Talk:Ecological modernization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Environment (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Another article about a meaningless catchphrase. This article describes a few business practises that reduce pollution levels. That is not ecology, more of a green marketing strategy for business and it should not have been placed in the ecology category. - Shiftchange 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not just a meaningless catchphrase[edit]

I wouldn't say EM is a meaningless catchphrase, as, effective or not, it is a term that generally encapsulates the environmental policies of Western states. It is true that EM has been criticised as nothing more than a 'green' marketing strategy, but something that has been omitted in the article is the prospect of a stronger form of EM that actually results from the failings of EM as it is currently implemented. This is related to Ulrich Beck's Risk Society, where those responsible for environmental protection are the same actors that cause environmental change in the first place. The resulting loss of faith in the eyes of publics could, it is argued, prompt a broader change in social relations, where environmental protection and social justice, rather than purely economic growth, are central to the policies of governments and the practices of business IJB 13:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that ecological modernization is not just a "meaningless catchphrase". I have added some references and text for you to look at which may help to allay your concerns. More work is required, but this gets the ball rolling. JAByrne 06:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete and biased entry[edit]

As it stands, this is an incomplete and mostly one-sided perspective on an important school of social-environmental thought. One indicator of the bias of this entry is that little to no primary material on the topic is referenced, while the preponderance of references are from a critical, even antagonistic perspective. Critique is fine and important, but so is properly and fairly describing and understanding what is being critiqued. This entry falls far short. DA Sonnenfeld 05:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

With a few additions and changes, this entry is hopefully now a bit more filled out and presenting a more neutral point of view. Still, much more could be said, both in explication of the perspective and reviewing various debates regarding it. One key point that needs addressing is the multiplicity of perspectives on ecological modernization theory (EMT). Hajer, for example, distinguishes between more hegemonic forms of ecological modernization discourse as adopted by certain liberal environmental institutions (government agencies, 'green' corporations, intergovernmental organizations), and reflexive ecological modernization, representing a more bottom-up, discursive environmental reform approach. Others discuss 'weak' and 'strong' forms of ecological modernization. Much work has been done over the last decade, as well, exploring the applicability of EMT to newly industrializing and other countries. DA Sonnenfeld 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Still incomplete, more balanced[edit]

This entry is more balanced now, I think, but there remains much room for elaboration, both of what ecological modernization 'is' and what its critics find worrisome. Addition of substantive references to early definitional works on ecological modernization, such as from Martin Janicke, Joseph Huber, Udo Simonis, and others would help address the continuing question of 'notability' and strengthen the entry more generally. DA Sonnenfeld 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a reference for "cradle to cradle" -- William McDonough? Kvcad 14:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ecological Modernization: Securing Economic Development under the Guise of Sustainable Development[edit]

Mol (2003) outlined and examined a number of fundamental premises of ecological modernization including industrialization, market reforms and science and technology. In terms of market reforms, the pillars of global market systems (TNC, GATT, NAFTA etc.) promote and acceleration interaction between countries in the area of trade, foreign direct investment and capital markets (Bhagwati, 1995). This action by the world’s leading market giants fosters the liberation of trade between countries of the world as a means of promoting global economic development especially Third World economic development. Mol (2003) in his discussion of the increasing importance of economic and market dynamics explains that promoters of globalization portray, or see free-trade as being compatible with the ethics of conservation and is believed to be capable of alleviating the Third World’s debt crises. This is not true as free-trade and other global economic reforms are not compatible with the objectives of environmental protection.

Richmbatu (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mol's view is important as he is one of the main writers in this current. If a WP editor can see holes in his argument, that doesn't matter. But if you can find another writer making this criticism (the Peter Dickens text that is referenced?) then please go ahead and add it. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Too many resources[edit]

The literature reference should contain only a few references, not every book published about the thematic so far —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.9.181 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This article doesn't define what "ecological modernization is"[edit]

Seriously: read the overview. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 September 2011

Good point. The formal definition used in The Ecological Modernisation Reader (2009) is: "the social scientific interpretation of environmental reform processes at multiple scales in the contemporary world" (p. 4). There are numerous alternative sources to start, as well... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
What did you think of my attempt to amend the lead? The formal definition doesn't capture the optimistic side of EM, the idea that environmental reform is possible. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your efforts! Some improvement, but is EM, by definition, optimistic? The Wikipedia entry for Optimism quotes the OED definition: "hopefulness and confidence about the future or successful outcome of something..." Or, like Economics or Political Economy, or other social scientific disciplines or schools of thought, is EM an attempt to understand and explain some (environmental) aspects of the social world in the way that they are, and seem to be going? If the latter, is there room in EM also for reversal and decline? Perhaps it is helpful to distinguish between EM as a field of study, and EM as a process of social, cultural and institutional change which may also entail its opposite, ecological demodernization. Food for thought... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)