“Regulatory capture” and “extractive hegemony”: the relevance of Nicos Poulantzas’ theory of the state to contemporary environmental politics in Canada

Abstract

This paper considers the relevance of Nicos Poulantzas’ theory of the state to debates about hydrocarbon extraction and environmental assessment in Canada. I begin with a brief summary of Poulanztas’ work, followed by an overview of the politics of hydrocarbon extraction in Canada. Next, I examine recent public policy debates about the assessment and regulation of energy extraction in Canada. These debates, which focus on the concept of “regulatory capture,” fall victim to many of the problems Poulantzas identifies with instrumentalist approaches to the state. Critical accounts of regulatory capture have helped expose the fact that oil companies exercise an incredible degree of control over the Canadian state. However, it offers limited guidance for long-term strategies to confront extractive capital. In the section on “Environmental assessment and extractive hegemony,” I draw on Poulantzas to examine recent academic debates about the role of environmental assessment in the reproduction of extractive capitalism in Canada. Scholars have shown a more nuanced understanding of the power dynamics at play in the assessment and regulation of energy projects in Canada. Nevertheless, engagement with Poulantzas’ work can help deepen and expand these critiques, especially his emphasis on the role of state-organized material concessions in producing consent to capitalism.

The Duty to Consult and Colonial Capitalism: Indigenous Rights and Extractive Industries in the Inuit Homeland in Canada

“…Elsewhere (Bernauer, 2020a) I have argued that this balancing of interests is part of a hegemonic form of colonial domination, wherein the state produces consent to the colonial and capitalist status quo, in part by granting concessions to subordinate groups (see for example : Poulantzas, 1978;Chaterjee, 1993). While these concessions sometimes go against the short-term economic interests of some mining, oil, or hydroelectric companies, they nonetheless serve the long-term political interests of extractive industries insofar as they help generate public and institutional support for extraction more generally (Bernauer, 2020b).…”

Inconsistent, downplayed, and pathologized: How mining's gendered impacts are considered in BC environmental assessment

“…Given these low rates of rejection, some scholars argue that EAs primarily function to legitimize development. Bernauer (2020b, 168) reviewed the critical EA literature on Canada and concluded the “assessment process works to depoliticize extraction by focusing on technical discussions and thus ignoring political claims from Indigenous Peoples and the climate movement” (e.g., Westman 2013; Dokis 2015; Bernauer 2020a). For these scholars, EA is a tool of legitimation that helps states manage economic development demands while appearing to protect the environment and communities against adverse impacts.…”

Improvising against the racial state in Atlanta: Reimagining agency in environmental justice

“…We follow Collins’ approach to chart complex movements between engagement with state institutions and collective consciousness-raising. As Lee (2016: 19) argues, “movements are always already lodged inside the liberal economy, and their hope for change may similarly hinge on their submitting to a complex process of instrumental negotiation within this economy.” While political and economic processes are skewed to serve dominant interests, the state is nonetheless a social relation that mediates between different social forces and offers opportunities for different groups (Bernauer, 2020). To support community participation, governance processes now offer communities funding opportunities.…”