9
Ecological modernization as social theory F.H. Buttel Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1450 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA Received 5 November 1998; in revised form 12 August 1999 Abstract In this paper I examine some of the reasons for and implications of the ascendance of ecological modernization thought. I stress that its rapid rise to prominence is not because it is a well-developed and highly-codified social theory, but rather because it accords particularly well with a number of intellectual and broader political–economic factors, many of which lie outside the realms of sociology and environmental sociology. I suggest that while ecological modernization is indistinct as a social theory its basic logic suggests two points. First, the most sophisticated versions of ecological modernization revolve around the notion that political processes and practices are particularly critical in enabling ecological phenomena to be ‘‘ Ômoved intoÕ the modernization process’’ (Mol, A.P.J., 1995. The Refinement of Production. Van Arkel, Utrecht, p. 28). Thus, a full-blown theory of ecological modern- ization must ultimately be a theory of politics and the state. Second, the logic of ecological modernization theory suggests that it has very close anities to several related literatures – particularly embedded autonomy, civil society, and state-society synergy theories in political sociology – which have not yet been incorporated into the ecological modernization literature. I conclude by arguing that ecological modernization can benefit by bringing these related – and, for that matter, more powerful – theories into its fold. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The rise of ecological modernization as a perspective in environmental social science 1 has been as meteoric as it has been unexpected. Ecological modernization was unknown to virtually all North American environmental social scientists half a dozen years ago, save for a small handful of comparative politics specialists who were familiar with J anickeÕs (1990) work on ‘‘state failure’’, or environmental studies scholars who had read SimonisÕ (1989) paper in the International Social Science Journal. Now ecological modernization has come to be regarded as being on a virtual par with some of the most long- standing and influential ideas and perspectives in envi- ronmental sociology (e.g., SchnaibergÕs (1980) notion of ‘‘treadmill of production’’, and Catton and DunlapÕs (1980) notions of Human Exemptionalist and New En- vironmental Paradigms (see also Dunlap and Catton, 1994). Over the past two years it has come to be virtually obligatory for professional meetings of environmental social scientists to have one or more sessions devoted specifically to ecological modernization. Further, while there has been a surprising degree of acceptance of ecological modernization as one of the mainstream en- vironmental–sociological perspectives, the pervasiveness of ecological modernization can be gauged by the fact that a broad range of environmental social scientists have found it necessary to address – even if only to critically respond to – the rising influence of this per- spective (see, e.g., Benton, 1997; Harvey, 1996; Schnai- berg et al., 1999; Redclift and Woodgate, 1997a,b; also see Mol and Spaargaren, 2000; Mol, 1999; Cohen, 1997, for summaries of this critical literature and for responses to the major criticisms that have been raised). Ecological modernization has already become featured as an es- tablished perspective in the most recent environmental sociology undergraduate textbooks (Harper, 1996; Bell, 1998) and has become a particularly popular topic in the journal, Environmental Politics. The publication of the present special issue of Geoforum testifies to the Geoforum 31 (2000) 57–65 www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum E-mail address: [email protected] (F.H. Buttel). 1 In this paper the expression environmental social science will be understood to pertain to the social science disciplines in which ecological modernization perspectives currently play a major role. Ecological modernization has become quite influential within envi- ronmental sociology, and to a lesser degree within geography and political science. Because such a large share of the ecological modernization literature (in English) has been authored by sociolo- gists, the discussion in this paper will occasionally refer specifically to the (environmental) sociological literature. 0016-7185/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 7 1 8 5 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 4 4 - 5

Ecological modernization as social theory

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Ecological modernization as social theory

Ecological modernization as social theory

F.H. Buttel

Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1450 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA

Received 5 November 1998; in revised form 12 August 1999

Abstract

In this paper I examine some of the reasons for and implications of the ascendance of ecological modernization thought. I stress

that its rapid rise to prominence is not because it is a well-developed and highly-codi®ed social theory, but rather because it accords

particularly well with a number of intellectual and broader political±economic factors, many of which lie outside the realms of

sociology and environmental sociology. I suggest that while ecological modernization is indistinct as a social theory its basic logic

suggests two points. First, the most sophisticated versions of ecological modernization revolve around the notion that political

processes and practices are particularly critical in enabling ecological phenomena to be `` Ômoved intoÕ the modernization process''

(Mol, A.P.J., 1995. The Re®nement of Production. Van Arkel, Utrecht, p. 28). Thus, a full-blown theory of ecological modern-

ization must ultimately be a theory of politics and the state. Second, the logic of ecological modernization theory suggests that it has

very close a�nities to several related literatures ± particularly embedded autonomy, civil society, and state-society synergy theories

in political sociology ± which have not yet been incorporated into the ecological modernization literature. I conclude by arguing that

ecological modernization can bene®t by bringing these related ± and, for that matter, more powerful ± theories into its fold. Ó 2000

Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The rise of ecological modernization as a perspectivein environmental social science1 has been as meteoric asit has been unexpected. Ecological modernization wasunknown to virtually all North American environmentalsocial scientists half a dozen years ago, save for a smallhandful of comparative politics specialists who werefamiliar with J�anickeÕs (1990) work on ``state failure'', orenvironmental studies scholars who had read SimonisÕ(1989) paper in the International Social Science Journal.Now ecological modernization has come to be regardedas being on a virtual par with some of the most long-standing and in¯uential ideas and perspectives in envi-

ronmental sociology (e.g., SchnaibergÕs (1980) notion of``treadmill of production'', and Catton and DunlapÕs(1980) notions of Human Exemptionalist and New En-vironmental Paradigms (see also Dunlap and Catton,1994). Over the past two years it has come to be virtuallyobligatory for professional meetings of environmentalsocial scientists to have one or more sessions devotedspeci®cally to ecological modernization. Further, whilethere has been a surprising degree of acceptance ofecological modernization as one of the mainstream en-vironmental±sociological perspectives, the pervasivenessof ecological modernization can be gauged by the factthat a broad range of environmental social scientistshave found it necessary to address ± even if only tocritically respond to ± the rising in¯uence of this per-spective (see, e.g., Benton, 1997; Harvey, 1996; Schnai-berg et al., 1999; Redclift and Woodgate, 1997a,b; alsosee Mol and Spaargaren, 2000; Mol, 1999; Cohen, 1997,for summaries of this critical literature and for responsesto the major criticisms that have been raised). Ecologicalmodernization has already become featured as an es-tablished perspective in the most recent environmentalsociology undergraduate textbooks (Harper, 1996; Bell,1998) and has become a particularly popular topic inthe journal, Environmental Politics. The publication ofthe present special issue of Geoforum testi®es to the

Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

E-mail address: fhbuttel@facsta�.wisc.edu (F.H. Buttel).1 In this paper the expression environmental social science will be

understood to pertain to the social science disciplines in which

ecological modernization perspectives currently play a major role.

Ecological modernization has become quite in¯uential within envi-

ronmental sociology, and to a lesser degree within geography and

political science. Because such a large share of the ecological

modernization literature (in English) has been authored by sociolo-

gists, the discussion in this paper will occasionally refer speci®cally to

the (environmental) sociological literature.

0016-7185/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 7 1 8 5 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 4 4 - 5

Page 2: Ecological modernization as social theory

tremendous interest that ecological modernization hasstimulated within geography.

A particularly important indicator of the extent towhich ecological modernization thought has becamein¯uential in the environmental social sciences is theprominence given to MolÕs (1997) paper in the recentand widely circulated International Handbook of Envi-ronmental Sociology (Redclift and Woodgate, 1997a,b).MolÕs (1997) paper is one of a handful in the Redclift±Woodgate anthology devoted to a particular theoreticalperspective. Not only has ecological modernization veryrapidly gained a foothold in environmental sociologyand environmental studies, but it has even made someinroads into general sociological scholarship. Perhapsthe most telling indicator of the rising in¯uence of eco-logical modernization is the fact that Giddens (1998),arguably the most well-known Anglophone social the-orist of the late 20th century and a scholar interested inenvironmental issues and their sociological signi®cance,has devoted 10 pages of his The Third Way to ecologicalmodernization thought.

This paper will focus on some of the reasons for andimplications of the extraordinary ascendance of eco-logical modernization thought. I will stress that its rapidrise to prominence is due less to ecological moderniza-tion having been a well-developed and highly-codi®edsocial theory, but rather because of how ecologicalmodernization accorded particularly well with a numberof intellectual and broader political±economic factors,many of which lay outside the realms of sociology andenvironmental sociology. I will suggest that while eco-logical modernization is indistinct as a social theory,ecological modernizationÕs basic logic suggests twopoints. First, the most sophisticated and persuasiveversions of ecological modernization revolve around thenotion that political processes and practices are partic-ularly critical in enabling ecological phenomena to be``Ômoved intoÕ the modernization process'' (Mol, 1995, p.28). Thus, a full-blown theory of ecological modern-ization must ultimately be a theory of politics and thestate ± that is, a theory of the changes in the state andpolitical practices (and a theory of the antecedents ofthese changes) which tend to give rise to private eco-e�ciencies and overall environmental reforms. Second,the logic of ecological modernization theory suggeststhat it has very close a�nities to several related litera-tures ± particularly embedded autonomy, civil society,and state-society synergy theories in political sociology ±which have not yet been incorporated into the ecologicalmodernization literature. I will conclude by arguing thatecological modernization can bene®t by bringing theserelated ± and, for that matter, more powerful ± theoriesinto its fold. Further, and perhaps most important,ecological modernization could well succeed or fail associal theory depending on the sturdiness of the bridgesthat can be built to these parallel theories.

2. The ecological modernization concept and perspective

Nearly as remarkable as ecological modernizationÕsrising visibility and in¯uence has been the diversity ofthe meanings and usages of this concept. Ecologicalmodernization is now employed in at least four di�erentways. First, there is an identi®able school of ecologicalmodernizationist/sociological thought.2 From a NorthAmerican and British perspective Arthur Mol and GertSpaargaren are now generally recognized as the key®gures in the ®eld, though in Germany, the Netherlands,and elsewhere on the Continent ecological moderniza-tion is still very closely associated with the work ofscholars such as Joseph Huber and Martin J�anicke.Nonetheless, Mol and SpaargarenÕs sole- and jointly-authored works (Spaargaren and Mol, 1992; Mol andSpaargaren, 2000; Spaargaren et al., 1999; Mol andSpaargaren, 1993; Spaargaren, 1996; Mol, 1995, 1997),as well as those of close associates and colleagues (e.g.,Cohen, 1997; Leroy and van Tatenhove, 1999), consti-tute what can be thought of as the core literature of theecological modernization perspective. In this paper I willprimarily build from Mol and SpaargarenÕs works be-cause of all the scholars and researchers in this tradition(at least as far as the literature in English is concerned)they have done the most to articulate a distinctive the-oretical argument.

A second respect in which ecological modernization isemployed is as a notion for depicting prevailingdiscourses of environmental policy. The major ®gureassociated with the political-discursive and social-con-structionist perspective on ecological modernization isHajer (1995). For Hajer (1995), ecological moderniza-tion is not so much a prediction of strong tendencies toindustrial±ecological progress as it is a category for de-scribing the dominant discourses of the environmentalpolicy arenas of the advanced countries. In addition toHajerÕs constructionism being in stark contrast with theobjectivism of the core literature in ecological modern-ization, HajerÕs view is that ecological-modernizationist

2 Note that I use the expression ecological-modernizationist

``thought'' or ``perspective'', rather than theory, at this point in the

paper because of the fact that, at least as far as the literature in English

is concerned, ecological modernization is not yet a clearly-codi®ed

theory. The lack of codi®cation has given rise to the fact that

ecological modernization has been used in so many di�erent ways by

social scientists. As an example, Redclift and Woodgate (1997a,b) take

the core notion of ecological modernization to be the claim that

economic growth is compatible with environmental protection, and

they equate the perspective primarily with the literature on industrial

ecology and ``industrial metabolism''. While one might say that

Redclift and Woodgate have simply misinterpreted ecological mod-

ernization, one can say that this type of confusion would be very

unlikely to occur when environmental social scientists discuss Schnai-

bergÕs (1980) notion of treadmill of production or OÕConnorÕs (1994)

notion of the second contradiction of capital.

