PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE - Universitetet i oslo€¦ · a RF—Rogaland Research, Stavanger, Norway. Online Publication Date: 01 December 2000 To cite this Article Langhelle,

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [ABM Utvikling STM / SSH packages]On: 7 October 2008Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 788608355]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental Policy & PlanningPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713433817

Why ecological modernization and sustainable development should not beconflatedOluf Langhelle a

a RF—Rogaland Research, Stavanger, Norway.

Online Publication Date: 01 December 2000

To cite this Article Langhelle, Oluf(2000)'Why ecological modernization and sustainable development should not be conflated',Journalof Environmental Policy & Planning,2:4,303 — 322

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/714038563

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714038563

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713433817

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714038563

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Journal of Environmental Policy & PlanningJ. Environ. Policy Plann. 2: 303–322 (2000)

Why Ecological Modernization and SustainableDevelopment Should Not Be ConflatedOLUF LANGHELLE*RF—Rogaland Research, Stavanger, Norway

ABSTRACT In this paper, it is argued that there are significant differences between the concepts of ecologicalmodernization and sustainable development. The different ways in which these concepts frame various approaches toenvironmental policy have important implications. They affect not only the scope, but also the goals, targets and level ofambition that environmental policy-makers should aim at. Ecological modernization should be seen as a necessary, but notsufficient, condition for sustainable development. Conflating the two is not only counterproductive for the broader agenda ofsustainable development, but also for the environmental policies necessary for realizing sustainable development.Therefore, ecological modernization and sustainable development should not be conflated. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley &Sons, Ltd.

Key words: ecological modernization; sustainable development; paradigms; environmental policy

Introduction

There seems to be widespread agreement thatenvironmental policy has undergone substantialchanges in the past 10–15 years (Weale, 1992;Hajer, 1995; Christensen, 1996; Christoff, 1996).Two ‘paradigms’, in particular, have been used todescribe and explain these changes: ecologicalmodernization and sustainable development.This paper argues that while ecological modern-ization and sustainable development are oftenconflated in the literature, there are, in fact,significant differences between these two ways offraming an approach to environmental policy.

Contrary to what seems to be the commonperception, the argument put forward is that thedifferent ways in which sustainable developmentand ecological modernization frame environmen-tal problems have different implications forenvironmental policy. Although sustainabledevelopment and ecological modernization ar-guably lead to the same environmental policy insome areas, they do not necessarily do so inothers. The two concepts have different framesof reference, and are directed towards differentproblems, which, in turn, leads to different goals

and targets for environmental policy. Ecologicalmodernization should, therefore, be seen as anecessary, but not necessarily sufficient, strategyfor sustainable development, and the two con-cepts should not be conflated.

There are, no doubt, several similarities be-tween the concept of sustainable development, asdeveloped by the World Commission on Envi-ronment and Development in Our Common Future(WCED, 1987), and ecological modernization.For one thing, both are seen as primarily an-thropocentric approaches. I shall return to othersimilarities below. The point here, however, isthat this apparent similarity has led several com-mentators to the conclusion that Our CommonFuture (and sustainable development) is first andforemost an expression of ecological moderniza-tion. Weale (1992, p. 31), for instance, arguesthat the emergence of the new belief systemcalled ‘ecological modernization’, most notably,is formulated in the Brundtland report. Hajer(1995, p. 26) makes the same point: ‘The 1987Brundtland Report Our Common Future can be seenas one of the paradigm statements of ecologicalmodernization’. For both Weale and Hajer,therefore, it seems that Our Common Future, sus-tainable development and ecological moderniza-tion reflect the same belief system: ecologicalmodernization.

* Correspondence to: RF—Rogaland Research, PO Box 2503Ullandhaug, 4091 Stavanger, Norway. Tel: +47 51 875129;e-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Received 2 February 2000

Accepted 5 June 2000

Downloaded By: [ABM Utvikling STM / SSH packages] At: 21:51 7 October 2008

O. Langhelle304

Others, however, such as Dryzek (1997), Jan-icke (1997) and Blowers (1998), seem to thinkof sustainable development and ecological mod-ernization as overlapping, but not identical con-cepts. They disagree, nonetheless, as to whichof the two perspectives has the most ‘radical’policy implications. While both Weale andHajer primarily use ecological modernization asa concept describing changes in the perception ofenvironmental problems, the primary concern inthis paper is the prescriptive aspects of theseconcepts. That is, the environmental policy thatcan be said to follow from either sustainabledevelopment or ecological modernization. It is,first and foremost, here that the differencesbetween sustainable development and ecologicalmodernization become crucial in light of Hajer’s(1996, p. 247) argument that ‘the framing of theproblem also governs the debate on necessarychanges’.

As pointed out by Janicke (1997, p. 12), the‘leading paradigm of environmental policy ac-tors’ is seen as being increasingly important.Dryzek (1997, p. 5) expresses a similar view,and argues that ‘the way we think about basicconcepts concerning the environment canchange quite dramatically over time, and thishas consequences for the politics and policiesthat occur in regard to environmental issues’. InDryzek’s perspective, ‘language matters’, and theway ‘we construct, interpret, discuss, andanalyse environmental problems has all kinds ofconsequences’ (Dryzek, 1997, p. 9). Hajer(1996, p. 257) also refers to this as ‘the sec-ondary discursive reality’ of environmental poli-tics, the ‘layer of mediating principles thatdetermines our understanding of ecologicalproblems and implicitly directs our discussionon social change’.1

In this paper, therefore, the differences be-tween the concepts of ecological modernizationand sustainable development are seen in relationto the changes these concepts prescribe forenvironmental policy. The following questionsare raised here. (1) To what extent can ecologi-cal modernization and sustainable developmentbe said to overlap as paradigms for environmen-tal policy? (2) What are the implications ofsustainable development and/or ecological mod-ernization for environmental policy? (3) Does it

matter at all whether one views environmentalpolicy from a sustainable development or anecological modernization perspective? In myview, it does, and the rest of this paper is anattempt to substantiate this claim.

Sustainable development andecological modernization as ‘new’paradigms for environmental policy

Both sustainable development and ecologicalmodernization are contested concepts. AsChristoff (1996) points out, ecological modern-ization is used in different ways by differentauthors. Some use it to describe technologicaldevelopments, others use it to define changes inenvironmental policy discourse. Others againseem to think of it as a new belief system. Mol& Spaargaren (1993) uses the term to cover a setof sociological theories about the developmentof modern industrialized society and a politicalprogramme favouring a particular set of policies.Christoff (1996) develops the concept of eco-logical modernization even further by introduc-ing ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ versions of ecologicalmodernization.

The same pluralism is present for the conceptof sustainable development. There are endlesslists of definitions (see Pearce et al., 1989;Pezzey, 1992; Murcott, 1997) and a number ofapproaches to sustainable development. Severaltypologies of sustainable development havebeen developed. Dobson (1996, 1999) has de-veloped a typology that now describes threebroad ‘ideal’ conceptions of what he prefers tocall ‘conceptions of environmental sustainabil-ity’.2 McManus (1996) identifies nine broad ap-proaches to ‘sustainability’. Others have madedistinctions between very weak, weak, strong,and very strong conceptions of sustainable de-velopment (Pearce, 1993; Turner, 1993; Daly,1996), and Baker et al. (1997) have developedwhat they call ‘the ladder of sustainabledevelopment’.

Given the number of conceptions and ap-proaches to both ecological modernization andsustainable development, any comparison be-tween the two seems to be associated with

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Environ. Policy Plann. 2: 303–322 (2000)


Ecological Modernization as Sustainable Development 305

difficulties. The most frequent link made be-tween sustainable development and ecologicalmodernization, however, runs through Our Com-mon Future (WCED, 1987). Not only is thereport seen as an expression of ecological mod-ernization, but it is also said to represent ‘thekey statement of sustainable development’. Ac-cording to Kirkby et al. (1995, p. 1), it markedthe concept’s political emergence and estab-lished the content and structure of the presentdebate.

In order to substantiate the claim that thereare important differences between sustainabledevelopment and ecological modernization, itseems natural to concentrate on the WCED’sunderstanding of the former term. If it can beshown that there are crucial differences betweenthe conception of sustainable development inthe Brundtland report and what is usually under-stood by the concept of ecological moderniza-tion, this would be sufficient evidence for themain argument in this article. I will, however,discuss different interpretations of Our CommonFuture and competing conceptions of ecologicalmodernization and sustainable development inorder to make clear the differences and similari-ties between them.

In the following, I will first give a shortpresentation of the two concepts in order tomake a comparison. As there is no similar ‘keystatement’ for the concept of ecological mod-ernization (Weale, 1992), I will concentrate onthe features that seem to be common in theliterature on ecological modernization. Gener-ally, there is a lack of clarity whether ecologicalmodernization is used descriptively, analyticallyor normatively (Christoff, 1996), and these arenot always easy to keep separate.3 As the sub-ject matter is the ensuing/associated conse-quences for environmental policy, I will,following Mol & Spaargaren (1993) and Weale(1993), concentrate not so much on ecologicalmodernization as a set of sociological theories,but rather as a political programme favouring aparticular set of policies.

