There has been a remarkable evolution in environment-related policy-making at both national and international levels during the ten years since the Report of the Brundtland Commission formulated its well-known appeal for sustainable development. This article examines three developments in industrialized countries which appear to be closely associated with national efforts to engage with sustainable development: (1) the preparation of national environmental policy plans and strategies for sustainable development; (2) the growth of patterns of multi-partite environmental governance; and (3) the emergence of Sustainable Cities and Local Agenda 21 initiatives. It is argued that these phenomena, as well as a series of other important changes in approaches to the management of environmental burdens now occurring in contemporary societies, require serious attention from political scientists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andersen, M. (1994). Governance by Green Taxes. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
2.
Andersen, M. and D. Liefferink (eds.) (1997). European Environmental Policy: the Pioneers. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
3.
Andrews, R. (1976). Environmental Policy and Administrative Change. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
4.
Buhrs, T. and R. Bartlett (1997). “Strategic thinking in the environment: planning the future in New Zealand?”Environmental Politics, 6: 72-100.
5.
Canada (1990). Canada’s Green Plan. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.
6.
Canada (1995). A Guide to Green Government. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.
7.
Carew-Reid, J. , R. Prescott-Allen, S. Bass and B. Dalal-Clayton (1994). Strategies for National Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan.
8.
Coenen, F. (1997). “The Netherlands: Subsidised Seeds in Fertile Soil.” In From Earth Summit to Local Forum: Studies of Local Agenda 21 in Europe (W. Lafferty and K. Eckerberg, eds.). Oslo: ProSus.
9.
Cohen, S. and S. Kamieniecki (1991). Environmental Regulation Through Strategic Planning. Boulder: Westview Press.
10.
Collier, U. and R. Lofstedt (eds.) (1997). Cases in Climate Change Policy. London: Earthscan.
11.
Commission of the European Communities (1996). “Communication from the European Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: On Environmental Agreements.” COM(96) 561. Brussels.
12.
Commonwealth of Australia (1992). National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development.
13.
Canberra. Dalal-Clayton, B. (1996). Getting to Grips with Green Plans: National Experience in Industrial Countries. London: Earthscan.
14.
Denmark (1995). Denmark’s Nature and Environment Policy. Copenhagen: Ministry of the Environment.
15.
Dryzek, J. (1987). Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
16.
Eckerberg, K. , B. Forsberg and P. Wickenberg (1997). “Sweden: Setting the Pace with Pioneer Municipalities and Schools.” In From Earth Summit to Local Forum: Studies of Local Agenda 21 in Europe (W. Lafferty and K. Eckerberg, eds.). Oslo: ProSus.
17.
Enevoldsen, M. (1998). “Democratic Participation and New Interactive Ways of Environmental Policy-Making.” In Environmental Agreements (P. Glasbergen, ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
18.
Fisher, F. (1994). Evaluating Public Policy. Boulder: Westview.
19.
Fiorino, D. (1996). “Toward a New System of Environmental Regulation: The Case For an Industry Sector Approach.”Environmental Law, 26: 457-488.
20.
Glasbergen, P. (ed.) (1995). Managing Environmental Disputes: Network Management as an Alternative, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
21.
Glasbergen, P. (1996). “Learning to Manage the Environment.” In Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects (W. Lafferty and J. Meadowcroft, eds.). Aldershot: Edward Elgar
22.
Grin, J. and H. van de Graff (1996). “Technology Assessment as Learning.”Science, Technology and Human Values, 21: 72-99.
23.
Jänicke, M. (1992). “Conditions for Environmental Policy Success: An International Comparison.”The Environmentalist, 12: 47-58.
24.
Jänicke, M. and H. Jörgens (1998). “National Environmental Policy Plans and Long-Term Sustainable Development Strategies: Learning From International Experiences.”Environmental Politics, 7: 27-54.
25.
Jänicke, M. and H. Weidner (1997). “Germany.” In National Environmental Policies: a Comparative Study of Capacity Building (M. Jänicke and H. Weidner, eds.). Berlin: Springer.
26.
Japan (1995). The Basic Environment Plan (English trans.). Tokyo: Environment Agency of Japan.
27.
Johnson, H. (1995). Green Plans: Greenprint for Sustainability. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.
28.
Kooiman, J. (ed.) (1993). Modern Governance. London: Sage.
29.
