Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 209–229 | Cite as

Knowledge Production, Mobilization and Standardization in Chile’s HidroAysén Case

  • Claudio Broitman
  • Pablo Kreimer
Article

Abstract

The Aysén Hydroelectric Project in Chilean Patagonia proposed the construction of the country’s largest power facility to supply its capital, nearly 2,000 kilometres away. We seek to explain the way science, politics, law, business and the civilian population are joined up. To this end, we analyse the project’s evolution, the construction of techno-scientific arguments by the participants and how Chilean regulations are adapting to this process.

Keywords

Knowledge production Controversy Expertise Environmental impact study Hydroelectricity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank very useful comments made by an anonymous reviewer.

References

  1. Akrich, Madeleine, Michel Callon, and Bruno Latour. 2006. Sociologie de la traduction: Textes fondateurs. Paris: Les Presses de l’École de Mines de Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arenas, Frederico, and Pablo Osses McIntyre. 2012. Hydropower in Chilean Patagonia: Evaluating socio-economic conditions for resettlement and/or compensation of rural inhabitants. In Studies in Applied Geography and Spatial Analysis: Addressing Real World Issues, eds. Robert Stimson, and Kingsley E. Haynes, 346–357. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arriagada, Genaro. 1995. Política Ambiental Nacional y el NAFTA. Ambiente y Desarrollo 11(2): 12–14.Google Scholar
  4. Asche, Frank, Havard Hansen, Ragnar Tveteras, and Sigbjørn Tveteras. 2010. The Salmon Disease Crisis in Chile. Marine Resource Economics 24: 405–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avila Akerberg, Andrés. 2011. La implementación de las disposiciones medioambientales en los tratados de libre comercio. Washington: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.Google Scholar
  6. Bauer, Carl J. 2009. Dams and Markets: Rivers and Electric Power in Chile. Natural Resources Journal 49(3–4): 583–651.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, Carl J. 1998. Against the Current: Privatization, Water Markets, and the State in Chile. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baya-Laffite, Nicolás. 2015. Black-boxing Sustainable Development: Environmental Impact Assessment on the River Uruguay. In Knowing Governance: The Epistemic Construction of Political Order, eds. Jan-Peter Voß, and Richard Freeman, 237-255. London: Palgrave Studies in Science, Knowledge and Policy, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Boudia, Soraya, and Nathalie Jas. 2007. Introduction: Risk and Risk Society in Historical Perspective. History and Technology: An International Journal 23(4): 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broitman, Claudio. 2017. Entre la construction du point de vue et l’immersion sensible: comprendre le cours d’un projet – le cas d’un projet de barrages hydroélectriques au Chili. Paris: Université Paris Sorbonne – Paris IV.Google Scholar
  12. Burchardt, Hans-Jürgen, and Kristina Dietz. 2014. (Neo-)extractivism – a new challenge for development theory from Latin America. Third World Quarterly 35(3): 468–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callon, Michel. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, ed. John Law, 196–223. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Books.Google Scholar
  14. Callon, Michel. 2006a. Sociologie de l’acteur réseau. In Sociologie de la traduction: Textes fondateurs, eds. Madeleine Akrich, Michel Callon, and Bruno Latour, 267–301. Paris: Les Presses de l’École de Mines de Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Callon, Michel. 2006b. Quatre modèles pour écrire la dynamique de la science. In Sociologie de la traduction: Textes fondateurs, eds. Madeleine Akrich, Michel Callon, and Bruno Latour, 201–251. Paris: Les Presses de l’École de Mines de Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe. 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
  17. Camus, Pablo, and Ernst Hajek. 1998. Historia ambiental de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.Google Scholar
  18. Cárcamo, P. Francisco, Maritza Cortés, A. Lorena Ortega, Francisco Squeo, and Carlos F. Gaymer. 2012. Crónica de un conflicto anunciado: Tres centrales termoeléctricas a carbón en un hotspot de biodiversidad de importancia mundial. Revista chilena de historia natural 84(2): 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carruthers, David. 2001. Environmental politics in Chile: Legacies of dictatorship and democracy. Third World Quarterly 22(3): 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  21. Collins, Harry M. 1975. The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics. Sociology 9(2): 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Collins, Harry M. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Collins, Harry M., and Steven Yearley. 1992. Epistemological Chicken. In Science as Practice and Culture, ed. Andrew Pickering, 301–326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente (CONAMA). 2003. Estrategia Nacional de Biodiversidad. Santiago de Chile: Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente.Google Scholar
  25. Corbo, Vittorio, and Agustín Hurtado. 2014. Causas y consecuencias del problema energético en Chile: Una visión desde la macroeconomía. Puntos de referencia 382: 1–16.Google Scholar
  26. Costa Cordella, Ezio. 2012. ¿El SEIS en crisis? Conflictos ambientales y ciudadanía. Derecho y Humanidades 20: 357–374.Google Scholar
  27. Dalgalarrondo, Sébastien. 2004. Sida: la course aux molécules. Paris: École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Doyle, Jack. 1985. Altered Harvest: Agriculture, Genetics and the Fate of the World’s Food Supply. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  29. Dunlap, Riley E. 2015. Environmental sociology. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, vol. 7, 2nd ed, ed. James Wright, 796–803. London: Elsevier Science & Technology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dunlap, Riley E., and William R. Catton. 1979. Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 5: 243–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Epstein, Steven. 2001. Histoire du sida. Paris: Empêcheurs de penser en rond.Google Scholar
