Industrial aquaculture and the politics of resignation

- Governments are in a contradictory position as both regulators and promoters of aquaculture.
- Subsidies to industrial aquaculture continue, despite recognition of risks to wild stocks.
- Industrial aquaculture has not proven to be a predictable alternative to the flux of wild fisheries.

While neoliberalism is often framed as a withdrawal of the state, many scholars have noted that what is occurring is not so much a withdrawal, as a repositioning. Although many social services and regulatory functions once provided by government agencies have indeed been eroded, there has been a simultaneous channeling of new resources into other arenas, in an effort to create conditions in which private corporations can operate more profitably. This, however, often places the state in a contradictory position, simultaneously serving as regulator, investor, and development advocate for the private sector. This can become especially problematic in moments of ecological crisis when decisive and unbiased responses are needed. This paper explores these dynamics through an examination of the cycles of growth and crisis that have characterized the aquaculture industry on the south coast of Newfoundland since the late 1970s as well as the ongoing attempts by aquaculture advocates to characterize industrial-scale fish farming as a sustainable industry, despite evidence to the contrary.