Second, I will explore the relationship be-tween the concepts of sustainable developmentand ecological modernization by looking at dif-ferences, similarities and implications for envi-ronmental policy. Finally, I will try to answer

the above questions concerning the relationshipbetween sustainable development and ecologicalmodernization and substantiate the conclusionspresented above, that sustainable developmentand ecological modernization, in fact, have dif-ferent implications for environmental policy.

The concept of ecologicalmodernization

The concept of ‘ecological modernization’ origi-nates from the works of Huber and Janicke.According to Spaargaren (1997), they can beregarded as the founding fathers of the ecologi-cal modernization approach. As a political pro-gramme, however, ecological modernizationwas originally intended as an interpretation ofthe development of environmental policy inGermany and the Netherlands. Weale (1992),referring to Germany, describes the ‘ideology’ ofecological modernization as a denial of thevalidity of the assumptions underlying the pol-lution control strategies of the 1970s. Thesestrategies were, according to Weale, based onthe following assumptions:

. . . that environmental problems could be dealtwith adequately by a specialist branch of themachinery of government; that the character ofenvironmental problems was well understood; thatenvironmental problems could be handled dis-cretely; that end-of pipe technologies were typi-cally adequate; and that in the setting of pollutioncontrol standards a balance had to be struck be-tween environmental protection and economicgrowth and development.4 (p. 75)

The strategies based on these assumptions soonproved to be incapable of solving the environ-mental problems they were supposed to dealwith. Instead, they resulted in problem displace-ment, across time and space, rather than prob-lem solving (Weale, 1992, p. 76).

Nonetheless, the ‘reconceptualization’ of therelationship between economy and the marketrepresented a decisive break from the assump-tions that informed the first wave of environ-mental policy. The ideology of ecologicalmodernization challenged ‘the fundamental as-sumption of the conventional wisdom, namely



O. Langhelle306

that there was a zero-sum trade-off betweeneconomic prosperity and environmental con-cern’ (Weale, 1992, p. 31). Environmental pro-tection, in this ‘new’ ideology, is no longer seenas a burden upon the economy, but rather as apotential source of future growth (Weale, 1992,p. 75).

Hajer (1995) gives a description of ecologicalmodernization in accordance with Weale’s inter-pretation, and argues, in the same manner, thata decisive break has taken place. In Hajer’sperspective, however, ecological modernizationis presented not so much as a reaction to failuresin environmental policy, but rather as a reactionto the radical environmental movements of the1970s:

The historical argument, in brief, is that a newway of conceiving environmental problems hasemerged since the late 1970s. This policy dis-course of ecological modernization recognizes theecological crisis as evidence of a fundamentalomission in the working of the institutions ofmodern society. Yet, unlike the radical environ-mental movements of the 1970s, it suggests thatenvironmental problems can be solved in accor-dance with the workings of the main institutionalarrangements of society. Environmental manage-ment is seen as a positive-sum game: pollutionprevention pays. (p. 3)

In its most general form, Hajer (1995, p. 25)defines ecological modernization as ‘the dis-course that recognizes the structural characterof the environmental problematique but nonethe less assumes that existing political, eco-nomic, and social institutions can internalize thecare for the environment’.

Dryzek (1997) argues that the core of ecolog-ical modernization is that there is ‘money in itfor business’. The following substantiates this.(1) ‘Pollution is a sign of waste’; hence, lesspollution means more efficient production. (2)Solving environmental problems in the futuremay turn out to be vastly more expensive thanto prevent the problem from developing in thefirst place. (3) An unpolluted and aestheticallypleasing environment may give more produc-tive, healthier and happier workers. (4) ‘There ismoney to be made in selling green goods andservices’. And (5), there is money to be made in‘making and selling pollution prevention andabatement products’ (Dryzek, 1997, p. 142).

According to Hajer (1996), the ‘paradigmaticexamples of ecological modernization’ are thefollowing:

. . . Japan’s response to its notorious air pollutionproblem in the 1970s, the ‘pollution preventionpays’ schemes introduced by the American com-pany 3M, and the U-turn made by the Germangovernment after the discovery of acid rain orWaldsterben in the early 1980s. Ecological moderni-sation started to emerge in Western countries andinternational organisations around 1980. Around1984 it was generally recognised as a promisingpolicy alternative, and with the global endorse-ment of the Brundtland report Our Common Futureand the general acceptance of Agenda 21 at theUnited Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment held at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992this approach can now be said to be the dominantin political debates on ecological affairs. (p. 249)

Environmental politics is, therefore, now domi-nated by the discourse of ecological moderniza-tion, and seems, in addition, to encapsulatesustainable development (Hajer, 1996, p. 248).

The concept of sustainabledevelopment

According to Dryzek (1997, p. 123), however,it is not ecological modernization, but sustain-able development around which ‘the dominantglobal discourse of ecological concern’ pivots.There are different opinions concerning theorigin of the concept of sustainable develop-ment (see O’Riordan, 1993; Worster, 1993; Ja-cob, 1996; McManus, 1996; Murcott, 1997).The 1980 World Conservation Strategy is oftenseen as one of the first to make use of the term,5

but the earliest expression, to my knowledge, ofsomething similar to sustainable developmentrelates to work done within the World Councilof Churches in the early 1970s. The following,which could have been a quotation from OurCommon Future, is actually from a report made bya working group within the World Council ofChurches in 1976:

The twin issues around which the world’s futurerevolves are justice and ecology. ‘Justice’ points tothe necessity of correcting maldistribution of the




products of the Earth and of bridging the gapbetween rich and poor countries. ‘Ecology’ pointsto humanity’s dependence upon the Earth. Societymust be so organized as to sustain the Earth sothat a sufficient quality of material and cultural lifefor humanity may itself be sustained indefinitely.A sustainable society which is unjust can hardly beworth sustaining. A just society that is unsustain-able is self-defeating. Humanity now has the re-sponsibility to make a deliberate transition to ajust and sustainable global society. (in Abrecht,1979)

Although this report speaks of a just and sus-tainable global society, and not sustainable de-velopment, social justice, ecology and theglobal dimension are also crucial parts of theframework of sustainable development. Thedefinition of sustainable development in OurCommon Future conceals, to some extent, all threedimensions and their (inter-)relationships. Sus-tainable development was defined by theWCED (1987, p. 43) as ‘development thatmeets the needs of the present without compro-mising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs’.

Pearce (1993, p. 7) argues that defining sus-tainable development ‘is really not a difficultissue’. The real problem lies ‘in determiningwhat has to be done to achieve it’. In one sense,this is true, but in another sense, it is wrong.The point of departure here is that how theproblem is framed (which includes the way it isdefined) also has implications for what is seen asnecessary changes. This implies that the defini-tion must be seen in the broader context ofother concepts, conceptual and normative pre-conditions, and the implicit interrelations thatshape the framework within the report (Verburg& Wiegel, 1997). Only by doing so can thedimensions of (the particular conception of)sustainable development in Our Common Future beidentified.

The first step in such an analysis is to includethe two key concepts that the definition of sustain-able development is said to contain. These keyconcepts are often left out from quotations, butare of vital importance for understanding theconcept of sustainable development:

� the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the es-sential needs of the world’s poor, to whichoverriding priority should be given; and

� the idea of limitations imposed by the stateof technology and social organization on theenvironment’s ability to meet present andfuture needs (WCED, 1987, p. 43).

The satisfaction of human needs must, in lightof both the definition and the first key concept,be seen as the primary objective of development(WCED, 1987, p. 43). Malnes (1990, p. 3) callsthis the goal of development in Our Common Future.The qualification that this development mustalso be sustainable is a constraint placed on thisgoal, meaning that each generation is permittedto pursue its interests only in ways that do notundermine the ability of future generations tomeet their own needs. Malnes (1990, p. 3) callsthis the proviso of sustainability. As the sustainabil-ity constraint is a necessary condition for futureneed satisfaction, which is part of what sustain-able development is supposed to secure, theproviso of sustainability becomes a necessarypart of the goal of development, thus providingthe interdependency of the concept. Moreover,as Malnes formulates it: ‘the proviso is entailedby the very goal whose pursuit it constrains’(Malnes, 1990, p. 7).

Furthermore, social justice—understood asneed satisfaction—is in this perspective at thecore of sustainable development. The relation-ship between social justice and sustainable de-velopment, therefore, is not as Dobson (1999)argues, first and foremost ‘empirical’ or ‘func-tional’. On the contrary, social justice is theprimary development goal of sustainable devel-opment. Dobson (1999) is, of course, right inpointing out that Our Common Future stronglyargues that there are ‘empirical’ and ‘functional’relationships between social justice and sustain-able development. Poverty is seen as a ‘majorcause and effect of global environmental prob-lems’ (WCED, 1987, p. 44), and the ‘reductionof poverty itself’ is seen as a ‘precondition forenvironmentally sound development’ (WCED,1987, p. 69).

Yet the priority given to the world’s poor isalso independent of the poverty–environmentthesis (Langhelle, 1998). That is, even if thethesis is proved wrong and there is no cleardependency between poverty and environmen-tal degradation, the underlying framework of



O. Langhelle308

Our Common Future would still lead to a priori-tization of the essential needs of the world’spoor in the name of social justice (and sustain-able development). As stated in the report,poverty is ‘an evil in itself’ (WCED, 1987, p. 8),and sustainable development requires meetingthe basic needs of all, thus extending to all theopportunity to fulfil aspirations for a better life(WCED, 1987, p. 8).