  32. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental ‘Proyecto Hidroeléctrico Aysén’. 2008. http://infofirma.sea.gob.cl/DocumentosSEA/MostrarDocumento?docId=e8/03/92eaee0642bbba32b4c1a28aeec61da6e66d. Accessed 9 Oct 2017.
  33. Garretón, Manuel Antonio. 1990. “La redemocratización política en Chile: Transición, inauguración y evolución”. Estudios Públicos 42: 101–133.Google Scholar
  34. Grisoni, Anahita, and Sophie Némoz. 2013. La sociologie, discipline experte des controverses environnementales? VertigO 13(2). doi: 10.4000/vertigo.14157.
  35. Hadley, Malcolm. 2006. Nature to the fore: The early years of UNESCO’s environmental programme, 1945–1965. In Sixty Years of Science at UNESCO 1945–2005, eds. Patrick Petijean, Vladimir Zharov, Gisbert Glaser, Bruno de Padirac, and Gail Archibald, 201–232. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Hannigan, John. 2006. Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructivist Perspective. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul Books.Google Scholar
  37. Holmes, George. 2014. What is a land grab? Exploring green grabs, conservation, and private protected areas in southern Chile. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41(4): 547–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1995. Procedural Choices in Regulatory Science. Technology in Society 17: 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of Knowledge. The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kreimer, Pablo. 1999. De probetas, computadoras y ratones. La construcción de una mirada sociológica sobre la ciencia. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.Google Scholar
  42. Kreimer, Pablo, and Juan Pablo Zabala. 2007. Chagas Disease in Argentina: Reciprocal Construction of Social and Scientific Problems. Science, Technology and Society. doi: 10.1177/097172180601200104.Google Scholar
  43. Latour, Bruno. 1984. Les microbes: guerre et paix. Paris: Editions Métailié.Google Scholar
  44. Mace, Georgina. 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345: 1558–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. 1972. The Limits to Growth. Washington, DC: Universe Books.Google Scholar
  46. Molina, Raúl, and Martín Correa. 1996. Las comunidades pehuenches del Alto Bío-Bío. Santiago de Chile: Corporación Nacional de Desarrollo Indígena (CONADI).Google Scholar
  47. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente. 2014. Quinto informe nacional de biodiversidad de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Ministerio del Medio Ambiente.Google Scholar
  48. Mirosevic Verdugo, Camilo. 2011. La participación ciudadana en el procedimiento de evaluación ambiental y las reformas introducidas por la ley 20.417. Revista de derecho de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso 36: 281–323.Google Scholar
  49. Nakashima, Douglas, and Annette Nilsson. 2006. Linking biological and cultural diversity. Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS) project. In Sixty Years of Science at UNESCO 1945–2005, eds. Patrick Petijean, Vladimir Zharov, Gisbert Glaser, Bruno de Padirac, and Gail Archibald, 385–388. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). 2005. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Chile 2005. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. Olivares, Alberto. 2010. El nuevo marco institucional ambiental en Chile. Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental 1(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
  52. Pestre, Dominique. 2003. Science, argent et politique. Editions Quae: Un essai d’interprétation. Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pestre, Dominique. 2006. Introduction aux Science Studies. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  54. Petitjean, Patrick. 2006. International Science Cooperation: Finding a Footing. In Sixty Years of Science at UNESCO 1945–2005, eds. Patrick Petijean, Vladimir Zharov, Gisbert Glaser, Bruno de Padirac, and Gail Archibald, 48–51. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Pickering, Andrew. 1990. Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Raineri, Ricardo. 2006. Where it all started. In Electricity Market Reform. An International Perspective, eds. Fereidoon Sioshansi, and Wolfgang Pfaffenberg, 77–108. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ramírez, Carlos, Víctor Sandoval, Cristina San Martín, Miguel Álvarez, Yessica Pérez, and Carla Novoa. 2012. El paisaje rural antropogénico de Aisén, Chile: Estructura y dinámica de la vegetación. Gayana Botánica 69(2): 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Spoerer, Mathilde. 2013. Participación ciudadana e incidencia política: estudio del caso Barrancones. Persona y sociedad XXVII(1): 17–44.Google Scholar
  60. Silva, Eduardo. 2009. Challenging Neoliberalism in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Star, Susan Leigh, and James Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tecklin, David, Carl J. Bauer, and Manuel Prieto. 2011. Making environmental law for the market: The emergence, character, and implications of Chile’s environmental regime. Environmental Politics 20(6): 879–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tironi, Manuel, and Javiera Barandiarán. 2014. Neoliberalism as Political Technology: Expertise, Energy and Democracy in Chile. In Beyond Imported Magic: Studying Science and Technology in Latin America, eds. Eden Medina, Ivan da Costa Márques, and Christina Holmes, 305-329. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  64. Urkidi, Leire. 2010. A glocal environmental movement against gold mining: Pascua-Lama in Chile. Ecological Economics 70(2): 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. United Nations. 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf. Accessed 9 Oct 2017.
  66. Whitley, Richard D. 1970. Black boxism and the sociology of science: A discussion of the major developments in the field. The Sociological Review 18: 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad de Santiago de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.CONICET, Universidad MaimónidesBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations