The pan-European conference at Czechoslovakia's Dobris Castle in 1991 was the beginning of an unusual era of Europeanization of environmental policy. Two contrasting hypotheses have been advocated regarding the effect of Europeanization on ecological modernization in Central and Eastern Europe. On one hand, proponents of the caterpillar hypothesis expect the transition process to have led toward ecological modernization. On the other hand, proponents of the capacity-building hypothesis posit an interdependence between ecological and political modernization. Even cursory analysis of environmental performance indicates that there has been much less ecological modernization in Eastern Europe than was expected 10 years ago. In fact, what might be termed ecological subversion, involving the dismantling of environmental institutions and entailing increased pollution per unit of gross domestic product, is the pattern in several countries, hence falsifying the caterpillar hypothesis. The subtle interplay between political and ecological modernization is evident but remains to be fully clarified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andersen, M.S. (1998). Denmark's environmental assistance to Eastern Europe 1991-1996: An assessment of project achievements, environmental policy performance and the role of foreign assistance. Copenhagen, Denmark: National Environmental Protection Agency.
2.
Andersen, M. S., & Massa, I. (Eds.). (2000). Ecological modernization: Origins, dilemmas and future directions. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2, 337-345.
3.
Baker, S., & Jehlicka, P. (Eds.). (1998). Dilemmas of transition: The environment, democracy and economic reform in East Central Europe [Special issue]. Environmental Politics, (7)1.
4.
Baumgartl, B. (1993). “Burden-sharing” as an euphemism: Delusion at the Lucerne conference. Environmental Politics, 2, 249-253.
5.
Bornemann, J. , & Fowler, N. (1997). Europeanization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 487-514.
6.
Brady, K. (1998). New convention on access to information and public participation in environmental matters. Environmental Policy and Law, 28, 69-75.
7.
Constantin, D. (1998). Environmental policy and capacity-building in Romania. In Environmental policy and the role of foreign assistance in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 45-68). Copenhagen, Denmark: KPMG.
8.
Diukanov, V. (1998). Environmental protection and capacity building in the Ukraine. In Environmental policy and the role of foreign assistance in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 125-147). Copenhagen:, Denmark KPMG.
9.
East European countries: Moneyless action plan adopted in Lucerne . (1993). Europe Environment, 409, 14.
10.
Economic Commission of Europe . (1996a). Environmental performance reviews: Estonia. New York: Author.
11.
Economic Commission of Europe . (1996b). Lithuania: Economics and the environment (Report transmitted by the delegation of Lithuania to the Joint Working Group on Environment and Economics). New York: Author.
12.
Environment Resources Management. (1999). An evaluation of PHARE financed energy and environment programs. Final report. Retrieved June 2001, from http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/scr/evaluation/program/pharerep.htm
Environmental Development Consultants . (1997). Compliance costing for approximation of EU environmental legislation in the CEEC. Dublin, Ireland: TDI Group.
15.
EU enlargement: ISPA ready to roll says commission. (2000). Europe Environment, 562.
16.
European Environment Agency . (1998). Europe's environment: The second assessment. Copenhagen: Author.
17.
Franco, M. (1995). The European Union programs for Central and Eastern Europe: PHARE and TACIS. In G. Klaassen & M. Smith (Eds.), Financing environmental quality in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 177-180). Vienna: IIASA.
18.
Huber, J. (1982). Die verlorene Unschuld der Ökologie [The lost innocence of ecology]. Frankfurt, Germany: Fischer Verlag.
19.
Huber, J. (2000). Towards industrial ecology: Sustainable development as a concept of ecological modernization. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2, 269-285.
20.
Jänicke, M. (1984). Umweltpolitische Prävention als Ökologische Modernisierung und Strukturpolitik. IIUG dp 84-1 [Environmental prevention as ecological modernization and structural policy]. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum.
21.
Jänicke, M. (1990). Erfolgsbedingungen von Umweltpolitik im Internationalen Vergleich [Conditions of environmental policy success in international comparison]. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht, 3, 213-231.
22.
Jehlicka, P. , & Branis, M. (1998). Environmental protection and capacity building in the Czech Republic. In Environmental policy and the role of foreign assistance in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 1-2). Copenhagen, Denmark: KPMG.
23.
Keohane, R. O. , & Levy, M. (Eds.). (1996). Institutions for environmental aid. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
Klarer, J. (1997). Regional overview. In J. Klarer & B. Moldan (Eds.), The environmental challenge for Central European economies in transition (pp. 1-66). New York: John Wiley.
25.
KPMG . (1998). Environmental policy and the role of foreign support in Central and Eastern Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author.
26.
Langhelle, O. (2000). Why ecological modernization and sustainable development should not be conflated. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2, 303-322.
27.
Laurson, P. , Melzer, A., & Zylicz, T. (1995). A strategy to enhance partnerships in project financing for environmental investments in Central and Eastern Europe. London: EBRD.
28.
McCaughey, M. (1994). The environment and Eastern Europe. Europe Environment, 436(Suppl).
29.
Mol, A. (1995). The refinement of production: Ecological modernization theory and the chemical industry. Utrecht, the Netherlands: van Arkel.
30.
Nikitina, E. , & Kotov, V. (1998). Environmental policy and capacity building in Russia. In Environmental policy and the role of foreign assistance in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 69-92). Copenhagen, Denmark: KPMG.
31.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development . (1997). Environmental performance review: Bulgaria. Paris: Author.
32.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development . (1998). Environmental financing in CEEC/NIS: Conclusions and recommendations. Paris: Author.
33.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development . (2000). Environmental performance review: Russian federation. Paris: Author.
34.
Perman, R. , Ma, Y., & McGilvray, J. (1996). Natural resource and environmental economics. White Plains, NY: Longman.
35.
Porter, M. , & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 97-118.
36.
Scruggs, L. A. (1999). Institutions and environmental performance in 17 Western democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 29, 1-31.
37.
Sleszynski, J. (1998). Environmental protection and capacity building in Poland. In Environmental policy and the role of foreign environmental assistance in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 25-44). Copenhagen, Denmark: KPMG.
38.
Szollos, J. , Huba, M., & Dahlstrom, T. (1998). Environmental protection and capacity building in Slovakia. In Environmental policy and the role of foreign assistance in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 93-124). Copenhagen, Denmark: KPMG.
39.
UNEP/GRID Arendal . (1998). State of the environment in the Czech Republic. Prague, Czech Republic: Author.
40.
World Commission for Environment and Development . (1987). Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
