Ecological modernisation, regional economic development andregional development agencies

David Gibbs

Department of Geography, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK

Received 5 November 1998; in revised form 12 August 1999

Abstract

Despite widespread recognition that human impacts are having a detrimental impact upon the environment and the incorpo-

ration of sustainable development into policy at a variety of spatial scales, the actual implementation of sustainability remains

problematic. By contrast with the rather vague and all-encompassing concept of sustainable development, some authors have argued

that ecological modernization is a much more rigorous approach which focuses upon reconciling the tensions between economic

development and ecological crisis to form a new model of development for capitalist economies. As an approach it is speci®cally put

forward as one which can provide both a theoretical and a practical guide to an appropriate response. In this paper the potential

contribution of ecological modernization as both theory and guide to pragmatic action are explored by reference to the development

of regional policy and regional development agencies (RDAs) in the English regions. It would appear that although the practical

implications of ecological modernisation have been partially incorporated into regional policy, these have been progressively wa-

tered down in the move from policy formulation to implementation. Ecological modernisation may have more to o�er as a the-

oretical approach where it allows us to think about these problems of policy implementation. The paper concludes with a critique of

ecological modernisation as a perspective on the environmental problematic. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Although its prominence has varied over time in re-cent years the environment, and human impact upon it,remains a key area of concern. While there is no ab-solute consensus that major environmental changes,such as enhanced global warming, are occurring, there isa broad agreement that such changes are in train andthat some form of response is needed. In particular,there is a widespread concern that the environmentalconsequences of industrialisation are increasingly nega-tive and that action needs to be taken to remedy this.One consequence of this has been an argument that theconcept of sustainable development should become acentral theme in development policy at all spatial scales(WCED, 1987). Thus the United Nations Agenda 21provided a framework for sustainable development to beplaced at the heart of national, regional and local policymaking. In the UK the (recently revised) SustainableDevelopment Strategy (DETR, 1999) and the develop-ment of Local Agenda 21 initiatives have been the most

visible evidence of this process beginning to take place.Similar processes are at work elsewhere (see O'Riordanand Voisey, 1997). In general terms the concept of sus-tainable development requires that human activities takeplace within the ecological limits of the planet. It isgenerally accepted that this requires consideration ofinter- and intra-generational equity, greater democraticinvolvement in decision making and, perhaps most im-portantly, the integration of environmental, economicand social decision-making. Taken together these re-quirements represent a considerable challenge to theorganization of economic activity as it currently exists.The need to address environmental problems has thusbecome a commonplace, at least in developed industrialnations. As Dryzek (1994, p. 176) states:

``today, any credible political-economic vision mustaddress the challenge presented by ecological prob-lems. The environment can no longer be thought ofas just one issue among many. Ecological problemsare su�ciently widespread and serious to constitutean acid test for all actual and proposed political andeconomic arrangements, be they incremental or rev-olutionary.''

Geoforum 31 (2000) 9±19

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

E-mail address: d.c.gibbs@geo.hull.ac.uk (D. Gibbs).

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 0 - 8

Where agreement starts to diverge, however, is onwhether sustainability has any coherent meaning andhow it can be implemented, if at all. In consequence,there is a wide diversity of opinion as to the most ap-propriate response to environmental change. There is aspectrum of opinion here from deep green ecologistswho require a wholesale restructuring of society,through to some economists who believe that marketinstruments are capable of restoring the ÔenvironmentalequilibriumÕ and that the basic socio-economic form canremain intact (Torgerson, 1995).

One approach to addressing the environmentalproblematic is that of ecological modernisation. Eco-logical modernisation speci®cally argues that economicdevelopment and ecological crisis can be reconciled toform a new model of development for capitalist econo-mies. As an approach it is speci®cally put forward as onewhich can provide both a theoretical and a practicalguide to an appropriate response. There would seemsome merit therefore in examining in greater detail theclaims made for ecological modernisation.

In this paper I do so by exploring the potential con-tribution that ecological modernisation can make toregional economic policy making. It should be stated atthe outset that ecological modernisation has largelydeveloped as a theory concerned with nation states andhas ignored the sub-national level (though see Jacksonand Roberts, 1997; Pepper, 1999 for attempts to useecological modernisation in this context). However,there is a strong rationale for investigating the sub-na-tional level (Jordan, 1999). First, it re¯ects the majoremphasis in the policy literature placed upon the sub-national scale as the key site for the integration of eco-nomic and environmental policy (see for example theUnited NationÕs Agenda 21 programme and the Euro-pean UnionÕs Fifth Environmental Action Programme).Second, it re¯ects recent speculation about the role ofregional governance arrangements in the transition to anew institutional basis for wealth creation in rapidlyglobalising economies. In a number of countries policymakers have a revived interest in regional governance asa framework to improve sub-national economic com-petitiveness (Clarke and Gaile, 1998). In the UK thesetwo issues of sub-national scale and regional governancehave recently taken institutional form in the establish-ment of regional development agencies (RDAs) in eightof the nine English regions.1 Proposed changes to re-

gional planning guidance (RPG) in the UK also recog-nise the need for integrating economic, social andenvironmental issues (DETR, 1998c). Moreover, thenewly established RDAs have sustainable developmentas a key remit and their legislative basis would appear todraw, at least implicitly, upon ecological modernisationas a guide for policy implementation.

The argument of the paper is as follows. Following anoutline of the issues raised by the widespread adoptionof sustainable development as an aim of policy, I ex-amine the perspective of ecological modernisation asone speci®c approach to reconciling economic and en-vironmental policy aims. Ecological modernisation isfrequently advanced as both a pragmatic guide to policyinitiatives and as a theoretical approach. These two ar-eas are then explored through the medium of the newRDAs in the English regions. The argument here is thatalthough the practical implications of ecological mod-ernisation have been partially incorporated into regionalpolicy, these have been progressively watered down inthe move from policy formulation to implementation.Ecological modernisation may have more to o�er as atheoretical approach where it allows us to think aboutthese problems of policy implementation. The paperconcludes with a critique of ecological modernisation asa perspective on the environmental problematic.