Environmental sustainability (I prefer to usephysical sustainability), therefore, is not theprimary goal of development, but a preconditionfor this goal in the long term and for justicebetween generations. Thus, physical sustainabil-ity becomes an inherent part of the goal ofsustainable development. It is defined as ‘theminimum requirement for sustainable develop-ment’: ‘At a minimum, sustainable developmentmust not endanger the natural systems thatsupport life on Earth: the atmosphere, the wa-ters, the soils, and the living beings’ (WCED,1987, pp. 44–45). The relationship betweensocial justice and physical sustainability, there-fore, is not just ‘empirical’ or ‘functional’, butalso ‘theoretical’ and ‘normative’ (see also Laf-ferty & Langhelle, 1999; Langhelle, 1999).

From this frame of reference, the WCEDargued that a set of critical objectives followfrom the concept of sustainable development:reviving growth; changing the quality ofgrowth; meeting essential needs for jobs, food,energy, water and sanitation; ensuring a sustain-able level of population; conserving and en-hancing the resource base; reorientingtechnology and managing risk; and mergingenvironment and economics in decision-making(WCED, 1987, p. 49).

Together, the concept of sustainable develop-ment and the strategic imperatives constitutethe particular conception (in the Rawlsian sense)of sustainable development in Our Common Future(Rawls, 1993).6 There is, of course, no necessarylink between the concept of sustainable devel-opment and the strategic imperatives advocatedby the WCED. One can agree with the goal ofsustainable development and disagree with thestrategic imperatives and vice versa. Still, as I willargue in the next section, the way sustainabledevelopment is defined (or how the problem isframed) also has implications for the strategic

imperatives that can be said to follow from theconcept.

Some of the strategic imperatives in Our Com-mon Future no doubt have things in common withthe concept of ecological modernization. But itis equally clear that both the definition of sus-tainable development and the strategic impera-tives contain elements that move us away fromecological modernization. In the following,therefore, preconditions, assumptions and im-plicit interrelations of sustainable developmentand ecological modernization will be furtherexplored. The question raised in the next sec-tion is: to what degree do ecological moderniza-tion and sustainable development overlap asparadigms for environmental policy?

Ecological modernization andsustainable development —a comparison

Dryzek (1997, p. 126) argues that the mainaccomplishment of the WCED was that it man-aged to combine systematically a number ofissues that had often been treated in isolation.Among them are development, global environ-mental issues, population, peace and security,and social justice both within and between gen-erations. The most striking difference betweensustainable development and ecological mod-ernization is thus that sustainable developmentattempts to address a number of issues aboutwhich ecological modernization has nothing tosay. Moreover, as Jacobs (1995, p. 65) pointsout, sustainable development (and sustainability)were not intended as economic terms but‘were, and remain, essentially ethico-politicalobjectives’.

Sustainable development is not only aboutthe environment. Our Common Future was firstand foremost an attempt to reconcile the ten-sion between developmental and environmentalconcerns at the global level. The context ofsustainable development derives partly fromglobal (north–south) concerns, partly from in-tergenerational (global) concerns and partlyfrom a growing awareness of global environ-mental problems (Lafferty, 1996; Langhelle,1996; Lafferty & Langhelle, 1999).




The context of ecological modernization onthe other hand, relates primarily the experiencesof western industrialized societies (Christoff,1996; Mol, 1996; Dryzek, 1997). As such, eco-logical modernization has no established rela-tionship either to the global environmentalproblems or to social justice. There are, in fact,no explicit references or connections at all tothe global dimensions of developmental anddistributional problems. As such, ecologicalmodernization is neither concerned with socialjustice within our own generation (intragenera-tional justice) nor with social justice betweengenerations (intergenerational justice).

Moreover, there are hardly any references tothe global environmental problems within eco-logical modernization. This is in accordancewith Mol (1996, p. 317), who argues that eco-logical modernization relates to a specific set ofenvironmental problems: ‘. . . ecological mod-ernisation has ‘normal’ environmental problemssuch as water pollution, chemical waste andacidification as its main frame of reference’. Theglobal environmental problems that the WCEDdevoted most attention to, global warming andloss of biodiversity, thus seem to fall outside theframe of reference of ecological modernization.7

Furthermore, Mol & Spaargaren (1993) arguethat global warming cannot be handled withinthe framework of ecological modernization.Global warming must be seen as a problem of‘ecological high-consequence risks’, and ‘by theirvery nature ecological high-consequence risksraise problems of technical and political control,awareness of existential anxiety, and so on,which cannot be dealt with within the frame-work of ecological modernization’ (Mol &Spaargaren, 1993, p. 455).

Instead, they argue, ecological modernizationbelongs to ‘the ‘simple modernization’ phase,making unproblematic use of science and tech-nology in controlling environmental problems’.The problems of ‘ground and surface waterpollution, chemical and household waste, re-gional problems like acid-rain and the diffusepollution by high-technology agriculture’ can ‘inprinciple and practice’ be controlled by follow-ing an ecological modernization approach.These problems, therefore, should not be con-nected directly to ‘eco-alarmist prospects’ (Mol& Spaargaren, 1993, pp. 454–455).

As such, Mol (1996, p. 317) calls for ‘anadditional ecological modernisation approachfor the analysis of [high-consequence risks suchas the greenhouse effect]’, and makes the fol-lowing suggestions as to what such an approachmight contain:

Until today, ecological modernisation has concen-trated mainly on processes of institutional reformat the international level (and of course especiallyin Western industrialised nations). Recent insightsinto the emergence of globalised environmentalrisks, the globalisation of political and economicinstitutions which trigger localised environmentalproblems, and the reinforcement of inter- andsupranational environmental politics might inducea second phase in the ecological modernisationtheory. This phase might, for instance, stir uprenewed attention to the distributive aspects ofenvironmental policy, which disappeared from thepublic and political environmental agendas in thelate 1980s. (p. 315)

It is tempting to conclude, however, that thesecond phase Mol calls for arrived in 1987under the name of ‘sustainable development’.

Another difference between sustainable devel-opment and ecological modernization seems tobe the institutional level on which they focus.Ecological modernization, according to Mol &Spaargaren (1993, p. 454), ‘does not so muchemphasize the relation between the global andthe individual, but rather concentrates on strate-gies of environmental reform on the meso-levelof national governments, environmental move-ments, enterprises and labour organizations’.Dryzek (1997) argues that ecological modern-ization ‘implies a partnership in which govern-ments, businesses, moderate environmentalists,and scientists cooperate in the restructuring ofthe capitalist political economy along more en-vironmentally defensible lines’. The global level,in other words, seems to be lacking both institu-tionally and as a problem area in ecologicalmodernization.

Sustainable development, on the other hand,is directed towards both the national and globalinstitutional level. Our Common Future was un-doubtedly directed towards intergovernmentalorganizations, like United Nations and theWorld Bank, but this does not imply, as Dryzek(1997) claims, that sustainable development



O. Langhelle310

de-emphasizes the role of national governmentsand state actors. Like ecological modernization,sustainable development acknowledges that ac-tors other than the state play an important role.But states play an even more important rolewith regard to the global environmental prob-lems, where international cooperation and inter-national agreement seem crucial to any attemptat solving these problems. The state is thusfundamental to the conception of sustainabledevelopment in Our Common Future : ‘the integra-tion of environment and development is re-quired in all countries, rich and poor. Thepursuit of sustainable development requireschanges in the domestic and international poli-cies of every nation’ (WCED, 1987, p. 40).

Another crucial difference between sustain-able development and ecological modernizationrelates to nature’s carrying capacity and ecologi-cal limits for global development. According toDryzek (1997), both concepts pay little atten-tion to limits to growth. Limits in ecologicalmodernization are ‘not so much explicitly de-nied as ignored’, and Our Common Future is seenas ‘a bit ambiguous on the existence of limits’(Dryzek, 1997, pp. 144, 129). This leadsDryzek to the conclusion of ‘no limits’ as one ofthe basic entities of sustainable development(although in brackets). Despite the claim of lackof limits, however, nature’s carrying capacityand ecological limits for global developmentmust be seen as crucial to sustainable develop-ment in a way they are not, and cannot be, inecological modernization.

Dryzek’s claim of ‘no limits’ is substantiatedby Brundtland’s (1990, p. 138) statement thatthe WCED ‘found no absolute limits to growth’,and also the argument put forward in Our Com-mon Future that there are no set limits:

Growth has no set limits in terms of population orresource use, beyond which lies ecological disas-ter. Different limits hold for the use of energy,materials, water, and land. Many of these willmanifest themselves in the form of rising costs anddiminishing returns, rather than in the form of anysudden loss of the resource base. The accumula-tion of knowledge and the development of tech-nology can enhance the carrying capacity of theresource base. (WCED, 1987, p. 45)

The WCED, however, also argued that thereare ultimate limits:

But ultimate limits there are, and sustainabilityrequires that long before these are reached, theworld must ensure equitable access to the con-strained resource and reorient technological effortsto relieve the pressure. (p. 45)

How should this ambiguity be understood? Itseems, in my view, unreasonable on the wholeto interpret sustainable development as implyingno limits. Rather, there are different limits fordifferent resources, and these limits have a realexistence. Technology and social organization,however, are ‘variables’ that can be ‘manipulated’in such a way that changes in technology andsocial organization, in theory at least, can makeeconomic growth possible within the limits set bynature.

