LECTURE on Crime (brief outline): Sociology of Deviance & Crime, (Understanding Deviance, Downes & Rock) SOC212, University of Toronto,
Professor Doug Thomson, January 2008

Capitalism :
- enriches only a minority while impoverishing the majority
- Crime is a political, not a value-free concept. What is and is not “criminal” reflects the power structures.

Only by rejecting the state definition of crime and redefining it as (crime = violation of human rights) can we as criminologists, oppose, rather than reinforce inequalities.

“In the process of redefining crime, criminologists will redefine themselves, no longer to be the defenders of order, but rather th guardians of human rights.”
(Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1975; 13

The criminal justice system serves the interest of the capitalist class because it processes the poor & minorities while allowing the rich to use their affluent resources to buy their way out. White collar crime is not represented fairly in the criminal justice system while the poor and minorities are over represented, “the rich get richer, the poor get prison.”

Capitalism is the root cause of crime because:
- it promotes competition and egoism
- among all classes
- human needs of the poor are ignored
- forced into social conditions that create crime (a rational response)
- “the profit above all else” factor also creates fertile ground for corporate crime

Solution (briefly) to Crime:
- A more equitable society
- criminologists should be more active in unmasking capitalism by promoting social justice (actively, not passively)

The only ideal socio-political system that can rid the MAJORITY of crime (mostly property) is Socialism because in principal:
- it promotes diversity
- equal sharing of all property
- no profit motive
etc.
________________________________________________

EFR (Ecological Fiscal Reforms) and Canada’s Environment
January 15, 2008

EFR, Ecological Fiscal Reform, is a concept that characterizes the redirection, or the shifting of current economic incentives and practices away from contemporary investments that encourage consumption without environmental assessment and cost taking into account, towards environmentally sustainable development. Where taxation economic policy tools can be shifted to created EFR with tax exemptions, direct spending, tax credits, program spending, permit trading, subsidies redirection and reforms, environmental tax shifting (also known as Ecological Tax Reform ETR) – where the adjustment of conventional tax policies can make environmental consequences a forefront of any business plan, incentives or increase taxes to cut environmental destructive practices. Revenue gathered from new eco-taxes can be ‘recycled’ through cuts in personal income taxes, new subsidies or credits for earth-friendly projects, renewable technology research and development or other sustainable development research and programs.

The fundamental focus of EFR or ERT are that it includes environmental implications of any economic activity into the market price, adding environmental consequences to the cost-benefit equation of investment decisions, hoping to encourage and shift ecologically-damaging goods and services towards more environmentally sustainable ones. The result will be a positive one that will stimulate new markets, new niche markets, new research and development into new products and services that are sustainable in practice and consumption, while promoting education and awareness on consumer thinking and choices when making a purchase.

EFR is currently not being fully practiced to its fullest potential in Canada, it is a vital tool in pollution reduction, prevention and control, in 25 environmental indicators, Canada is ranked 28th out of 29 countries based on the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). Ecological reforms will also most likely generate new and increased employment for people, this is based on proof from many European nations that have implemented broad-based EFR and ETR policies, where mainly increased eco-taxes are also accompanied with lowered payroll taxes. In North America, employers remit payroll taxes based on the amount of employees they have, such system is a disincentive for employers to create more jobs, by using revenue from eco-taxes to reduce these payroll taxes is to remove this disincentive to creating jobs, this principal and practice can also be implemented to financially reduce capital taxes for renewable energy and sustainable technology investments, research and development. Just like with payroll taxes, such tax reductions also remove the disincentive to capital investments in earth-friendly industries.

EFRs and ETRs are both economic tools that are vital to the current day problems faced by every single society on the planet who’s socio-economic and political system is capitalist-based and thus rely on endless growth based on finite resources. It will help improve the environment, increase GDP, increase employment and create ecologically sound and sustainable solutions while spurring new economic growth. On a political note, this is a policy and platform that is the centerpiece of the Green Party of Canada and increasingly that of the NDP and most recently, the Liberals and Quebec – which is the first province to implement a carbon tax on energy, and also every single major economist, financial and academic institution as well as the national CEO association has stepped out and said to our public office leaders, that a carbon tax (a form of EFR) will not damage the economy and will in fact have minimal short term impact but will create long-term benefits, both environmentally and economically, our government – both past Liberals and present Conservatives (especially) have refused to implement it. Europe’s implementation and EFRs and ETRs and their resounding success proves that all we lack is political will.

________________________________________________

Societal Actors and Forces: Business

The Power of Business
•business occupies a privileged position in the politics of capitalist societies – positions based on combination of cultural dominance of business values, the structural dependence of govnt on the behaviour of business, elite linkages and lobbying power that business interests wield through pressure politics.
Brooks and Stritch quoted in Macdonald, p. 69

The Quick History of Business Response to the Environ.: 1960s
•Prior 1960s, businesses essentially ignored anything to do w/ enviro degradation
•By late 1960s = mounting public pressure to pollution, resource use & health problems related economic activity
•Initial response: govnt uses regulatory and legislative tools on businesses to regulate the amount of pollution that could enter the environ. (eg. limits on amt. pollution could be released into air, land, water, human body)
•Business response: fight regulation by denying importance of the problem and/or arguing cost harm economy

The Quick History of Business Response to the Environ.: 1970s
•Businesses begin to beef up their public relations & enviro-management departments in response to growing public concern & mounting govnt pressure to use control tools
•Focus is on technical negotiations w/ govnt over contents of enviro regulations and legislation
•Begin changing enviro discourse away from command and control  voluntary behaviour as better option