2. Sustainable development and scales of implementation

Although its usage originates before this date, theterm sustainable development was popularised by theBrundtland Report (WCED, 1987). The de®nition usedby Brundtland emphasised meeting the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs. In the UKÕs revisedsustainable development strategy, the Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions (DETR, 1999,para 1.1) de®ne it as Ôensuring a better quality of life foreveryone, now and for generations to comeÕ and basedon four objectives: social progress which recognises theneeds of everyone; e�ective protection of the environ-ment; prudent use of natural resources; and mainte-nance of high and stable levels of economic growth.

While de®nitions of sustainable development vary,most allude to the following core principles:· quality of life (including and linking social, economic

and environmental aspects);· care for the environment;· thought for the future and the precautionary princi-

ple;· fairness and equity;· participation and partnership.

However, there has also been much criticism of thenotion of sustainable development and whether it has

1 The ninth region, London, will have its own RDA responsible to

the Mayor of London, who will be elected in 2000. While the other

regions will have regional assemblies, London will have its own

Greater London Assembly. The London RDA will be established at

the same time as the strategic authority in April 2000. Scotland and

Wales already possess such agencies, which may gain added power

through the process of devolution and the establishment of a

Parliament in the former and an Assembly in the latter.

10 D. Gibbs / Geoforum 31 (2000) 9±19

any practical meaning. As Myerson and Rydin (1994, p.439) comment:

``does the discourse around the concept of sustain-able development represent a cultural oxymoron,a con¯ation of policy goals from the distincteconomic and environmental policy arenas, or isit an innovative step forward in policy thinkingwhich provides new opportunities for goal achieve-ment?''

Similarly, Torgerson (1995) comments on the ambi-guity of the term and the way in which this allows po-litical actors from many di�erent backgrounds toproceed without having to agree on what action to take± a bene®t to those who see the need for incrementalreform rather than radical social transformations of thetype advocated by Ôdeep greensÕ. Dryzek (1997, p. 125)argues that this is not surprising given that sustainabledevelopment Ôis a discourse rather than a concept whichcan or should be de®ned with any precisionÕ. As suchDryzek (1997) sees sustainable development as simplyone discourse of environmentalism amongst severalothers, albeit increasingly the dominant one.

In spatial terms a key component of sustainable de-velopment is the adaptation of the old radical greenslogan think globally, act locally. Sustainable develop-ment is frequently predicated upon the basis of simul-taneously shifting some political power up totransnational levels of political organization and downto the local scale (Dryzek, 1997). The concomitant ofthese power shifts is a decrease in the capacity rooted inthe nation-state ± in part the recognition by environ-mentalists of arguments concerning the Ôhollowing-outÕof the nation-state and the globalisation tendencies inthe world economy (Jessop, 1994, 1995). At the localscale there is a commitment to exploratory and decent-ralised approaches to sustainability, with a range of lo-cal experimentation (Lee, 1993). Dryzek (1997) sees thisas a potential problem (how can these local experimentsbe harnessed together?) and as an advantage (a welcomeantidote to nation-states under the sway of market-ledeconomic approaches). It can be argued that sustainabledevelopment is thus a discourse that emphasises a shiftof power away from the nation-state:

``Sustainable development discourses can be rereadas a new power/knowledge formation, aiming at ac-cumulating power for comparatively powerless sub-national and supranational agencies through themobilisation of new knowledges about the perfor-mance of essentially national economies and statesthat exert their authority to foster development atany cost. Rather than sovereign territories, thesediscourses look at sub-national and transnationaldomains for sustainable ecosystems...to recon®gure

the circuits of biopower generation and utilisation''(Luke, 1995, p. 29).

Despite trends in these two directions, for the mo-ment, the nation-state remains the primary locus ofmost regulatory activity. At this scale, despite the in-creasing acceptance of sustainable development as thebasis for environmental policy, the trend in recent yearsin industrialised countries has been for a move towardsmarket-led economies, the globalisation of economicactivity and a system of free trade which run counter tosustainable development (Korten, 1996). Other thanamongst deep greens, there is a recognition that anyfuture shift in society and the way in which the economyis organised is unlikely to involve radical change, at leastin the short- to medium-term. Over this time scale,market mechanisms will remain dominant and perhapsthe best that can be expected is a gradual shift towards amore sustainable future. Given that a market-based,capitalist economic system looks set to dominate theglobal economy, one response has been to argue thatintegrating environmental and economic policy can beboth pro®table for business and contribute to sustain-able development through a programme of ecologicalmodernisation. Hajer (1995) and Harvey (1996) linkecological modernisation and sustainable developmenttogether such that the latter is the central story line ofthe policy discourse of ecological modernisation. How-ever, ecological modernisation has much more analyti-cal rigour than sustainable development and Ôhas amuch sharper focus than does sustainable developmenton exactly what needs to be done with the capitalistpolitical economy, especially within the con®nes of thedeveloped nation stateÕ (Dryzek, 1997, p. 143).

3. Ecological modernisation

The perspective of ecological modernisation is said too�er a constructive approach to deal with environmentalproblems, with a central role assigned to science, tech-nology and the state (Mol and Spaargaren, 1993). Theconcept was developed in the 1980s through the work ofthe German social scientists Huber (1982) and J�anicke(1985). The basic argument is that the central institu-tions of modern society can be transformed in order toavoid ecological crisis. Huber (1982, 1985), for example,has argued the need for an ecological switchover ± atransition of industrial society towards an ecologicallyrational organization of production, based upon thetheory of a changed relationship between the economyand ecology. Rather than the deep ecological position ofradical restructuring of society, ecological modernisat-ion has more in common with strong versions of sus-tainability in that it envisages a process of theprogressive modernisation of the institutions of modern

D. Gibbs / Geoforum 31 (2000) 9±19 11

society, as opposed to their destruction or dismantling(Mol and Spaargaren, 1993). Ecological modernisationproposes that structural change must occur at themacro-economic level through broad sectoral shifts inthe economy and at the micro-economic level, throughthe use of new and clean technologies by individual®rms (Gouldson and Murphy, 1997).

