On the Nature of the Countermovement: A Response to Stuart et al.’s ‘Climate Change and the Polanyian Countermovement: Carbon Markets or Degrowth?’

Abstract

discuss solutions to climate change in terms of Karl Polanyi's concept of the double movement. They set up their argument as a critique of my own article on the topic to make the point that carbon markets do not constitute a genuine form of such countermovement. I'm sympathetic to the critique of carbon markets that the authors present, as well as their discussion of degrowth, which mirrors a by now extensive literature demonstrating the pitfalls respectively the necessity of these diametrically opposed approaches to the current socioecological crisis. However, in setting up their case the authors provide an overly optimistic reading of Polanyi that I believe misses a crucial part of his argument, a reading that at least partly explains our differences in opinion. This commentary offers a friendly critique of Stuart et al.'s use of Polanyi and clarifies the argument in my previous text that the authors take issue with.

The Climate Leadership Council’s Carbon Dividends Plan: Polanyi’s Market Embeddedness, Fictitious Commodities, and Double Movement

“…In this paper, I aim to provide insight into the CLC's CDP, and carbon markets more broadly, by applying Polanyi's theoretical insights, with the overall goal of informing the broader public policy and sustainability literatures as well. The purpose of this article is not to present a scriptural interpretation of Polanyi's The Great Transformation (hereafter TGT), but to draw from both his "body of work [which is] multilayered enough for varying elucidations" (Somers and Block 2021), as well as from the various insights of Polanyian theoretical predecessors that have sought to reevaluate and apply Polanyi's ideas to carbon markets (see Alcock 2021;Carton 2014Carton , 2020Stuart et al 2019). Specifically, I use Polanyi's market embeddedness, fictitious commodities, and double movement concepts to answer the following questions.…”

“…Acting mainly through the state, the countermovement aims to regulate the market and/or decommodify labor, land, and money to alleviate the damage and protect society (Dale 2012;Sandbrook 2011). However, this can lead to another dilemma: by undermining the self-regulated market, the countermovement can create new social and economic crises (Alcock 2021;Carton 2014Carton , 2020Polanyi 2001Polanyi [1944; Sandbrook 2011).…”

“…Furthermore, existing Polanyian scholarship illustrates the complexities of the double movement in the case of today's carbon markets. Specifically, Carton (2014Carton ( , 2020, Stuart et al (2019), andAlcock (2021) have debated the nature of countermovements, and double movements more broadly, and the implications for its theoretical application to carbon markets. Since it is not my intention to indulge in these theoretical debates directly, I instead focus on the emergent, relevant points that have been made in these ongoing discussions and apply them to the CLC's CDP as a response to the climate change crisis.…”

“…First, the destructive forces of a self-regulating market that fictitiously commodifies land, labor, and money engender countermovements for social protection (Alcock 2021;Carton 2014Carton , 2020Stuart et al 2019). However, countermovements are not necessarily (and perhaps necessarily not) progressive in nature (Carton 2014(Carton , 2020Alcock 2021). They are constrained by and situated within the market fundamentalist system they are a part of (Carton 2014(Carton , 2020.…”

“…However, countermovements are not necessarily (and perhaps necessarily not) progressive in nature (Carton 2014(Carton , 2020Alcock 2021). They are constrained by and situated within the market fundamentalist system they are a part of (Carton 2014(Carton , 2020. As eloquently argued by Carton (2014): "the limits to the countermovements as a force for structural change are defined by the articulation of social relations within a market framework" (p. 1009).…”