The environment as a policy problemtheremaining two characteristics reflect the institutional structures and
policymaking processes of modern government.
Critical question 1
Do the problems posed by the environment make it fundamentally different
from other policy issues?
◗ The traditional policy paradigm
Apolicyparadigm provides policymakers with the terminology and a set of
taken-for-granted assumptions about the way they communicate and think
about a policy area. While none of the seven core characteristics identified
in theprevious sectionis unique to the environment, taken together they
pose a range of problems that are particularly challenging to policymak-
ers. Yet the traditional paradigm that emerged during the 1970s treated the
environment like any other new policy area, rather than recognising the
interdependency of the relationships between ecosystems and political, eco-
nomic, social and cultural systems. The traditional paradigm has been char-
acterised by Weale ( 1992 :10–23) in the following way (although he refers
toit as ‘old politics’). Government policies were reactive, piecemeal and
tactical: few countries possessed a comprehensive national plan setting out
an anticipatory, comprehensive and strategic approach to the environment.
Instead, a specialist branch of government – an environment ministry –
and various new agencies were formed to deal with environmental issues.
Environmental policy was treated as a discrete policy area. Agencies had few
powers over decisions taken in other policy sectors and there was little policy
co-ordination and considerable scope for problem displacement. Pollution
control, for example, typically involved the use of single-medium regulations
tocontrol industrial releases, whilst separate agencies dealt with discharges
toair, water and land. End-of-pipe solutions were usually seen as adequate;
policymakers preferred to deal with symptoms rather than causes. Adminis-
trative regulation was the policy instrument of choice. Many policies were
prone to an ‘implementation deficit’ involving a shortfall between policy
intent and outcome. For example, although major legislative programmes
such as the US Clean Air Act 1970 and the UK Control of Pollution Act
1974 introduced stringent controls on pollutants and toxic substances, many
deadlines and targets were missed and key provisions remained unimple-
mented many years later (Lundqvist 1980 :131–58; Ward 1998 : 245–6). Above
all, a balance had always to be struck between environmental protection and
economic growth, with the latter frequently taking priority. The traditional
paradigm was not reproduced identically in all countries, but something
akin to it could be identified everywhere.
This traditional paradigm was fundamentally flawed in design and prac-
tice. Most indicators and trends showed that the ‘objective’ state of the