As a framework, the concept of ecological moderni-sation can be used at two levels. First, it can be used as atheoretical concept to analyse those changes to thecentral institutions in modern society deemed necessaryto solve the ecological crisis. Second, ecological mod-ernisation is used to describe a more pragmatic politicalprogramme to redirect environmental policymaking. Inthe sense of the ®rst meaning, ecological modernisationstands for a major transformation, or ecological switch,of the industrialisation process into a direction thattakes account of the need to maintain the sustenancebase. As with sustainable development, ecologicalmodernisation indicates the possibility of overcomingenvironmental crises without leaving the path of mod-ernisation (Mol and Spaargaren, 1993). The processes ofproduction and consumption can be restructured onecological terms through the institutionalisation ofecological aims (Mol, 1994). Three central projects formthe heart of this ecological switchover (Gouldson andMurphy, 1996; Huber, 1985):· the restructuring of production and consumption to-

wards ecological goals. This involves the develop-ment and di�usion of clean production technologiesand decoupling economic development from the rele-vant resource inputs, resource use and emissions;

· Ôeconomising ecologyÕ by placing an economic valueon nature and introducing structural tax reform;

· integrating environmental policy goals into other pol-icy areas.The potential for doing this is illustrated by the fact

that other rationalities, such as social and labourstruggles, have, in the past, imposed limits on a purelyeconomic rationale for production and consumption.However, the proponents of ecological modernisationdo not wish to assert the primacy of ecological overeconomic rationality, merely to assert the necessity (aswith sustainable development) of giving the formerequal weight.

In HuberÕs view, ecological modernisation o�ers usthe only way out of ecological crisis through more in-dustrialization, albeit with changed production andconsumption. However, this view overemphasises theindustrial and technological aspects and neglects thesocial context within which these occur ± the ÔecologicalswitchoverÕ is seen as a logical, necessary and inevitablestage in the development of the industrial system. ForHuber, technological developments occur largely au-tonomously and act to determine change in industrialsystems and their relations with the social and natural

environment. The propulsive force of technologicalchange means that in Huber's approach the state haslittle role in redirecting the processes of production andconsumption. More generally, while the theory of eco-logical modernisation proposes that institutions can berestructured on ecological lines and away from a purelyeconomic rationale, the theory is largely silent on theextent to which such institutions can be reformed ± thisremains open to empirical investigation (Mol, 1994).

Hajer (1993) extends this analysis by proposing thatthere are two interpretations of ecological modernisat-ion. First, a Ôtechno-corporatistÕ interpretation whichemphasises the Ôeconomization of natureÕ and elitistdecision-making structures and a second interpretation,closer to some versions of sustainability, which not onlystresses changes to production and consumption, butdoes so through greater democratisation, redistributionand social justice. Christo� (1996) has characterisedthese two ends of this spectrum as weak and strongversions of ecological modernisation (Table 1). Hajer(1995) develops this idea of strong ecological moderni-sation as re¯exive ecological modernisation, wherebypolitical and economic development proceed on thebasis of critical self-awareness involving public scrutinyand democratic control, while weak ecological mod-ernisation involves a lifeline for capitalist economiesthreatened by ecological crisis.

As a political programme, ecological modernisationhas three linked programmes:· compensation for environmental damage and the use

of additional technologies to minimise the e�ects ofgrowing production and consumption on the envi-ronment;

· a focus upon altering the processes of production andconsumption, through the use of clean technologiesand economic valuation for example;

· the dismantling and deindustrialization of economiesand a transformation towards small-scale units and acloser link between production and consumption.In this regard Mol and Spaargaren (1993) cite the

example of Dutch environmental policies, which haveshifted from the ®rst approach to the second. This hasinvolved moves to: close substance cycles and the chainfrom raw materials through to the production processand waste and recycling; conserving energy and im-proving the e�ciency and utilisation of renewable en-ergy sources; and improving the quality of productionprocesses and resultant products. One basic tenet ofecological modernisation is that as a pragmatic politicalprogramme it will be supported by business as it in-volves ®nancial advantage ± it responds to environ-mental issues through notions of pro®table enterprise(Harvey, 1996; Weale, 1992). This comes about through®ve forms. First, through reduced pollution and wasteproduction resulting in greater business e�ciency. Sec-ond, through avoiding future ®nancial liabilities, such as

12 D. Gibbs / Geoforum 31 (2000) 9±19

the potential future cost of clearing up contaminatedland. Third, creating a better environment has bene®tsfor, and attractions to, a companyÕs workforce. Fourth,through the sale of environmentally-friendly productsand services and ®fth, through the sale of pollutionprevention and abatement technologies (Dryzek, 1997).While this may raise the possibility of the transforma-tion of capitalist economies, ecological modernisation isalso liable, as a discourse, to be Ôcorrupted into yet an-other discursive representation of dominant forms ofeconomic powerÕ (Harvey, 1996, p. 82) resulting ingreater dominance of global resources by transnationalindustry, national governments and big science in thename of sustainability.

4. Scale, the state and ecological modernisation

To date, ecological modernisation has concentratedon the potential for environmental reform at the level ofnational governments, environmental movements, en-terprises and labour organisations (Mol and Spaarg-aren, 1993). While sustainable development envisagesthe devolution of power up to the international scaleand down to the local, ecological modernisation doesnot necessarily require de-emphasising the nation-state.From the perspective of this paper, however, ecologicalmodernisation has not been utilised to address theproblems of regional or local areas. Indeed, where theydo address issues of scale Spaargaren and Mol (1992)explicitly criticise the works of counterproductivity the-orists (such as Commoner, Illich, Gorz and Bahro) fortheir emphasis on the need for greater local autonomyand severing links with world market and political re-lations as a prerequisite of a response to ecological crisis.Instead (following Giddens, 1990) they propose thatsuch insulae cannot exist within a globalised worldeconomy which interlinks and networks di�erent socialcontexts and localities. Thus while they recognise thatlocalisation may be desirable, Ôthe intensi®cation of in-ternational social relations and the increasing level oftime±space distancing within modern societies make the

realisation of these goals in the context of local experi-ments, which are thought to be exempt from power re-lations and market forces operating on a world-widebasis, less plausible and realisticÕ (Spaargaren and Mol,1992, p. 331).

