If you are behind in your Christmas shopping, this is the perfect intellectual excuse for your shortcomings. In his new book Scroogenomics, Joel Waldfogel claims that Christmas is an economic calamity of the order of the worst natural disasters. The professor from the University of Pennsylvania blames the winter celebrations for the destruction of a full $12 billion of wealth.
What is so seriously wrong with Christmas? Waldfogel believes that it is festival of inefficiency, where people give each other things of little use. The reason is simply that people don’t understand one another and are poor judges of other people’s preferences. Your close ones may display delight from your gifts, but this is only polite deceit; in truth they would have found something better with the money you used.
Waldfogel’s claims are based on a survey he has done with potential victims of Christmas. He asked a range of people how much they would be willing to pay for the things they had been given. It showed that, as a rule, gifts were worth one fifth less to their recipients than their actual price. That new jumper that your aunt bought you for £50? You may find that it is not worth a pence over £40. This means that economic value of £10 has disappeared into thin air.
Waldfogel is right to question how much just producing precious commodities adds to social welfare. In trying to adjust measures of exchange value to better reflect the worth of things he comes close to much of the work that nef has been pioneering.
At the same time, Waldfogel suffers from a bias that is not untypical to people of his profession. In his view the only good that can result from gifts is the utility that the recipient gets from the commodities exchanging hands. If the object does not match the wishes of its receiver, the whole ordeal has been a waste. Does this view not miss many important sides of our habits of giving? Some examples can show what Waldfogel forgets to take into account.
There are times when the usefulness of the goods being given is completely secondary. One extreme example of this is the tradition of potlach, observed by some natives of North America. In its most extravagant form, potlach involved chiefs giving away valuable pots, blankets and food, which were promptly destroyed and burned after being received. Potlach is a case where gifts are used to maintain certain types of social relations: The group that gives more lavishly is able to express and reassert their superior power. In less competitive settings, giving gifts can also support equal and communal relationships.
Modern societies have some practices more bizarre than potlach. One recent innovation are so-called charity gifts. By donating the right amount you can purchase, for instance, a goat for someone in a developing country, then give your donation as a present to someone else. It is unlike regular gifts because when the present exchanges hands, the owner of the goat stays the same. The point of the present is not to allow its receiver to get something new, but to let them assume the role of a benefactor. It is, to use an obscure term, a meta-gift: a gift of giving. What better proof could there be of the fact that people place value on giving things in itself?
Even when a gift is meant to be useful, it is not always given with the preferences of the other in mind. Some presents are aim to have an educative function. Here the point is not to match the recipient’s preferences. On the contrary, it is to actively shape them. For instance, I have been at times pretentious enough to give complicated books or fringe films with the hope of kindly nudging someone’s cultural tastes. To the credit Waldfogel and his approach to gifts, such attempts have never been met with much enthusiasm.
All the same, I would not recommend buying Scroogenomics as a gift. It seems like a guaranteed failure. If the premonition of the book is correct and you did not predict your friend’s preferences, they will be unhappy with the present. In case they enjoy your book and accept its message, they may berate you for so lavishly investing in a present.
(for nef blog)
» No comments.It does exist after all. Apparently it has been broken for a while and now requires enlargement. In a speech at the Guardian, David Cameron stated that he wanted a “big society”, in place of Labour’s “big state”. He believes that the “growth of the state has promoted not social solidarity, but selfishness and individualism”. The alternative is to “help families, individuals, charities and communities come together to solve problems”.
Cameron’s calls for cuts in the scale of government are obviously pandering towards the fiscal conservative wing of his party. To some extent he continues the tradition of earlier conservatism, defined by Thatcher, in which the state was blamed for the moral degradation of society. The state fosters a dependency culture, discharges people from their responsibilities, and displaces families as the proper purveyor of moral values.
Cameron’s true volte face is in coming up with new victims for the state’s malice. Cameron blames government for worsening many of the themes that have traditionally been the concern of the left: the gap between the rich and the poor and material deprivation. The large size of the state, he claims, is “inhibiting, not advancing, the progressive aims of reducing poverty, fighting inequality, and increasing general wellbeing”.
