Advertisement

Budgeting the Future: Negotiating the Values of a Contemporary Liberal Democracy

  • Başak Saraç-Lesavre
Chapter
Part of the Technology, Work and Globalization book series (TWG)

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that scientific, political and regulatory institutions are not armed with instruments to govern temporalities and risks associated with nuclear waste. Nevertheless, Institutions are assigned to craft mechanisms that would enable nuclear waste programmes to attain their moral, political, technical objectives: confining nuclear waste from the biosphere in order to protect present and far-future generations. Among other things, this requires fashioning a budgetary mechanism that would be immune from political alterations, and finding an arrangement that would keep the budgetary mechanism accountable to contemporary institutions. It proves difficult to reconcile those two contradicting values and translating them into a budgetary mechanism. The chapter treats this problem within the context of the U.S. nuclear waste programme.

Keywords

Valuation Waste Nuclear Accountability Long-term futures Budgetary mechanism 

References

  1. Adam, B. (1999). Radiated identities: In pursuit of the temporal complexity of conceptual cultural practices. In M. Featherstone & S. Lash (Eds.), Spaces of culture (pp. 138–158). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Adam, B., & Groves, C. (2007). Future matters. Action, knowledge, ethic. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akrich, M. (1992). The description of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arnaboldi, M., & Palermo, T. (2011). Translating ambiguous reforms: Doing better next time? Management Accounting Research, 22(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barretta, A., & Busco, C. (2011). Technologies of government in public sector’s networks: In search of cooperation through management control innovations. Management Accounting Research, 22(4), 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barthe, Y. (2006). Le pouvoir d’indécision: La mise en politique des déchets nucléaires. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  7. Benford, G. (2000). Deep time: How humanity communicates across millennia. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  8. Bloomfield, B. P., & Vurdubakis, T. (2005). The secret of Yucca Mountain: Reflections on an object in extremis. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(5), 735–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  10. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain: Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  11. Cotton, T. A. (1982). Testimony of Thomas A. Cotton. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources & Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Joint Hearing. First Session on S. 637 and S.1662, 97th Cong. 286 (1981). Energy and Natural Resources Committee Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1939). Theory of valuation. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Retrieved from http://doi.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1939-05448-001
  13. Fourcade, M. (2011). Cents and sensibility: Economic valuation and the nature of “Nature”. American Journal of Sociology, 116(6), 1721–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galison, P., & Moss, R. (2015). Containment. 80 mins, a film by Peter Galison and Robb Moss (producers and directors), Chyld King (co-producer). Boston, MA: Redacted Pictures LLC. Retrieved from www.containmentmovie.com
  15. Hezir, J. (2011). Budgets and financial improvements to the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) Background report to the Blue Ribbon Foundation on America’s Nuclear Future. Washington, DC: Blue Ribbon Foundation. Retrieved from https://curie.ornl.gov/system/files/documents/not%20yet%20assigned/brc_hezir_nwfbudget_051511.pdf
  16. Ialenti, V. F. (2014). Adjudicating deep time: Revisiting the United States’ high-level nuclear waste repository project at Yucca Mountain. Society, Science and Technology Studies, 27(2), 27–48.Google Scholar
  17. Interagency Review Group. (1979). Report to the President by the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management. Washington, DC: Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  18. Kuletz, V. (1998). The tainted desert: Environmental ruin in the American West. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (Eds.). (2004). Gouverner par les instruments. Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques.Google Scholar
  20. Latour, B. (1984). The powers of association. The Sociological Review, 32(S1), 264–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Long, J. C., & Ewing, R. C. (2004). Yucca Mountain: Earth-science issues at a geologic repository for high-level nuclear waste. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 32, 363–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacFarlane, A., & Ewing, R. C. (Eds.). (2006). Uncertainty underground: Yucca Mountain and the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Martin, I. W., Mehrotra, A. K., & Prasad, M. (2009). The new fiscal sociology: Taxation in comparative and historical perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Masco, J. (2005). A notebook on desert modernism: From the Nevada test site to Liberace’s two-hundred-pound suit. In D. Rosenberg & S. F. Harding (Eds.), Histories of the future (pp. 23–49). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Metlay, D. (2000). From tin roof to torn wet blanket: Predicting and observing groundwater movement at a proposed nuclear waste site. In D. Sarewitz, R. A. Pielke, & R. Byerly (Eds.), Prediction: Science, decision making, and the future of nature (pp. 199–228). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (1987). Accounting and the construction of the governable person. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(3), 235–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muniesa, F. (2011). A flank movement in the understanding of valuation. The Sociological Review, 59(s2), 24–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nuclear Waste Policy Act. (1982). Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 42 U.S.C. § 10101–10270 (2006). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  29. Office of Technology Assessment. (1982). Managing commercial high-level radioactive waste. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  30. Oreskes, N. (2000). Why predict? Historical perspectives on predictions in earth science. In D. Sarewitz, R. A. Pielke, & R. Byerly (Eds.), Prediction: Science, decision making, and the future of nature (pp. 199–228). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  31. Patashnik, E. M. (2000). Putting trust in the US budget: Federal trust funds and the politics of commitment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the State: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schick, A. (2000). The federal budget: Politics, policy, process. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  35. Shrader-Frechette, K. (2005). Mortgaging the future: Dumping ethics with nuclear waste. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 518–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. U.S. Congressional Budget Office. (1981). Financing radioactive waste disposal (CBO Staff Working Paper). Submitted to the Joint Hearing of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Public Works First Session on S. 637 and S. 1662. October 5, 1981. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  37. U.S. Congressional Budget Office. (1982). Financing radioactive waste disposal (Y 10.2:F 49/2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  38. U.S. Department of Energy. (1984). Managing nuclear waste: A better idea. Report to the U.S. Secretary of Energy. Panel on Alternatives for Managing and Financing Nuclear Waste. Washington, DC: Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Department of Energy. (1985). Response letter to the Report of the Panel on the alternative means for managing and financing civilian radioactive waste policy, April 18, 1985. Washington, DC: Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  40. Wildavsky, A. (1988). The new politics of the budgetary process. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Başak Saraç-Lesavre
    • 1
  1. 1.Mines ParisTechPSL Research UniversityPARISFrance

Personalised recommendations