{"word_count": 804, "character_count": 6224}
Human action is often confronted with situations in which pursuing certain ends and values precludes the possibility of achieving other ends and values, distinct in quality but also important. Value conflict is a permanent feature of human action.Public decision and action and, in particular, the controversies on the implementation of infrastructures with significant environmental impacts for individuals and communities, are domains where value conflicts are felt with particular pungency. In general, such decisions have as goals the growth of production and wealth, the improvement of transport and communication, accessibility and better job opportunities. However, they can also lead to negative effects, as the destruction of certain economic activities, the increase of wealth and income concentration and the degradation of the environment, biodiversity, landscape and heritage. Territories are part of the processes of individual and community identity construction. Therefore their transformation is often disputed.Controversies about public decision-making, although in part related to the nature and estimation of the impacts which may occur, are mainly a result of the opposition between different interests and different conceptions of the public interest, and therefore of the values worth pursuing. The decision-making procedures and devices have a key role in the production of empirical evidence that supports or opposes a particular decision. But they are also critical in respect to the values that are made salient and those that are neglected, to the possibility of public participation and to the autonomy of social actors. Decision-making devices that require the reduction of all values to a common metric &#8211; through which they can be balanced one against the others, such as cost-benefit analysis &#8211; necessarily entail the neglect of value conflict and incommensurability. They are also biased towards those values which are more prone to quantification.In this seminar we intend to clarify and discuss the contributions that different theoretical traditions in economics, sociology, anthropology, social psychology and philosophy have given to the issues of incommensurability, value conflicts and valuation. Identifying and exposing the normative assumptions of certain decision-making procedures and devices is another objective of this seminar. Particular attention will be given to the implications of these issues to public decision-making and action.I. Value Conflict and Incommensurability: Theoretical ApproachesAccording to the neoclassical rational decision model, choice always implies the reduction of all values to a common metric. However, the assumption of value commensurability is not uncontroversial even within the discipline of economics. What insights can be drawn from different disciplines in respect to the notions of (in)commensurability and value conflict? What do economic value, valuation and evaluation mean? What are the reasons for people to resist trade-offs among certain values? Can we conceive rationality without value commensurability?II. Value Conflict and Decision-Making DevicesThe monistic and pluralistic perspectives on (in)commensurability and value conflict lead to different decision-making support devices: How do different procedures and decision-making devices &#8211; cost-benefit analysis, multicriteria analysis &#8211; deal with incommensurability and value conflict? What are their normative assumptions? In what sense can these tools be simplifiers of decision-making processes? How do they affect decision-making processes and choices?III. Value Conflict and Public PoliciesSince decision making and public action are often faced with situations in which it is impossible to pursue all values simultaneously, several questions arise: What role do decision-making devices, such as cost-benefit analysis, multicriteria analysis, or environmental impact assessment, play in controversies on the implementation of infrastructures with major environmental consequences for individuals and communities? What is the role of public participation and political action, and of technical and scientific expertise? What is the nature of the arguments mobilized in the context of these controversies?Organizing committee:     Ana Costa,         Ricardo Coelho         V&#237;tor Neves    Programme Friday, 15th of June10h00-10h15 Opening Session 10h15-12h30 Value Conflict and Incommensurability: Theoretical Approaches (I)     John O&#8217;Neill, &#8220;Incommensurability, conflict and values in public policy: from socialist calculations to environmental valuation&#8221;     Ana Costa and Lu&#237;s Francisco Carvalho, &#8220;Value conflict and the problem of rationality: insights from the history of social and economic ideas&#8221;     V&#237;tor Neves, &#8220;Beyond the &#8216;measuring rod of money&#8217;: K. William Kapp&#8217;s contribution to a theory of social value&#8221;Chair: Laura Centemeri12h30-14h00: Lunch 14h00-15h30 Value Conflict and Incommensurability: Theoretical Approaches (II)     Ricardo Coelho, &#8220;Social costs and (in)commensurability in social sciences: a review&#8221;     &#160;Laura Centemeri, &#8220;Reframing incommensurability in environmental valuation: from value pluralism to the plurality of engagements with the world&#8221;Chair: V&#237;tor Neves15h30-16h00: Coffee Break 16h00-17h30 Value Conflict and Decision-Making Devices     Clive L. Spash, &#8220;Value and Preferences in Public Policy: Individual and Social Choice&#8221;     Vasco Gon&#231;alves and Jos&#233; Castro Caldas, &#8220;The origins and development of costbenefit analysis&#8221;Chair: Ana Costa20h00: Dinner Saturday, 16th of June 9h30-11h45 Value Conflict and Public Policies     Jo&#227;o Tolda, &#8220;Evaluating innovation policies: methodological and metric issues&#8221;     Jos&#233; Reis and Tiago Santos Pereira, &#34;Silences and saliencies: how an airport becomes (in)visible&#34;     &#160;F&#225;tima Ferreiro and Maria Eduarda Gon&#231;alves, &#8220;Conflicting values and public decision: the Foz C&#244;a case&#8221;&#160;Chair: Jos&#233; Castro Caldas11h45-12h00: Coffee Break12h00-13h00: BECOM Meeting