This appears to be a canny political move. Issues such as poverty and particularly inequality would traditionally be far from the conservative agenda. Cameron believes that by naming big government the culprit, he can mobilise conservative support even for traditionally lefty topics. He can move into Labour’s territory without losing his party’s base, as long as a smaller state is presented as the solution. So far his political gambit seems successful.
In Cameron’s view, society consists of individuals, families and communities. Government is external to society and engaged in a zero-sum game with it: The expansion of the state can only be to the detriment of society.
Third sector organizations and social enterprise are put forward as the vehicle for delivering on social goals. Cameron believes these institutions to be almost like an extension of communities, accountable to their will and able to engage them in “self-improvement, mutuality and responsibility”.
The premise that third sector organizations would be representative of community is often false. Many charities that have been tasked with delivering public services have grown so large they are as unresponsive to the needs of their clients as state departments but devoid of any formal accountability. With a large size they also acquire monopoly-like power over the services that they deliver, and can begin to work for an interest of their own. In that sense they have more in common with large corporations. The opening up of competitive markets in public services to third sector organisations has explicitly encouraged this development.
Conversely, the government providing things need not be opposed to citizens taking responsibility. Ideas of design such co-production can make sure that the clients have an active role in the delivery of services. The interface between government and civil society is what matters. Cameron forgets that the state is a part of society too, and that a good society requires strong public investment to maintain public goods and collective solutions. This philosophy makes no provision for preventative services, or long-term solutions of the kind that we now need. In spite of the rhetoric about outcomes, he has reverted with the Conservative obsession with the mode of delivery.
Cameron’s emphasis on decentralization and active citizenship is commendable. Who would not want people holding power and being actively engaged in shaping their lives? As means for delivering the changes in society the “progressive conservatives” are after – social mobility and reductions in poverty – they are blatantly insufficient.
To reduce inequality we must make a political topic of another forgotten part of society – the economy. All major parties today regard the economy as a sphere with its own natural laws and best left to its own devices. The role of government is merely to correct market failures and fix some of the resulting unjustness after the free reign of economic forces. The question all of the parties fail to ask is whether the economic system itself, with its gross inequalities and individualistic bent could be the root of the problem.
Labour’s measures such as the minimum wage and tax credits have obviously mitigated some of the growing disparities in the economy. The Tory promises to lift the threshold of the inheritance tax and cut unemployment benefits can only aggravate them and don’t fit well for Cameron’s newly found interest in the poor.
What is needed is a society of many parts: a fair economy, an effective state and a committed community – all of appropriate size.
(written with Eilis for nef blog)
» No comments.
Bruno Latour claims modernity to be constituted by a dualism between society and nature, the human world values, beliefs, will and so on, opposed to the cold world of universal laws and facts. Disregarding the more complicated things that follow from such a stance, I will here briefly comment on a relatively straightforward matter, modernity’s view on time. According to Latour, the moderns align the two poles of this opposition with the past and the future, so that the passage of time always brings with it emancipation from past beliefs and a turn into more control and rationality. In the field of science, revolution in knowledge mean the removal of past errors and superstition to reveal the universal and necessary. Correspondingly in politics, progress towards modernity take steps that leave all archaic and irrational into history.
In Latour’s view, such a view of time today is harder and harder to maintain, as revolutions are loosing their ability to leave the past behind. They have become, as the term originally suggests, a circular return of more of the same old. Instead of a view of time that would be marked with “time of succession”, the overcoming all problems, we are constantly stuck with the issues of the past. Instead of temporal metaphors that suggest irreversible changes, it is punctual to speak with terms of space, that point to coexistence and cohabitance of the pressing troubles. Instead of the modern time we are to speak of a “time of simultaneity” (or more absurdly, a “time of space”).
In consequence, the different political stances can no longer be divided based on their position in relation to progress. Instead, each political position is defined in relation to all the separate issues that trouble the polity, without any guiding narrative that predetermine their configuration. With respective to GMOs, globalization, etc. it is increasingly hard to pinpoint what exactly the emancipatory or progressive project would be. “We are all reactionaries today.”
