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

摘要

In Site Fights: Divisive Facilities and Civil Society in Japan and the West, Daniel Aldrich proposes an alternative hypothesis for evaluating national governments' chances of success in the siting of contentious facilities (or 'public bads') in potential host communities. Basing his conclusions on an in-depth statistical analysis of hundreds of potential host communities and eventual siting outcomes, Aldrich posits that the relative strength of civil society in a potential host community is the single greatest determining factor for where 'public bads' are eventually placed. In making this claim, he directly challenges other prevailing-and perhaps more normative-theories on the placement of divisive facilities, disputing generalised claims that environmentally noxious 'public bads' are sited in concentrations of ethnic minorities or in areas of lower average incomes, or are used to punish localities where opposition parties hold sway. While his empirical focus is largely on Japan, he offers a number of comparative contentious facility-siting scenarios in France and the US. The resultant book is a highly detailed weaving of statistical analysis, archival sifting and interview material that builds on the fields of state-civil society interaction and facility siting research.