- Email: [email protected]
Land Use Conflicts: Organizational Design and Resource Management
Book Review
Land Use Conflicts: Organizational Design and Resource Management H e r m a n L. B o s c h k e n University of Illinois Press Urbana 1982 Reviewed by
Norman Dale Doctoral Candidate Department of Urban Studies and Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
dures of three types of administrative structures. Boschken distinguishes the functional differences between unitary bureaucracy, "intuitionist" commissions and decentralized networks of concurrent government. The tasks dictated by the nature of land use conflicts are clearly articulated from the outset: first, representing increasingly diverse interests in allocating land use; and second, ensuring production and utilization of the best possible information. Boschken makes clear from the outset which administrative structure he prefers: A central theme is that the large bureaucratic decision structures . . . have reinforced a myopia that de-emphasizes environmental dynamics and the need for broader representation. A second theme is that a policentric or non-hierarchical net,,,ork may produce results that have a lower net cost to s o c i e t y . . , than the unitary bureaucracy.
During the 1960's a central committee member of the People's Republic of China was heard to say of the young Western radicals of the time, they" know what to run from, but not what to run to. Readers of the growing literature on environmental conflicts and resolution may be left with a similar impression. The shortcomings of longstanding approaches to dispute resolution - - administrative rulings and adjudication - - have been described in considerable detail. Meanwhile, insufficient effort has been devoted to developing a positive case for alternatives such as environmental mediation. Practitioners have sorely needed a welldeveloped theory supporting the fit of the mediation approach to "the tasks promulgated by the land use setting." Land Use Conflicts, without specificJ mention of mediation, builds such an argument by comparing the outcomes of the environmental decision-making proce-
To make the case for this position, Boschken presents in detail three well-known land use conflicts: the Mineral King controversy, in California, presided over by the dominant and unitary authority of the U.S. Forest Service; the case of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in which the neophyte California Coastal Commission intervened; and a dispute over a major recreational housing development in the Nettleton Lakes district near Puget Sound. The last is the example chosen of concurrent government since both the County Commission and a host of state agencies had parallel review authority. Having read too many sloppy and directionless case studies, this reviewer is inclined to judge the merits of envi-
116
oj~.~2~s/~z/o3~oJl~,so~/o
En~ironmentM Impact Assessment Rr
EIA REVIEW
3/1
V. 3, N. 1
ronmental policy writings on the quality after deliberation and consultation with a of questions asked. By this criterion host of state agencies. The latter had also alone, Land Use Conflicts is a remarkable conducted review processes, the "due contribution. Boschken leads us into the process" that Boschken believes must rerich detail of his cases only after two ex- sult in "fairness". Those of us particularcellent problem-setting chapters. I know ly interested in mediation must necessarof no better and more concise outlines of ily be leery of outcomes in which one the most important questions for students side, in this case the developer, quits the of public policy design than those found stage altogether9 Boschken is at his weakin the second chapter, "Administrative est when he suggests that the developer's Patterns and Historical Origins." One ultimate dissatisfaction " . . . may not be could devise an excellent course syllabus a relevant argument against institutional fairness." Aren't we thrown back into the from the framework presented here. The case studies include both mode of "intuitionism" when one party's the details of the projects and the au- sense of fairness is summarily discountthor's clearly stated opinions regarding ed? Boschken would probably have actors and outcomes 9 Boschken's comments on skiing - - Mineral King's main done better to select a case of policentric proposed activity - - are especially un- structures where the outcome was less sympathetic: "Skiing . . . never enjoyed one-sided. Yet, I would stress that it is by a large portion of society, . . . never- only in a few places that Boschken's subtheless became a source of avant garde jectivity gets in the way of his central identity for those feeling the security of purpose. The Mineral King proposal was increasing leisure time, [and} middle class also abandoned after being considered i n c o m e s . . . " The cases for nuclear power first by the unitary bureaucracy and then at San Onofre and second.home develop- by the courts. But the author does not ment at Nettleton Lakes are also ques- hold this case out as an exemplar of contioned not