Given the largely national focus, the role ascribed tothe sub-national scale and the local state is circum-scribed. Any analysis is con®ned to the nation-state. Insome accounts (Huber, 1982, 1985) the state should playno role in the switch to ecological modernisation, as itwill only hinder the development and di�usion of cleantechnologies. Mol and Spaargaren (1993) criticise thisoverly technical view and argue that it is di�cult toimagine an ecological switchover without state inter-vention at various levels. This may not involve a role fora strong bureaucratic state in ecological modernisation(although Harvey, 1996 appears to equate ecologicalmodernisation with the politics of corporate and statemanagerialism). ÔRather the role of the state in envi-ronmental policy [will have to] change from curative andreactive to preventive, from closed policy-making toparticipative policy-making, from centralised to de-centralised and from dirigistic to contextually steeringÕ(Mol, 1994, p. 17). Ecological modernisation, it is ar-gued, will require political commitment to a longer-term, more holistic approach to economic developmentand the environment.

The work of J�anicke (1992, 1997) suggests that theability of nation states to undertake such holistic envi-ronmental approaches results from the interplay of theireconomic performance with their capacities for inno-vation, strategic thinking and consensual government.From this J�anicke develops the concept of environmentalcapacity in order to understand the conditions that en-courage nation-states to address environmental prob-lems and those conditions that can result in successfulpolicy forms and implementation. For example, it hasbeen argued that those nation-states which conformmost closely to the ideas of (albeit weak) ecologicalmodernisation (the Netherlands, Germany, Norway,Sweden, Japan) are those which have consensual formsof government (Dryzek, 1997, see also Andersen, 1994;

Table 1

Characteristics of weak and strong ecological modernisation

Weak ecological modernisation Strong ecological modernisation

Technological solutions to environmental problems Broad changes to institutional and economic structure of society

incorporating ecological concerns

Technocratic/corporatist styles of policy making by scienti®c,

economic and political elites

Open, democratic decision making with participation and involve-

ment

Restricted to developed nations who use ecological modernisation to

consolidate their global economic advantages

Concerned with the international dimensions of the environment and

development

Imposes a single, closed-ended framework on political and economic

development

A more open-ended approach with no single view, but multiple

possibilities with ecological modernisation providing orientation

Source: Derived from Christo� (1996).

D. Gibbs / Geoforum 31 (2000) 9±19 13

Cohen, 1998). Ecological modernisation could usefullybe deployed to inform theory relating to the sub-na-tional scale. A key area for investigation may be thenotion of strategic capacity where:

``strategic capacity means that environmental pro-tection really becomes a cross-section function ofthe administrative authorities. Generally speaking,strategic capacity must include the capacity to inte-grate partial sectors of the state with a view to newobjectives, and to dismantle contradictions anddefuse con¯icts about objectives'' (J�anicke, 1992,p. 84).

However, this theory of strategic capacity has beenformulated at a national level ± it fails to consider de-velopments either at supra-national or sub-nationallevels. Some guidance as to how this could be developedto deal with sub-national levels comes through J�anicke'slater work (1997) which builds upon the theory ofstrategic capacity to produce a model of policy expla-nation. Capacity for action on environmental issues forJ�anicke (1997, p. 9) Ôde®nes the necessary structuralconditions for successful environmental policy as well asthe upper limit beyond which policy failure sets in evenin the case of skilful, highly motivated and situativelywell-placed proponentsÕ. In this instance capacity de®nesboth opportunities and barriers (Murphy, 1999). In thismodel, solutions to environmental problems are devel-oped within structural framework conditions and withinsituative contexts, involving actors and strategies, to-gether with institutional, economic and informationalfactors (Murphy, 1999). Strategies are the general ap-proach taken to a problem ± using environmental poli-cies to address problems and achieve goals, for example± actors (including individuals, pressure groups, thirdparties etc.) are the opponents and proponents of specialissues. The latter have relatively stable general interestsand core beliefs and their capacity for action dependslargely upon their strengths and competencies. An im-portant dimension to this model is that the ability ofactors to develop strategies can be signi®cantly in¯u-enced by the situative context, such as economic reces-sion, public awareness or a major pollution incident.The other component of the model is the structur-al framework conditions, which provide the backdropto the situative context, actors and strategies. Theseform the broad conditions of environmental action andgive rise to an opportunity structure for actors consist-ing of:· the cognitive±informational framework ± i.e., the

conditions under which environmental knowledge isproduced, distributed, interpreted and applied;

· the political±institutional framework comprising theinstitutional and legal structures and institutionalisedrules and norms in a society;

· the economic±technological framework includingeconomic performance, technology levels and secto-ral composition.The resultant capacity of actors to act (and the suc-

cess of their actions) will be in¯uenced by the interplayof these frameworks in any given situation. In utilisingthis model to understand the implementation of envi-ronmental policy at the sub-national scale (and its in-tegration with economic development activities), webegin to move away from the notion that implementingsuch policies and devolving policy to lower levels is arelatively problem-free process. Much will depend uponlocal situative contexts and structural frameworks, aswell as upon the composition of local actors and form oflocal strategies. While ecological modernisation is thususeful in helping us to think through some of thechanges that need to be made to current economiesthrough a political programme, it is only beginning toaddress the social processes involved through notions ofsituative contexts and local actors. In the next section ofthe paper the focus turns to a speci®c consideration ofboth these practical and theoretical aspects of ecologicalmodernisation in relation to recent regional policy shiftsin the UK.

5. Ecological modernisation (new) labour and regional

policy

In the UK, the election of a (new) Labour govern-ment in 1997 initially led to a ¯urry of policy and con-sultation documents which implicitly utilise conceptsand language drawn from ecological modernisation. Ithas been argued that ecological modernisation has awide appeal for the Labour administration as a modernconcept, with its focus on both the market economy anda stakeholder society (Blowers, 1997). Ecological mod-ernisation chimes neatly with the governmentÕs vision ofa modernised, forward looking society, appearing toallow a better environment and a modernised economy.This is clearly stated in the Department of the Envi-ronment, Transport and the Regions (1998) consulta-tion document on the UKÕs revised sustainabledevelopment strategy:

``sustainable development is concerned with achiev-ing economic growth, in the form of higher livingstandards, while protecting and where possible en-hancing the environment ± not just for its own sakebut because a damaged environment will sooner orlater hold back economic growth and lower thequality of life'' (DETR, 1998a, p. 5).

