commentators from academia and the wider public point to a tension between startups’ pursuit of profits and returns on the one hand, and a genuine commitment to the environment on the other—a criticism that many entrepreneurs are aware of. Given this situation, this article draws on science and technology studies (STS) and social studies of markets to examine how entrepreneurs present the sustainability of their ventures in the public arena, and how in doing so they enact the compatibility of the startup economy and the environment. I explore this question through video recordings of 45 pitches by agricultural technology startups at a major agricultural trade fair, supplemented by ethnographic observations on site and qualitative interviews with several participating entrepreneurs, organizers, and investors. The article’s inductive analysis identifies three core practices through which the analyzed pitches enact a compatibility of the economy and the environment, namely authentication (demonstrating motives for sustainability efforts that originate in agriculture), calculation (accounting for sustainability efforts with numbers), temporalization (situating sustainability efforts in time). As such, the study expands on debates about the relational role of pitches in processes of market-making.