This is certainly a timely “ontostory”. It is however tempting to complicate it with respect to the political reaction to recent ecological problems. Firstly climate change is today arguably the single meta-referential issue in relation to which many of the other issues are ordered. No other thematic is untouched by the the climate crisis. Yet it reproduces the bland lack of alternatives characteristic to our age on another thematic domain: There is really only one politically correct stance, which is to acknowledge the gravity of global warming and the need for dire responses. Yet the issue is flexible and complex enough to allow to be aligned with almost every position on other issues. Climate change is claimed to simultaneously facilitate the development of nuclear power and hydroelectricity, market mechanisms and regulation, global development and re-localization. Today everyone can claim to be progressive.
Ecology is the issue of issues, but it also brings about a new temporality. Where modernity strived to cut the shackles of time, today we are running out of time. The necessary response to climate change have already been plotted out into the future: We need this amount of cuts in the next years, we need to stabilize before this decade, etc. In place of the time of succession, climate change creates the time of backcasting. Progress is not defined through settling with the past, but meeting the the requirements of a judging future. The path of development is already set, and at each point in time we face the risk of failing to follow. Instead of of the constant simultaneity of the time of space, there is a possibility for irreversible change, only in this case it can only be regressive. The arrow of time is reversed, and points its accusing head towards the present (see above the picture from Demos Helsinki).
Modernity was about breaking with tradition to establish mastery and control. Today, each moment is a test where clarity and command can be lost. The climate signposts set out the conditions for modernity. What follows from breaking them is “dangerous climate change”, meaning unpredictability, non-linearity or, in the terms of the IPCC, “climate surprise”.
(A passage I had to remove from my dissertation.)
» No comments.Some further food for though from Casaubon’s Book (this time rightly spellt).
That is, we say things like “I have to go do this thing or that thing - I have to commute long distances, because that’s where my job is, or I have to go bring my kids to visit their grandkids, or I have to go get a dress for the wedding.” And all of these facts are absolutely true as far as it goes - that is, often our society doesn’t give us a lot of choices.
But what we never say is “I have to commute to my job, so those people in Haiti have to eat dirt” or “I have to make sure my kids spend time with their grandparents, so some Bangladeshi farmers have to drown.” That is, we leave out the second clause in our sentences. And that’s because we couldn’t live with ourselves if we articulated the whole of our statements.
Casaubon’s Sharon forcefully appeals to a morality that most probably we all recognize. You driving a car causes a Haitian to eat dirt. You as an individual are causing the suffering of another for something that is rather superfluous anyway. That can’t be right, so stop bloody driving already!
If only the connection between the car and the Haitian would be as simple, the environmentalists would have an easy case in showing the superiority of their ways. The workings of the climate, however, don’t really fit the standard moral paradigm expressed above. The number of perpetrators is huge, outnumbered only by their victims. The causal chains travel not only from the northern motorways to the Caribbeans, but essentially everywhere on the globe and through a long period of time. The links and interplays between different factors are, despite of a large consensus between the general connection between temperatures and emissions, largely unknown.
A truthful depiction of the climate crime of our motorist is hence not that he or she is causing a Haitian to eat dirt. It is that the driver of the car, together with a large number of unacquainted people, take part in unknown events that will cause some nameless people far away and in the future to eat dirt. Is driving still wrong? Umm, I guess so. But I have to get to work after all.
A justification for cutting down carbon will ultimately have to be expressed in terms that incorporate the plight of the other, as opposed to sole considerations of self-interest. If the nature of the phenomenon is represented in realistic terms, including collective action problems and uncertainties, it forms a moral argument that, while probably in accordance with many widely held principles, doesn’t make a case as convincing as the above simplifications.
(based on Dale Jamieson 2007)
» No comments.On today’s list, two curiously contradicting texts. I quote them here blatantly out of context to make a point. Causabon’s book writes:
Sometimes it is inconvenient, and occasionally it sucks. Sometimes it means being hot or cold, or not eating what you want to eat, it means turning down things you’d like to do, or not going places you’d like to go. It means missing family instead of travelling a lot, doing more things by hand even when you don’t want to, getting on that bike or out to take the bus on the cold, wet day. That is, sometimes it means real and meaningful sacrifice.
Whereas Terrapass Blog responds to another text mentioning sacrifice:
The bigger problem is that the term “sacrifice” misrepresents the process. Decarbonizing involves millions of consumers and businesses making billions of small consumption decisions in response to price signals, just as they do every day.