only by opponents of these flict resolution. In chapters 6 through 8, Boschprojects but by Boschken himself. The author's candid judgements ken provides a tight argument on how adare refreshing but do pose serious prob- ministrative structures differ in their calems for one of the main lines of his argu- pacity to ensure broad representation and ment. He sucessfully demonstrates that optimal use of technical information. The one form of administrative structure, the exposition of the Forest Service's "custopolicentric and decentralized, does a bet- dial strategy" in the Mineral King case ter job than the others because such de- was particularly effective. Using the reccentralized structures provide for better ord of correspondence, Boschken rerepresentation of a multiplicity of com- creates the dialogue between the Service peting interests. However, if one has and its opponents. To each of the agenstrong preferences for particular outcomes cy's claims of expert, neutral decision(less skiing, nuclear power and second- making, critics of the Service are allowed home development, more acreage for self- to speak directly: sustaining and pristine wilderness), one's 9 . . much of the reason the proposal became a definition of "better" may conflict with controversy w a s . . , the Forest Service's insisthe ideal of broad representation. Boschtence on achieving cooperation around a cerken's argument sometimes falters at this tain set of implicit values that it was best point. qualified to promote and judge . . . the oppoIn the Nettleton Lakes case, the sition view was that " . . . the Forest Service proponent completely abandoned the finds it difficult to satisfy conflicting interproject, an outcome that opponents had ests, but here no conflict has been allowed to unquestionably sought. The County had develop... '" placed 34 conditions on the development
EIA R E V I E W
3/1
117
Boschken enlists the wisdom of the Federalist Papers, Madison and de Toqueville in support of the policy of concurrent authority. He reminds his readers that these thinkers had anticipated the problems of unitary and intuitionist administration. In taking this line Boschken contributes to the recent reconsideration of early American political philosophy among theoreticians of urban and environmental policy (cf. Bish 1971, Haefele 1973). The final chapter is an overview of the evolution of the present administrative "crisis" from the fear of concentrated authority in the early Republic to "modern institutionalised society . . . a 'black box' of elite institutions." Boschken's image of the dynamics of modern bureaucracy is a gloomy and overstated one. He is wrong in suggesting that the "humanist school" of organization theory does not appreciate "the internal milieu (of bureaucracies) as an intensely political environment." Writers like Argyris and Schon (1978) expose o r g a n i z a t i o n a l dynamics and learning in a manner at once less extreme and more astute than Scott and Hart (1979), on whom Boschken depends. Unlike Boschken, this reviewer is hopeful that unitary bureaucracies now in place can be made to work better. Other recent works (Culhane 1981) do suggest that. some organizations have changed significantly in response to multiple interests. Procedural reforms, such as EIS r e q u i r e m e n t s have sometimes proven effective. Boschken admits that NEPA did not have much chance to affect the cases he considered, all of which were under way by 1969. The limited attention he does give to the efficacy of impact statements is to suggest that NEPA's requirements for proponents to assess their own proposals " . . . may only serve to reinforce the already closed bureaucratic process." Again, I think the evaluation is overly harsh. Judicial scrutiny of agency EISs has become part of the process and in many cases has promoted rcprescnta-
118
EIA REVIEW
3/I
tion by multiple interests and facilitated the flow of information. Despite these differences with Boschken's interpretation, I feel that environmental professionals will profit enormously from reflection on the issues that Boschken raises and analyses. The book is a challenge to the way conflict has been handled in the United States and to the way controversies over environmental impact have been framed. Boschken's insights represent an advance in thinking about the political and moral issues implicit in the land use setting. References Argyris, C. and D. A. Schon. 1978. Orga-
nizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley. Bish, R. L. 1971. The Public Economy of Metropolitan Areas. Chicago: Markham. Culhane, P.J. 1981. Public Land Politics:
Interest Group Influence on the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Balt i m o r e : Johns H o p k i n s University Press for Resources for the Future. Haefele, E. T. 1973. Representative Got'eminent and Environmental Management. Balt i m o r e : Johns H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y Press for Resources for the Future. Scott, W. G. and D. K. Hart. 1979. Organizational America. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.