This is also the core of the second of the twokey concepts sustainable development is said tocontain. Technology and social organization arethe ‘tools’ which (hopefully) will make it possi-ble to meet the needs of the present withoutviolating ecological limits and ultimately theability of future generations to meet their ownneeds. Ex officio for the WCED, Jim MacNeillargues that the ‘maxim of sustainable develop-ment is not ‘limits to growth’’; it is ‘the growthof limits’. It is the growth of limits in the sensethat the

basic food and energy needs of 5 billion people(with 5 billion more to come in the next fivedecades) require large appropriations of naturalresources, and the most basic aspirations for mate-rial consumption, livelihood, and health requireeven more. (MacNeill et al., 1991, p. 27)

The growth needed over the next few decadesto meet human needs and aspirations, especiallyin the developing countries ‘translates into acolossal new burden on the ecosphere’ (Mac-Neill et al., 1991, p. 27). As such, meeting theneeds of the present is not, as Dobson (1999)seems to imply, only seen as functional for(physical) sustainability in Our Common Future.Both poverty and wealth contribute to environ-mental problems. While Dobson (1999, p. 136)argues that ‘the poor pursue some of the mostenvironmentally sustainable lives on earth’,




Brundtland’s (1990, p. 137) reply would be thatit is ‘both futile and an insult to the poor to tellthem that they must remain in poverty to ‘pro-tect the environment’’. This acknowledgement iswhat lies behind what Dryzek (1997) (in myview) correctly interprets as the ‘the core story-line of sustainable development’:8

The core story-line of sustainable developmentbegins with a recognition that the legitimate de-velopmental aspirations of the world’s peoples can-not be met by all countries following the growthpath already taken by the industrialized countries,for such action would over-burden the world’s ecosystems.Yet economic growth is necessary to satisfy thelegitimate needs of the world’s poor . . .Sustainable development is not just a strategy forthe future of developing societies, but also forindustrialized societies, which must reduce theexcessive stress their past economic growth hasimposed upon the earth. (p. 129, emphasis added)

Dryzek’s conclusion of ‘no limits’, however,seems strangely at odds with this ‘core story-line’. If sustainable development implies ‘no lim-its’, then why cannot developing countriesfollow the growth path already taken by theindustrialized countries? Or why, indeed, shouldindustrialized societies reduce the excessivestress their past economic growth has imposedupon the earth? In other words, if there are nolimits for global development, the ‘core story-line of sustainable development’ stands out asrather meaningless.9

What then, are the limits for global develop-ment? In Our Common Future, the ultimate limitsto global development are seen as being deter-mined (perhaps) by two things: the availabilityof energy, and the biosphere’s capacity to ab-sorb the by-products of energy use. These limitsare assumed to have much lower thresholds thanother material resources, mainly because of thedepletion of oil reserves and the build-up ofcarbon dioxide leading to global warming(WCED, 1987, p. 58). The argument is, there-fore, not that there are no other possible limitsto future global development, but that the limitsof energy sources and the problem of climatechange will be met first, and indeed may alreadybe at hand. Ecological modernization has, again,nothing to say on the issue.

Another crucial difference between ecologicalmodernization and sustainable development isthe assumption in Our Common Future that theworld is experiencing not only a growing inter-national economic interdependence, but also agrowing ecological interdependence:

We are now forced to concern ourselves with theimpacts of ecological stress—degradation of soils,water regimes, atmosphere, and forests—upon oureconomic prospects. We have, in the more recentpast, been forced to face up with a sharp increasein economic interdependence among nations. Weare now forced to accustom ourselves to an accel-erating ecological interdependence among nations.(WCED, 1987, p. 5)

The assumption of global ecological interdepen-dence is lacking in ecological modernization.Together with the differences relating to thecontext of social justice, global environmentaland developmental problems, global politics andglobal limits, it seems clear that ecological mod-ernization and sustainable development arequite different concepts, even when ecologicalmodernization is compared with Our CommonFuture.

These differences, however, are not sufficientto substantiate the claim that the implicationsfor environmental policy are different. In fact,Mol (1996) seems to argue that a broaderframework (such as sustainable development)has no further implications for environmentalpolicy beyond the perspective of ecologicalmodernization:

Ecological modernisation theory puts forward aradical reform programme as regards the waymodern society deals with the environment. . . But the point of reference for this radicaltransformation is the movement towards an envi-ronmentally sound society, and not a variety ofother social criteria and goals, such as the scale ofproduction, the capitalist mode of production,worker’s influence, equal allocation of economicgoods, gender criteria and so on. Including thelatter set of criteria might result in a more radicalprogramme (in the sense of moving further awayfrom the present social order), but not necessarilya more ecologically radical programme. (pp. 309–310)

This claim is the focus of the following section.



O. Langhelle312

Implications for environmentalpolicy — radical and moderateinterpretations

There are, just as for the concepts themselves,different interpretations of the implications ofsustainable development and ecological mod-ernization for environmental policy, rangingfrom moderate to radical. According to Dryzek(1997), the WCED neither demonstrated thefeasibility of, nor the practical steps required inbringing about sustainable development. Eco-logical modernization, on the other hand, has amuch sharper focus on ‘exactly what needs to bedone with the capitalist political economy’(Dryzek, 1997, p. 143).

I think Dryzek is wrong, however, and in thefollowing the differences between sustainabledevelopment, ecological modernization and theway they frame the approach to environmentalpolicy will be discussed under three subhead-ings. The first relates to the ‘nature’ of globalenvironmental problems. The second relates tothe magnitude of change seen as necessary. Thethird relates to the goals and targets that arisefrom the merging of environmental and devel-opmental concerns. For all three issues, thedifferences identified above have important con-sequences for environmental policy.

The ‘nature’ of global environmental problems

Our Common Future was, as I have argued, firstand foremost directed towards the global level.Thus, sustainable development is a ‘construction’based on and directed primarily towards globalenvironmental problems. There was, in fact,serious discussion within the WCED on theissue of whether or not acid rain ‘qualified’ as aglobal problem to be addressed by sustainabledevelopment.10 Managing the global commons,the ozone layer, climate change, species andecosystems, pollution and sustaining the poten-tial for global food security are the major envi-ronmental issues addressed in Our Common Future.

Brundtland (1990, p. 138) argues that the‘large ecological issues—the greenhouse effect,the disappearing ozone layer, and sustainableutilization of tropical forests—are tasks facing

humankind as a whole’. Of these problems, the‘most global—and the potentially most seri-ous—of all the issues facing us today’, accord-ing to Brundtland (1991, p. 35), is ‘how weshould deal with the threats to the world’satmosphere’.

The problem of climate change is addressedthroughout Our Common Future (WCED, 1987,pp. 2, 5, 8, 14, 22, 32–33, 37, 58–59, 172–176). The centrality of global warming isclosely connected to what is conceived as theultimate limits for global development in OurCommon Future : the biosphere’s capacity to ab-sorb the by-products of energy use. Moreover,it is argued that ‘many of us live beyond theworld’s ecological means, for instance in ourpatterns of energy use’ (WCED, 1987, p. 44).As such, sustainable development puts climatechange (and energy) on top of the agenda forenvironmental policy. Ecological moderniza-tion, on the other hand, contains no criteria bywhich different environmental problems can beweighed. It is, therefore, impossible to say thata particular environmental problem is more im-portant than another from the perspective ofecological modernization.

Moreover, while ecological modernization issilent on global ecological interdependence, theproblem of climate change ‘forces recognitionof global interdependence’ (IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1996, p.118). It is thus futile to believe that the problemof climate change can be ‘solved’ by developedcountries alone. The IPCC (1996) has a clearmessage on this issue:

. . . it is not possible for the rich countries tocontrol climate change through the next centuryby their own actions alone, however drastic. It isthis fact that necessitates global participation incontrolling climate change, and hence, the ques-tion of how equitable to distribute efforts to ad-dress climate change on a global basis. (p. 97)

Climate change is thus directly linked to thecore story-line of sustainable development11 andto social justice within and between generations.In fact, the WCED argued that even ‘physicalsustainability cannot be secured unless develop-ment policies pay attention to such consider-ations as changes in access to resources and in




the distribution of costs and benefits’ (WCED,1987, p. 43). This claim is ‘logical’, not ‘empiri-cal’ or ‘moral’ in the following sense. In a situa-tion where (energy) resources are scarce, adistribution in which a small minority of theworld’s population controls most of the re-sources might be possible to sustain over alonger period of time (physical sustainability)than one where scarce (energy) resources aredistributed equally among the world’s popula-tion. Consequently, the technical question ofwhat is physically sustainable cannot be answeredwithout taking the above questions into consid-eration (Lafferty & Langhelle, 1999).