Sacrifice implies giving up a bunch of stuff that you enjoy now and probably like a lot. Imagine lining up your 10 favorite toys and then picking three that you have to throw away. Isn’t that sad? In the real world, though, we make such choices all the time. Only we don’t call them sacrifices. Last night, for example, I opted to consume pizza rather than sushi, in part because pizza was cheaper. Yes, I nobly sacrificed my desire for yuppie food treats on the altar of caloric efficiency. Don’t call me a hero. I’m just a regular guy in extraordinary circumstances.
For the economical subject, there is no sacrifice. Even when Sharon from Causabon’s Book squats in her garden and wears two sweaters inside, she is in fact doing the best for her welfare. Her actions might not be of direct use to her and might put a grimace on her face, but somewhere in the back of her mind there is some secretive joy.
For the economical subject, every choice is a sacrifice. In the science of scarcity taking something always means giving up another thing. How much you need to sacrifice of one thing to get the other depends on their relative prices.
One possible conclusion to draw from this is that only price matters. You might choose to live a environmentally aware, respectable life, but that is just an expression of your crazy preferences. Everyone else is busy working out how to maximize their well-being and will not notice. To really make a difference you need to put your effort into fighting for more stringent policies. Go throw rocks at policemen or whatever works. If you manage get the environmental costs into the prices the transition will happen in a magical painless instant. People will wake up one day and notice: Ooh! Gas is expensive. I will take my bike instead.
This view is true to the extent that public work is independent of private choices.
» 1 comment.Some people of my course enjoyed an urban weekend holiday in Eastern Europe during term time. This created some benevolent debate, not only wondering how they managed to spare the time, but also concerning the possible contradiction with the fact that we are studying environmental policy after all. After term is over such considerations promptly disappeared. “When are you leaving?” became the standard small-talk opener, and even those who did not want to pay to get to the other hemisphere made use of the cheap tickets to the mainland.
Naturally I too am boarding a plane before christmas. If this is brought up in conversation I typically refer to my mother as an excuse. I might have considered not going, but she wouldn’t have it any other way, you see?
For the first time, I am going to offset my flight. I am not a particularly big friend of the notion, but given that I am currently writing a paper on the phenomenon, I thought I would give it a try.
Offsetting is mostly criticized with reference to the implemented projects and their sometimes dubious gains. Even assuming perfect mitigation, I find the whole concept curious. When did the whole idea of charitable giving morph into the form of canceling out the externalities caused by one’s actions? If it is ultimately the global commons that I altruistically care about, and not particularly how much I myself happen to destroy them, then why should I not just give based on my ability and willingness to pay? I am inclined to think that this offsetting business is a clever marketing strategy to counter the fact that people tend to give the minimum amount possible to charities.
What kind of offsets would then give the best effect for the money? Firstly, I think it is a good idea to forget the Kyoto compliance market for the moment. Even though the real Kyoto cap will kick in just two weeks from now, I fear there might still be issues with over-allocation and hot air that make the credits quite abundant. Note to home: even though I did link to a scheme that was packaging ETS credits as christmas presents, I didn’t mean to say that you should buy them to me. Although I have had worse gifts..
That leaves a plethora of offsetting projects in the south. Carbon sequestration, for example in the form of planting trees, is generally not a good idea in terms of keeping the gases away. The sequestration will be complete only in some decades, whereas my plane will be done with the puffing tomorrow afternoon. There is also a huge time inconsistency problem, since I can never be sure that there won’t be a point in time when some local inhabitant will have the need to just axe down all of my precious carbon storage.
So I want to prevent some emissions from happening in the first place. This is usually accomplished through investing to either renewable energy or energy efficiency. Since the pecuniary effects of the latter are on shaky grounds, I will go with efficiency. Based on a report by the SEI, I chose the cheapest project with a good rating and the Gold Standard. The 0.69 tonnes that, according to their calculator, I’m responsible for based on my flight from London to Helsinki and back are forgiven just for about 20 euros. Carbon is cheap.
At least I can now spare this load from my mother’s conscience. Farewell Oxford, I look forward to Helsinki and not having to wear mittens in libraries!
