4 Assessment of Compensation: An Anthropological
Approach
Once is has been established that there has been a loss, it can be estimated in
economic terms. This estimate is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to provide
compensation to the victim. Objective losses must be recognized by the party
responsible and the victim, while its assessment is usually carried out by scientific
experts and judicial authorities. Once this is done, the victim can receive compensation. Here, the purpose is to re-establish a situation that the party responsible
for the damage, the victim and any third parties (scientific and/or judicial) assess as
having been compromised. The new situation should be as similar as possible to the
previous situation, although full recovery may be impossible. For example, the
judicial process may end with the victim receiving financial and/or non-material
compensation, such as a symbolic award, which takes into account any ‘damages
and interest’ and corresponds to the non-material harm suffered by the victim. Here,
the intention is to compensate for the victim’s suffering.
The issue of loss should be seen in an anthropological context, that of the links
that create and sustain a society. Two paradigms can be used to characterize these
links.
4.1 The Market Paradigm
The first is the market. From a political liberalism perspective, the market represents
a utility. It regulates trade, guarantees individual freedom and collective effectiveness. For example, debt repayments end an unequal relationship, in which the
borrower is beholden to the lender. Once the debt is repaid, both parties are free to
act and a new exchange can begin. Another example is the prison sentence, which
settles a debt that the convict has to society.
In 1839 the lawyer Thimus [8] used the example of the duel to illustrate the
dynamic of compensation. Here, we look at it from the perspective of natural law.
In a duel, the injured party seeks redress and other party risks damage to their
reputation if they refuse the challenge. Doing so would not only break the symbolic
link between them, it would also negate their shared values. When community
membership depends on shared values, the refusal to honour a claim for compensation ends the relationship. From the point of view of the injured party, should
the other party refuse to offer compensation, they are excluded from the
community.
We can transpose this relational dynamic to the Fukushima disaster. In this case,
who may seek redress, and from whom? Answers to these questions require
explanations that relate to the society that has suffered the injury. There are various
scales.
26
D. Pecaud
Approach
Once is has been established that there has been a loss, it can be estimated in
economic terms. This estimate is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to provide
compensation to the victim. Objective losses must be recognized by the party
responsible and the victim, while its assessment is usually carried out by scientific
experts and judicial authorities. Once this is done, the victim can receive compensation. Here, the purpose is to re-establish a situation that the party responsible
for the damage, the victim and any third parties (scientific and/or judicial) assess as
having been compromised. The new situation should be as similar as possible to the
previous situation, although full recovery may be impossible. For example, the
judicial process may end with the victim receiving financial and/or non-material
compensation, such as a symbolic award, which takes into account any ‘damages
and interest’ and corresponds to the non-material harm suffered by the victim. Here,
the intention is to compensate for the victim’s suffering.
The issue of loss should be seen in an anthropological context, that of the links
that create and sustain a society. Two paradigms can be used to characterize these
links.
4.1 The Market Paradigm
The first is the market. From a political liberalism perspective, the market represents
a utility. It regulates trade, guarantees individual freedom and collective effectiveness. For example, debt repayments end an unequal relationship, in which the
borrower is beholden to the lender. Once the debt is repaid, both parties are free to
act and a new exchange can begin. Another example is the prison sentence, which
settles a debt that the convict has to society.
In 1839 the lawyer Thimus [8] used the example of the duel to illustrate the
dynamic of compensation. Here, we look at it from the perspective of natural law.
In a duel, the injured party seeks redress and other party risks damage to their
reputation if they refuse the challenge. Doing so would not only break the symbolic
link between them, it would also negate their shared values. When community
membership depends on shared values, the refusal to honour a claim for compensation ends the relationship. From the point of view of the injured party, should
the other party refuse to offer compensation, they are excluded from the
community.
We can transpose this relational dynamic to the Fukushima disaster. In this case,
who may seek redress, and from whom? Answers to these questions require
explanations that relate to the society that has suffered the injury. There are various
scales.
26
D. Pecaud