Macro-economic policies that create a successfulbusiness climate are seen as fundamental to achievingsustainable development. Moreover, environmental

14 D. Gibbs / Geoforum 31 (2000) 9±19

protection is perceived as an opportunity for business toproduce new goods and services and thus to gain acompetitive edge in world markets. New technologiesare viewed as having a key role to play in improving thee�ciency of resource use. Achieving these markettransformations is predominantly a task for partnershipbetween government and business through negotiatedagreements (DETR, 1998a). Similar themes are devel-oped in a consultation document speci®cally aimed atbusiness (DETR, 1998b). In this document, environ-mental concern is also seen as providing opportunitiesfor business through creating new markets and newproducts, increasing competitiveness, building customertrust and the development of new technologies. Businessand government are the proactive elements in this eco-logical switch, while consumers are essentially passiveelements who must be given appropriate information inorder to make correct choices. While these documentsawait implementation, similar ecological modernisationthemes are already enshrined in regional policy legisla-tion.

The (implicit) incorporation of ecological moderni-sation as a political programme in regional policy wasmost evident in the report of the regional policy com-mission (RPC), chaired by Bruce Millan, in 1996. Giventhat the Labour Party had a manifesto commitment tocreating RDAs and regional government, the RPC wasestablished to examine, and make recommendations on,the form and content of regional policy. In terms thatspeci®cally invoke the language of ecological moderni-sation, it is evident that the RPC saw clear bene®ts to begained from integrating environmental and regionaldevelopment policies:

``There is a growing awareness that the pursuit ofenvironmental objectives could actually stimulatenew economic activity and jobs in environment-re-lated sectors, and also in other sectors, such as tour-ism and leisure, which stand to bene®t from acleaner environment. Moreover, the implementa-tion of higher environmental standards can be seenas a means of encouraging ®rms to adapt to cleanertechnologies and to move into new environmental-ly-friendly product areas in advance of those in oth-er countries, and so attain a competitive edge and astronger market position in the longer term'' (RPC,1996, p. 187).

The RPC recommended that regional economicstrategies contain details of the environmental situation(as is the case for EU Structural Funds) and an assess-ment of the environmental impact of the strategies. Inrelation to jobs, the RPC drew upon research that sug-gested that there is substantial potential for job creationin environmental activities and industries, but thatwithout increased e�ort the UK could lose out com-

pared to other countries. Energy conservation andÔgreen engineering technologiesÕ were highlighted as twoexamples where regional policy could help with creatingjobs and improving national economic competitiveness.

Once in o�ce, the Labour Government produced aWhite Paper on RDAs which placed sustainable devel-opment as one of the RDAsÕ ®ve speci®c objectives (theother four being economic development and social andphysical regeneration; business support, investment andcompetitiveness; enhancing skills; and promoting em-ployment). One of the key stated aims of the RDAs willbe Ôto promote sustainable economic developmentÕ(DETR, 1997, p. 9) and to integrate economic, social,democratic and environmental agendas. In a separatesection of the White Paper devoted to ÔEnvironment andSustainable DevelopmentÕ it is claimed that:

``RDAs will place the principle of sustainable devel-opment at the heart of their programmes. To ensurethis, the Government will give them a speci®c stat-utory objective of furthering the achievement ofsustainable development which we will monitorclosely. They will integrate environmental, econom-ic and social objectives'' (DETR, 1997, p. 39).

Waste minimisation, energy e�ciency and encourag-ing environmental technology developments are also seenas a role for the RDAs, as is the support of Local Agenda21 initiatives. In order to implement these objectives, akey factor will be the development of regional economicstrategies, which will integrate economic and social aims.These will also be the means to Ôpromote sustainabledevelopment and sustainable communitiesÕ (DETR,1997, p. 22), although exactly how is not made clear,except that it will involve the RDAs working with localand regional partners for environmental improvements.

However, while early policy statements implied thatthe RDAs would adopt ecological modernisation as thebasis for their regional strategies, there is evidence thatthe environment remains peripheral to more conven-tional views of development. Policy re¯ects the adoptionof weak, or narrowly technical, forms of ecologicalmodernisation. First, the Bill establishing RDAs was awatered-down form of the White Paper and only calledon RDAs to take the environment and sustainable de-velopment into account 'where appropriate'. Second,despite being one of the ®ve objectives for RDAs, sus-tainable development does not feature in the list of 12RDA core functions. This is a fairly conventional list ofeconomic development policy areas and it is simplyclaimed that the environment and sustainable develop-ment is merely an area where ÔRDAs will also contributeto policies and programmesÕ (DETR, 1997, p. 44). Third,there appears to be a narrow equation of environ-mental concerns with issues of the physical built envi-ronment such as reclaiming derelict or contaminated

D. Gibbs / Geoforum 31 (2000) 9±19 15

land, reusing redundant buildings and promoting qualityin new developments.

Overall, the impression is that environmental pro-tection is relevant to development because high qualitynatural environments are a prerequisite to attract in-ward investment, high value employment and touristactivity (see Pepper, 1999 for similar conclusions on theoperation of the EU LEADER programme in Ireland).These attitudes are given added weight by the opinionthat a lack of good economic performance in the regionshas led to environmental degradation through a failureto invest in pollution reduction measures by ®rms with apoor economic performance, and business failure lead-ing to derelict or degraded land. The implicit message isthat regions need a growing economy to create the re-sources needed to address environmental problems(Gibbs, 1998). Growth must come before environmentalproblems are tackled, re¯ecting HuberÕs arguments formore industrialisation as the solution to ecological cri-sis. The reliance is upon improved competitiveness(through conventional measures) which will then enableregions to turn to addressing environmental and socialproblems (Gibbs, 1997).