» No comments.Imagine that Joe from London decides to switch his electricity contract from coal power to wind power. Now it is no longer the dirty fossils that heat up his tea, by paying a small premium he can make sure that his electricity comes from a form of production that is relatively low on carbon. Joe is quite a respectable chap, isn’t he?
Well, perhaps, but not in the way you would imagine. Joe’s switch of contract has zero impact on the amount of carbon that goes into the atmosphere. In fact switching the lights off and sitting in the dark wouldn’t make a difference either. The reason is the Kyoto Protocol that regulates the energy industry in Europe. The coal power plant, with its decreased production, will be left with extra emission permits in its hands. Some other firm will be happy to buy them off and pollute on their behalf. Inside a cap-and-trade system every decrease in pollution will be matched with an increase elsewhere. Hence any choice for greener products will have no effect on the total amount of emissions.
That is not to say that the choices don’t have any significance. The production of Joe’s windmill has a number externalities apart from greenhouse gases. Just through buying wind energy, Joe is indirectly also promoting the technology. The demand for cleaner energy brings about a gradual rise in its productivity. But there is also a contradicting aspect: the shift of demand away from carbon also hits the prices of the emission permits. This weakens the incentives for abatement and thereby technological progress in other sectors. The net effect of going green is very difficult to assess.
We see that emission trading schemes have a curious interaction with the environmental consequences of production. This interaction is not widely recognised or understood. You can see this in the marketing of green energy companies, where the idea of emission reductions is ubiquitous. Firms and individuals go on about carbon neutrality and reducing their impact. But the whole notion of ecological footprints, perhaps even of responsibility for emissions, breaks down when the cap is in place. This is because decisions of consumption or production change only the price of carbon. It is the cap alone that determines the amount of pollution.
There is one single way to reduce emissions: buy the permits and don’t use them. This can actually be interpreted as a Coase-style negotiation on reducing the amount of pollution to the optimal level. Needless to say, such activity is quite alien to the common understanding of being environmentally aware, which is all about reducing the direct ecological impact of one’s own actions. The Kyoto-world requires a different subjectivity.
Of course buying offsets has become a popular pastime for a number of firms, strangely even states. Their misunderstanding is revealed through the fact that they call themselves carbon neutral. This is in fact unnecessary modesty. Inside the cap everyone is carbon neutral, in the sense that emissions are independent of their activities. By buying credits and planting trees in Africa the firm actually decreases total pollution: it is carbon negative. Would that be a notion too complicated for marketing?
» No comments.
Climate politics revolves around questions of justice. Many lines of arguments refer to the fact that the first world is largely to blaim for putting all the stuff up there. Hence my surprise in seeing the above representation of per capita responsibility for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Factoring in deforestation puts Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea way past most of Europe.
But perhaps we are the bad guys anyway. Expect some interesting brawls next month.
» No comments.Niin Ruotsissa ja Suomessa kuin myös Saksassa sosiaalidemokraattiset puolueet pohtivat syntyjä syviä. Vaikka Saksassa puolue on toisin kuin skandinaaviset vastaparinsa hallinnut viimeiset kaksi vuotta, keskustelu sosiaalidemokraattien ideologisesta identiteetistä sekä puolueen tulevaisuudesta käynnistyi vastauksena uuden yhdistyneen vasemmistopuolueen muodostamaan haasteeseen. Aiheesta kirjoittaminen ehtikin päättyä, luonnollisesti ilman sen suurempia lopputuloksia muutamia mielenkiintoisia avauksia lukuunottamatta. Tässä kuitenkin oma myöhästynyt tulkintani aiheesta.
Itse ymmärrän sosiaalidemokraattisen ideologian ytimeksi sosialismin toteuttamisen puuttumatta yksityisomistukseen. Tämä on tapahtunut sitoutumalla omistavan luokan kanssa jaettuun talouskasvun päämäärään. Tuottavuuden kehittymisen hedelmät jaetaan palkansaajille vahvojen ammattiliittojen kautta, ja valtio pitää kummatkin osapuolet tyytyväisenä toisaalta vastaamalla teollisuuden tarpeisiin, toisaalta paisuttamalla sosiaalipolitiikkaa valtiontalouden sallimassa rajoissa. Kaikki sosiaaliset kerrostumat suljetaan saman sosiaalivakuutusjärjestelmän piiriin, jotta vahvan valtion kannatus säilyisi.
