General Economics (econ.GN)

Abstract: Laws that govern land acquisition can lock in old paradigms. We study one such case, the Coal Bearing Areas Act of 1957 (CBAA) which provides minimal social and environmental safegaurds, and deviates in important ways from the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (LARR). The lack of due diligence protocol in the CBAA confers an undue comparative advantage to coal development, which is inconsistent with India's stance to phase down coal use, reduce air pollution, and advance modern sources of energy. We argue that the premise under which the CBAA was historically justified is no longer valid due to a significant change in the local context. Namely, the environmental and social costs of coal energy are far more salient and the market has cleaner energy alternatives that are cost competitive. We recommend updating land acquisition laws to bring coal under the general purview of LARR or, at minimum, amending the CBAA to ensure adequate environmental and social safeguards are in place, both in letter and practice.

Abstract: Great socio-economic transitions see the demise of certain industries and the rise of others. The losers of the transition tend to deploy a variety of tactics to obstruct change. We develop a political-economy model of interest group competition and garner evidence of tactics deployed in the global climate movement. From this we deduce a set of strategies for how the climate movement competes against entrenched hydrocarbon interests. Five strategies for overcoming obstructionism emerge: (1) Appeasement, which involves compensating the losers; (2) Co-optation, which seeks to instigate change by working with incumbents; (3) Institutionalism, which involves changes to public institutions to support decarbonization; (4) Antagonism, which creates reputational or litigation costs to inaction; and (5) Countervailance, which makes low-carbon alternatives more competitive. We argue that each strategy addresses the problem of obstructionism through a different lens, reflecting a diversity of actors and theories of change within the climate movement. The choice of which strategy to pursue depends on the institutional context.