Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection

Abstract

In this paper, we want to analyze conceptually whether and when merely using economic discourse -talking money -can crowd out people's positive attitudes towards environmental goods and their reasons to protect them. We concentrate on the specific case of market-based or monetary valuation (MV) as an instance of 'commodification in discourse' and argue that it can have the same moral problems as real commodification. We aim to bring together insights from philosophy (pluralistic value theory), ethics (corruption), economics and psychology (crowding-out) to argue that there are good reasons to think about how and when to apply MV in environmental cases. On the basis of this interdisciplinary analysis and in order to promote further empirical research, we develop four empirically falsifiable hypotheses. (i) Commodification in discourse can bring about real commodification. (ii) MV can have framing and crowding effects on those who come into contact with it. (iii) Intrinsic motivation is more robust than extrinsic motivation and leads less to freeriding. (iv) MV's framing and crowding effects can decrease (demand and support for) environmental protection.

The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?

“…(p. 75) For others though it is a question of language [44]. From this perspective the concern is less to do with the possibility of real (and perhaps inappropriate) commodification and more to do with the potential consequences of how the language of economic valuation can promote a "commodification in discourse".…”

“…These "reductionist" critiques are highlighted by [44] (p. 254) in their overview of the main criticisms of monetary valuation, where they remark: " . .…”

“…From this perspective the concern is less to do with the possibility of real (and perhaps inappropriate) commodification and more to do with the potential consequences of how the language of economic valuation can promote a "commodification in discourse". Here the issue is how a strand of discourse, by gaining widespread ascendency, essentially becomes (and is viewed as) the only conversation in-town: edging-out other equally valid forms of discussion and infusing the narrative in such a way that it potentially reproduces the same moral ambiguities as real commodification [44].…”

“…These issues have the potential to create an additional set of problems; specifically, the idea that monetary valuation, as an extrinsic motivator (i.e., a force that motivates people to act for purely instrumental reasons primarily in relation to the prospect of an exogenous gain), and by extension the incentive programmes that are often designed based on valuation exercises, can displace peoples' intrinsic motivations (i.e., pro-social and pro-nature motivations based on pure enjoyment and satisfaction) for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services leading to an overall decrease in the "demand and support for environmental protection" [44,71]. This so-called "crowding-out" effect (i.e., where monetary valuation, discourse, regulations and incentives displaces peoples' intrinsic motivations for environmental action as a consequence of reduced satisfaction, control aversion or frame shifting) has been identified, but so too, albeit to a lesser extent, has a "crowding-in" effect (i.e., where monetary valuation, regulations and incentives reinforce peoples' intrinsic motivations to engage in environmental protection through internal satisfaction, social standing, or positive attitudes and trust) [71].…”

Payments for Ecosystem Services—the Case of Forests

“…Evidence shows that in some cases merely the presence of incentives may have unintended consequences [114,115]; in some other cases, it is their extent or type (cash vs. in-kind) that triggers the unwanted reaction [111]. On the other hand, PES can strengthen social cohesion and improve collective action [43,59], therefore resulting in crowding in effects.…”