Within siting literature there is strong agreement that compensation for environmental risks is a necessary condition for local acceptance of waste treatment facilities. In-kind compensation is commonly pushed forward as being more effective than financial benefits in reducing local opposition. By focusing on the siting of a sanitary landfill in Santiago, Chile, this paper explores the performance of both types of compensation and relates the analysis to the notion of social norms of exchange. These are understood as being based on three main types of social relations: care, justice and freedom. Whereas monetary compensation is associated with market relations based on freedom and the offer of in-kind compensation to egalitarian relations based on justice, the absence of compensation is linked to fraternal relations based on care. It is argued that in-kind compensation is more acceptable than monetary payments or no compensation because people tend to understand siting conflicts more as matters of justice rather than as matters of freedom or care.
AndersonE.1990. ‘The ethical limitations of the market’. Economics and Philosophy6: 179–205.
2.
AndersonE.1993. Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
3.
AndreJ.1995. ‘Blocked exchanges: a taxonomy’, in MillerD. and WalzerM. (eds), Pluralism, Justice, and Equality (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 171–196.
4.
BaronJ. and SprankaM.. 1997. ‘Protected values’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes70(1): 1–16.
5.
BefuH.1977. ‘Social exchange’, Annual Review of Anthropology6: 255–281.
6.
BoerN-I., van BaalenP.J. and KumarK.. 2002. ‘The importance of society for understanding knowledge sharing processes in organizational contexts’, ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002–05-LIS, February, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
7.
BohannanP.1955. ‘Some principles of exchange and investment among the Tiv’. American Anthropologist57(1): 60–70.
8.
CarruthersB.G. W.N. and Espeland. 1998. ‘Money, meaning, and morality’. American Behavioral Scientist41(10): 1384–1408.
9.
DaltonG.1971. Economic Anthropology and Development: Essays on Tribal and Peasant Economics. New York: Basic Books.
10.
DouglasM. and IsherwoodB.. 1979. The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption. New York: Routledge.
11.
EarleT.C. and CvetkovichG.. 1999. ‘Social trust and culture in risk management’, in CvetkovichG. and LöfstedtR.E. (eds), Social Trust and the Management of Risk (London: Earthscan), pp. 9–21.
12.
ElsterJ.1979. Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
FieldP., RaiffaH. and SusskindL.. 1996. ‘Risk and justice: rethinking the concept of compensation’. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science545: 156–164.
14.
FiskeA.P.1990. ‘Relativity within Moose (‘Mossi’) culture: four models for social relationships’. Ethos18(2): 180–204.
15.
FiskeA.P.1992. ‘The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified theory of social relations’. Psychological Review99(4): 689–723.
16.
FiskeA.P. and TetlockP.E.. 1997. ‘Taboo trade-offs: reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice’. Political Psychology18(2): 255–297.
17.
FreemanA.M.1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, D. C.: Resources for the Future.
18.
FreyB.1997. Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
19.
FreyB. and Oberholzer-GeeF.. 1996. ‘Fair siting procedures: an empirical analysis of their importance and characteristics’. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management15(3): 353–376.
20.
FreyB., Oberholzer-GeeF. and EichenbergerR.. 1996. ‘The Old Lady visits your backyard: a tale of morals and markets’. Journal of Political Economy104(6): 1297–1313.
21.
GerrardM.B.1994. Whose Backyard, Whose Risk: Fear and Fairness in Toxic and Nuclear Waste Siting. Cambridge, Massachusets: The MIT Press.
22.
GodboutJ.T.1998. The World of the Gift. In collaboration with A. Caillé. Translated from the French by WinklerD.. Montreal/Kingston: McGill- Queen's University Press.
23.
GroothuisP.A., van HoutvenG. and WhiteheadJ.C.. 1998. ‘Using contingent valuation to measure the compensation required to gain community acceptance of a LULU: the case of a hazardous waste disposal facility’. Public Finance Review26(3): 231–249.
24.
GrovesT.1979. ‘Efficient collective choice when compensation is possible’. The Review of Economic Studies46(2): 227–241.
25.
HeydT.2004. ‘Themes in Latin American environmental ethics: community, resistance and autonomy’. Environmental Values13(2): 223–242.
26.
HimmelbergerJ.J., RatickS. and WhiteA.L.. 1991. ‘Compensation for risks: host community benefits in siting locally unwanted facilities’. Environmental Management15(5): 647–658.
27.
HunoldC. and YoungI.M.. 1998. ‘Justice, democracy, and hazardous siting’. Political Studies46(1): 82–95.
28.
JacobsM.1991. The Green Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development and the Politics of the Future. London: Pluto Press.
29.
Jenkins-SmithH. and KunreutherH.. 2001. ‘Mitigation and benefits measures as policy tools for siting potentially hazardous facilities: determinants of effectiveness and appropriateness’. Risk Analysis21(2): 371–382.