Tänään sosiaalidemokraattinen ideologia ei enää ole rakentava tai tuottava siinä mielessä, että sen pohjalta syntyisi politiikkaa, joka muodostaisi todellisen vaihtoehdon muille poliittisille suuntauksille. Tämä johtuu ensinnäkin siitä, että puolue on jo tehnyt itsensä turhaksi jo menneinä vuosikymmeninä, sillä sen hahmottelema valtiollinen kokonaisuus on jo ehditty koota valmiiksi (kieltämättä sitä tosiasiaa että se on jo sittemmin ehtinyt rapistua ja muuttaa muotoaan). Kaikki merkittävät muut puolueet ovat käytännössä sitoutuneet ylläpitämään tätä järjestelmää ja toimimaan sen sisällä, ei vähiten sen vuoksi että sosiaalipoliittiset uudistukset ovat voimakkaasti polkusidonnaisia, riippuvaisia jo paikallaan olevan lainsäädännön laadusta.
Toisaalta ajankohta ei ole otollinen sosiaalipoliittisille laajennuksille, joiden avulla sosiaalidemokraattista hanketta voisi jatkaa. Julkisen rahoituksen ollessa uhattuna ja rajoitettuna monelta suunnalta hyvinvointivaltio siirtyy kehityksessään jälkiekspansiiviseen vaiheeseen, jossa valtion osuuden laajentamisen sijaan keskitytään sen toimintojen hienosäätöön sekä prioriteettien uudelleenharkintaan. Tämän kehityksen välttämättömyydestä tai vaihtoehtojen olemassaolosta voisi keskustella pitkään. Useimpien eurooppalaisten maiden vasemmistopuolueet ovatkin muutoksen pohjalta hiljattain ja vähitellen vaihtaneet sosialisaatiovaatimuksensa eräänlaiseksi rakennekonservatiivisuudeksi, joka yhä vaatii julkisen sektorin osuuden kasvattamista tai vähintään säilyttämistä. Puolueiden heikkouden johdosta vaihtoehdon realistisuutta ei ole käytännössä koeteltu.
Jälkiekspansiivisessa vaiheessa kaikki suuret puolueet keskittyvät samankaltaisen politiikan ajamiseen. Sosiaalipoliittista järjestelmää kehitetään “kannustavammaksi” massatyöttömyyden voittamiseksi, julkisia palveluita pyritään muokkaamaan “tuottavammaksi”, ja EU:n tasolta saneltuihin suhteellisen rohkeisiin ympäristötavoitteisiin vastataan suhteellisen heikolla ekologisella modernisaatiolla. Kukin puolue voi toki uskoa tekevänsä näitä uudistuksia omista syistään, johtaen ne oman tausta-ideologiansa käsitteistä, koskivat ne sitten oikeudenmukaisuutta, vapautta tai yritteliäisyyttä, mutta lopputuloksia on vaikea erottaa toisistaan. Tästä huolimatta hyvinvointivaltion toimintaa uudelleenarvioidessa se poliittinen leiri, joka ei alunperin ollut vastuussa rakennelman pystyttämisestä, kykenee antamaan itsestään nuorekkaamman ja trendikkäämmän kuvan.
Mitkä ideologiset uudistukset tällaisessa tilanteessa voisivat todella synnyttää uutta, rakentavaa politiikkaa, samalla pysyen uskollisina sosiaalidemokraattiselle sosiaalisen oikeudenmukaisuuden ihanteelle? Ulrich Beck tarjoaa Die Zeitissa julkaistussa kirjoituksessaan “kosmopoliittista sosiaalidemokratiaa” vaihtoehdoksi. Hänen mukaansa kansallisvaltiot yksin ovat voimattomia uudenlaisten riskien, kuten terrorismin tai ilmastonmuutoksen, edessä. Tämä on tietysti kuultu jo lukemattomia kertoja. Beck tekee kuitenkin tärkeän siirron esittäessään ympäristöpulmat nimenomaan oikeudenmukaisuuteen, hyötyjen ja haittojen jakautumiseen liittyvinä pulmina. Hän liputtaa kosmopoliittista sosiaalidemokratiaa, joka tunnustaisi vähempiosaisten tarpeet ja oikeudet uusiin ongelmiin vastattaessa. Yhteistoiminta Beckin mukaan ainut keino palauttaa kansalaisvaltioille sananvalta kiristineessä maailmanlaajuisessa kyykytyskilpailussa.
