8
1 Introduction: Political Dimensions …
2012). Ecological modernization may revise particular policies or technologies, yet
it offers a “discourse of reassurance” to the underlying political and socio-economic
institutions in place, and thus to the inequalities they create (Dryzek 2005; Baker
2007).
Third, ecological modernization primarily promotes capital-intensive solutions,
making business entrepreneurs, industry, and technology developers the primary
agents of change (Christoff 1996; Baker 2007; Warner 2010; Blühdorn 2011). This
bias is particularly attractive to wealthier, highly industrialized countries, which
have a greater capacity to invest in such “solutions,” thus minimizing the need for
socio-cultural changes, such as their disproportional consumption patterns (Baker
2007; Blühdorn 2011). And fourth, ecological modernization uncritically advances
(Western) scientific rationality as the one dominant knowledge system, with all its
assumptions, prevailing norms, and related power structures (Cohen 1997; Pataki
2009). Governance guided by the ecological modernization paradigm usually offers
little space for alternative, contrasting views. Such a lack of diversity, in turn, has
shown to hinder reflexivity further and often give rise to purported sci-tech solutions
full of unappraised impacts (Santos 2020).
These shortcomings have been observed, not the least, in the dominant approach
to agri-food sustainability. There has been a clear focus on technical and biotechnological improvements such as crop hybridization and genetic modification instead
of more systemic approaches based on agroecology. It builds on large-scale farming
and appears to hold an unquestioned, nearly exclusive focus on improving yields
and increasing production (IAASTD 2009; Horlings and Marsden 2011; Hardeman
and Jochemsen 2012). This mainstream agenda has recently fallen under the aegis
of “sustainable intensification,” yet without challenging the problematic “hegemony
of monoculture agriculture” and its persistent impacts, such as tropical deforestation
(Sunderland et al. 2019). Moreover, more broadly, little attention is paid to access
dimensions of food security, the impacts of dietary change, inequality in food distribution, or a broader set of environmental issues such as agrobiodiversity loss or
pesticide use (Bastos Lima 2008; Horlings and Marsden 2011). Ecological modernization in agriculture has also overlooked the increasing dominance of corporate
power in agri-food governance (Fuchs and Clapp 2009) and widespread cultural
losses (Kneen 1995; Altieri et al. 2012).
Such a narrow focus and its disregard for equity dimensions was a key reason
behind civil society organizations’ skepticism—when not outright rejection—of the
“green economy” banner, which draws heavily from ecological modernization (see
ETC Group 2011; Wapner 2011; Jacobi and Sinisgalli 2012; Onestini 2012; Cook
et al. 2012). The green economy has emphasized the need for an economic transition from a “brown economy” that depletes the environment into one that sustains
it (Pearce et al. 1989; Barbier 2009; UNEP 2011; Brockington 2012). The concept
jumped to the fore in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis initially as a strategy
for global economic recovery (Barbier 2009; Brockington 2012), before becoming a
core theme of the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, the
“Rio+20”). To be sure, UNEP (2010, p. 5) defines it broadly, presenting the green
economy as one means to sustainability, as an economy “that results in improved
1 Introduction: Political Dimensions …
2012). Ecological modernization may revise particular policies or technologies, yet
it offers a “discourse of reassurance” to the underlying political and socio-economic
institutions in place, and thus to the inequalities they create (Dryzek 2005; Baker
2007).
Third, ecological modernization primarily promotes capital-intensive solutions,
making business entrepreneurs, industry, and technology developers the primary
agents of change (Christoff 1996; Baker 2007; Warner 2010; Blühdorn 2011). This
bias is particularly attractive to wealthier, highly industrialized countries, which
have a greater capacity to invest in such “solutions,” thus minimizing the need for
socio-cultural changes, such as their disproportional consumption patterns (Baker
2007; Blühdorn 2011). And fourth, ecological modernization uncritically advances
(Western) scientific rationality as the one dominant knowledge system, with all its
assumptions, prevailing norms, and related power structures (Cohen 1997; Pataki
2009). Governance guided by the ecological modernization paradigm usually offers
little space for alternative, contrasting views. Such a lack of diversity, in turn, has
shown to hinder reflexivity further and often give rise to purported sci-tech solutions
full of unappraised impacts (Santos 2020).
These shortcomings have been observed, not the least, in the dominant approach
to agri-food sustainability. There has been a clear focus on technical and biotechnological improvements such as crop hybridization and genetic modification instead
of more systemic approaches based on agroecology. It builds on large-scale farming
and appears to hold an unquestioned, nearly exclusive focus on improving yields
and increasing production (IAASTD 2009; Horlings and Marsden 2011; Hardeman
and Jochemsen 2012). This mainstream agenda has recently fallen under the aegis
of “sustainable intensification,” yet without challenging the problematic “hegemony
of monoculture agriculture” and its persistent impacts, such as tropical deforestation
(Sunderland et al. 2019). Moreover, more broadly, little attention is paid to access
dimensions of food security, the impacts of dietary change, inequality in food distribution, or a broader set of environmental issues such as agrobiodiversity loss or
pesticide use (Bastos Lima 2008; Horlings and Marsden 2011). Ecological modernization in agriculture has also overlooked the increasing dominance of corporate
power in agri-food governance (Fuchs and Clapp 2009) and widespread cultural
losses (Kneen 1995; Altieri et al. 2012).
Such a narrow focus and its disregard for equity dimensions was a key reason
behind civil society organizations’ skepticism—when not outright rejection—of the
“green economy” banner, which draws heavily from ecological modernization (see
ETC Group 2011; Wapner 2011; Jacobi and Sinisgalli 2012; Onestini 2012; Cook
et al. 2012). The green economy has emphasized the need for an economic transition from a “brown economy” that depletes the environment into one that sustains
it (Pearce et al. 1989; Barbier 2009; UNEP 2011; Brockington 2012). The concept
jumped to the fore in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis initially as a strategy
for global economic recovery (Barbier 2009; Brockington 2012), before becoming a
core theme of the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, the
“Rio+20”). To be sure, UNEP (2010, p. 5) defines it broadly, presenting the green
economy as one means to sustainability, as an economy “that results in improved