Sustainable development and ecological modernisationMoreover, government intervention in the market and society can take
many forms. Policymakers can select from a range of instruments to
tackle environmental problems – regulations, market mechanisms, volun-
tary mechanisms and government expenditure – which may all involve
some form of intervention in the market (see Chapter 12 ). The sustainable
development discourse is agnostic about these instruments, displaying no
aprioripreference for one type of measure: they all have a role to play,
with the precise balance between them varying according to the particu-
lar problem and the political, administrative and judicial traditions of each
country. However, whatever the mix of policy instruments, they need to be
part of a strategic plan that is designed, co-ordinated and supervised by the
government.
◗ Sustainable development: reform or revolution?
Few proponents of sustainable development would dissent from any of the
five principles identified above (although some might suggest additional
principles), but the nature and degree of support for each will vary. Differ-
ent actors will attribute varying meanings to each principle; for example,
as Chapter9 shows, several fundamentally different interpretations of the
equity principle have been applied to climate change negotiations. The rel-
ative importance attributed to each principle will also differ. The five prin-
ciples are central to the discourse initiated by Brundtland, which is driven
by a firmcommitment to the development ethos, but this message has
not been taken up with equal enthusiasm by all supporters of sustainable
development. A Northern government, for example, may be more concerned
about addressing domestic environmental problems than alleviating global
poverty and social injustices, so it might emphasise planning, integration
and the precautionary principle rather than equity.
The enormity of the barriers confronting the successful implementation
of sustainable development should not be underestimated. In particular, the
structural and institutional factors underpinning the traditional paradigm
identified in Chapter7 pose problems for all five principles. Thus the clar-
ion call for greater democracy focuses on the first dimension of power by
seeking more participation where decisions are observable, yet the wider
use of democratic mechanisms alone may have little impact if business is
still able to exercise structural second-dimension power. Attempts to apply
theprecautionary principle more extensively are likely to encounter strong
commercial and developmental pressures to allow new products such as
GM crops, or to proceed with a project such as a new dam. The quest for
greater integration and strategic planning will be obstructed where the insti-
tutional segmentation of government reinforces the influence of producer
interests. Not least, the demand for greater equity goes to the very heart
of the capitalist system, which underpins the structural power of business
interests.