58 F.H. Buttel / Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65

Page 3: Ecological modernization as social theory

environmental±political discourse may even serve todilute the political impulse for environmental reforms byobscuring the degree to which economic expansion,growth of consumption, and capital-intensive techno-logical change compromise the ability of states to ensurea quality environment. Thus, for many observers (in-cluding some in the core tradition of ecological mod-ernization) HajerÕs social-constructionist work is oftenthought of as lying outside of ± or even being hostile toor incompatible with ± the ecological modernizationperspective per se.

Third, ecological modernization is often used as asynonym for strategic environmental management, in-dustrial ecology, eco-restructuring, and so on (seeHawken, 1993; Ayes, 1998). Indeed, the core literatureon ecological modernization has tended to give primaryemphasis to environmental improvements in the privatesector, particularly in relation to manufacturing indus-try and associated sectors (e.g., waste recycling). Socialscientists from a variety of theoretical persuasions (e.g.,Schnaiberg et al., 1998; Andersen, 1994) now use thenotion of ecological modernization to pertain to privatesector behaviors and conduct that simultaneously in-crease e�ciency and minimize pollution and waste. Fi-nally, there are some scholars who use the notion ofecological modernization to pertain to almost any en-vironmental policy innovation or environmental im-provement. Murphy (1997), for example, refers to statepolicies that make possible the internalization of envi-ronmental externalities as being instances of ecologicalmodernization.

In addition, Mol (1999) has recently felt the need todistinguish between the ®rst-generation of ecologicalmodernization literature (which includes, in particular,the 1980s and early 1990s studies by German and Dutchscholars summarized in Mol, 1995) and the second-generation literature that has appeared in the late 1990s.The ®rst-generation literature was based on the over-arching hypotheses that capitalist liberal democracy hasthe institutional capacity to reform its impact on thenatural environment, and that one can predict that thefurther development (``modernization'') of capitalistliberal democracy would tend to result in improve-ment in ecological outcomes. The second-generationecological modernization literature, by contrast, hasincreasingly revolved around identifying the speci®csociopolitical processes through which the furthermodernization of capitalist liberal democracies leads to(or blocks) bene®cial ecological outcomes. The mostrecent ecological modernization literature has been moreconcerned with comparative perspectives, including butnot limited to the ways in which globalization processesmight catalyze ecological modernization processes incountries in the South.

Nonetheless, the range of meanings associated withthe notion of ecological modernization arguably is re-

lated to the fact that the rise of the ecological modern-ization perspective was not due only or even primarily tothe clarity of its theoretical arguments. Indeed, the riseof ecological modernization as a concept has had to domore with the fact that ecological modernization was ane�ective response to a variety of circumstances or im-peratives regarding social±ecological thought in the1990s. First, the renewal of the environmental move-ment during the 1980s, on the grounds of global envi-ronmental change and growing recognition of ecologicaland technological risks, suggested to many in the envi-ronmental and ecological communities that very radicalsteps ± signi®cant decreases in fossil energy usage, re-versal of tropical forest destruction and biodiversityloss, increasingly strict regulation of industry, the lo-calization and decentralization [rather than globaliza-tion] of economic activity and social regulation, and soon ± were necessary to address the processes of de-struction of the biosphere. These impulses arguablyhelped to catalyze the rise of radical environmentalmovements in Northern Europe.3 The rise of these en-vironmental movements stimulated scholars such asBeck (1992) to see radical environmentalism as an en-during feature of advanced industrial politics. Thegrowth of these counterhegemonic social±environmentalviews, many of the most in¯uential of which were givenvisibility through publication in The Ecologist in theUK, led to a growing imperative to address whetherthey were scienti®cally sound or robust relative to themore managerial variants of environmental science (e.g.,of the sort analyzed in Hajer, 1995). The rise of radicalenvironmental movements also increasingly set theagenda for sociological theory and research as sizablegroups of social scientists began to grapple with phe-nomena such as new social movements (NSMs), ``therisk society'', identity politics, subpolitics, and so on(Scott, 1991; Goldblatt, 1996; Martell, 1994). It thusbecame increasingly incumbent upon social scientists torespond to the rise and growing in¯uence of radicalenvironmental movements, especially in terms ofwhether radical environmentalism (and radical NSMs in

3 Mol (1997, p. 33, 58), for example, portrays radical environmen-

talism in terms of eco-centric ideologies which are deployed in pursuit

of ``de-industrialization'' agendas, and mentions the ``deep ecology''

movement as being the prototypical radical environmental movement.

While Mol acknowledges respect for radical environmentalism for its

e�orts to legitimize notions of ecological rationality, he suggests that

the radical environmental position is not a realistic one to the degree

that it insists that ecological rationality must be substituted for (rather

than being balanced with or weighed against) private economic

rationality. It should also be noted that Joseph HuberÕs original

contributions to ecological modernization thought were reactions to

the anti-modernist views of key (``fundamentalist'') ®gures such as

Bahro (1984). Ecological modernization has thus been closely identi-

®ed with the realist wing within the fundamentalist±realist divide

within the German Green Party.

F.H. Buttel / Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65 59

Page 4: Ecological modernization as social theory

general) would be an ascendant social force and wouldbe a necessary precursor to e�ective environmental im-provement and reform. Accordingly, the growing at-tention to ecological modernization in German socialscienti®c circles in the 1980s had as much with to dowith issues that arose from the environmental sciencesand from the political realm as it did with considerationsfrom the realm of social theory per se.

