The ragged trousered archaeologist

[Oxbeast]

"Even the very terms of this debate are open to question. Who's the polluter here? The developer? The new building itself? Or the people of the past, whose material trace requires cleaning and processing by specialist environmental risk managers? "

Pollution is what economists refer to as a negative externality; that is a bad thing which is external to the transaction between the buyer and seller, and therefore is not built into the price mechanism.

The 'pollution' is the destruction of the cultural deposits and the loss of information about the past for future generations. This is information which does not necessarily have a price, though it can have a value. The negative externality is brought within the mechanism of demand and supply by means of regulation; the planning system.


"...is particularly vulnerable to extreme market swings, and this is a direct consequence of the capitalist model."

Yes, absolutely. I just can't imagine a model which is not based on a market giving anything like a satisfactory result.

[diggingthedirt]

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

"Even the very terms of this debate are open to question. Who's the polluter here? The developer? The new building itself? Or the people of the past, whose material trace requires cleaning and processing by specialist environmental risk managers? "

Pollution is what economists refer to as a negative externality; that is a bad thing which is external to the transaction between the buyer and seller, and therefore is not built into the price mechanism.

The 'pollution' is the destruction of the cultural deposits and the loss of information about the past for future generations. This is information which does not necessarily have a price, though it can have a value. The negative externality is brought within the mechanism of demand and supply by means of regulation; the planning system.


"...is particularly vulnerable to extreme market swings, and this is a direct consequence of the capitalist model."

Yes, absolutely. I just can't imagine a model which is not based on a market giving anything like a satisfactory result.

Which depends of course on how you define 'satisfactory result'.

Take the economics of
externality for instance (and thanks for bringing this one to the table!). New developments may have many attractive qualities for the buyers, but have negative effects (or positive effects) for third parties, hence the planning regime and the consideration of archaeology as a material condition. A positive externality may be improvement of the built environment and quality of life; a negative could be a destructive impact on archaeological sediments, or blocking the lovely view the neighbours used to enjoy of the river bank.

This is a good explanation of the circumstances that make an archaeological market possible. But it's also a useful model for understanding the archaeological market itself. There are also externalities in the archaeological market, both positive and neagative. The buyer (developer) is purchasing a service from the vendor (the archaeologist) that enables them to get planning permission. A positive externality of this is that we discover a range of different sites we didn?t know we didn?t know about. A negative externality is that the archaeological deposits are destroyed for ever, albeit in the presence of an expert witness. The problem comes in trying put a monetry value against these externalities ? because ultimatly this cost has to be borne by our clients.

Is a 'satisfactory result' the presrvation by record of the archaeological deposits, or is it this new term ? 'understanding by record' (whatever that's meant to mean? Kenny? Anyone?). With no way to monetise this elusive quality of understanding in a meaninful way, another method is needed to impose solutions and balance the private costs against the public benefit.

What's everyone's beef with a developer tax?


http://www.diggingthedirt.com

[Oxbeast]

"With no way to monetise this elusive quality of understanding in a meaninful way, another method is needed to impose solutions and balance the private costs against the public benefit.

The public benefit (and 'satisfactory result') is defined by the regulators; the curators define what the results should be according to various national and local standards. This operates in a similar way to other regulated markets with defined standards, see ofcom, ofgem, etc.

I'm not sure why you think that another method or market model is needed. I know that the status quo isn't perfect, but it seems to be much better than the state monopoly that existed a few years ago.

My main beef with a developer tax is that if fulfilling an archaeological condition is to be part of planning permission, then why should part of the costs be hypothecated? Also, taxes are expensive to administer, would the tax simply be on land area or on the projected value of the development? What would happen in the result of a funding shortfall, the tab would have to be picked up by taxpayers...

Also, what about the developer who comissions DBAs on different sites, and then chooses to put their development where the costs are predicted to be lower. There is no incentive to carry out pre-planning evaluation if you know that the costs to deal with any archaeology will either be met out of the tax fund or by taxpayers.

Christ, I'm sounding like a tory. Honestly I'm not. I would also add that it would be extremely difficult to get support for a tax on development.

[historic building]

On this same basis why do we not get developers to contribute to a general fund for building materials. In conservation areas it is usually a requirement to pay for nice bricks which when compared to the cost of a tin out of town retail shed. This would obviously even out of the cost of building across districts or counties (at whatever level the fund was held). We could simply impose a fee on all developments based upon the area of their cladding ? cheap cladding could then be supplied by the council for out of town retail sheds and nice bricks or stone for conservation areas.

