A complex and often frustrating task environmental problem solving can garner many differentiating and converging opinions. Although environmental issues are recognized within the mainstream and are perceived to be restorable, the manner in which a country does this can illicit contention. These theories are seen to be organized in three approaches: administrative rationalism, democratic pragmatism, and economic rationalism. These three discourses follow a reformist and prosaic category as they work within the current industrial economy and do not advocate for radical changes, rather they advocate for slow and steady changes that provide little adjustment. The primary differentiation between the three discourses is in who should handle the
…show more content…
The administrative rationalism discourse recognizes that environmental issues are complex and should be handled by those who are qualified to make the calls. This discourse or method of organization is partially utilized in many countries. For example, Dryzek identifies that most developed countries have pollution control agencies (2013, pg. 77). However, another important note and potential limit of administrational rationalism is are corruption and power influence. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an organization micromanaged by congress that was done so in order to prevent its privatization and potential tampering by presidents. The Reagan administration attempted to dismantle the EPA (Dryzek, 2013, pg. 78-79). This is problematic because in a democratic society, where people have a certain degree of distrust and criticality in regards to politicians and politics, administrative rationalism may cause public outcry. Another limitation of this discourse is in the principal that an expert is an all knowing; every individual has biases that are potentially going to influence their work, whether these biases are conscious or subconscious. Overall, administrative rationalism, while clear in its objective, is susceptible to limitations of hierarchy and fails to address all probable …show more content…
One of the significant impacts this discourse has the potential to make is that of greater environmental knowledge, interest, and consciousness of the public. Dryzek states that “… countries that have progressed the most in terms of environmental conservation and pollution control are the ones where democratic pragmatism is most common…”, however, it is also noted that these countries tend to be capitalist and wealthier (2013, pg. 117). Democratic pragmatism, like any other discourse, has its limitations, for instance, treating “the people” as equals has its downfalls seeing as the public may not be as knowledgeable in regards to environmental conservation. This processes involved in this discourse would also be understandably time-consuming, thus potentially ineffective and democratic pragmatism is in no way immune to biases and influence of power. Democratic pragmatism, in the end might be taking too much consideration of public opinion and not enough of the
The administrative rationalism discourse recognizes that environmental issues are complex and should be handled by those who are qualified to make the calls. This discourse or method of organization is partially utilized in many countries. For example, Dryzek identifies that most developed countries have pollution control agencies (2013, pg. 77). However, another important note and potential limit of administrational rationalism is are corruption and power influence. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an organization micromanaged by congress that was done so in order to prevent its privatization and potential tampering by presidents. The Reagan administration attempted to dismantle the EPA (Dryzek, 2013, pg. 78-79). This is problematic because in a democratic society, where people have a certain degree of distrust and criticality in regards to politicians and politics, administrative rationalism may cause public outcry. Another limitation of this discourse is in the principal that an expert is an all knowing; every individual has biases that are potentially going to influence their work, whether these biases are conscious or subconscious. Overall, administrative rationalism, while clear in its objective, is susceptible to limitations of hierarchy and fails to address all probable …show more content…
One of the significant impacts this discourse has the potential to make is that of greater environmental knowledge, interest, and consciousness of the public. Dryzek states that “… countries that have progressed the most in terms of environmental conservation and pollution control are the ones where democratic pragmatism is most common…”, however, it is also noted that these countries tend to be capitalist and wealthier (2013, pg. 117). Democratic pragmatism, like any other discourse, has its limitations, for instance, treating “the people” as equals has its downfalls seeing as the public may not be as knowledgeable in regards to environmental conservation. This processes involved in this discourse would also be understandably time-consuming, thus potentially ineffective and democratic pragmatism is in no way immune to biases and influence of power. Democratic pragmatism, in the end might be taking too much consideration of public opinion and not enough of the