DISCOURSE ANALYSIS: A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH
Layer 3: Epistemic notions
3.3. WEAK AND STRONG ECOLOGICAL MODERNISATION
Ecological modernisation can be applied in a number of ways, depending on how the term is interpreted. Hajer (1993, cited in Gibbs, 2000:12) proposes that there are two interpretations of ecological modernisation, namely a techno-corporatist interpretation, which emphasises the economisation of nature and elitist decision-making structures, and an interpretation that stresses changes to production and consumption but requires that these are undertaken through greater democratisation, redistribution and social justice. These are two vastly different ways of interpreting the same concept, which can confuse its definitional clarity.
In general, the former interpretation can be aligned to the mainstream or normative conceptualisation whilst the latter, which draws more on the moral dimension in the normative use of the term, pushes the limits of mainstream thinking. Christoff (1996; see also Gibbs, 2000 Adams, 2001; and Berger et al., 2001) has characterised these two contrasting interpretations as weak and strong versions of ecological modernisation and places them at opposing ends of a continuum. He suggests that different interpretations or versions of ecological modernisation lie along this continuum according to their “likely efficacy in promoting enduring ecologically sustainable transformations and outcomes across a range of issues and institutions” (Christoff, 1996:490). Versions of ecological modernisation may be described as weak/narrow or strong/broad depending on the “extent to which they are technological or systemic in scope or focus” (Christoff, 1996:490).
Ecological modernisation, in its weak/narrow form, does not take into consideration the social processes such as discursive interaction, and the political processes involved in decision- making. Decisions about changes, it seems, take place through a cost-benefit analysis with there being little scope for the influence of social processes. At a time when sustainable development is high on the agenda of business and government, there is, according to Gibbs (2000:17) “little or no attempt to address issues of equity or democratic participation, which, by contrast are central to sustainable development”. Christoff (1996, in Gibbs, 2000) characterises weak ecological modernisation as:
a. Technological solutions for managing environmental problems
b. Technocratic/corporatist styles of policy-making by scientific, economic and political elites
c. Employed by developed nations who use ecological modernisation to consolidate their global economic advantages
d. Imposes a single, closed-ended framework on political and economic development.
Weak ecological modernisation, therefore, is technocratic as opposed to deliberative in its policy-making style where technological solutions are implemented to ensure environmental problems are resolved in a manner that is complementary to the pursuit of economic efficiency.
It is also noted above that weak ecological modernisation is a feature of developed nations who use ‘green transformations’ in their business for competitive advantage. This is not to say that developing countries are devoid of weak ecological modernisation applications, it is rather that developed countries are in a position to work ecological modernisation to their economic advantage.
Strong/broad ecological modernisation takes issue with the lack of attention paid to social processes. Giddens (1998:57-58) quotes Huber as stating that “there is no doubt that ecological modernisation links social, democratic and ecological concerns more closely than once seemed possible”. Hajer (cited in Gibbs, 2000:12) refers to strong ecological modernisation as reflexive ecological modernisation whereby “political and economic development proceed on the basis of critical self awareness involving public scrutiny and democratic control”. Christoff (1996, in Gibbs, 2000) characterises strong ecological modernisation as comprising:
a. Broad changes to institutional and economic structures of society incorporating ecological concerns
b. Open, democratic decision-making with participation and involvement
c. A concern for the international dimensions of the environment and development d. A more open-ended approach with no single view, but multiple possibilities with
ecological modernisation providing orientation.
The emphasis on democratic social processes is a consistent feature of strong ecological modernisation. Hajer and Kesselring (1999:15) are careful to distinguish democracy from sustainability by suggesting that both democracy and sustainability should be regarded as “two distinct goals in a broader project of ‘greening society’”. Increased democracy does not necessarily lead to increased sustainability (Hajer and Kesselring, 1999). However, democracy should, by virtue of its intrinsic association with learning and information sharing, assist in
‘greening society’ or ecologically modernising society. Hunold and Dryzek (2001) regard strong ecological modernisation as more attractive from an environmentalist perspective but acknowledge that it may also be a much more difficult goal to attain. Under the strong version, ecological modernisation becomes a concept that is difficult to pin down definitionally. This is illustrated by Pepper’s (1999) summary of the features of ecological modernisation, which covers a wide range of elements. He notes that strong ecological modernisation contemplates:
“An international dimension; non-western development approaches; deeper changes in beliefs and morality; elevating equity, futurity, ecological imperatives by comparison with narrow economic goals; re-embedding society in community, region, ecosystems; limits to modernisation” (Pepper, 1999:3).
A distinction between strong and weak ecological modernisation is of interest to this research because it challenges the conventional wisdom of contemporary approaches to environmental management, which tend to fall within the mainstream weak conceptualisation. It is contended that in South Africa strong forms of ecological modernisation are embodied in policy but in practice it seems that a weak form of ecological modernisation is evident when these policies are implemented. Other authors in South Africa have subsequently been exploring similar ideas in different case studies and there is therefore a growing body of literature within the South African context that supports this contention (for example Oelofse et al., 2006, and Scott and Oelofse, 2005). The reason for the disparity between policy and practice may be due to South Africa having certain socio-economic conditions that predispose it to weak as opposed to strong ecological modernisation. The extent to which this disparity is evidenced in the PFM policy implementation process is a key element of this research and is therefore an issue which is elaborated in the concluding chapter of this research.
The distinction between strong and weak ecological modernisation also provides a starting point for the consideration of PFM in terms of ecological modernisation. This consideration has been made possible by Christoff’s (1996) acknowledgement that the strong/broad
interpretation of ecological modernisation incorporates non-western development and participatory processes. Finally, it provokes the question of whether policies such as PFM could ever achieve sustainability if their implementation is revealed to be consistent with weak ecological modernisation. The extent to which ecological modernisation is valuable, and the form with which PFM is most consistent, is discussed in Chapter Fourteen.