This makes about as much sense as imposing a blanket charge on all developers for archaeology.

(actually this would probably kill most out of town shopping nastiness and is potentially a very good idea)

[diggingthedirt]

quote:Originally posted by historic building


On this same basis why do we not get developers to contribute to a general fund for building materials. In conservation areas it is usually a requirement to pay for nice bricks which when compared to the cost of a tin out of town retail shed. This would obviously even out of the cost of building across districts or counties (at whatever level the fund was held). We could simply impose a fee on all developments based upon the area of their cladding ? cheap cladding could then be supplied by the council for out of town retail sheds and nice bricks or stone for conservation areas.

This makes about as much sense as imposing a blanket charge on all developers for archaeology.

(actually this would probably kill most out of town shopping nastiness and is potentially a very good idea)

Hmmn. I get the joke here but I think you?re missing the point. Take the concept Oxbeast raised of externality (check the wiki link). Building materials are not ?external? to the economic transaction of developing, selling and buying a house; they are an intrinsic factor. The choice of building material is mutually beneficial to both parties in the trade. Excellent quality building materials will add value to the building and this will be reflected in the price; the inverse is also true. The externality here comes in whether or not the building material is in keeping with adjacent buildings, or to take your example, whether it impacts on the visual amenity of the conservation area. Regulation is required here to ensure that the private cost is balanced against the public benefit, but this will be easy to apply because it already has a quantifiable market logic. The premium cost of the building materials required to develop in these areas can be passed on to the buyer because of the social desirability to live in these areas. It?s internalised within the transaction, unlike buried archaeology, that adds no value whatsoever to the final development.

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

"With no way to monetise this elusive quality of understanding in a meaninful way, another method is needed to impose solutions and balance the private costs against the public benefit.

The public benefit (and 'satisfactory result') is defined by the regulators; the curators define what the results should be according to various national and local standards. This operates in a similar way to other regulated markets with defined standards, see ofcom, ofgem, etc.

The regulation you describe deals very effectively with negative externalities ? the destruction of the archaeological deposits, mitigated through the creation of a permanent record. If this is all that?s required of a satisfactory result then bingo. What it doesn?t deal with very well is the positive externalities ? what might be called academic and public archaeology - the sharing of knowledge and the pleasure of the past. This is something many of us involved in commercial archaeology still do, but because the present market structure doesn?t internalise this cost (as it does in historicbuilding?s example of bricks and mortar) that benefit has always been a bonus, a value added, driven by staff passion and pride.

My point about the ?new normal? is that this wigggle room has now evaporated. People live, people die, get over it.

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

"Christ, I'm sounding like a tory. Honestly I'm not. I would also add that it would be extremely difficult to get support for a tax on development.

One way or another we?re all Thatchers children! Good points about the developer tax, clearly its not without issue. But there are other countries that practice a socialist approach to development-led archaeology without bursting into flames. Would anyone like to comment from their experience of these systems? I?d like to hear how the French do it...


http://www.diggingthedirt.com

[1man1desk]

This debate needs to bear in mind that the 'polluter pays' principle doesn't just apply to archaeology - it covers all other aspects of the environment as well. Any change in the principle would therefore probably have to be applied across the board.

The advantages of this approach aren't limited to saving public money by putting the cost on the developer. More important considerations include:

• decision-making by the regulatory authorities is freed from constraints imposed by their own budgets
• developers have a strong financial incentive to seek less damaging alternatives, particularly if environmental costs threaten the financial viability of the development
• 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

I could go on, but that will do for the moment.

In relation to my second bullet point above - any system based on a levy on development, or on direct public funding, would remove the developer's incentive to seek a less damaging alternative.

I don't think it is fair to characterise this debate as being about rival 'socialist' versus 'capitalist' solutions. After all, the biggest 'developer-funded' archaeological projects often arise from the construction of public infrastructure projects, being provided as a public service at taxpayer expense (e.g. highway construction).

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.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[YellowPete]

i think we are still thinking in terms of being detached.

This is something that could be rethought

especially since some of the most littered or polluted sites have been archaeological ones where bags, labels and nails are left lying around and congregate in corners for backfilling.

we are an industry mindfull of finding someone elses litter but if there is no litter or pollution then where do the garbologists come in?

mike



txt is
Mike

[diggingthedirt]

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:

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: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

[YellowPete]

to quote immortal words

'its not about building an empire'



txt is
Mike

[BAJR Host]

Excellent discussion, excellent summary... thanks to all for this one..

"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli