The Trans-Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project: Path Dependency in the Crown’s Reasoning

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article examines the production and reproduction of the same arguments made by the Crown in consultations with Indigenous peoples over a controversial resource development project in Canada. To explain the stability of the Crown’s reasoning in consultations with Indigenous communities on Trans-Mountain Pipeline Expansion project (TM), I integrate the path dependence concept with the theory of motivated reasoning while keeping the analytical perspective of historical institutionalism. The context of TM consultations is instrumental in explaining argumentative stability: it demonstrates how the interplay of the dominance of the Crown and its reliance on formal authority rules and government findings produce increasing returns turning reasoning for TM into a self-reinforcing and path-dependent sequence of behavioral steps (biased argument production for TM and biased evaluation of arguments against TM). This sequence undermines the ability of the Crown to value arguments against TM equally with arguments for TM.