Second, despite the very considerable enthusiasm andinnovation which had occurred in social-scienti®cthought and practical policy work as a result of the morewidespread use of the concepts of sustainability andsustainable development, it was becoming increasinglyapparent that sustainability and sustainable develop-ment had real shortcomings in providing guidance andvision for future evolution of environmental policy.Both of these sustainability notions had originally beendeveloped with regard to policy toward the South, andin addition the various notions of sustainability hadbeen derived from experiences involving the primary-renewable sectors in nonmetropolitan or rural places inthe South. Ecological modernization provided a tem-plate for new thinking about the problems and theirsolutions that are most urgent to address in the trans-formative sectors of metropolitan regions of the advancedindustrial nations.

Third, it had become increasingly apparent thatNorth American dominance of environmental±socio-logical theory had led to certain biases and blinders. Therise of ecological modernization can be seen as a re-sponse to a particularly crucial shortcoming of NorthAmerican environmental sociology. While NorthAmerican environmental sociology was quite diverse,most of its major theoretical works had converged onthe notion that environmental degradation was intrin-sically a product of the key social dynamics (be they thetreadmill of production, the ``growth machine'', thepersistence of the dominant social paradigm or of an-thropocentric values, and so on) of 20th century capi-talist-industrial civilization. In straining to accounttheoretically for why the US and other advanced in-dustrial societies were inexorably tending toward envi-ronmental crisis, North American environmentalsociology found itself in an increasingly awkward posi-tion: environmental sociologists had so overtheorizedthe intrinsic tendency to environmental disruption anddegradation so that there was little room for recognizingthat environmental improvements might be forthcom-ing. And the only way out of the ``iron cage'' of envi-ronmental despair was a rather idealistic ± if not utopian± view of environmental movements as the only recoursefor environmental salvation (Buttel, 1996, 1997). Eco-logical modernization not only provided a way forenvironmental sociologists to more directly conceptu-alize environmental improvement; ecological modern-ization also provided a fresh perspective on the role of

environmental movements by avoiding their romantic-ization, and by appreciating the particularly funda-mental roles that science, technology, capital, and statemight play in the processes of environmental improve-ment.

In particular, by the mid-1990s it had become in-creasingly apparent that North American environmen-tal±sociological scholarship needed to take better intoaccount the considerable environmental progress thatcountries such as Germany, the Netherlands, andSwitzerland had made ± at least relative to the far moremodest environmental progress which had beenachieved in North America. Northern European envi-ronmental progress had not been con®ned to pollutionabatement and control, but also extended to eco-e�-ciency improvements which had been made in manu-facturing industry (Simonis, 1989; Hawken, 1993,Chapter 4).4 But by the early 1990s these developmentshad remained largely ignored in mainstream NorthAmerican environmental±sociological literature. Eco-logical modernization provided a way to understandthese eco-industrial improvements while doing so in away more satisfying than the ecological microeconomicsof Hawken (1993) and the more mainstream environ-mental economists.

The growing embrace of ecological modernizationthought by the global environmental±sociological com-munity thus ful®lled a wide variety of needs and ®lledseveral gaps in social±environmental thought. Even so,this embrace has remained relatively super®cial, beingcon®ned mainly to acceptance of the notion that sub-stantial eco-e�ciency gains can be made through further(or ``super-'') industrialization within capitalism. Thus,for example, Schnaiberg et al. (1998) have felt quitecomfortable appropriating the notion of ecologicalmodernization to depict successful instances of post-consumer waste recycling, while at the same time re-taining the concept of treadmill of production (whichMol, 1995, sees as an example of deterministic neo-Marxist environmental sociology) as their main ex-

4 I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer who stressed that it is

useful to recognize that there are two related, but quite separate

streams of research and practice which are typically subsumed under

the more general category of eco-e�ciency. The ®rst, which has been

actively promoted by the World Business Council for Sustainable

Development áwww.wbcsd.chñ and is increasingly gaining attention

among management consultants, is that of ``strategic environmental

management''. Strategic environmental management is primarily

concerned with achieving fewer externalities, greater eco- or environ-

mental e�ciencies, and ``green marketing'' advantages within the

context of existing plant and equipment. By contrast, ``industrial

ecology'' refers to a more ambitious agenda of fundamental redesign of

industrial structures and processes (including industrial relocations

and production synergies) aimed at achieving the dematerialization of

production, and ultimately the dematerialization of society (see Ayres,

1998).

60 F.H. Buttel / Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65

Page 5: Ecological modernization as social theory

planatory device. Most observers of the ecologicalmodernization perspective ± be they proponents, critics,or those interested in exploring the potentials of thisperspective ± have tended to evaluate it in terms of thethird and fourth uses of the notion of ecological mod-ernization noted above. Speci®cally, the questions mostoften asked are, ``Is ecological modernization actuallyoccurring?'' or ``Is there good reason to believe that wecan expect trends toward ecological modernization in asigni®cant number of economic sectors and world na-tions?''

The next section of the paper will be based on thenotion that the ®rst meaning of ecological moderniza-tion ± that of a distinctive, though incipient social theorywith the potential to create a coherent literature throughhypothesis testing ± is the more fundamental and usefulone. Thus, while the environmental-economic and en-vironmental-engineering conceptions of ecologicalmodernization have tended to predominate in socio-logical usage of the notion of ecological modernization,I would suggest that the following are the more impor-tant postulates of a distinctive and coherent ecologicalmodernization perspective. An ecological modernizationperspective hypothesizes that while the most challengingenvironmental problems of this century and the nexthave (or will have) been caused by modernization andindustrialization, their solutions must necessary lie inmore ± rather than less ± modernization and ``superin-dustrialization''. Put somewhat di�erently, it is hy-pothesized that not only is capitalism su�ciently ¯exibleinstitutionally to permit movement in the direction of``sustainable capitalism'' (to turn OÕConnorÕs, 1994 no-tion on its head), but its imperative of competitionamong capitals can ± under certain political conditions ±be harnessed to achieve pollution-prevention eco-e�-ciencies within the production process, and ultimatelywithin consumption processes as well (Spaargaren,1996). Thus, second, social theory must recognize anddirectly theorize the role that capitalist eco-e�ciencyand rationalization can play in environmental reform (aswell as recognize their limits and the degree to whichthey can or must be induced by the state). Third, eco-logical modernization is in some sense a critical responseto ± if not a decisive critique of ± radical environmen-talism (or ``countermodernity''). As Mol (1995, p. 48)notes, ``the role of the environmental movement willshift from that of a critical commentator outside societaldevelopments to that of a critical ± and still independent± participant in developments aimed at ecologicaltransformation''. Fourth, an ecological modernizationperspective views the environment as in potentiality orin practice being an increasingly autonomous (or ``dis-embedded'') arena of decision-making (what Mol refersto as the ``emancipation of ecology'').

