Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
interdisciplinary sciences. The social scientists Joseph Huber, Martin Jänicke, Volker
von Prittwitz, Udo Simonis and Klaus Zimmermann (Germany), Gert Spaargaren,
Maarten Hajer and Arthur P.J. Mol (the Netherlands), Albert Weale, Maurie
Cohen, Joseph Murphy, Andrew Gouldson and David Gibbs (United Kingdom) and
Michael Skou Anderson, Pekka Jokinen, Lennart Lundqvist, (Denmark, Finland and
Sweden, respectively), among others, have made substantial European contributions
to the early or later stages of the development of the EM theory. In addition, various
empirical studies using this theoretical framework have been carried out in various
other countries and regions.
Throughout the relatively short time of its existence, there has been considerable
diversity and internal debate among the various contributors to the EM theory.
These differences spring from national backgrounds (with authors referring to
various empirical references and interpretations, as I will illustrate below) and theo-
retical roots,
1
but also chronology. Though an extensive analysis and overview of
ecological modernisation literature up to now is outside the scope of the present
contribution, I believe it makes sense to distinguish at least three stages in the devel-
opment and maturation of the EM theory. The fi rst contributions, for instance those
by Joseph Huber (1982; 1985; 1991), were characterised by: a heavy emphasis on
the role of technological innovations in bringing about environmental reforms,
especially in the sphere of industrial production; a rather critical attitude towards
the (bureaucratic and ineffi cient) state, as found in the early writings of Martin
Jänicke (1986); a very optimistic, perhaps naïve, attitude towards market actors and
market dynamics in environmental reforms (later on glorifi ed by neo-liberal schol-
ars); a system-theoretical perspective with a relatively underdeveloped concept of
human agency and social struggle; and a concentration on national or sub-national
studies. Some of the more critical remarks on the EM theory still refer to these initial
contributions.
Building upon several of these limitations, ecological modernisation studies in
the second period, from the late 1980s onward, showed less emphasis on and a less
deterministic view of technological innovations as the motor behind ecological
modernisation. These contributions gave evidence of a more balanced view of state
and market dynamics in ecological transformation processes, as illustrated by the
work of Albert Weale (1992) and the later Martin Jänicke (1991; 1993). During
this phase, the institutional and cultural dynamics of ecological modernisation were
given more weight, as well as the role of human agency in environment-induced
social transformations. The emphasis remained on national or comparative studies
of industrial production in OECD countries. Critical remarks on the concept
of ecological modernisation in this period - articulated by scholars both inside
and outside the ecological modernisation tradition (cf. Mol, 1995; Blowers, 1997;
Blühdorn, 2000) - focused on its Eurocentrism, since the EM theory had been
developed primarily in the context of a small group of Western European countries.
In addition, comments pointed out its limited defi nition of the environment
(Spaargaren and Mol, 1992), its overly optimistic expectations of environmental
reforms in social practices, institutional developments and environmental debates,
and its disregard for lifestyles and consumption practices.
The third period, from the mid-1990s onwards, encompasses innovations in three
fi elds. First, studies on industrial production were increasingly complemented by
work done on ecological transformations related to consumption processes (cf.
Spaargaren and van Vliet, 2000; Spaargaren, 2003). This of course resembles the