Lafferty, W. (1996). “The Politics of Sustainable Development: Global Norms for National Implementation.”Environmental Politics, 5: 185-208.
30.
Lafferty, W. and K. Eckerberg (eds.) (1997). From Earth Summit to Local Forum: Studies of Local Agenda 21 in Europe. Oslo: ProSus.
31.
Lafferty, W. and J. Meadowcroft (eds.) (1996). Democracy and the Environment: Problems and Prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
32.
Langhelle, O. (1997). “Draft Report on Norway.” For the project on “Implementing Sustainable Development in High-Consumption Societies” (COMPSUS).
33.
Marin, B. and R. Mayntz (eds.) (1991). Policy Networks. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
34.
Meadowcroft, J. (1997a). “Planning, Democracy and the Challenge of Sustainable Development.”International Political Science Review, 18: 167-190.
35.
Meadowcroft, J. (1997b). “Planning for Sustainable Development: Insights from the Literatures of Political Science.”European Journal of Political Research, 31: 427-454.
36.
Meadowcroft, J. (1998). “Co-operative Management Regimes: A Way Forward?.” In Environmental Agreements (P. Glasbergen, ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
37.
Milieudefensie (1993). Action Plan: Sustainable Netherlands. Amsterdam: Friends of the Earth, Netherlands.
38.
NEPP (1989) “National Environmental Policy Plan: To Choose or to Lose.”The Hague: VROM.
39.
NEPP+ (1990) “National Environmental Policy Plan Plus.”The Hague: VROM.
40.
NEPP2 (1993) “National Environmental Policy Plan Two.”The Hague: VROM.
41.
New Directions Group (1997). “Criteria and Principles for the Use of Voluntary or Non-Regulatory Initiatives to Achieve Environmental Policy Objectives.”Ottawa, Canada (draft document).
42.
New Zealand Ministry of the Environment (1995). Environment 2010 Strategy. Wellington.
43.
OECD (1995). Planning for Sustainable Development: Country Experiences. Paris: OECD.
44.
OECD (1996) Environmental Performance in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.
45.
O’Riordan, T. and J. Jäger (1996). Politics of Climate Change: A European Perspective. London: Routledge.
46.
Paehlke, R. (1988). “Democracy, Bureaucracy and Environmentalism.”Environmental Ethics, 10: 291-308.
47.
President’s Council on Sustainable Development (1996). Sustainable America: a New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment. Washington, D.C.
48.
Rhodes, R. (1996). “The New Governance: Governing Without Government.”Political Studies, 44: 652-667.
49.
Thomas, C. (1996). “Unsustainable Development?”New Political Economy, 1: 404-408.
50.
Toner, G. (1997). “Canadian Environmental Policy in the 1990s: CEPA, CEAA and the Green Plan.” In Environmental Policies in Industrialized Countries (U. Desai, ed.). Albany: New York State University Press.
51.
Toner, G. and B. Doern. (1994). “Five Political and Policy Imperatives in Green Plan Formation: The Canadian Case.”Environmental Politics, 3: 395-420.
52.
UK Government (1990). This Common Inheritance: Britain’s Environmental Strategy. London: HMSO.
53.
UK Government (1994). Sustainable Development: the UK Strategy. London: HMSO.
54.
UK Government (1997). “Planning Policy Guidance: General Policy and Principles.”London: Department of the Environment.
55.
United Nations (1993). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June, 1992. Vol. 1: Resolutions Adopted by the Conference. New York: United Nations.
56.
UNGASS (1997). Program for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21. New York: United Nations.
57.
van Muijen, M-L. (1997). “Draft Report on the Netherlands.” For the project on “Implementing Sustainable Development in High-Consumption Societies” (COMPSUS).
58.
Vogel, D. (1986). National Styles of Regulation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
59.
Voisey, H. , C. Beuermann, L. Sverdrup and T. O’Riordan. (1996). “The Political Significance of Local Agenda 21: The Early Stages of Some European Experience.”Local Environment, 1: 33-50.
60.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
61.
Weale, A. (1992). The New Politics of Pollution. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
62.
World Bank (1994). Making Development Sustainable: The World Bank Group and the Environment. Washington: The World Bank.
63.
Young, S. (1996). Promoting Participation and Community-based Partnerships in the Context of Local Agenda 21: A Report for Practitioners. Manchester: University of Manchester.