Fifth, and perhaps most fundamental, is that eco-logical modernization processes are a re¯ection of policy

environments that are made possible through the re-structuring (or ``modernization'') of the state. Thus, inMolÕs (1995, pp. 46±47) words:

The ecological modernization theory has identi®edtwo options for strategies to overcome the de®cien-cies of the traditional bureaucratic state in environ-mental policymaking. . . First, a transformation ofstate environmental policy is necessary: from cura-tive and reactive to preventive, from exclusive toparticipatory policy-making, from centralized todecentralized wherever possible, and from domi-neering, over-regulated environmental policy to apolicy which creates favorable conditions and con-texts for environmentally sound practices and be-havior on the part of producers and consumers.The state will have to widen the competence of civillaw in environmental policy, focus more on steeringvia economic mechanisms and change in its man-agement strategy by introducing collective self-obli-gations for economic sectors via discursive interestmediation. The second, related, option includes atransfer of responsibilities, incentives, and tasksfrom the state to the market. This will advanceand accelerate the ecological transformation pro-cess, mainly because the market is considered tobe a more e�cient and e�ective mechanism for co-ordinating the tackling of environmental problemsthan the state. . . The central idea is not a witheringaway of the state in environmental management,but rather a transformation in the relation betweenstate and society and di�erent accents on the steer-ing role of the state. The state provides the condi-tions and stimulates social Ôself-regulationÕ, eithervia economic mechanisms and dynamics or viathe public sphere of citizen groups, environmentalNGOs and consumer organizations.

3. Ecological modernization as prospective social theory

As successful as ecological modernization has been asa school of environmental±sociological thought, it is atrisk of ultimately su�ering the same fate as its prede-cessor sister concept, sustainable development (SD).Though proponents of the SD notion bene®ted byhaving the imprimatur of SD being endorsed by animpressive range of institutions and international orga-nizations (e.g., the United Nations and UNCED, theWorld Bank, the European Union), SD has slowly butsurely begun to recede from the social-scienti®c radarscreen. This has in large part been because of the factthat the SD concept could not overcome being seen as anebulous knowledge claim which was too imprecise togenerate a coherent set of hypotheses and body of

F.H. Buttel / Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65 61

Page 6: Ecological modernization as social theory

research. Perhaps recognizing this, some of ecologicalmodernizationÕs most innovative thinkers, particularlyMol (1995) and Spaargaren (1996), have devoted con-siderable e�ort with the aim of anchoring ecologicalmodernization within extant social theory.

Mol and SpaargarenÕs e�orts at theoretical buttress-ing of ecological modernization have yielded certainsuccesses. Mol and Spaargaren have noted that ecolog-ical modernization has parallels to a variety of classicaltheorists and in¯uential theories (e.g., SchumpeterÕs andKondratie�Õs notions of long cycles, Polanyi, 1957 no-tion of ``disembedding'', and Giddens, 1994 four di-mensions of modernity). Arguably, however, they havetended to link ecological modernization most closely tothe work of Ulrich Beck, particularly his well-knownwritings on re¯exive modernization and risk society(Beck, 1992; Beck et al., 1994).

There are some good reasons why Mol and Spaarg-aren would choose to link ecological modernization withthe work of Beck. The Netherlands and Germany (thecountries of greatest interest to Mol±Spaargaren andBeck, respectively) have a number of structural simi-larities. While their political systems exhibit major dif-ferences (e.g., the Dutch state is highly centralized whilestate governments play a major role in Germany), bothare parliamentary democracies within which environ-mental ideologies are ®rmly established within theirnational political cultures. Beck is among the most in-¯uential and visible social theorists in Northern Europe,and linking ecological modernization to BeckÕs thoughtwould no doubt be a plus in the mainstreaming ofecological modernization thought within European so-ciological circles. Not only was Beck an in¯uentialgeneral sociological theorist in the 1980s, but by theearly 1990s Beck was arguably beginning to displaceSchnaiberg, Dunlap, Catton and other North Ameri-cans as the most in¯uential environmental±sociologicaltheorist in Europe. Thus, linking ecological modern-ization with BeckÕs work would create legitimacy and anentr�ee for this new perspective within environmentalsociology and sociology at large.

In some ways ecological modernization can bethought of as an instance of BeckÕs (1992) notion ofre¯exive modernization ± through which modernizationcan be ``turned back on to itself'' in order to address theproblems which it has itself created. There is also a sensein which Mol and Spaargaren share BeckÕs skepticismabout the e�cacy of radical environmentalism. Thereare additional similarities in their views about how therole of states in advanced capitalism is changing (inparticular, the shift toward less bureaucratization andcentralization). Perhaps most fundamentally, Mol±Spaargaren and Beck agree that solutions to the prob-lems caused by modernization, industrialization, andscience can only be solved through more modernization,industrialization, and science.

