Devolution in the Woods: Community Forestry as Hybrid Neoliberalism
Devolution in the Woods: Community Forestry as Hybrid Neoliberalism
复制标题
森林权力下放：作为混合新自由主义的社区林业
DOI：
10.1068/a36266
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Mccarthy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Mccarthy
本文探讨了近年来北美社区林业倡议的扩散与新自由主义特定形式的优势之间的显著一致性。在书中，我认为，特别是在美国，这些倡议最好被理解为“推出”新自由主义与保护地区和国有森林管理的当代趋势之间的混合体。这种解释有助于最近的争论，即环境已经被充分研究为一个舞台，通过这个舞台，新自由主义已经被积极地构成，而不是简单地被动地接受“影响”。此外，令人惊讶的是，很少有学术工作探讨环境治理的具体变化和新自由主义在后者的“第一世界”地理国家（如美国和英国）的发展之间的联系。在本文中，我对美国的社区林业进行了这样的调查。本文追溯了美国社区林业的主要起源、引进和制度化，并展示了他们的“社区”概念化和制定是如何由霸权的新自由主义思想构成的，使社区林业在这种背景下补充而不是反对新自由主义的重构。对当前布什政府热情采纳社区林业核心要素的探索支持了这一解释。最后，本文的结论为政治生态学的讨论提供了启示。
This paper explores the remarkable congruence between the proliferation of community forestry initiatives in North America in recent years and the ascendance of particular forms of neoliberalism. In it I argue that, in the United States in particular, such initiatives are best understood as hybrids between ‘rollout’ neoliberalism and contemporaneous trends in the management of protected areas and state-owned forests. This interpretation contributes to recent arguments that the environment has been understudied as an arena through which neoliberalism has been actively constituted, rather than simply a passive recipient of ‘impacts’. Moreover, surprisingly little academic work has explored the imbrications of specific changes in environmental governance and evolving neoliberalism in the latter's ‘First World’ geographic hearths, such as the USA and the United Kingdom. In this paper I undertake such an investigation with respect to community forestry in the United States. The paper traces the major antecedents, introduction, and institutionalizations of community forestry in the United States, and shows how their conceptualizations and enactments of ‘community’ are structured by hegemonic neoliberal ideas, making community forestry in this context supplementary, rather than oppositional, to neoliberal restructurings. Exploration of the current Bush administration's enthusiastic adoption of central elements of community forestry bolsters this interpretation. Finally, the conclusion draws implications from this case for debates in political ecology.