Abstract
This paper analyzes the relationship between state-oriented and neoliberal approaches to environmental regulation by examining simultaneous efforts to protect the endangered Steller sea lion and to privatize the fishery for Alaska pollock. Because these policies were designed and implemented at the same time and for the same industry, this case offers a unique opportunity to explore in detail not transitions from one type of policy regime to another but, rather, how these different policy regimes articulate. Rather than focusing on reregulation which occurs when neoliberal restructuring shifts away from traditional regulation while simultaneously developing new, market-oriented forms of regulation, this paper focuses on a different kind of reregulation which occurs when state-oriented and market-oriented approaches must coexist. Analysis of how regulators themselves write about the conjunction of these policies reveals that the two forms of regulation can be complementary. To the extent that neoliberal restructuring has environmental benefits, these are mediated through traditional environmental protections, and although restructuring is presented as a means of mitigating the negative economic effects of state-oriented regulation, these effects are quite consistent with the goals of restructuring. Further, this analysis also reveals the power of neoliberal discourse. Despite their own statements about the complex articulation of the policies, regulators attribute benefits to privatization and problems to state-oriented regulation. This case highlights the inability of neoliberalism to subsume its outsides—alternatives are already existing—but also highlights that these outsides can themselves come to support what they seem to oppose.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.