These similarities between ecological modernizationand BeckÕs theories of re¯exive modernization and risksociety notwithstanding, there are several reasons why Ibelieve that ecological modernization cannot rest itsmain theoretical case on re¯exive modernization ± or, inother words, on notions that derive directly or indirectly(e.g., via Giddens (see Beck et al., 1994; Giddens, 1994))from Ulrich Beck. There are some very considerableinconsistencies between ecological modernization andBeckÕs notions of re¯exive modernization and risk so-ciety ± many of which Mol (1995) and others readilyacknowledge. Among the more salient of these di�er-ences are the following. While Mol and Spaargarenplace relatively little emphasis on the role of radicalenvironmental groups or new social movements (NSMs)in making possible ecological modernization processes,the lynchpin of BeckÕs work is the increasingly impor-tant role being played by NSMs and subpolitics in therestructuring of the state and political discourses. Thearenas of environmental mobilization and reform em-phasized by Mol and Spaargaren also bear little simi-larity to those such as anti-nuclear and anti-biotechnology protests that are of particular concern toBeck. The very concept of ``risk society'' conjures up anadherence to matters of identity politics and extra-sci-enti®c policymaking that contrasts with the image ofenvironmental improvement stressed by Mol and Spa-argaren. And while Beck points to a sharp distinctionbetween ``industrial society'' and ``risk society'', thethrust of core ecological modernization thought is thateco-e�ciency gains can be achieved without radicalstructural changes in state and civil society. In additionto these areas of incompatibility between Mol±Spaarg-arenÕs ecological modernization perspective and BeckÕstheory of risk society, it is also worth noting that BeckÕswork has become somewhat passe in the late 1990s, andhas generated very little interest in North America, sothere is even less reason to anchor ecological modern-ization thought in the work of Beck (and of GiddensÕforays into re¯exive modernization).

If ecological modernization has conceptual appealbut requires more social-theoretical foundations, whichway to turn? I would argue that guidance on this scorecan be derived from Mol and SpaargarenÕs own work ±namely, from the stress they have placed on the types ofstate structures, policy networks, and policy cultureswhich are required to propel forward processes of eco-logical modernization. Their (or at least MolÕs) thinkingon this score is indicated quite clearly in the lengthyquote from Mol (1995) The Re®nement of Productionearlier in the paper. This lengthy quoted passage, Iwould argue, is strikingly compatible with the works ofscholars such as Evans (1995, 1996, 1997) who havedeveloped a set of interrelated notions of embeddedautonomy and state-society synergy. In particular,Evans (1995) and the core thinkers of ecological

62 F.H. Buttel / Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65

Page 7: Ecological modernization as social theory

modernization share very similar ideas about state ef-fectiveness and state-civil society ties. Mol (1995) andLeroy and van Tatenhove (1999), for example, place agreat deal of stress on the role that advocacy-coalition-type relations among state o�cials, corporate managers,and environmental NGOs play in making possible eco-logical modernization processes.

Evans (1995) work can perhaps best be character-ized as a neo-Weberian perspective on the state whichat the same time is distanced from much of late 20thcentury neo-Weberian political sociology (as well asstructuralist Marxism) through its critique of ``state-centeredness'' or state autonomy being primarilyproperties of the state itself. Prior to publication ofEvansÕ Embedded Autonomy, there had been a strongconsensus among ``theorists of the state'' (includingboth Weberian proponents of state-centeredness as wellas neo-Marxist structuralists) that large centralizedstates that are relatively autonomous from groups andclasses in civil society are best able to formulate andimplement coherent and authoritative policies. In Ev-ansÕ (1995, p. 22) book he argued instead that while theorganization of the state does a�ect the capacity ofstates to ``construct markets and promote growth''state e�ectiveness derives equally from the nature andquality of its relations with (rather than its autonomyor insulation from) groups in civil society. Evans (1995,Chapter 2) thus de®nes embedded autonomy as a statestructure which combines ``corporate coherence''5 onone hand, and connectedness of, and social ties be-tween, state agencies and o�cials and various groupsin civil society on the other.

Evans in his Embedded Autonomy (1995) aims to de-velop evidence that the ``developmental states'' in theSouth which were successful in achieving rapid indus-trial development in the 1970s and 1980s tended to haveembedded-autonomous structures, involving both cor-porate coherence and connectedness to groups in civilsociety. In EvansÕ subsequent work (1996, 1997) onstate-society synergy, which he conceptualizes as a par-ticularly important form of embedded autonomy, hefocuses on how the development of concrete sets of so-cial ties between states and groups in society create``synergies''; on one hand, these ties between states andsocieties help make states more e�ective, and on theother hand these ties help various groups in civil societyto better meet their goals. It is worth noting that whileEvansÕ (1995) early work on embedded autonomy con-sidered economic growth and industrial development to

be the ultimate indicator of state e�ectiveness,6 Evanshas increasingly seen ``sustainability'' (particularly ``ur-ban sustainability'' or ``livability'') as being as or moreimportant as a dimension of state e�ectiveness (see Ev-ans, 1997; Buttel, 1998).

It is also worth noting that many of the concerns ofEvans and other theorists of embedded autonomy andstate-society synergy (see especially the works by EvansÕcolleagues in his 1997 collection) were in some senseanticipated by J�anicke (1990) ± a political scientist andone of the German founders of ecological moderniza-tion ± in his work on ``state failure''. Not only doesJ�anicke (1990) stress the theme of the need for closerstate-society ties in a manner similar to Evans, butJ�anicke stresses the fact that environmental policy isamong the arenas in which these ties are particularlycrucial in order to achieve policy e�ectiveness (or, inother words to overcome state failure). Thus, not only isneo-Weberian embedded autonomy theory highly con-sistent with ecological modernization, but one of itsfounders ± Martin J�anicke ± has written in a parallelvein, albeit at a lower level of abstraction than achievedby Evans.