Beckin vaatimukset on helppo sivuuttaa turhan utooppisina (vaihtoehtoisesti jopa oman sosiologian tarkoitushakuisena markkinointina), jo pelkästään sen vuoksi ettei esimerkiksi Suomen kaltaisella pienellä valtiolla ole tarvittavaa painoarvoa tai edes suvereeniutta hahmotellun yleismaailmallisen sosiaalidemokratian edellyttämän multilateraalisuden synnyttämiseksi. Beckin ehdotus kansallisvaltioiden uudelleenherättämiseksi ei juurikaan käsittele niitä politiikan aloja, joissa kansallisvaltiot vielä ovat vallassa: sosiaalipolitiikkaa, työoikeutta, jne. Sikäli kuin kyseessä on kokeileva keskustelunavaus, ei kirjoitusta tosin pitäisikään arvioida tältä pohjalta.
» 1 comment.Etelä-Suomen Sanomat kirjoitti jokin aika sitten pääkirjoituksen Euroopan Unionin palveluasetuksesta ja sen mukanaan tuomasta muutoksista joukkoliikenteen järjestämisen muotoihin. Asetus tulee näillä näkymin edellyttämään myös pienempiä kaupunkeja luopumaan linjaliikennelupajärjestelmästä ja kilpailuttamaan julkista liikennettä.
Timo Räty kirjoitti tekstiin vastineen, jossa hän kyseenalaisti kilpailuttamisen tuomia etuja ja puolusti käytössä olevaa järjestelmää. Teimme Dodon kurssin yhteydessä Heli Foxin ja Juhani Aaltosen kanssa mielipidekirjoituksen, joka argumentoi Rätyä vastaan. ESS ei kuitenkaan lähettämisen myöhästymisen, tekstin pituuden tai yleisen nuivuuden vuoksi julkaissut tekstiä, joten se saa nyt toteuttaa mullistavan vaikutustyönsä tämän viestimen välityksellä.
Kilpailuttamalla liikenne vihreämmäksi
Kilpailuttamisella on Suomessa huono kaiku. Se yhdistetään helposti palveluista tinkimiseen ja hyvinvointivaltion alasajoon.
Siksi on ymmärrettävää, että Timo Räty suhtautuu mielipidekirjoituksessaan (ESS 4.5.) epäillen suunnitelmiin julkisen liikenteen kilpailuttamisesta. Tosiasiassa joukkoliikenteen kaltaisessa palvelussa, jossa tilattavan palvelun laatu on suoraviivaisesti määriteltävissä, suurin osa kilpailutukseen kohdistetuista peloista osoittautuu turhiksi.
Räty kannattaa käytössä olevaa linjaliikennelupajärjestelmää. Siinä liikenneyrittäjille jaetaan kannattavien linjojen ajamiseen lupia, jotka ovat käytännössä ikuisia yksinoikeuksia kyseiseen liikenteeseen. Vain yrityksille kelpaamattomat linjat kilpailutetaan.
Räty perustelee kilpailutuksen kelvottomuutta omalla mielikuvallaan Helsingin joukkoliikenteen laadusta sekä kalleudesta. Hän lukee tilastoja kovin tarkoitushakuisesti, sillä Helsingin tuki matkaa kohti on tosiasiassa selvästi matalampi kuin useimmissa linjalupaliikenteellä toimivissa kaupungeissa.
Helsinkiä parempi vertailukohde olisi ruotsalainen Norrköping, kaupunki jossa on hieman vähemmän asukkaita kuin Lahdessa. Norrköpingissä suurin osa lähiliikenteestä hoidetaan raitiovaunuilla sekä tärkeimmillä linjoilla kymmenen minuutin välein kulkevilla busseilla. Lähikuntiin on hyvät yhteydet.