30.
KinnearP.R. and GrayC.D.2000. SPSS for Windows Made Simple: Release 10. Hove: Psychology Press.
31.
KomterA.2001. ‘Heirlooms, nikes and bribes: towards a sociology of things’. Sociology35(1): 59–75.
32.
KopytoffI.1986. ‘The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process’, in AppaduraiA. (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 64–91.
33.
KunreutherH. and EasterlingD.. 1990. ‘Are risk–benefit tradeoffs possible in siting hazardous facilities?’ The American Economic Review80(2): 252–256.
34.
KunreutherH. and EasterlingD.. 1992. ‘Gaining acceptance for noxious facilities with economic incentives’, in BromleyD. W. and SegersonK. (eds), The Social Response to Environmental Risk: Policy Formulation in an Age of Uncertainty (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers), pp. 151–186.
35.
KunreutherH. and EasterlingD.. 1996. ‘The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities’. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management15(4): 601–622.
36.
LaneR. E.1991. The Market Experience. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
LidskogR.1998. ‘Social aspects of the siting of facilities for hazardous waste manage-ment’. Waste Management and Research16(5): 476–483.
38.
LidskogR.2001. ‘Siting conflicts – democratic perspectives and political implications’. Paper presented at the conference ‘New Perspectives on Siting Controversy’, Glumslöv.
39.
MacneilI.R.1986. ‘Exchange revisited: individual utility and social solidarity’. Ethics96(3): 567–593.
40.
MannixE.A., NealeM.A. and NorthcraftG.B.. 1995. ‘Equity, equality, or need? The effects of organizational culture on the allocation of benefits and burdens’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process63(3): 276–286.
41.
MansfieldC., Van HoutvenG. and HubeJ.. 1998. ‘Compensating for public harms: why public goods are preferred to money’, Working Paper, Duke University.
42.
MarkhamA.1994. A Brief History of Pollution. London: Earthscan.
43.
McMahonC.1991. ‘The paradox of deontology’. Philosophy and Public Affairs20(4): 350–377.
44.
MedinD.L., SchwartzH.C., BlokS.V. and BirnbaumL.A.. 1999. ‘The semantic side of decision making’. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review6(4): 562–569.
45.
MessickD.M.1999. ‘Alternative logics for decision making in social settings’. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization39(1): 11–28.
46.
NagelT.1979. ‘The fragmentation of value’, in his Mortal Questions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 128–141.
47.
O'HareM., BacowL. and SandersonD.. 1983. Facility Siting and Public Opposition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
PassmoreJ.1974. Man's Responsibility for Nature. London: Duckworth.
50.
PommerehneW.W., HartA. and SchneiderF.. 1997. ‘Tragic choices and collective decision-making: an empirical study of voter preferences for alternative collective decision-making mechanisms’. The Economic Journal107(442): 618–635.
51.
RabeB.G.1994. Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
52.
RennO., WeblerT. and KastenholzH.. 1998. ‘Procedural and substantive fairness in landfill siting: a Swiss case study’, in LöfstedtR.E. and FrewerL. (eds), The Earthscan Reader in Risk and Modern Society (London: Earthscan), pp. 253–270.
53.
SabbaghC., DarY. and ReshN.. 1994. ‘The structure of social justice judgements: a facet approach’. Social Psychology Quarterly57(3): 244–261.
54.
ShafirE., SimonsonI. and TverskyA.. 2000. ‘Reason-based choice’, in KahnemanD. and TverskyA. (eds), Choices, Values, and Frames (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 597–619.
55.
SmithA.1976. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. RaphaelD.D. and MacfieA.L.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
56.
SomaK.2006. ‘Natura economica in environmental valuations’. Environmental Values15(1): 31–50.
57.
SondakH., NealeM.A. and PinkleyR.. 1995. ‘The negotiated allocation of benefits and burdens: the impact of outcome valence, contribution, and relationship’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes64(3): 249–260.
58.
SpashC.L.2000. ‘Ethical motives and charitable contributions in contingent valuation: empirical evidence from social psychology and economics’. Environmental Values9(4): 453–479.
59.
van StaverenI.1999. Caring for Economics: An Aristotelian Perspective. Delft: Ebu-ron.
60.
SunsteinC.R.1991. ‘Preferences and politics’. Philosophy and Public Affairs20(1): 3–34.
61.
SunsteinC.R.1993. ‘Endogenous preferences, environmental law’. Journal of Legal Studies22(2): 217–254.
62.
VatnA.2000. ‘The environment as a commodity’. Environmental Values9(4): 493–509.
63.
ZelizerV.1998. ‘How do we know whether a monetary transaction is a gift, an entitlement, or compensation?’ in Ben-NerA. and PuttermanL. (eds), Economics, Values, and Organization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 329–333.