Land Use Conflicts: Organizational Design and Resource Management H e r m a n L. B o s c h k e n University of Illinois Press Urbana 1982 Reviewed by
Norman Dale Doctoral Candidate Department of Urban Studies and Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
dures of three types of administrative structures. Boschken distinguishes the functional differences between unitary bureaucracy, "intuitionist" commissions and decentralized networks of concurrent government. The tasks dictated by the nature of land use conflicts are clearly articulated from the outset: first, representing increasingly diverse interests in allocating land use; and second, ensuring production and utilization of the best possible information. Boschken makes clear from the outset which administrative structure he prefers: A central theme is that the large bureaucratic decision structures . . . have reinforced a myopia that de-emphasizes environmental dynamics and the need for broader representation. A second theme is that a policentric or non-hierarchical net,,,ork may produce results that have a lower net cost to s o c i e t y . . , than the unitary bureaucracy.
During the 1960's a central committee member of the People's Republic of China was heard to say of the young Western radicals of the time, they" know what to run from, but not what to run to. Readers of the growing literature on environmental conflicts and resolution may be left with a similar impression. The shortcomings of longstanding approaches to dispute resolution - - administrative rulings and adjudication - - have been described in considerable detail. Meanwhile, insufficient effort has been devoted to developing a positive case for alternatives such as environmental mediation. Practitioners have sorely needed a welldeveloped theory supporting the fit of the mediation approach to "the tasks promulgated by the land use setting." Land Use Conflicts, without specificJ mention of mediation, builds such an argument by comparing the outcomes of the environmental decision-making proce-
To make the case for this position, Boschken presents in detail three well-known land use conflicts: the Mineral King controversy, in California, presided over by the dominant and unitary authority of the U.S. Forest Service; the case of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in which the neophyte California Coastal Commission intervened; and a dispute over a major recreational housing development in the Nettleton Lakes district near Puget Sound. The last is the example chosen of concurrent government since both the County Commission and a host of state agencies had parallel review authority. Having read too many sloppy and directionless case studies, this reviewer is inclined to judge the merits of envi-
116
oj~.~2~s/~z/o3~oJl~,so~/o
En~ironmentM Impact Assessment Rr
EIA REVIEW
3/1
V. 3, N. 1
ronmental policy writings on the quality after deliberation and consultation with a of questions asked. By this criterion host of state agencies. The latter had also alone, Land Use Conflicts is a remarkable conducted review processes, the "due contribution. Boschken leads us into the process" that Boschken believes must rerich detail of his cases only after two ex- sult in "fairness". Those of us particularcellent problem-setting chapters. I know ly interested in mediation must necessarof no better and more concise outlines of ily be leery of outcomes in which one the most important questions for students side, in this case the developer, quits the of public policy design than those found stage altogether9 Boschken is at his weakin the second chapter, "Administrative est when he suggests that the developer's Patterns and Historical Origins." One ultimate dissatisfaction " . . . may not be could devise an excellent course syllabus a relevant argument against institutional fairness." Aren't we thrown back into the from the framework presented here. The case studies include both mode of "intuitionism" when one party's the details of the projects and the au- sense of fairness is summarily discountthor's clearly stated opinions regarding ed? Boschken would probably have actors and outcomes 9 Boschken's comments on skiing - - Mineral King's main done better to select a case of policentric proposed activity - - are especially un- structures where the outcome was less sympathetic: "Skiing . . . never enjoyed one-sided. Yet, I would stress that it is by a large portion of society, . . . never- only in a few places that Boschken's subtheless became a source of avant garde jectivity gets in the way of his central identity for those feeling the security of purpose. The Mineral King proposal was increasing leisure time, [and} middle class also abandoned after being considered i n c o m e s . . . " The cases for nuclear power first by the unitary bureaucracy and then at San Onofre and second.home develop- by the courts. But the author does not ment at Nettleton Lakes are also ques- hold this case out as an exemplar of contioned not only by opponents of these flict resolution. In