Thus while UK regional policy legislation has takenon board some of the elements of ecological moderni-sation as a political programme it is not clear what thiswill mean in operational terms (Friends of the Earth,1997). The lack of central direction as to the exact formof regional economic strategies would appear to createspace for RDAs to develop a form of regional strategythat explicitly recognises the ecological modernisationagenda and attempts to implement it. As Hajer (1996, p.262) comments policy makers are left to their own de-vices when confronted with implementing such policiesand could use sustainable development as a `crowbar tobreak with previous commitments'. In reality, however,it would appear that more conventional views on eco-nomic development will prevail and that most RDAswill not place issues such as increased energy e�ciency,clean technologies, waste reduction and closed-loopsystems on their agendas.

A more useful way of utilising ecological moderni-sation may be to draw upon some of its more theoreticalaspects to think through some of the issues raised by thecreation of RDAs and the di�culties of implementingecological modernisation's pragmatic programme. Wecan see the process of RDA creation as part of a broaderreordering of environmental regulatory space within theUK. In accordance with theories of hollowing out, someenvironmental responsibilities have been delegated up-wards to the European Union,2 while much environ-

mental responsibility has been devolved downwardsthrough the Local Agenda 21 process. The developmentof regional policy introduces a new element into thisrescaling of policy. However, RDAs have relatively fewpowers, other than those of functional allocation i.e. theresponsibility to deliver policy initiatives, rather thanpowers of ®nancial responsibility. Moreover, RDAs atthis meso-level of the region will operate in a contestedterrain, where other agencies such as the EnvironmentAgency and English Nature all claim jurisdiction oversingle-issue environmental matters. As with the entry ofany new state form or structure the formation of theRDAs has implications for the access of di�erent in-terests, political representation and policy determination(Patterson, 1999). Exactly how the interest groups in-volved represent their own interests and engage withthose of other dominant groups through the new insti-tutional forms remains to be seen. Certainly one prob-lem from an environmental point of view is that in manyregions there already exists considerable institutionalcapacity for economic development functions throughthe past work of the Regional Development O�ces(promoting inward investment) and Government O�cesfor the Regions, as well as a host of partnership ar-rangements for disbursing European Structural Fundsand Single Regeneration Budget funding. By contrast,such institutional capacity on environmental matters,which could assist with the implementation of an agendafor ecological modernisation, remains weakly devel-oped. Even where it does exist, such as in the form of theEnvironment Agency and the utility supply companies'regional structures, these frequently take a largelytechnical stance on environmental issues and/or are notconnected to the economic development structureswithin their regions. Given that RDAs will be simplyone actor amongst many in the regions, their business-led nature and accountability to central governmentmay make them both easier to control from the centreand open to lobbying by well-organised special interestgroups organised at a regional level.

Developing this further, utilising some of the theo-retical concepts drawn from ecological modernisationcould prove useful in any future investigation of RDAactivities. In particular, J�anicke's (1992) notion of en-vironmental capacity is useful here as it would suggestthat at present the type of strategic capacity needed toenable the integration of economic and environmentalpolicy is not present in the English regions. J�anicke's(1997) later re®nement of this approach stresses the ca-pacity for action on the part of actors and strategieswithin their situative contexts and structural frame-works. At the present time it would appear that thesituative context and structural framework in most En-glish regions are not conducive to the more radical im-plications of ecological modernisation. The dominantdiscourse at the UK regional level is that of creating

2 For example, through adopting European Directives on Integrated

Pollution Prevention and Control and Urban Waste Water Treatment

(see Lowe and Ward, 1998; Jordan, 1999).

16 D. Gibbs / Geoforum 31 (2000) 9±19

competitive regional economies located within a glob-alising world economy and where technology, know-ledge and conventional economic measures can beharnessed to create wealth, as measured in conventionalGDP terms. Such views are ®rmly entrenched at theregional level, while those actors able to contribute aview on the environmental consequences of such strat-egies are rarely organised on a regional basis and/or aremarginal to the process of strategy making within theregion (Roberts and Jackson, 1999). Developments inthe political-institutional framework, in J�anicke's terms,could in future counter this through the development ofthe Regional Assemblies into strong, directly-electedgovernments able to set targets, develop policies andcreate partnerships with other actors such as utilitycompanies and industry. At present, though, the devel-opment of unelected RDA boards and the slow devel-opment of regional assemblies (let alone directly electedones) is likely to mean that the RDAs constitute oneactor amongst many, at least in the early stages of theirdevelopment.

6. Conclusions: ecological modernisation ± a basis for

policy integration?

While few policy makers would perhaps recognise theterm, approaches based upon ecological modernisationare increasingly becoming utilised within policy whichseeks to integrate economic development and the envi-ronment. In this paper I have tried to indicate that re-gional economic policy in the UK implicitly draws uponnotions derived from ecological modernisation argu-ments, even if its subsequent translation into policyimplementation is proving problematic. Ecologicalmodernisation, at least in its narrow or weak forms,supposedly allows us to have it all ± not only does itdeliver environmental improvement, but also it does sowithout seriously challenging existing economic prac-tices. Indeed, insofar as it is based upon innovation,technological change and greater competitiveness, itwould appear to ®t closely with other attempts tomodernise developed economies. It is this seemingcompatibility with mainstream economic activity, if onlywe can be forward thinking and modern enough tomake the ecological switch, which explains the appear-ance of ecological modernisation in policy. In this formecological modernisation appears in its guise of apragmatic programme for business and government.While this may appear to o�er some hope for thosecommitted to stronger environmental protection mea-sures, as with sustainability, ecological modernisationcan equally serve as a cover for business-as-usual with aslight green tinge. As Christo� (1996, p. 497) points out:Ôthere is a danger that the term may serve to legitimisethe continuing instrumental domination and destruction

of the environment, and the promotion of less demo-cratic forms of government, foregrounding modernityÕsindustrial and technocratic discourses over its more re-cent, resistant and critical ecological componentsÕ. In-deed, the progressive watering-down of the ecologicalmessage within UK regional policy serves to illustratethe continual failure of government to seize the initiativeand to remain subservient to more conventional eco-nomic analyses, even where the past success of some ofthese (for example, inward investment policies) and thefuture success of others (for example, the knowledge-based economy) in lagging regions is dubious.