Norrköpingin Lahteen verrattuna eri luokkaa oleva palvelutaso perustuu Länstrafik-malliin, jossa julkinen liikenne suunnitellaan ja kilpailutetaan läänin tasolla. Julkisella suunnittelulla joukkoliikenteelle voidaan asettaa paljon tarkemmat vähittäisvaatimukset kuin pelkkiä liikennelupia jakaessa pystytään.
Norrköping osoittaa, ettei joukkoliikenteen taso riipu kaupungin koosta. Ihmisiä hyvin palveleva julkinen liikenne olisi mahdollista myös Lahdessa. Liikenteen järjestämisen tapa on ratkaiseva.
Suomessa suurien kaupunkien ulkopuolella käytössä oleva linjalupamalli johtaa järjestelmällisesti alhaisiin joukkoliikenteen määriin. Tämä johtuu siitä, että kannattavien linjojen suunnittelu ei ole julkisen hallinnon käsissä.
Riskiä kaihtava linja-autoyrittäjä ajaa vain sen verran vuoroja ja sillä palvelutasolla kuin omalle liiketoiminnalleen parhaiten sopii. Tuloksena autoja ajetaan tehottomasti ja palvelujen taso jää matalammiksi kuin yhteinen etu vaatisi.
Monopolilla ei ole kannustinta oman toimintansa kehittämiseen. Kannattavien vuorojen ajamisesta saatavilla tuloilla pystytään haastajat pitämään poissa ja hinnat korkealla myös kilpailutettavien linjojen kohdalla.
Jos kaupunki tilaisi liikenteen ja pitäisi lipputulot itsellään, se pystyisi tukemaan tappiota tekeviä linjoja kannattavista linjoista saatavilla tuloilla. Nyt linjalupien omistajille virtaavat voitot voisi ohjata joukkoliikenteen kehittämiseen.
Nykyisen järjestelmän kalleus ei kuitenkaan ole sen suurin synti. Oleellista on, että linjalupamallissa julkiseen liikenteeseen suhtaudutaan vain tuettuna liikennöitsijöiden liiketoimintana. Julkisen hallinnon tulisi sen sijaan nähdä joukkoliikenne peruspalveluna, joka toimiessaan oikein hyödyttää yhteiskuntaa kokonaisvaltaisesti.
Kaupunkien ei pidä vain kilpailla siitä kuka selviää julkisen liikenteen välttämättömästä pahasta halvimmalla. Niiden tulisi olla valmiita myös lisäämään joukkoliikenteeseen käytettyä rahaa. Vaikka nämä tuet näkyvätkin talousarviossa pelkkinä miinuksina, niillä on kaupunkeihin lukuisia myönteisiä vaikutuksia: eheämpi kaupunkirakenne, elävämpi keskusta, pienempi ekologinen jalanjälki ja ylipäätään houkuttelevampi muuttokohde uusille asukkaille.
Jos liikenteen suunnittelu on kaupungin hallinnolle liian suuri taakka, voidaan tehtävä antaa seudulliselle joukkoliikenneviranomaiselle. Tällöin myös laajemman alueen yhtenevät tarpeet tulisivat otettua huomioon.
Kilpailuttaminen ei mahdollisesti toisi ratkaisevia säästöjä joukkoliikenteen tukiin. Se on kuitenkin olennainen osa joukkoliikenteen määrän ja laadun kehittämisessä.
Siksi onkin hienoa, että EU:n tuleva palvelusopimusasetus puhaltaa uutta tuulta suomalaiseen joukkoliikenteeseen, joka jo pitkään on ollut suljettua, suojeltua ja tehotonta toimintaa. VTT on oikealla polulla suositellessaan kaupunginhallitukselle sopivien kilpailutusmallien sekä seutuyhteistyön selvittämistä.
Kuten myös Räty toteaa kirjoituksessaan, joukkoliikenteen laajuuden kasvattaminen on välttämätöntä ympäristön vuoksi. Suojellun linja-autoliiketoiminnan sisäpiirin avaaminen reilulle kisalle on ensimmäinen askel kohti vihreämpää liikennettä.
» No comments.