1.2 the Goal of the Project

1.2 the Goal of the Project

Chapter 1


1.1 Introduction

This first chapter aims to explore the goal of this study and to explain how this goal can be achieved through the research undertaken in this project. This will help the researcher to organise the relevant data and make sense of them according to the central theme (the research goal), as well as helping the readers to follow the story as easily and clearly as possible.

1.2 The Goal of the Project

The goal of this project is to identify a way to improve the Chinese environmental situation (water and air pollution in particular, to start with, as a restriction on this study). The way I intend to find solutions to such problems in this project is to view them as the Commons problems, as classified by Hardin (Hardin, 1968). Below is a brief description of Hardin's notion of the Tragedy of the Commons in his own words.

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximise his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

  1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
  2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effect of overgrazing is shared by all the herdsmen, while the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all (Hardin, 1968).

The lessons of the Tragedy of the Commons have been learnt many times over the millennia, but apparently have been forgotten as often. According to Hardin (1968), such tragedies have been repeated over the course of the human history. This is because human beings had suffered from a natural tendency of psychological denial as individuals continued to try to gain the maximum individual benefits at the cost to the society, whose sufferings extended to the individuals concerned. One of the solutions for Hardin is through education whereby such awareness and knowledge about the Tragedy of the Commons gets refreshed by generation after generation so that such wrong doings are to be avoided (Hardin, 1968). In conclusion, Hardin stresses that freedom in the commons brings ruin to all and the only solution is "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon."(Hardin, 1968; 1992).

Interestingly (from a research point of view), for Hardin, the notion of the Tragedy of the Commons can be generalised and applied in a wide range of spheres in our life. Where he has suggested that such a notion may be used to enlighten a class of human problems which can be called "no technical solution problems"(Hardin, 1968). One member of this class of problems is the pollution problem. As Hardin puts it:

In a reverse way, the Tragedy of the Commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in—sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air; and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.

The Tragedy of the Commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the Tragedy of the Commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favours pollution. The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream—whose property extends to the middle of the stream—often has difficulty seeing why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons (Hardin, 1968).

We intend to study the Chinese environmental problem in the framework of the Tragedy of the Commons, and try to identify ways forward, which may contribute to the improvement of the Chinese environmental situation.

1.3 On Studying the Chinese Environmental Problem

Most undertakings are meant to realise more than one goal, usually in the form of sub-goals. Sometimes however, as in the present study, there are goals at different levels, and in different spheres of life. This study reports on an undertaking, where there were two such goals. First there was my deep-felt concern about the environmental situation in China, especially its pollution problems both at present and in the future. Second there was my intention to help explore and deal with this problem in a scientific context. While the first goal will be familiar to many people and even shared, the second is not. It deserves some extra explanation, which this section is meant to provide. It will do so at a relatively general level. Additional comments and justifications will follow where appropriate.

Research and study appear to heave an obvious intuitive meaning—satisfying one’s curiosity, and making the results stand on their own feet, without solipsistic overtones, but their formal notion has remained ambiguous. This is not for lack of trying. Two types of development may be mentioned. The first refers to a loss of centralised direction as compared to the generally favoured understanding of research at the height of its success in the physical sciences. This kind of understanding nowadays is called modern, as opposed to the more recent forms of post-modern understanding. The aim of the modern understanding was to make precise what is confused, and to give unique meanings to concepts and words. In this tradition one is not happy with a statement such as the sun rises everyday. One wants to define what is meant by the sun, by everyday, by rising? There have been many situations where projects in this tradition turned out fine. We do have unique answers to such questions, and we are able to distinguish these answers from others, for example, poetic ones, the attractiveness of which is in suggesting many meanings and in addressing us in differentiating ways.

What is successful may become too successful, however in the same sense that it has been said that power corrupts, and that extreme power corrupts extremely. It has been tried, for example, to follow the same uniqueness tradition when studying what it is that makes for interesting conversations, or what we mean by values such as honesty and fairness, or even poems. Most results have indeed been disastrous and have been shown to turn into extreme attempts to impose meanings on others. This has led people to reconsider the tradition and the project of science in it. The new tradition is called post-modern. It emphasises the possibility that there may be situations where there are no unique answers, at least on the level of the individual. A typical example is the situation of the commons which turns into the Tragedy of the Commons with more and more people share the rules of profit maximisation.

This brings us to the second type of development. It has been argued, for example, that if it is better not to share, then there is no use in searching for what is similar or satisfies as a general criterion. Or in other words, one can not assume any uniqueness anymore, or search for it, not even in science at the peril of imposing on others. This has led to what from the modern point of view may be called a devaluation or deflation of science and to an increasing lack of direction and discipline, and to an increasing ambiguity of what are called science and scientific knowledge, and of course from the post-modern point of view to liberation from the other tradition, to being allowed to bring in whatever one fancies, or even to poeticise science.