4. Concluding remarks

Ecological modernization has tended to be appro-priated by environmental sociologists, geographers, andpolitical scientists mainly because of its provocative andchallenging views about the malleability of the institu-tions and technological capabilities of industrial capi-talism, and because of its observations fromenvironmental science and engineering ± that eco-e�-ciencies can fairly readily be achieved within theframework of continued modernization of capitalismand the application of modern experimental science.Ecological modernization is a new, and in many ways inimproved, synonym for sustainable development. At thesame time ecological modernization is more useful thansustainable development as a macro or overarchingframework for thinking about the environmental prob-lems of metropolitan transformative industry in theNorth. As much as any of these factors, perhaps, eco-logical modernization has become attractive as a con-cept because it provides alternatives to the pessimisticconnotations of frameworks such as the treadmillof production and the growth machine. Ecological

5 Evans means ``corporate coherence'' in the Weberian (legal-rational

authority) sense ± that is, the cohesion among state o�cials which

re¯ects commitment to the state and its goals, which in turn is made

possible by meritocratic recruitment and a long-term career reward

structure.

6 Evans (1995) initial work on embedded autonomy and develop-

mentalist states stressed state ties with what he called ``developmental

elites'', while in EvansÕ (1996, 1997) more recent work on state-society

synergy and urban sustainability in the South he gives more stress to

community and neighborhood (including shantytown) leaders and

activists.

F.H. Buttel / Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65 63

Page 8: Ecological modernization as social theory

modernization expresses hope, and makes it morereadily possible to identify and appreciate the signi®-cance of environmental success stories.

Ecological modernization thought, however, has notdeveloped to a point where one can say that it shares anidenti®able set of postulates and exhibits agreement onresearch hypotheses and research agenda in the sameway that one can do so for a theory such as the treadmillof production. In large part this is because ecologicalmodernization did not develop primarily from a pre-existing body of social-theoretical thought ± as, for ex-ample, was the case with the treadmill of production(Schnaiberg, 1980) having been largely derived fromOÕConnorÕs (1973) in¯uential theory of the accumula-tion and legitimation functions of the state and howtheir contradictions tend to become manifest in state®scal crisis. Instead, ecological modernization thoughthas been more strongly driven by extra-theoreticalchallenges and concerns (e.g., about how to respondpolitically to radical environmentalism and how toconceptualize eco-e�ciency improvements that are cur-rently linked to new management practices and techni-cal-spatial restructuring of production). Ecologicalmodernization has essentially been an environmentalscience and environmental policy concept which hassubsequently been buttressed with a number of citationsto social-theoretical literatures, some of which are mu-tually quite contradictory (compare Beck vs. J�anicke,for example).

While Beck and related theorists of re¯exive mod-ernization (especially Giddens) have been cited mostoften within the core ecological modernization literatureas theoretical exemplars, there are a number of reasonswhy Beck, and his notions of risk society, subpolitics,and so on, are unlikely to be sturdy theoretical foun-dations for ecological modernization. I would argue thatecological modernization is ultimately a political±socio-logical perspective, for reasons that are made clear in thelengthy quote from Mol (1995) earlier in the paper. Andthe political±sociological theory which it has closestpotential relations ± and, in some sense, which re¯ects itsown origins in the work of J�anicke ± is the neo-We-berian tradition of embedded autonomy and state-soci-ety synergy. I would argue that the way forward forecological modernization is not to emphasize empiricaldebates over the potentials and limits of environmentalengineering and industrial ecology, but rather to deepenthe links to political±sociological literatures which willsuggest new research problems and hypotheses. Em-bedded autonomy and state-society theorizing, whilethey are not without problems (Buttel, 1998), are par-ticularly well suited to comparative analysis, which is aparticularly exciting research frontier for ecologicalmodernization research.

Current or prospective enthusiasts for ecologicalmodernization-driven inquiry should recognize, how-

ever, that this perspective has some important short-comings that need to be squarely addressed. Theseinclude the perspectiveÕs (Northern) Eurocentricity (thefact that its theoretical roots and empirical examples arelargely taken from a set of Northern European countriesthat are distinctive by world standards), the excessivestress on transformative industry, the preoccupationwith e�ciency and pollution control over broader con-cerns about aggregate resource consumption and itsenvironmental impacts, the potentially uncritical stancetoward the transformative potentials of modern capi-talism, and the fact that very fundamental questionsraised about modernizationism within the developmentstudies literature (e.g., Hoogvelt, 1987; Pred and Watts,1992) have not been addressed within ecological mod-ernization theory.

It should also be noted that while we can agree withthe ecological modernizationists that radical environ-mentalism may not be directly responsible for many ofthe environmental gains achieved in Northern Europeand elsewhere, these nonmainstream ecology groupsarguably play a signi®cant role in pushing mainstreamenvironmental groups and their allies in the state andprivate industry to advance a more forceful ecologicalviewpoint. Thus, radical environmental groups, byproviding alternative vocabularies and ``frames'' ofenvironmentalism, stressing issues often ignored withinmainstream environmentalism, and providing new lociof personal identity for citizens, will tend to strengthenthe movement as a whole, and thus indirectly con-tribute to ecological modernization processes. It isworth noting, in fact, that in the US the environmentalgroups that are most concerned about toxics andchemicals ± the primary preoccupation of ecologicalmodernizationists ± are not the mainstream environ-mental groups, but rather local (particularly ``envi-ronmental justice'' ± oriented) groups which are mostradical and often thought as being out of the move-ment mainstream (Gottlieb, 1993). In sum, as the so-cial science community moves rapidly to explore thenew ecological modernizationist viewpoint, it shoulddo so with awareness of both its strengths and weak-nesses.

Acknowledgements

A previous version of this paper was presented at theSchool of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE),University of Michigan, October 1998. The authorwould like to thank the SNRE faculty and graduatestudents, William Freudenburg, two anonymous Geo-Forum reviewers, Jenny Robinson, and Joseph Murphyfor their comments and suggestions on previous versionsof this paper.

64 F.H. Buttel / Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65

Page 9: Ecological modernization as social theory

References

Andersen, M.S., 1994. Governance by Green Taxes. Manchester

University Press, Manchester.

Ayres, R.U. (Ed.), 1998. Eco-Restructuring. United Nations Univer-

sity Press, New York.