The Quick History of Business Response to the Environ.: 1980s-90s
Emergence of self-regulatory initiatives:
–Canadian Chemical Producers Association (CCPA): Responsible Care
–International Organisation for Standards (eg. ISO 9000)
–Enviro Management Standards
•Emergence of voluntary actions as the preferred method to limit pollution in contrast to regulation
•Businesses begin making ties w/ enviro groups (eg. Loblaws and Pollution Probe) to look GREEN
•Emergence of business-friendly definition of sustainable develop.: idea that economic growth is answer to stopping, not cause of, enviro degradation

What Changed in 40 Years?
•Business is no longer defensively reacting to societal pressures about enviro degradation:
–they are defining how we think about enviro degradation (advertising, types of products, non-govntal think tanks, international lobbying, etc.)
–have succeeded in undermining credibility of enviro laws & regulation as best means of stopping degradation
–have convinced policy makers & citizens voluntary measures & self-regulating beh. is acceptable
–have developed very sophisticated govntal elite-access lobbying methods

Why the Change?
•Business people are citizens of planet earth and accept they must play their part
•Makes business sense:
–there is $$ to be made being seen as GREEN
–certain initiatives actually save $$ (eg. energy efficiency, reduced materials consumption)
–regain lost legitimacy
•Learned that its better to frame the debate (ie. define problem and solutions) than having it framed by opponents.
Also, this helps forestall further govnt regulations.

What Business Says: the Business Council on Sustainable Develop.
•The cornerstone of sustainable develop. is a system of open, competitive markets in which prices are made to reflect costs of enviro as well as other resources.
= This assertion is basis of much that follows in our book, and we hold it to be true for many reasons.
Schmidheiny, p. 15
–Implication here is what is good for market economy is good for environ.
It is a frontal assault against those who argue the opposite.

The BCSD Argument
•Sustainable develop. requires production of increasing amounts of g/s to meet needs of growing pop. (Schmidheiny, p.14)
–This definition makes sustainable develop. conditional on market economy thriving.
- This is good for bus. but does it help ecosystems by stopping increases in stock & flow resource depletion & pollution?
• At the same time, use of resources must become more efficient, production processes & consumption patterns must release less pollution.(p.14)
–This would decrease stock and flow resource depletion and pollution -per unit of economic output.
- But, doesn’t address issue of constant growth which leads to higher & higher levels of resource use & pollution.

Full-Cost Pricing:
The basic equations behind full-cost pricing
- For production, (industrial or agricultural) full cost = cost of production + cost of any enviro damage associated
- For use of resources, full cost = cost of extraction + cost of enviro damage

(Schmidheiny, p.17)
–This is a simple definition. So why haven’t these equations been used?
- Schmidheiny acknowledges it partly has to do w/ the difficulty of putting a price to ecological services such as the ozone layer. But there is another, larger reason.

The BCSD Argument
- Many production, extraction, and distribution processes don’t pay fully economic costs of activity
(land, labour and capital costs), much less the added costs of enviro damage.
- Because elements of these activities are subsidized.
- Subsidies that degrade the environ. are not a market failure but a policy failure.
(Schmidheiny, p.17)
– So improper pricing is not a market failure (eg. the Tragedy of the Commons), it is the product of bad policy which is created by govnt: politicians and bureaucrats.
–According to this argument, the very institution that is meant to help people -the state- is the cause. And if the state would make the right decisions (eg. stop interfering in market) everything would automatically self-correct

What is the Correct Govnt Response?
•The proper mix of the following available tools:
–Command and Control (eg. laws and regulations for severe enviro problems)
–Self-regulation (eg. through standards, targets)
–Economic Instruments (eg. pollution taxes or any other state action that alters the price of resources and goods and services in the marketplace)
•Preference is for a mix of self-regulation and the use of economic instruments because these are cheaper than govnt legislation and harness the power of the market

___________________________________________________

The BCSD Argument - Summary:
•Reason for enviro degradation is due to bad govnt policy (not market failure) that subsidizes cost of production.
•We need growth through market competition (i.e market economy) b/c this is only mechanism to create the technology required to reduce pollution and resource use
•More govnt regulation is not the answer for most enviro problems: rather, we need govnt to start using economic instruments (eg. pollution taxes)

What the BCSD Argument doesn’t address:
•incredible power business community has in determining what govnt does
•If there are govnt subsidies that distort prices, it is because business community asked for & received subsidies
•So, BCSD argu. blames politicians but fails acknowledge they’re responding to business community’s pressure
•This suggests = improper pricing is due to business asking for & receiving subsidies.
•Instead of the state regulating to avoid the tragedy of the commons (market failure),
……… it speeds it up by providing subsidies.
Nonetheless, the BCSD argument is that the state is responsible and needs a better response.

Business and the Environ.
Some Conclusions:
•In determining relationship w/ nature, market logic (max. profits) always dominates, even harmful to environ..
•While full cost pricing may make theoretical sense, rarely seems to work in practice.
•Business pays lip service to full cost pricing but will ignore it if it harms their bottom line.
•Business once again has gained upper hand in determining how state deals w/ enviro issues.
= Witness the lack of any real action on key enviro issues over the last 20 years.
•To date, neither business actions nor state regulations have led to any sig. reduction in pollution & resource use