| dc.description.abstract | Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has traditionally been presented as a scientific tool for sustainable development by ensuring that economic development projects consider their environmental impacts in decision-making. In practice, however, the EIA regulatory process has become politically contested, which involves multiple actors with variations in power, interests, and beliefs. The Indian EIA regulation, first notified in 1994, has often been held responsible for hindering India’s economic progress, and its provisions have been fiercely contested. This contestation is evident in more than 50 amendments to which the regulation has been subjected since its inception. This dissertation analyses the political dynamics surrounding the frequent amendments to the EIA regulatory provisions in India. The simultaneous stability of the broader EIA regulatory framework and the frequent change to the specific regulatory provisions lends itself amenable to the application of the neo- Gramscian framework, which has been utilized in the extant literature on climate change politics. I use Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as the methodological guide and analyze four categories of documents, with a focus on provisions related to the public hearing process: (i) Over 80 rulings from the National Green Tribunal, (ii) Reports from 41 expert committees, office memorandums, andgovernment documents, (iii) 126 media articles, and (iv) 10 recordings of public hearings. Additionally, I conducted 21 interviews with individuals closely engaged with the EIA process in India. My analysis reveals that the domestic EIA framework’s relative stability is upheld by a historical bloc comprising the executive, judiciary, civil society, and industry, all driven by their mutual interest in advancing economic development. They incorporate global discourses from the sustainable development historical bloc into local narratives, emphasizing delay, balance, and a conducive business environment. Utilizing regulatory and technological strategies and organizational allies, the bloc provides strategic concessions over time by allowing contradictions to surface in the economic realm while constantly re-aligning the strategies, allies and discourses protecting their interest. Consequently, despite frequent EIA amendments, the structure remains relatively stable. This dissertation contributes to existing perspectives on policy change by offering a dialectical understanding of policy change and stability. It underscores that calls for environmental justice and EIA-related reforms, such as increased public participation and squashing environmental clearances for procedural violations, continue to operate within the broader state machinery favouring capitalist interests. Thus, the likelihood of radical changes to the EIA structure remains slim unless a potent counter-hegemonic group mobilizes to provide substantial pushback. | en_US |