Moreover, these narrow interpretations of ecologicalmodernisation have a number of shortcomings. There islittle or no attempt to address issues of equity or dem-ocratic participation, which by contrast are central tosustainable development. Narrow interpretations arealso weak on the potential for policy integration. Thusthey have little to say about the form of institutionaladaptation or change required to inaugurate sustainabledevelopment. Much research also has relatively little tosay about barriers to implementing ecological mod-ernisation, other than seeing it as state failure, wherebyÔpolicy becomes locked-in to a reactive and standardisedapproach even though more proactive policies areavailable and might o�er economic and environmentaladvantages' (Gouldson and Murphy, 1997, p. 80). Therole of the state, whether central, regional or local, isseen in some accounts as minimal (Huber, 1982, 1985)and in others as performing an enabling function. Againin the UK this ties in closely with New LabourÕs view ofthe role of the state. Ecological modernisation has littleto say about the form of institutional adaptation orchange needed at nation-state level, let alone at the re-gional scale. ÔEcological modernisation sublimates theenabling state as the institutional response that will se-cure the e�cient functioning of the market economywithin a framework of state regulation (Blowers, 1997).This enabling state will deliver ecological modernisationthrough corporatist relationships between governmentand industry, although co-opting environmental move-ments where necessary, thus ignoring issues of partici-pation and reducing the rest of society to passiveconsumers to be provided with enough information tomake informed (but market-based) choices.3

Weaker versions of ecological modernisation thuslargely ignore the major institutional changes needed,despite being based on the notion that the necessarychanges to institutions can be made (Christo�, 1996).One criticism from a theoretical approach is that

3 By contrast to the potential situation in the UK, Mol's work in the

Netherlands points to the potential for the state to sponsor a range of

groups to contribute to policy formation without traditional private

sector interests.

D. Gibbs / Geoforum 31 (2000) 9±19 17

ecological modernisation frequently fails to take ac-count of the social processes at work, such that it reliesupon a narrow technocratic and instrumental approachrather than being integrative and communicative. Thisapproach will not lead to the type of embedded culturaltransformations that will sustain factors such as envi-ronmental improvements, reduced consumption andgreater equity (Cohen, 1997, 1998; Jamison and Baark,1999). If ecological modernisation is to o�er any usefultheoretical or practical guidelines then, as I have sug-gested in relation to regional economic development, amore fruitful avenue would be to explore J�anickeÕs(1992, 1997) notions of the capacity for action throughinvestigations of strategic capacities, structural frame-works and the role of actors. This would assist inmoving away from the idea that implementing policyand devolving it to lower spatial scales is a largelyproblem-free experience. Evidence shows that this is farfrom the case with regard to integrating economic andenvironmental policy at the local level (Gibbs et al.,1996, 1998). The implementation of policy is about theexercise of political and economic power and, while thisis rarely made explicit both ecological modernisationand sustainable development are fundamentally politicalconcepts (Owens, 1994). Their realisation lies in answersto such questions as Ôwho is in control, who sets agen-das, who allocates resources, who mediates disputes,who sets the rules of the gameÕ (Wilbanks, 1994, p. 544).Sustainability is thus an ideological and political ques-tion, rather than simply an ecological and economic one(OÕConnor, 1994). Notions of the capacity for actionwould highlight the processes of experimentation,struggle and con¯ict involved in environmental policy asopposed to its objective promotion as ecological mod-ernisation. Sustainability can only be built around valueand institutional shifts in society. This said, it cannotsimply be the values placed on the environment whichmust change, but also the values and institutions whichprioritise the value of capital and the maintenance ofexisting patterns of social relations.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Joseph Murphy, Jenny Robinson andtwo anonymous referees for their comments on an ear-lier version of this paper. All errors and omissions re-main the responsibility of the author. This paper drawsupon research being funded by the ESRC (Grant num-ber R000237997).

References

Andersen, M., 1994. Governance by Green Taxes: Making Pollution

Prevention Pay. Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Blowers, A., 1997. Environmental policy: ecological modernisation or

the risk society?. Urban Studies 34 (5/6), 845±871.

Christo�, P., 1996. Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities.

Environmental Politics 5 (3), 476±500.

Clarke, S.E., Gaile, G.L., 1998. The Work of Cities. University of

Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Cohen, M., 1997. Risk society and ecological modernisation: alterna-

tive visions for post-industrial nations. Futures 29 (2), 105±119.

Cohen, M., 1998. Science and the environment: assessing cultural

capacity for ecological modernisation. Public Understanding of

Science 7, 149±167.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1997.

Building Partnerships for Prosperity: Sustainable Growth, Com-

petitiveness and Employment in the English Regions, CM 3814,

HMSO, London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998a.

Sustainable Development: Opportunities for Change Consultation

Paper on a Revised UK Strategy, DETR, London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998b.

Sustainable Business: Consultation Paper on Sustainable Develop-

ment and Business in the UK, DETR, London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998c.

The Future of Regional Planning Guidance, DETR, London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1999. A

Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development for

the UK, CM 4345, DETR, London.

Dryzek, J., 1994. Ecology and discursive democracy: beyond liberal

capitalism and the administrative state. In: OÕConnor, M. (Ed.), Is

Capitalism Sustainable? Political Economy and the Politics of

Ecology. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 176±197.

Dryzek, J., 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Friends of the Earth, 1997. Regional Development Agencies ± an

Opportunity Lost? Brie®ng Paper, Friends of the Earth, London.

Gibbs, D., 1997. Urban sustainability and economic development in

the United Kingdom: exploring the contradictions. Cities 14 (4),

203±208.

Gibbs, D., 1998. Regional development agencies and sustainable

development. Regional Studies 32 (4), 365±368.

Gibbs, D., Longhurst, J., Braithwaite, C., 1996. Moving towards

sustainable development. Integrating economic development and

the environment in local authorities. Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management 39 (3), 317±332.