The Tragedy of the Commons shows that this swing to liberation and non-imposition may go too far. There may be good reasons to avoid over-grazing, and more generally to avoid destroying the Space-ship Earth. There may be a unique answer to the question how this may be done. In other words, there may be a criterion that has to be satisfied, in a disciplined way, if one is to study what may help to avoid the commons disaster, be it in terms of pollution or of over-use. One may think of the notion of property rights, as proposed by Hardin (1968). If we distribute the commons, and make each person responsible for his or her own piece of land, then the limits to profit maximisation become clear quite quickly. The drawback to this approach is of course that it may be expensive to maintain. As soon as one piece of land is destroyed, people may try to take over what is still green on their neighbours' side. There have been other suggestions, therefore, such as to allow for better communication among all those who have a stake in the commons. One may discuss principles and thereby change activities at the individual level. This suggests another criterion: that people may try to avoid over-grazing, but should try to identify an approach that is least costly to maintain and effective, which does not lead to destruction of what in a sense is outside the commons problem, that is, other people. War might indeed be considered the extreme form of imposition. It may be argued, therefore, that the way of science does not need to be either modern or post-modern. It may still search to satisfy a criterion, for example, that of least effort to maintain one’s resources, while at the same time avoiding a sameness that is too local, that does not allow individuals their own position and their own point of view.

This kind of combination belongs to the class that De Zeeuw argues extends science in its traditional and mainly modern form, but does not turn it into something that seems to appear as non-science to most people’s intuition (e.g. politics). He speaks of third-phase science (de Zeeuw, 1985; 1986a; 1986b; 1992; 1995;1996 in particular; 1997). It is this combination that is the basis of this study that I am reporting here. It implies that I may use approaches that appear to be in the post-modern tradition but that I have to evaluate these in terms of whether or not they help to prevent the commons problems, and hence sustain the situation of the commons. One such approach is the so-called Soft Systems Methodology(SSM), as developed by Checkland (Checkland and Scholes, 1990). It does take the commons situation into account in that it provides a form of communication among the members of an organisation, or more generally, among those who together have made a mess of things, and have created their problem. It is not part of the combination of modern and post-modern that I have in mind, however, in that it does not indicate any general criterion against which it is to be studied. It is only able to suggest a re-cycling, that is to repeat: if it does not help to achieve the desired result, one should try again and maybe learn.

Although this suggestion is useful as a general advice, it does not help to clarify what one should judge such learning by. In other words, one may stay trapped in the form of communication that SSM proposes in the same way that the moderns do appear trapped in following an approach, the results of which impose too much. This criticism will not prevent me from using either type of approach, and of combining them. My main task seems to be, indeed, that of getting out of the traps as well as to know that I have done so.

Applying SSM in the sense in which it is usually applied has not been possible for me, of course. China is too big to consider all its stakeholders, or even only single representatives of its many parts. In my field trips to China I also discovered that it is difficult to bring together a number of people, and get them to talk in the way of SSM. Authority is ingrained in the Chinese culture, and does not appear to allow for the free-flowing discussion that SSM suggests. I have used this approach in another way, therefore, which will be recognisable in the pages that follow. First I try to paint the rich picture that SSM requires, on the basis of reports from a large number of authors. Then I analyse this picture, to identify basic systems, or root definitions, to eventually develop a conceptual model, that is what I consider a suitable approach to improve the environmental situation in China. It is this model that I present to the readers for further debate—some of which I anticipate in my discussion of the model against the available literature. To avoid being trapped in this approach, that is to avoid being hooked too much to the form of communication that SSM introduces, which is heavily dependent on the notion of a problem and of a problem situation, I will also apply the modern approach, however. This suggests additional questions, for example, whether my problem formulation is sufficient in capturing the situation in China such that solutions do not lead to side-effects that are expensive to control, and whether the form of communication that I propose does indeed allow for a sustainable development. In other words, I will use the modern form of communication (emphasising the uniqueness of answers to questions) to avoid being trapped in a soft approach that allows for (too) many voices and many points of view and hence does not suggest anything. And I will use the latter to avoid being trapped in thinking that solutions should be the same at all levels of a society, in particular a developing society such as China.

1.4 On Method

We have indicated that we are to study the Chinese environmental situation as an example of the Commons Problems identified by Hardin. This still leaves open how we are going to organise the labour involved. There are many ways one may do this. We will follow the sequence identified in Checkland's Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). A summary follows of what this means. It may help to clarify why we chose this approach—in the light of the fact that SSM was not developed as a research design, but rather as a way for people to communicate on, discuss and negotiate how to act. SSM was designed by Checkland in the 1960s to deal with 'messy and ill-defined problems', for which at the time there were no solutions, neither as the result of practical experience, nor as the product of research (Checkland, 1981). One of the basic problems this posed was what unit of analysis to consider, or more generally what aspects of behaviour to include. Checkland defined as his units human beings, who undertake purposeful actions based on their individual worldviews, and who work together to act and to solve the problems that arise in the course of their acting. Sometimes, more general, deeper, or more complex problems arise than the individuals are prepared for—which therefore are considered messy and ill-defined. The help they need follows from this assumption. It should allow people to redesign the way they have been working together, and enable them to take on the challenge of solving problems when these have become messy and tangled. This re-design is cut up into a number of steps or stages. Their main purpose is to identify and change what people tend to see, given their worldviews, on the basis of which they have created their mess. This involves tending to what is seen, what the worldviews are, how they may be changed, and how debate may be organised to choose those worldviews that may be preferred, or improved. Technically, these activities are structured into drawing up rich pictures, searching for root definitions, making conceptual models, comparing them with reality and developing what are labelled culturally desirable and systemically feasible plans for actions (Checkland and Scholes, 1990).