The loss of biological diversity is, in manyrespects, similar to the problem of climatechange. The ‘structure’ of the problem inhabitsthe same conflictual dimensions: north–southand the concern for future generations. Themajority of the world’s biological diversity is tobe found in the south. This is partly a conse-quence of climatic conditions, but also as aresult of the fact that the industrialized coun-tries, through what is usually referred to as‘development’, have reduced their biological di-versity substantially during the last 250 years.12

According to Christoff (1996, p. 486), eco-logical modernization is ‘deeply marked by theexperience of local debates over the local poli-cies of acid rain and other outputs, rather thanconflicts over biodiversity preservation’. Theconcern for conservation and protection of bio-diversity is, therefore, stronger in sustainabledevelopment than in ecological modernization.The concern for conservation and protection ofbiodiversity in Our Common Future is primarilybased on the needs and opportunities of futuregenerations: ‘The loss of plant and animal spe-cies can greatly limit the options of futuregenerations; so sustainable development requiresthe conservation of plant and animal species’(WCED, 1987, p. 46). As such, conservation isan indispensable prerequisite for sustainable de-velopment in a way that it is not for ecologicalmodernization.

To demand that developing countries mustsustain all their biological diversity for the sakeof future generations, however, is a type of‘conditionality’ that limits possible developmentpaths and that many developing countries find

hard to accept. The use (and misuse) of naturalresources played an important role in the devel-opment of the already industrialized countries.Conservation and protection of biodiversity isthus linked to the distributional questions ofwho should pay the cost, and who should bene-fit from the use of biological diversity.

Ecological modernization seems unable to ad-dress the nature of these global environmentalproblems. In a sense, ecological modernizationseems to be based on the assumption that ifeveryone else (that is, developing countries)stays where they are (which they, of course,have no intention of doing), there is no need toworry. It ignores the core story-line of sustain-able development, global ecological interdepen-dence and ecological limits and neglects thelinkages between global environmental prob-lems and social justice. The implication of eco-logical modernization as a paradigm forenvironmental policy is, thus, environmentalpolicies without any global anchoring. This, Ibelieve, has far-reaching implications, because itaffects both what is seen as necessary changes,and the goals and targets to which environmen-tal policy should aspire.

The magnitude of change

The opinions as to the magnitude of changeprescribed by ecological modernization andsustainable development, again, are highlydisputed. Dryzek (1997) relates sustainable de-velopment to a weak (moderate) version ofecological modernization. The implications forchange are viewed as more or less identical inthese perspectives: ‘No painful changes are nec-essary’. Sustainable development implies that‘we can have it all: economic growth, environ-mental conservation, social justice; and not justfor the moment, but in perpetuity’ (Dryzek,1997, p. 132).

Ecological modernization, although being de-scribed as ‘a systems approach’ that ‘takes seri-ously the complex pathways by whichconsumption, production, resource depletion,and pollution are interrelated’ (Dryzek, 1997, p.144), ends up reassuring us that ‘no toughchoices need to be made between economic



O. Langhelle314

growth and environmental protection’. Even ifecological limits would have a real existence, ‘aqualitative different growth’ would avoid hittingthese limits (Dryzek, 1997, pp. 145, 142). Thus,little seems to be gained from the much sharperfocus on exactly what needs to be done.

Hajer (1992, 1995, 1996) is more ambiguouson the magnitude of change. On the one hand,Hajer argues that ecological modernization‘does not call for any structural change but is, inthis respect, basically a modernist and techno-cratic approach to the environment that sug-gests that there is a techno-institutional fix forthe present problems’ (Hajer, 1995, p. 32).13

Accordingly, sustainable development, with itsfocus upon economic growth and technology,should be viewed as ‘a technological fix’. Themost important story-line identified by Hajer isthat sustainable development is posited as ‘apositive-sum game’, and implies that there is ‘noindication that anyone would lose if the worldchanged its course according to the prescrip-tions of the Brundtland Commission’ (Hajer,1992, p. 28).

On the other hand, Hajer claims that ecolog-ical modernization (and thus sustainable devel-opment) implies a shift from a ‘remedial’ to an‘anticipatory’ strategy for solving environmentalproblems. Here, he refers to Janicke’s (1988)typology of different strategies in environmentalpolicy. Janicke’s typology, however, describestwo different types of ‘anticipatory’ strategies.The first called ‘ecological modernization’, isdefined as follows: ‘[Ecological] modernizationwhereby technological innovation makes pro-cesses of production and products more envi-ronmentally benign (e.g. increased efficiency incombustion)’ (in Hajer, 1995, p. 35).14

Janicke’s other ‘anticipatory’ strategy, how-ever, is called ‘structural change’ and is definedas follows:

Structural change or structural ecologizationwhereby problem-causing processes of productionare substituted by new forms of production andconsumption (e.g. energy-extensive forms of orga-nization, developing new public transport strate-gies to replace private transport, etc.). (in Hajer,1995, p. 35)

This strategy, however, is what Hajer seems todefine as ecological modernization. Does thatmean that ecological modernization impliesstructural change also in Hajer’s perspective?This is by no means clear in Hajer’s use ofJanicke’s typology, thus blurring what Hajeractually views as the implications of ecologicalmodernization (and sustainable development)—structural change or not.

Moreover, it is not at all clear what is meantby structural change in Hajer’s perspective. Is itthe magnitude of change that defines whetheror not change is structural? How great must thechanges be to qualify as ‘structural’? Does ‘struc-tural’ refer to changes in the system’s featuresand characteristics? What are the defining prop-erties of the existing system, and where are thelimits of the existing system in relation tochange? When does the system become some-thing else? These questions are not addressed,and this fundamentally weakens both the de-scriptive and prescriptive potential of ecologicalmodernization.

Equally problematic are the attempts to estab-lish a ‘strong’ as opposed to a ‘weak’ versionof ecological modernization (Christoff, 1996;Dryzek, 1997).15 Christoff’s main concern is thedanger that ecological modernization ‘may serveto legitimise the continuing instrumental domi-nation and destruction of the environment’(Christoff, 1996, p. 497). The features thatChristoff relates to the notion of ‘strong’ ecolog-ical modernization, however, are so removedfrom the conventional uses of the concept thatit is hardly recognizable. Moreover, it is notself-evident what Christoff means by ‘ecologi-cal’, ‘institutional/systemic (broad)’, ‘communica-tive’, ‘deliberate democratic/open’, ‘international’and ‘diversifying’ as the characteristics of ‘strong’ecological modernization.

To some extent, Christoff’s approach is basedon tensions within ecological modernization.Weale’s (1992) perspective, for example, in-cludes more or less radical versions of ecologicalmodernization. The key to more radical impli-cations lies in the move from ‘remedial’ to ‘antic-ipatory’ strategies:

if more stress is laid upon the need to move fromeffects to causes then a radical version of policy is




likely to emerge, whereas if the stress is thepotential growth stimulated by an environmentallysound economy, then a more pro-industry versionof policy is likely. (p. 78)

Christoff’s (1996, p. 491) perspective, however,seems to aim at the ‘most radical use of ecolog-ical modernisation’, ‘its deployment against in-dustrial modernisation itself’.16

The move from ‘remedial’ to ‘anticipatory’strategies is also present in Our Common Future.Moreover, both ecological modernization andsustainable development direct their attention tothe causes of environmental problems. Both seetechnology as a major instrument for solvingenvironmental problems. Both argue for a sec-tor-encompassing policy approach, where con-cern for the environment is to be integrated inevery sector of society. Both promote the use ofnew policy instruments, and changes at themicro-level seem crucial in both paradigms.‘Producing more with less’ (as Chapter 8 of OurCommon Future is entitled) is a slogan that fitsboth of these paradigms. Both argue that it ispossible, in theory, to reconcile concern for theenvironment with economic growth. Yet, thereare other important differences as to the magni-tude of change necessary for this reconciliation.

The prescribed growth rates in Our CommonFuture are seen as environmentally and socially sus-tainable only under the following conditions:

� if industrialized nations continue the recentshifts in the content of their growth towardsless material- and energy-intensive activities and theimprovement of their efficiency in using materialsand energy (WCED, 1987, p. 51; emphasisadded).

� a change in the content of growth, to makeit more equitable in its impact, i.e. to im-prove the distribution of income (WCED,1987, p. 52).

These conditions are further elaborated in OurCommon Future, and they should be seen as com-plementary aspects of a pro-growth position(Langhelle, 1999). The crucial difference fol-lowing from the first condition, however, is that‘producing more with less’ seems to be a neces-sary but not sufficient condition for sustainabledevelopment.