Bahro, R., 1984. From Red to Green. Verso, London.

Beck, U., 1992. Risk Society. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Beck, U., Giddens, A., Lash, S. (Eds.), 1994. Re¯exive Modernization

Policy, Cambridge.

Bell, M., 1998. An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. Pine Forge

Books, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Benton, T., 1997. Re¯exive modernization or green socialism? Paper

Presented at the RC-24 Conference on Sociological Theory and the

Environment. Woudschoten Conference Center, Zeist, Nether-

lands.

Buttel, F.H., 1996. Environmental and resource sociology: theoretical

issues and opportunities for synthesis. Rural Sociology 61, 56±76.

Buttel, F.H., 1997. Social institutions and environmental change. In:

Redclift, M., Woodgate, G. (Eds.), The International Handbook of

Environmental Sociology, Edward Elgar, London, pp. 40±54.

Buttel, F.H., 1998. Some observations on states, world orders, and the

politics of sustainability. Organization and Environment 11, 261±

286.

Catton Jr., W.R., Dunlap, R.E., 1980. A new sociological paradigm

for post-exuberant sociology. American Behavioral Scientist 24,

14±47.

Cohen, M., 1997. Sustainable development and ecological moderni-

sation: national capacity for environmental reform. OCEES

Research Paper No. 14, Oxford Centre for the Environment,

Ethics, and Society, Oxford.

Dunlap, R.E., Catton Jr., W.R., 1994. Struggling with human

exemptionalism: the rise, decline and revitalization of environmen-

tal sociology. The American Sociologist 25, 5±30.

Evans, P., 1995. Embedded Autonomy. Princeton University Press,

Princeton.

Evans, P., 1996. Government action, social capital, and development:

reviewing the evidence on synergy. World Development 24, 1119±

1132.

Evans, P. (Ed.), 1997. State-Society Synergy. Institute for International

Studies, University of California, Berkeley.

Giddens, A., 1994. Beyond Left and Right. Stanford University Press,

Stanford, CA.

Giddens, A., 1998. The Third Way. Polity, Cambridge.

Goldblatt, D., 1996. Social Theory and the Environment. Westview

Press, Boulder, CO.

Gottlieb, R., 1993. Forcing the Spring. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Hajer, M., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford

University Press, New York.

Harper, C.L., 1996. Environment and Society. Prentice-Hall, Upper

Saddle River, NJ.

Harvey, D., 1996. Justice, Nature and the Ecology of Di�erence.

Blackwell, Oxford.

Hawken, P., 1993. The Ecology of Commerce. HarperCollins, New

York.

Hoogvelt, A., 1987. The Third World in Global Development.

Macmillan, London.

J�anicke, M., 1990. State Failure. Pennsylvania State University Press,

University Park, PA.

Leroy, P., van Tatenhove, J., 1999. New policy arrangements in

environmental politics: the relevance of political and ecological

modernization. In: Spaargaren, G. et al. (Eds.), Environmental

Sociology and Global Modernity, Sage, London.

Martell, L., 1994. Ecology and Society. University of Massachusetts

Press, Amherst.

Mol, A.P.J., 1995. The Re®nement of Production. Van Arkel, Utrecht.

Mol, A.P.J., 1997. Ecological modernization: industrial transforma-

tions and environmental reform. In: Redclift, M., Woodgate, G.

(Eds.), The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology,

Edward Elgar, London, pp. 138±149.

Mol, A.P.J., 1999. The environmental state in transition: exploring the

contradictions between ToP and EMT. Paper presented at the

International Sociological Association (RC 24) conference on The

Environmental State Under Pressure, Chicago.

Mol, A.P.J., Spaargaren, G., 1993. Environment, modernity and the

risk society: the apocalyptic horizon of environmental reform.

International Sociology 8, 431±459.

Mol, A.P.J., Spaargaren, G., 2000. Ecological modernization theory in

debate: a review, Environmental Politics (forthcoming).

Murphy, R., 1997. Sociology and Nature. Westview Press, Boulder,

CO.

OÕConnor, J., 1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. St. MartinÕs Press,

New York.

OÕConnor, J., 1994. Is sustainable capitalism possible? In: OÕConnor,

M. (Ed.), Is Capitalism Sustainable? Guilford, New York, pp. 152±

175.

Polanyi, K., 1957. The Great Transformation. Beacon, Boston.

Pred, A., Watts, M. (Eds.), 1992. Reworking Modernity. Rutgers

University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

Redclift, M., Woodgate, G., 1997a. Sustainability and social construc-

tion. In: Redclift, M., Woodgate, G., (Eds.), The International

Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Edward Elgar, London,

pp. 55±70.

Redclift, M., Woodgate, G., 1997b. The International Handbook of

Environmental Sociology. Edward Elgar, London.

Schnaiberg, A., 1980. The Environment. Oxford University Press, New

York.

Schnaiberg, A., Weinberg, A., Pellow, D., 1998. Ecological modern-

ization in the internal periphery of the USA. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San

Francisco.

Schnaiberg, A., Weinberg, A., Pellow, D., 1999. The treadmill of

production and the environmental state. Paper presented at the

International Sociological Association (RC 24) Conference on The

Environmental State Under Pressure, Chicago.

Scott, A., 1991. Ideology and the New Social Movements. Unwin

Hyman, London.

Simonis, U.E., 1989. Ecological modernization of industrial society:

three strategic elements. International Social Science Journal 121,

347±361.

Spaargaren, G., 1996. The ecological modernization of production and

consumption. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University.

Spaargaren, G., Mol, A.P.J., 1992. Sociology, environment, and

modernity: ecological modernization as a theory of social change.

Society and Natural Resources 55, 323±344.

Spaargaren, G., Mol, A.P.J., Buttel, F.H. (Eds.), 1999. Environ-

mental Sociology and Global Modernity. Sage, London

(forthcoming).

F.H. Buttel / Geoforum 31 (2000) 57±65 65