7th June 2009, 12:13 AM
Thanks Yellowpete, that?s certainly a direction I didn?t expect the discussion to go in! To be honest I think I?ll leave that one to the garbologists. Cheers though.
@1man1desk, I admire your clarity on this, and I?m sure you could go on! I could too... but I think I?ll draw this one to a close. But before I go:
You are right that there are advantages to the capitalist model beyond shifting the cost burden from the public purse. But the same logic you use to argue for better management of the resource (a strong financial incentive to seek less damaging alternatives) I could say results in a poorer quality archaeological product (because of the strong financial incentive to seek a much cheaper archaeologist).
Regulatory mechanisms aside, the procurement models we use to mitigate the harm of development are never neutral and always have a baring on knowledge production. Take your example of road schemes. These may be funded partly or wholly by public money but are not ?socialist? enterprises: they are delivered in a highly competetive market environment. But does this also affect how we know what we know?
A comparison with other linear assessments (such as pipelines) shows that when different methodologies are employed there are also differences in the quantity and quality of the results. Both linear schemes are underpinned by the polluter-pays principle, but I would argue that the pipeline client has increased leverage over the archaeological contractor than the road scheme client, by virtue of the greater public perception of the impact of road schemes, and the requirement to be seen to do the right thing. There are also other issues here to do with different regulation and monitoring frameworks on pipeline projects, as well as the near monopoly enjoyed by one archaeological supplier... but that?s beyond the scope of this thread, and I?m trying to draw this to a close!
I think what?s most surprised me is that although this thread has been viewed over a thousand times, no one has even considered any other ways of doing development-led archaeology. All the arguments that have been proposed here for keeping the current system are logical, but they are based on a premise ? a particularly view of what motivates people to action - that you may or may not agree with.
Money, getting more of it, and the fate-worse-than-death-threat of loosing it. True, that tends to focus the mind on the job in hand, but I can?t help thinking that somewhere along the line we?ve all been sold short.
Feel free to keep this one going, but in the words of Duncan Ballantyne: I?m out.
http://www.diggingthedirt.com
@1man1desk, I admire your clarity on this, and I?m sure you could go on! I could too... but I think I?ll draw this one to a close. But before I go:
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
The advantages of this approach aren't limited to saving public money by putting the cost on the developer. More important considerations include:
a closer relationship between the developer and environmental professionals allows the latter to influence the developer's decision-making early in the project, often preventing some of the worst impacts before the planning application is submitted
You are right that there are advantages to the capitalist model beyond shifting the cost burden from the public purse. But the same logic you use to argue for better management of the resource (a strong financial incentive to seek less damaging alternatives) I could say results in a poorer quality archaeological product (because of the strong financial incentive to seek a much cheaper archaeologist).
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
It would be fairer to say that in any society (socialist, capitalist or other) anyone who plans an activity that would damage the environment (including archaeology) is under an obligation to do what they can to reduce or mitigate the harm. One of the implications of that obligation is that they should be made to pay for any investigation or mitigation works that are required. This is irrespective of whether the damaging activity itself is driven by a profit motive.
Regulatory mechanisms aside, the procurement models we use to mitigate the harm of development are never neutral and always have a baring on knowledge production. Take your example of road schemes. These may be funded partly or wholly by public money but are not ?socialist? enterprises: they are delivered in a highly competetive market environment. But does this also affect how we know what we know?
A comparison with other linear assessments (such as pipelines) shows that when different methodologies are employed there are also differences in the quantity and quality of the results. Both linear schemes are underpinned by the polluter-pays principle, but I would argue that the pipeline client has increased leverage over the archaeological contractor than the road scheme client, by virtue of the greater public perception of the impact of road schemes, and the requirement to be seen to do the right thing. There are also other issues here to do with different regulation and monitoring frameworks on pipeline projects, as well as the near monopoly enjoyed by one archaeological supplier... but that?s beyond the scope of this thread, and I?m trying to draw this to a close!
I think what?s most surprised me is that although this thread has been viewed over a thousand times, no one has even considered any other ways of doing development-led archaeology. All the arguments that have been proposed here for keeping the current system are logical, but they are based on a premise ? a particularly view of what motivates people to action - that you may or may not agree with.
Money, getting more of it, and the fate-worse-than-death-threat of loosing it. True, that tends to focus the mind on the job in hand, but I can?t help thinking that somewhere along the line we?ve all been sold short.
Feel free to keep this one going, but in the words of Duncan Ballantyne: I?m out.
http://www.diggingthedirt.com