As Rasmussen (1997) points out, two main(economic) strategies are prescribed in Our Com-mon Future to realize sustainable development.The first is to utilize energy and resources moreefficiently; that is, ‘to produce more with less’.This strategy component Rasmussen calls the‘micro-part’. The other strategy component is tochange the content of growth, by reducingenergy and resource intensive activities. Thefocus here is the total consumption of environ-mental resources, including the deponic absorp-tion capacity of the atmosphere. This strategyRasmussen (1997) calls the ‘macro-part’, and it isseen as requiring the following:

. . . that one judges the consumption of energyand resources in different production and con-sumption sectors, and actually reduces the activi-ties within the sectors which are most energy andresource demanding. Given the demand for eco-nomic growth, this strategy in addition impliesthat investments are made in less energy andresource demanding sectors, and that the releasedsurplus of resources (like labour) are transferred tothese activities. One consequence could be thatthe total activity in the transport sector . . . isreduced, and that the released resources are trans-ferred to other sectors . . . The World Commis-sion’s ambitious goals demand that both strategycomponents are pursued together, and that they inthe use of policy instruments are seen as onestrategy, where the different parts are seen asinterdependent. (p. 107, my translation)

Janicke (1997) seems to be of the same opinion.Sustainable development demands more thanecological modernization understood as re-source efficiency. An ‘ecologically sustainabledevelopment’ demands structural changes infour specific social sectors, and structuralchange is defined as ‘a structural change of theirsocietal role and importance’ (Janicke, 1997, pp.19–20). The four sectors according to Janickeare

� the construction complex (the constructionindustry, local government, or institutionsinterested in increasing the value of land)—this sector uses the largest share of materialsand land, and generates the most solid wasteand goods transportation;



O. Langhelle316

� the road traffic complex (car producers andtheir suppliers, the service network, the min-eral oil industry, the road construction in-dustry, etc.);

� the energy complex (the multinational pri-mary energy industries, the utilities, closelyassociated with the powerful energy-inten-sive basic industries); and

� the agro-industrial complex (p. 19).

Thus, even though both the paradigms of eco-logical modernization and sustainable develop-ment arguably seem to imply that theenvironmental problems can be solved withinthe existing capitalist political system, to useDryzek’s term, sustainable development seemsto imply a larger degree of structural change.Moreover, this has far-reaching implicationsalso for the core story-line of ecological mod-ernization, the assumption that environmentalprotection implies a positive-sum game.

If sustainable development implies more thanan efficiency-oriented approach to the environ-ment, it is no longer necessarily the case thatsustainable development represents a ‘win–win’solution. If sustainable development impliesstructural change, in the sense that some sectors’societal role and importance must be reduced,these sectors will be the ‘losers’ or ‘victims’ ofsustainable development policies. Therefore, itimplies that some will lose, and some will win,which again implies that the win–win solutiononly exists at the macro level, and ultimately,only at the global level. Our Common Future is notblind to the possibility of clashes of interests:

The search for common interest would be lessdifficult if all development and environment prob-lems had solutions that would leave everyonebetter off. This is seldom the case, and there areusually winners and losers. (WCED, 1987, p. 48)

Moreover, IPCC (1996) argues that most policyrecommendations for climate change policies‘involve large within losses for certain groups.For instance, any policy leading to less use ofcoal and lower producer prices for it will lead tolarge losses for coal mine owners and workers’(p. 33). As shown by Reitan (1998), this is alsothe case in the national attempt to introduce acost-effective carbon-tax in Norway. Even when

there are possibilities for positive-sum solutionsat the macro-level, ‘there are several zero-sumgames at the sector level that are strongly re-lated to distributional issues between individu-als, groups and regions’ (p. 16).

As both Brundtland (1990) and MacNeill(1990) argue, the WCED chose to place energyefficiency at the cutting edge of national energystrategies (WCED, 1987, p. 196). A ‘significantand rapid reduction in the energy and raw-material content of every unit of production willbe necessary’ (MacNeill, 1990, p. 116). Promot-ing energy efficiency is, however, as anothermember of the WCED points out, ‘relativelypainless’ (Ruckelshaus, 1990, p. 132). Butequally clear from Our Common Future is thatenergy and material efficiency is seen as a neces-sary but not sufficient condition for sustainable develop-ment : ‘Energy efficiency can only buy time forthe world to develop ‘low-energy paths’ basedon renewable sources, which should form thefoundation of the global energy structure duringthe 21st century’ (WCED, 1987, p. 15).

Goals, targets and the merging of environmentaland developmental concerns

Our Common Future recommended a low-energyscenario of a 50% reduction in primary energyconsumption per capita in the industrial coun-tries, in order to allow for a 30% increase in thedeveloping countries within the next 50 years(WCED, 1987, p. 173). This, it was argued, ‘willrequire profound structural changes in socio-economic and institutional arrangements and itis an important challenge to global society’(WCED, 1987, p. 201; emphasis added). In-deed, the WCED believed ‘that there is noother realistic option open to the world for the21st century’ (WCED, 1987, p. 174).

What forces this option is the merging ofenvironmental and developmental concernsthrough the core story-line of sustainable devel-opment. Moreover, the goals and targets aredirectly linked to the distributional aspects ofthe problem of climate change. According toShue (1993), the problem of climate changeraises four distributional questions:




(1) What is a fair allocation of the costs ofpreventing the global warming that is still avoid-able? (2) What is a fair allocation of the costs ofcoping with the social consequences of the globalwarming that will not in fact be avoided? (3) Whatbackground allocation of wealth would allow in-ternational bargaining (about issues like 1 and 2)to be a fair process? (4) What is a fair allocation ofemissions of greenhouse gases (over the long-termand during the transition to the long-term alloca-tion)? (p. 39)

These questions, no doubt, go to the heart ofsustainable development. So far, only the firsthas been negotiated within the Convention onClimate Change. But the Kyoto Agreement rep-resents only the first, though important, steptowards a sustainable development policy onclimate change.

From a sustainable development perspective,it is especially the fourth question that is themost challenging. As shown by IPCC (1996),17

there are differing views as to what wouldrepresent a just distribution of the deponic ca-pacity of the atmosphere. Although Our CommonFuture is silent on the actual distribution, itargues strongly for an equitable access to re-sources (WCED, 1987, p. 39). One proposedcriterion for a just distribution is a stabilizationof emissions at twice the pre-industrial level,and an equal share on a per capita basis. ForNorway, this possible scenario would imply thatgreenhouse gases would have to be reduced bybetween 30 and 50% before the year 2020(Alfsen, 1998). Thus, depending on the princi-ple of distribution, an environmental policybased on the paradigm of sustainable develop-ment may be a much more demanding andambitious one than ecological modernization.

What this implies for production and con-sumption patterns and levels is hard to predict.Moreover, it raises a number of questions con-cerning the choice of environmental policies. Inwhich sectors should the reductions be made?What principles should policies on climatechange abatement be based on (cost-effective-ness, equitable burden sharing, joint implemen-tation, etc.)? It seems that for climate change,however, the order proposed by Daly (1992)between scale, distribution and allocation makesperfect sense. Daly argues that the question of

scale should be set first (for example twice thepre-industrial level). Only then can the deponiccapacity of the earth be divided (for example onan equal share on a per capita basis). Only whenthis is done, Daly argues, ‘are we in a positionto allow reallocation among individuals throughmarkets in the interest of efficiency’ (Daly,1992, p. 188).

Sustainable development, however, alsoforces one to address the question of globaldistribution in a broader and more direct sense.What constitutes, for example, a reasonablelevel of developmental and environmental aid?Should developing countries be granted a spe-cial status in the international trading system? Isthe relative inequality between rich and poorcountries just? Would the relative inequalitybetween rich and poor countries still be a prob-lem, if everyone’s essential needs were met? Thepoint here is simply that these types of ques-tions can be raised from a sustainable develop-ment perspective, but ecological modernizationis silent on these issues.

The goals and targets for conservation andprotection of biodiversity are just as for energyand climate change more ambitious within sus-tainable development than ecological modern-ization. Our Common Future (WCED, 1987, p.166) argued that the total expanse of protectedareas should be at least tripled in order toconstitute a representative sample of the world’secosystems. Apart from Beckerman (1994, p.135), who argues that Our Common Future repre-sents an ‘absolutist’ concept of sustainable devel-opment, implying that ‘the environment we findtoday must be preserved in all its forms’, theusual interpretation is that sustainable develop-ment represents a weak and inadequate protec-tion of species and ecosystems.

As such, Sachs (1993, p. 10) argues thatsustainable development ‘calls for the conserva-tion of development, not for the conservation ofnature’. McManus (1996, p. 70) wants to placesustainability in the forefront, not development(offering only ‘qualitative’ and not ‘material’ de-velopment for the poor?). Dobson (1999, p.213) argues that if the objective is to sustainirreversible nature, ‘principles such as needs andequality will only be helpful if it can be shownthat meeting people’s needs, or making them



O. Langhelle318

more materially equal in some sense, contributesto sustaining irreversible nature’, thus failing tosee that social justice is an integral part of, andnot instrumental to, sustainable development.