chapters 6 through 8, Boschprojects but by Boschken himself. The author's candid judgements ken provides a tight argument on how adare refreshing but do pose serious prob- ministrative structures differ in their calems for one of the main lines of his argu- pacity to ensure broad representation and ment. He sucessfully demonstrates that optimal use of technical information. The one form of administrative structure, the exposition of the Forest Service's "custopolicentric and decentralized, does a bet- dial strategy" in the Mineral King case ter job than the others because such de- was particularly effective. Using the reccentralized structures provide for better ord of correspondence, Boschken rerepresentation of a multiplicity of com- creates the dialogue between the Service peting interests. However, if one has and its opponents. To each of the agenstrong preferences for particular outcomes cy's claims of expert, neutral decision(less skiing, nuclear power and second- making, critics of the Service are allowed home development, more acreage for self- to speak directly: sustaining and pristine wilderness), one's 9 . . much of the reason the proposal became a definition of "better" may conflict with controversy w a s . . , the Forest Service's insisthe ideal of broad representation. Boschtence on achieving cooperation around a cerken's argument sometimes falters at this tain set of implicit values that it was best point. qualified to promote and judge . . . the oppoIn the Nettleton Lakes case, the sition view was that " . . . the Forest Service proponent completely abandoned the finds it difficult to satisfy conflicting interproject, an outcome that opponents had ests, but here no conflict has been allowed to unquestionably sought. The County had develop... '" placed 34 conditions on the development
EIA R E V I E W
3/1
117
Boschken enlists the wisdom of the Federalist Papers, Madison and de Toqueville in support of the policy of concurrent authority. He reminds his readers that these thinkers had anticipated the problems of unitary and intuitionist administration. In taking this line Boschken contributes to the recent reconsideration of early American political philosophy among theoreticians of urban and environmental policy (cf. Bish 1971, Haefele 1973). The final chapter is an overview of the evolution of the present administrative "crisis" from the fear of concentrated authority in the early Republic to "modern institutionalised society . . . a 'black box' of elite institutions." Boschken's image of the dynamics of modern bureaucracy is a gloomy and overstated one. He is wrong in suggesting that the "humanist school" of organization theory does not appreciate "the internal milieu (of bureaucracies) as an intensely political environment." Writers like Argyris and Schon (1978) expose o r g a n i z a t i o n a l dynamics and learning in a manner at once less extreme and more astute than Scott and Hart (1979), on whom Boschken depends. Unlike Boschken, this reviewer is hopeful that unitary bureaucracies now in place can be made to work better. Other recent works (Culhane 1981) do suggest that. some organizations have changed significantly in response to multiple interests. Procedural reforms, such as EIS r e q u i r e m e n t s have sometimes proven effective. Boschken admits that NEPA did not have much chance to affect the cases he considered, all of which were under way by 1969. The limited attention he does give to the efficacy of impact statements is to suggest that NEPA's requirements for proponents to assess their own proposals " . . . may only serve to reinforce the already closed bureaucratic process." Again, I think the evaluation is overly harsh. Judicial scrutiny of agency EISs has become part of the process and in many cases has promoted rcprescnta-
118
EIA REVIEW
3/I
tion by multiple interests and facilitated the flow of information. Despite these differences with Boschken's interpretation, I feel that environmental professionals will profit enormously from reflection on the issues that Boschken raises and analyses. The book is a challenge to the way conflict has been handled in the United States and to the way controversies over environmental impact have been framed. Boschken's insights represent an advance in thinking about the political and moral issues implicit in the land use setting. References Argyris, C. and D. A. Schon. 1978. Orga-
nizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley. Bish, R. L. 1971. The Public Economy of Metropolitan Areas. Chicago: Markham. Culhane, P.J. 1981. Public Land Politics:
Interest Group Influence on the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Balt i m o r e : Johns H o p k i n s University Press for Resources for the Future. Haefele, E. T. 1973. Representative Got'eminent and Environmental Management. Balt i m o r e : Johns H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y Press for Resources for the Future. Scott, W. G. and D. K. Hart. 1979. Organizational America. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.