Gibbs, D., Longhurst, J., Braithwaite, C., 1998. Struggling with

sustainability: weak and strong interpretations of sustainable

development within local authority policy. Environment and

Planning A 30, 1351±1365.

Giddens, A., 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press,

Cambridge.

Gouldson, A., Murphy, J., 1996. Ecological modernisation and the

European Union. Geoforum 27, 11±21.

Gouldson, A., Murphy, J., 1997. Ecological modernisation: restruc-

turing industrial economies. In: Jacobs, M. (Ed.), Greening the

Millennium? The New Politics of the Environment. Blackwell,

Oxford, pp. 74±86.

Hajer, M., 1993. Discourse coalitions and the institutionalisation of

practice: the case of acid rain in Great Britain. In: Fischer, F.,

Forester, J. (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and

Planning. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.

Hajer, M., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological

Modernisation and the Policy Process. Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Hajer, M., 1996. Ecological modernisation as cultural politics. In:

Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., Wynne, B. (Eds.), Risk, Environment and

Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. Sage, London, pp. 246±268.

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

Blackwell, Oxford.

18 D. Gibbs / Geoforum 31 (2000) 9±19

Huber, J., 1982. Die verlorene Unschuld der Okologie (The Lost

Innocence of Ecology: New Technologies and Superindustrialized

Development) Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.

Huber, J., 1985. Die Regenbogengesellschaft: �okologie und Sozialpo-

litik (The Rainbow Society: Ecology and Social Politics) Fisher

Verlag, Frankfurt am Main.

Jackson, T., Roberts, P., 1997. Greening the Fife economy: ecological

modernization as a pathway for local economic development.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40 (5), 615±

629.

Jamison, A., Baark, E., 1999. National shades of green: comparing the

Swedish and Danish styles in ecological modernsiation. Environ-

mental Values 8, 199±218.

J�anicke, M., 1985. Preventive environmental policy as ecological

modernisation and structural policy. Discussion Paper IIUG dp 85-

2, Internationales Institut F�ur Umwelt und Gesellschaft, Wissensc-

haftszentrum Berlin F�ur Sozialforschung (WZB).

J�anicke, M., 1992. Conditions for environmental policy success: an

international comparison. In: Jachtenfuchs, M., Str�ubel, M. (Eds.),

Environmental Policy in Europe: Assessment, Challenges and

Perspectives. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden±Baden, pp. 71±97.

J�anicke, M., 1997. The political systemÕs capacity for environmental

policy. In: J�anicke, M., Weidner, H. (Eds.), National Environmen-

tal Policies: A comparative Study of Capacity-Building. Springer,

Berlin. pp. 1±24.

Jessop, B., 1994. Post-fordism and the state. In: Amin, A. (Ed.), Post-

Fordism: A Reader. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 251±279.

Jessop, B., 1995. The regulation approach, governance and post-

fordism: alternative perspectives on economic and political

change?. Economy and Society 24, 307±333.

Jordan, A., 1999. Editorial introduction: the construction of a

multilevel environmental governance system. Environment and

Planning C: Government and Policy 17, 1±17.

Korten, D., 1996. When Corporations Rule the World. Kumarian

Press, West Hartford, Conn.

Lee, K.N., 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and

Politics for the Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Lowe, P., Ward, S., 1998. British Environmental Policy and Europe.

Routledge, London.

Luke, T., 1995. Sustainable development as a power/knowledge

system: the problem of ÔgovernmentalityÕ. In: Fischer, F., Black,

M. (Eds.), Greening Environmental Policy: The Politics of a

Sustainable Future. Paul Chapman, London, pp. 21±32.

Mol, A., 1994. Ecological modernisation of industrial society: three

strategic elements. International Social Science Journal 121, 347±

361.

Mol, A., Spaargaren, G., 1993. Environment, modernity and the risk-

society: the apocalyptic horizon of environmental reform. Interna-

tional Sociology 8 (4), 431±459.

Murphy, J., 1999. Towards an Understanding of Environmental Policy

in Advanced Industrial Countries Unpublished Ph D thesis,

University of Hull.

Myerson, G., Rydin, Y., 1994. ÔEnvironmentÕ and ÔplanningÕ: a tale of

the mundane and the sublime. Environment and Planning D 12,

437±452.

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

nor, M. (Ed.), Is Capitalism Sustainable? Political Economy

and the Politics of Ecology. Guilford Press, New York,

pp. 152±175.

O'Riordan, T., Voisey, H., 1997. Sustainable Development in Western

Europe: Coming to Terms with Agenda. Frank Cass, London.

Owens, S., 1994. Land, limits and sustainability: a conceptual

framework and some dilemmas for the planning system. Transac-

tions of the Institute of British Geographers 19, 439±456.

Patterson, A., 1999. Towards a theory of regional governance, Paper

presented to the Annual Conference of the Royal Geographical

Society (with the Institute of British Geographers), University of

Leicester, January. Mimeo.

Pepper, D., 1999. The integration of environmental sustainability

considerations into EU development policy: a case study of the

LEADER initiative in the west of Ireland. Journal of Environ-

mental Planning and Management 42 (3), 167±187.

Regional Policy Commission 1996. Renewing the Regions: Strategies

for Regional Economic Development. She�eld Hallam University,

She�eld.

Roberts, P., Jackson, T., 1999. Incorporating the environment into

European regional programmes ± evolution, progress and pros-

pects. Town and Country Planning 68 (3), 85±88.

Spaargaren, G., Mol, A., 1992. Sociology, environment and moder-

nity: ecological modernisation as a theory of social change. Society

and Natural Resources 5, 323±344.

Togerson, D., 1995. The uncertain quest for sustainability: public

discourse and the politics of environmentalism. In: Fischer, F.,

Black, M. (Eds.), Greening Environmental Policy: The Politics of a

Sustainable Future. Paul Chapman, London, pp. 3±20.

Weale, A., 1992. The New Politics of Pollution. Manchester University

Press, Manchester.

Wilbanks, T., 1994. ÔSustainable developmentÕ in geographic perspec-

tive. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84 (4),

541±556.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our

Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

D. Gibbs / Geoforum 31 (2000) 9±19 19