Our Common Future, no doubt, condones someloss of biological diversity, legitimizes increasedconsumption of environmental resources in de-veloping countries, and the intensifying of envi-ronmental problems linked to resource use inglobal terms, but only because the needs of theworld’s poor are given overriding priority. Thatis why, in case of conflict, a certain loss ofbiodiversity is legitimate from a sustainable de-velopment perspective. ‘Every ecosystem every-where cannot be preserved intact’ (WCED,1987, p. 45). But the loss can and should beminimized through the wise use of resources,and, as Jacobs (1995, p. 63) points out, thereare, in the real world, often solutions that canbenefit both.18

There is, therefore, contrary to ecologicalmodernization, a hierarchy of priorities andweighing of different concerns inherent in theconcept of sustainable development. Based onmy interpretation, the following list representsthe hierarchy of priorities within the conceptionof sustainable development in Our CommonFuture :

� the satisfaction of human needs, in particu-lar, the essential needs of the world’s poor towhich overriding priority should be given;

� climate change (and thus, the energy issue);� loss of biological diversity;� pollution (polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB),

radioactive pollution, acid rain, etc.);� food security.19

This constitutes what one could call a ‘base-line’also for environmental policies, in accordancewith the paradigm of sustainable development.20

While the list of issues is quite limited, it couldeasily be extended. The issues and problems inthemselves are complex, far-reaching, and relateto most human activities. Thus, a list linkingthese issues to their related activities would turnout far from short. Regardless, this list stillcovers the main priorities of sustainable devel-opment,21 priorities with implications for envi-ronmental policy that go beyond the per-spective of ecological modernization.

Concluding remarks: does it reallymatter?

The main argument in this article has been thatthere are important differences between sustain-able development and ecological modernization,and that these differences have important impli-cations for environmental policy. They effectnot only the scope, but also the goals, targetsand level of ambition that environmental policyshould aim at. It is, of course, impossible topredict the future of technological progress.‘The horizon may glow with technological op-portunities’ (MacNeill et al., 1991), and a lotmay be achieved by implementing the politicalprogramme of ecological modernization.

Energy and material efficiency, however, tendto be neutralized by increased output andhigher production. Thus Janicke et al. (1993, p.169) argue that growth in the long term onlycan be limited growth, ‘if the ecologically nega-tive growth effects are to be compensated bytechnological and structural change’. As such,they conclude that ‘industrialised countries willnot be able to afford the luxury of high growthrates for much longer’. Even though ‘muchlonger’ begs the question of how much longer?,‘the growth of limits’ perspective in Our CommonFuture contains the same worry.

Given constraints on social, institutional andpolitical change, MacNeill et al. (1991, p. 19)argue that ‘no one can rule out a future ofecological collapse’. Overcoming these obstacles‘will require political vision and courage in pol-icy and institutional change on a scale not seenin this century since the aftermath of WorldWar II’ (p. 20). To conflate ecological modern-ization and sustainable development at the con-ceptual level, however, leaves the impressionthat this is already being done.

At best, ecological modernization is a ‘weak’expression of sustainable development (Blowers,1998, p. 245). It should be seen as a necessary,but not sufficient condition for sustainable de-velopment, even when compared with Our Com-mon Future. Conflating the two is not onlycounterproductive for the broader agenda ofsustainable development, but also for theenvironmental policies necessary for realizing




sustainable development. This is why ecologicalmodernization and sustainable developmentshould not be conflated.

Notes

1. The following statement from Hajer (1995) un-derlines the importance of mediating principles:‘whether or not environmental problems appearas anomalies to the existing institutional arrange-ment depends first of all on the way in whichthese problems are framed and defined’ (p. 4).

2. Dobson (1999, pp. 36, 60) argues that sustain-able development is one form, or theory, ofenvironmental sustainability. Although the con-ception of sustainable development contains‘views on what is to be sustained, on why, andwhat the object(s) of concern are, and (oftenimplicitly) on the degree of substitutability ofhuman-made for natural capital’, Dobson iswrong, I think, in his assertion that sustainabledevelopment ‘amounts to a strategy for environ-mental sustainability’. As I argue later on, forsustainable development, it is the other wayaround.

3. This difficulty can be illustrated by the follow-ing quote from Mol (1996, p. 309): ‘Ecologicalmodernisation theory puts forward a radical re-form programme as regards the way modernsociety deals with the environment’. Here, thedifference between ecological modernization asboth a theory and a political programmedisappears.

4. For a closer description of these assumptions, seeWeale, 1992, chapter 1.

5. The 1980 World Conservation Strategy was oneof the first publications to make use of thephrase ‘sustainable development’. It was preparedby the International Union for the Conservationof Nature (IUCN) and published with supportfrom the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and theUnited Nations Environment Program (UNEP).The report argued from a dominantly ‘conserva-tionist–environmentalist’ standpoint (Adams,1990; Kirkby et al., 1995).

6. The difference between ‘concepts’ and ‘concep-tions’ consists in the following:

Roughly, the concept is the meaning of aterm, while a particular conception includes aswell the principles required to apply it. Toillustrate: the concept of justice, applied to aninstitution, means, say, that the institution

makes no arbitrary distinctions between per-sons in assigning basic rights and duties, andthat it rules establish a proper balance be-tween competing claims. Whereas a concep-tion includes, besides this, principles andcriteria for deciding which distinctions arearbitrary and when a balance between com-peting claims is proper. People can agree onthe meaning of the concept of justice and stillbe at odds, since they affirm different princi-ples and standards for deciding those matters.To develop a concept of justice into a con-ception of it is to elaborate these requisiteprinciples and standards. (Rawls, 1993, p. 14footnote)

7. Weale (1992) is an exception here. He arguesthat ecological modernization embraces changesin the relationship between states. Moreover, heseems to argue that climate change contributedto the new politics of pollution, and hence,ecological modernization.

8. Dryzek’s use of the term ‘story-line’ is based onHajer (1995). Hajer defines ‘story-line’ as fol-lows: ‘narratives on social reality through whichelements from many different domains are com-bined and that provide actors with a set ofsymbolic references that suggest a common un-derstanding. Story-lines are essential politicaldevices that allow the overcoming of fragmenta-tion and the achievement of discursive closure’(Hajer, 1995, p. 62).

9. Dryzek’s (1997, p. 129) ‘core story-line’ is also inaccordance with the following official Norwe-gian interpretation of sustainable development:

The poor people of the world have a legiti-mate right to increase their level of welfare.But the Earth’s natural environment will notbear if an increasing world population adaptsto the present consumption pattern and level,in industrialized countries. In many areas, hu-mans have already broken, or are about tobreak, the limits set by nature. This is thereason why the worlds consumption and pro-duction patterns must be changed, and thatindustrialized countries have a special respon-sibility to lead the way in this process.(Miljøverndepartementet, 1996–1997, p. 10,my translation)

10. This information comes from an interview withHans Chr. Bugge, member of the Norwegiandelegation that worked with the WCED.

11. That the needs of the present generation de-mand an increase in energy consumption in



O. Langhelle320

developing countries is also expressed in theUnited Nation’s Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change.

12. Conservation and protection of biodiversity arenot environmental problems exclusively relatedto developing countries. Despite protests, clear-felling of virgin forests continues in westernCanada (Reid, 1995), and in most Europeancountries there are only tiny fractions of virginforests left. In Norway, for example, the Norwe-gian Institute of Nature Research (NINA) hasargued that a total area of at least 5% of theproductive coniferous forests needs to be pro-tected in order to conserve the biological diver-sity (Framstad et al., 1995, p. 3). Only 1.06% isprotected today.

13. The following statement from Hajer makes asimilar point: ‘It is . . . obvious that ecologicalmodernization . . . does not address the sys-temic features of capitalism that make the sys-tem inherently wasteful and unmanagable’(Hajer, 1995, p. 32). Hajer does not, however,give any further description of these features.

14. Hajer calls this strategy ‘technological modern-ization’, as Janicke’s use of the term ecologicalmodernization, according to Hajer, ‘has a farmore restricted meaning’ (Hajer, 1995, p. 35).

15. Dryzek’s approach is primarily based on Christ-off (1996).

16. Ecological modernization would then, of course,no longer be the same thing. While the dis-course of ecological modernization may be ‘acategory of discourse that is flexible’ (Weale,1992, p. 78), it is probably not flexible enoughto incorporate Christoff’s approach without be-coming something else. That seems, however, tobe what Christoff aims at.

17. Shue’s (1993) list of distributional questionsraised by the problem of climate change is alsoused by the IPCC (1996).

18. The following statement from Brundtland (1997)points to the difficulties of determining the ex-act content of sustainable development policies:

I have often seen it argued that one or an-other activity cannot be sustainable because itleads to environmental problems. Unfortu-nately, it turns out that nearly all activitieslead to one or another form of environmentalproblem. The question as to whether some-thing contributes to sustainable developmentor not must, therefore, be answered relatively.We must often consider what the conditionwas prior to that action and what the alterna-tive would have been, as well as to whether

the activity could be replaced by other activi-ties . . . We can be forced to make difficult,holistic judgements. That is why there havebeen very mixed relations of affection be-tween parts of the environmental movementand the very notion of ‘sustainable develop-ment’. (p. 79, my translation)

19. Other candidates for this list are, of course,ozone depletion, nuclear war and populationgrowth. I have excluded them from the given liston purpose. However, a full justification of thiswould make another paper.

20. What is lacking in the international follow-up ofOur Common Future is also evident from the list ofpriorities: a global framework convention on theeradication of poverty. Taken seriously, that iswhat follows from the conception of sustainabledevelopment in Our Common Future. Such a frame-work convention could, just as for climatechange, be organized with national reductiontargets, timetables for meeting the targets, scien-tific bodies and so forth.

