Site Fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West

by Daniel P. Aldrich

One of the most vexing problems for governments is building controversial facilities that serve the needs of all citizens but have adverse consequences for host communities. Policymakers must decide not only where to locate often unwanted projects but also what methods to use when interacting with opposition groups. In Site Fights, Daniel P. Aldrich gathers quantitative evidence from close to five hundred municipalities across Japan to show that planners deliberately seek out acquiescent and unorganized communities for such facilities in order to minimize conflict. When protests arise over nuclear power plants, dams, and airports, agencies regularly rely on the coercive powers of the modern state, such as land expropriation and police repression. Only under pressure from civil society do policymakers move toward financial incentives and public relations campaigns. Through fieldwork and interviews with bureaucrats and activists, Aldrich illustrates these dynamics with case studies from Japan, France, and the United States. The incidents highlighted in Site Fights stress the importance of developing engaged civil society even in the absence of crisis, thereby making communities both less attractive to planners of controversial projects and more effective at resisting future threats.

272 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

Reviews

[cab]

Interesting thesis: that states site public bad facilities in (eligible) locations with the weakest civil societies, and least connections: of these, rural, depopulating towns and “boomtowns” (towns that have experienced massive population booms) are most likely to fulfil these characteristics.

Fascinated by Aldrich’s methodology, a combination of quantitative (GIS, statistical) research and qualitative (interviews, surveys, and archive).

I find Aldrich’s argument convincing for the most part, except I find that he doesn’t quite accurately represent the diversity of environmental racism (to be fair to Aldrich, his book was published in 2008 — this was even before the 311 disaster). Aldrich characterises environmental racism as stating that “state agencies target local communities on the basis of race and ethnicity” — this, as Aldrich identifies, is the strong version of environmental racism (but what about weaker arguments of environmental racism? that note the disproportionate way BIPOC people are affected by environmental issues?) He in turn reports that he has uncovered “no systematic attempts to locate nuclear power plants dams, or airports in Hokkaido and Okinawa, areas known for their minority populations”. While acknowledging Okinawa claims of unfairly shouldering Japan’s defence burden, Aldrich otherwise skirts around this issue. He cites Louisiana’s Cancer Alley as an example of places that have failed to stop siting attempts, but forgoes the place as a crucial site for examination of race relations and environmental racism.

Would love for extensions of Aldrich’s studies — how might strength of civil societies be affected by race, or class? (do racially diverse communities in Japan report weaker ties?) In addition, I think the literature on environmental racism has really advanced in the last fifteen years, so I would love to read some responses to Aldrich, and also more studies on environmental racism in Japan.

[Shirley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Daniel P. Aldrich's Site Fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West is an extraordinarily comprehensive overview of the factors surrounding the placement of unwanted facilities in Japan and France, with some brief mention of conflicts that occurred in the United States. He focuses on three types of facilities in particular: dams, airports, and nuclear power plants. These facilities are both "public goods" and "public bads" in that they provide diffuse benefits to the majority of society in the form of clean drinking water, power, and transportation, but the create high costs that must be paid by a small, geographically isolated chunk of the population. His argument is a simple yet powerful one: civil society affects the placement of controversial facilities. He divides this argument into two main points. States handle initial conflict by avoiding areas with high levels of civil society and thus the most potential for resistance and, when encountering resistance, states use coercion and hard social control first.
As with any book mentioning civil society, Aldrich handpicks his own definition, describing it as "sustained, organized social activity that occurs in groups that are formed outside the state, the market, and the family"(15). This definition is sufficiently vague enough to allow its application to Japan without requiring any messy argument over the existence of a Japanese civil society. He spells out clearly how he measures civil society - through "quality," the depths of connections between individuals and through "relative capacity," the number of individuals in a particular civil society. Throughout his examination of controversial sitings in France, Japan, and the US, he shows how these qualities of civil society are the most important in facilitating effective resistance.
Most refreshing is his examination of all stages of the selection process. Rather than merely looking at cases and times when civil society reacts to a public bad, Aldrich looks at what occurs before that, examining the reasoning behind a state's choice of a certain site. He argues that, while technical feasibility is an obvious major factor behind siting decisions, it is not the only one. Rather, states behave in a Machiavellian manner by purposely seeking out sites with the least potential for resistance.
As clear-cut and articulate as his argument is, it is difficult to imagine a negative critique of this book. Aldrich carefully covers all his bases with clear explanations of all his data and painstakingly illustrates every step he took to get to his conclusion. This book will be an excellent read for all those interested in state strategies against resistance, no matter their country of focus.