The environment as a policy problemthe dominant ideas and, in turn, sustain and support them (Jordan 1998 :
34). Even where policy processes are more pluralistic, producer groups are
often able to dominate policymaking by mobilising sufficient resources to
exercise effective first-dimensional power. The need to overcome powerful
structural and institutional obstacles makes the replacement of the tradi-
tional paradigm no easy task, and probably dependent on the capacity for
significant exogenous changes to disrupt the power of established interests.
Even then, as the nuclear case study reveals, a radical policy reversal in one
sector may not be matched by the adoption of a more strategic approach to
energy policy. The nuclear industry may be wounded, but fossil fuel suppliers
remain in the ascendant everywhere. It would seem therefore that policy-
makers will be best equipped to overcome the various structural and insti-
tutional obstacles to change when ‘armed with a coherent policy paradigm’
(Hall 1993 : 290) such as sustainable development. In identifying the impor-
tance of belief systems, both Sabatier and Hall show that paradigm change is
also dependent on a process of social learning by government and business
policy elites (and wider society). The success of the alternative paradigms of
sustainable development and ecological modernisation will depend on their
capacity to win the hearts and minds of policy elites and to persuade them
that their interests are compatible with a sustainable society.
◗ Further reading
Weale’s ( 1992 )study of pollution policies includes an insightful critique of
the traditional environmental paradigm. Crenson ( 1971 )isaclassic treat-
ment of power and environmental policymaking. Parsons ( 1995 )andHill
(2005)are good general introductions to the policymaking literature, while
Dovers ( 2005 )provides a useful analysis of environmental policymaking. The
innovative contributions by Kingdon ( 1995 ), Baumgartner and Jones ( 1993 ),
Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith ( 1993 , 1999)andFischer ( 2003 )all contain inter-
esting case studies relevant to the environment.
NOTES
1 This list echoes similar categorisations found in Weale ( 1992 )andJordan and
O’Riordan ( 1999 ).
2 Samuelson, quoted in Mueller ( 1989 :10).
3 See Ostrom ( 1990 : 32–3) for a discussion of the distinction between common-pool
resources and public goods.
4 See Hay et al. ( 2006 )forareviewofstatetheory.
5 See Grant ( 1995 )for a discussion of insider and outsider groups.
6 Other ‘environmental’ applications of the three-dimensional model include two
British case studies of pollution from a brickworks (Blowers 1984 )andof
agricultural pollution (Hill et al. 1989 ). The three-dimensional model of power is
not without its critics (see Polsby 1980 ). See Hill ( 2005 :ch.2) and Parsons ( 1995 :
134–45) for a general discussion of the model.