21. A couple of reservations. First, if one, for exam-ple, would live somewhere where there is noaccess to clean drinking water, this would begiven priority over items 2, 3, 4 and 5. Thereason is, of course, that this links up to item 1,vital needs. The list will, therefore, vary fromcountry to country, depending on the problemsthat relate to item 1. Second, the issues are ofcourse interconnected and must, in many cases,be seen together, a fact that further complicatespolicies for sustainable development.

References

Abrecht P. 1979. Faith, Science, and the Future. Prepara-tory Readings for a World Conference organizedby the World Council of Churches at the Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA,USA. Church and Society. World Council ofChurches, Geneva, Switzerland.

Adams WM. 1990. Green Development: Environment andSustainability in the Third World. Routledge: London.

Alfsen KH. 1998. Norske klimautslipp ma ned med30–50 prosent. Cicerone 7(2): 1–3.

Baker S, Kousis M, Richardson D, Young S (eds).1997. The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory,Policy and Practice within the European Union. Rout-ledge: London.

Beckerman W. 1994. ‘Sustainable development’: is ita useful concept? Environmental Values 3: 191–209.




Blowers A. 1998. Power, participation and partner-ship. In Co-operative Environmental Governance: Public–Private Agreements as a Policy Strategy, Glasbergen P(ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht;229–249.

Brundtland GH. 1990. Epilogue: how to secure ourcommon future. In Managing Planet Earth: Readingsfrom Scientific American Magazine. W.H. Freeman andCompany: New York; 137–138.

Brundtland GH. 1991. Sustainable development: thechallenges ahead. In Sustainable Development, StokkeO (ed.). Frank Cass Publishers: London; 32–41.

Brundtland GH. 1997. Verdenskommisjonen formiljø og utvikling ti ar etter: hvor star vi i dag?ProSus: Tidsskrift for et bærekraftig samfunn 4: 75–85.

Christensen PM (ed.). 1996. Governing the environ-ment: politics, policy, and organization in theNordic countries. Nord 5: 180–259.

Christoff P. 1996. Ecological modernisation, ecologi-cal modernities. Environmental Politics 5: 476–500.

Daly H. 1992. Allocation, distribution, and scale:towards an economics that is efficient, just andsustainable. Ecological Economics 6: 185–193.

Daly HE. 1996. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sus-tainable Development. Beacon Press: Boston, MA.

Dobson A. 1996. Environment sustainabilities: ananalysis and a typology. Environmental Politics 5:401–428.

Dobson A. 1999. Justice and the Environment: Conceptionsof Environmental Sustainability and Theories of DistributiveJustice. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Dryzek JS. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: EnvironmentalDiscourses. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Framstad A, Bendiksen E, Korsmo H. 1995. Evalueringav verneplan for barskog. NINA fagrapport 8,Stiftelsen for naturforskning og kulturminneforskn-ing: Trondheim.

Hajer MA. 1992. The politics of environmental per-formance review: choices in design. In AchievingEnvironmental Goals: The Concept and Practice of Environ-mental Performance Review, Lykke E (ed.). BelhavenPress: London; 25–40.

Hajer MA. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse:Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. OxfordUniversity Press: Oxford.

Hajer MA. 1996. Ecological modernisation as cul-tural politics. In Risk, Environment and Modernity:Towards a New Ecology, Lash S, Szerszynski B,Wynne B (eds). Sage Publications: London; 246–268.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).1996. Climate Change 1995. Economic and Social Di-mensions of Climate Change: Contributions of WorkingGroup III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergov-

ernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univer-sity Press: Cambridge.

Janicke M. 1997. The political system’s capacity forenvironmental policy. In National Environmental Poli-cies: A Comparative Study of Capacity-Building, JanickeM, Weidner H (eds). Springer Verlag: Berlin;1–24.

Janicke M, Monch H, Binder M. 1993. Ecologicalaspects of structural change. Intereconomics 28: 159–169.

Jacob ML. 1996. Sustainable Development: A ReconstructiveCritique of the United Nations Debate. University ofGothenburg: Gothenburg.

Jacobs M. 1995. Sustainable development, capitalsubstitution and economic humility: a response toBeckerman. Environmental Values 4: 57–68.

Kirkby J, O’Keefe P, Timberlake L (eds). 1995. TheEarthscan Reader in Sustainable Development. Earthscan:London.

Lafferty WM. 1996. The politics of sustainable de-velopment: global norms for national implementa-tion. Environmental Politics 5: 185–208.

Lafferty WM, Langhelle O (eds). 1999. Towards Sus-tainable Development: On the Goals of Development andthe Conditions of Sustainability. Macmillan Press:Houndsmills.

Langhelle O. 1996. Sustainable development andsocial justice. Paper presented at IPSA round tableon ‘The Politics of Sustainable Development’,Oslo, 26 April.

Langhelle O. 1998. Bærekraftig utvikling. In Sam-funnsperspektiver pa miljø og utvikling, Benjaminsen TA,Svarstad H (eds). Tano Aschehoug: Oslo; 85–114.

Langhelle O. 1999. Sustainable development: explor-ing the ethics of Our Common Future. InternationalPolitical Science Review 20: 129–149.

MacNeill J. 1990. Strategies for sustainable economicdevelopment. In Managing Planet Earth: Readings fromScientific American Magazine. W.H. Freeman andCompany: New York; 109–123.

MacNeill J, Winsemius P, Yakushiji T. 1991. BeyondInterdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy andthe Earth’s Ecology. Oxford University Press:Oxford.

Malnes R. 1990. The Environment and Duties to FutureGenerations. Fridtjof Nansen Institute: Oslo.

McManus P. 1996. Contested terrains: politics, sto-ries and discourses of sustainability. EnvironmentalPolitics 5: 48–73.

Mol APJ. 1996. Ecological modernisation and institu-tional reflexivity: environmental reform in the latemodern age. Environmental Politics 5: 302–323.

Mol APJ, Spaargaren G. 1993. Environment,modernity and the risk-society: the apocalyptic



O. Langhelle322

horizon of environmental reform. International Soci-ology 8: 431–459.

Murcott S. 1997. Appendix A: definitions of sustain-able development. http://www.sustainableliving.org/appen-a.htm [5 June 1998].

O’Riordan T. 1993. The politics of sustainability. InSustainable Environmental Economics and Management:Principles and Practice, Turner KR (ed.). BelhavenPress: London; 37–69.

Pearce D, Markandya A, Barbier EB. 1989. Blueprintfor a Green Economy. Earthscan Publications:London.

Pearce D. 1993. Blueprint 3. Measuring Sustainable Devel-opment. Earthscan Publications: London.

Pezzey J. 1992. Sustainable development concepts:an economic analysis. World Bank EnvironmentalPaper Number 2. The World Bank: Washington,DC.

Rasmussen I. 1997. Bærekraftig produksjon og for-bruk. In Rio+5. Norges oppfølging av FN-konferansenom miljø og utvikling, Lafferty WM, Langhelle O,Mugaas P, Ruge MH (eds). Tano Aschehoug:Oslo; 106–135.

Rawls J. 1993. Political Liberalism. Colombia UniversityPress: New York.

Reid D. 1995. Sustainable Development: An IntroductoryGuide. Earthscan: London.

Reitan M. 1998. Ecological modernisation and ‘Real-politik’: ideas, interests and institutions. Environmen-tal Politics 7: 1–26.

Ruckelshaus WD. 1990. Toward a sustainable world.In Managing Planet Earth: Readings from Scientific Amer-ican Magazine. W.H. Freeman and Company: NewYork; 125–135.

Sachs W. 1993. Global ecology and the shadow ofdevelopment. In Global Ecology: A New Arena ofPolitical Conflict, Sachs W (ed.). Zed Books: Lon-don; 3–21.

Shue H. 1993. Subsistence emissions and luxuryemissions. Law & Policy 15: 39–59.

Spaargaren G. 1997. The ecological modernizationof production and consumption: essays in environ-mental sociology. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agri-cultural University.

Turner KR (ed.). 1993. Sustainable Environmental Eco-nomics and Management: Principles and Practice. Bel-haven Press: London.

Verburg RM, Wiegel V. 1997. On the compatibilityof sustainability and economic growth. Environmen-tal Ethics 19: 247–265.

Miljøverndepartementet. 1996–1997. Miljøvernpolitikkfor en bærekraftig utvikling. Dugnad for framtida. Stort-ingsmeldiger nr. 58. Miljøverndepartementet:Oslo.

WCED (World Commission on Environment andDevelopment). 1987. Our Common Future. OxfordUniversity Press: Oxford.

Weale A. 1992. The New Politics of Pollution.Manchester University Press: Manchester.

Weale A. 1993. Ecological modernisation and theintegration of European environmental policy. InEuropean Integration and Environmental Policy, LiefferinkJD, Lowe PD, Mol APJ (eds). Belhaven Press:London; 196–216.

Worster D. 1993. The shaky ground of sustainabil-ity. In Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict,Sachs W (ed.). Zed Books: London; 132–145.



Documents

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE - Universitetet i oslo€¦ · a RF—Rogaland Research, Stavanger, Norway. Online Publication Date: 01 December 2000 To cite this Article Langhelle,