Waste Political Settlements in Colombia and Chile: Power, Inequality and Informality in Recycling
Waste Political Settlements in Colombia and Chile: Power, Inequality and Informality in Recycling
复制标题
哥伦比亚和智利的垃圾政治解决方案：回收中的权力、不平等和非正规性
作者：
N. Valenzuela
北半球国家和南半球国家的废物回收文献之间存在明显差异。来自北半球国家的文献往往侧重于对现有城市回收服务的实证分析，很少考虑制度因素。当这种情况发生时，所采用的理论方法是有限的，特别是在非正式机构的作用方面。相比之下，来自全球南方的回收文献确实关注非正式机构，但它是通过关注拾荒者的挣扎而不是地方当局提供的废物管理服务的绩效来实现的。文献中的这种分歧表明需要一个整合机构和回收绩效的分析框架。本文分析了麦德林（哥伦比亚）和圣地亚哥（智利）这两个拉丁美洲大都市区的废物处理制度，并探讨了收入不平等与回收之间的联系。它关注的是垃圾制度核心的政治解决方案。因此，这两个城市的垃圾处理制度被认为是权力、制度和利益分配平衡相互作用的产物。该研究还强调需要将非正式制度理解为影响富人和穷人的关系现象，而不仅仅是后者的生存策略。其核心是权利和规则的结构，这意味着优势和劣势的一定分配。社会机构决定哪些废物……被社会认为是有价值的，并且这些机构以经验上有形的方式规范废物的生产和分配。根据废物的产生、表现和政治，废物制度各不相同。在研究废物的产生时，我们要问的问题是哪些社会关系决定了废物的产生，废物的物质成分是什么。当我们探究废物的表征时，我们是在问废物被识别为关键二分法的哪一边，废物的重要性如何以及为何被误解，以及会产生什么后果。这里还要研究的是处理废物时所运用的关键知识和专业知识。在研究废物政治时，我们首先要问的是，废物问题是否或在多大程度上成为公众讨论的主题，什么是禁忌，政策工具是什么，动员谁来处理废物问题，以及这些政治工具服务于哪些非废物目标。最后，没有一个废物制度是静态的，因此我们必须动态地研究它们，随着它们的展开，随着它们产生意想不到的后果和危机（同上）。
There are stark differences between the waste recycling literature from the global North and that from the global South. The literature from the global North tends to focus on empirical analyses of existing municipal recycling services and rarely considers institutional factors. When it does, the theoretical approaches adopted are limited, especially regarding the role of informal institutions. In contrast, recycling literature from the global South does focus on informal institutions, but it does so by concentrating on the struggles of waste pickers rather than on the performance of waste management services provided by local authorities. This divergence in the literature suggests the need for an analytical framework that integrates institutions and recycling performance. This article analyses waste disposal regimes in two Latin American metropolitan areas, Medellín (Colombia) and Santiago (Chile), and explores the link between income inequality and recycling. It focuses on the political settlements that lie at the heart of the waste regimes. As such, waste regimes in these two cities are understood to be a product of the inter- play of balances of power, institutions and distribution of benefits. The study also highlights the need to understand informal institutions as relational phe- nomena that affect both the rich and the poor, and not just as a subsistence strategy by the latter. At their core is a structure of rights and rules, which implies a certain distribution of ad- vantages and disadvantages. Social institutions determine what wastes … are considered valuable by society, and these institutions regulate the production and distribution of waste in empirically tangible ways. Waste regimes differ from each other according to the production, the representation, and the politics of waste. In studying the production of waste we are asking questions such as what social relations determine waste production, and what the material composition of wastes is. When we inquire into the representation of waste, we are asking which side of key dichotomies waste has been identified with, how and why waste’s materiality has been misunderstood, and with what consequences. Also to be in- vestigated here are the key bodies of knowledge and expertise that are mobilized in deal-ing with wastes. In researching the politics of waste, we are first of all asking whether, or to what extent, waste issues are a subject of public discourse, what is a taboo, what are the tools of policy, who is mobilized to deal with waste issues, and what non-waste goals do such political instruments serve. Finally, no waste regime is static, thus we must study them dynamically, as they unfold, as they develop unintended consequences and crises (ibid.).