develop” (Grossman and Krueger 1995: 371) or “via an induced policy response”
(ibid: 372). The reasoning for this evolutionary thought relies on the two assumptions that a) the environmental benefits of technological progress outweigh or even
exceed its negative impacts and b) societies generally treat their environments as a
“luxury good” (York et al. 2003), which will be incorporated into the capitalist logic
of improvement through competition, once the existential needs of the people are
satisfied—or in other words, once the market of existential goods is saturated and
investors turn to more sophisticated demands to meet, to keep their business running
(for a critical view on the understanding of endangered species preservation as a
market good see Shogren et al. 1999 and Erickson 2000).
In summary, it is predicted that economic progress first may cause problems
which, however, will get fewer as the development continues, and from some point
on even may decline. Over time, this is expected to lead to an inverted U-shaped
correlation between economic growth and environmental damage, the so-called
environmental Kuznets Curve (for an overview on research related to the Environmental Kuznets Curve approach see Stern 2017, cf. also Aşıcı 2011).
Thus, by its basic neoliberal rationale that progress will finally solve all the
problems it created before, modernization theory gives a scientific justification for
the subordination of environmental protection to economic performance. Accountability for a harmful treatment of nature is rejected with reference to the loose
promise that the same behaviour which led into crisis will afterwards solve the
crisis. Although there lies some hope in this thought, the insistence on modernization
as rationale raises the suspicion that modernization theory rather rests on the
neoliberal narrative than on solid empirical groundwork (see ibid).
A specification of Modernization Theory is the Ecological Modernization Theory. Its basic idea is, similar to its economic equivalent, that increasing modernization is the appropriate way to decrease pressure on our environment (e.g. Mol 1995).
Its reasoning though goes beyond the economic sphere and takes into account the
institutional change which comes along with the modernization of society. The
argument here is that modernization as a whole includes an increasing awareness
for the importance of a healthy environment for the well-being of mankind, given
that enough individual and political freedom exists. Companies as well as political
institutions are then expected to treat ecological progress as a genuine goal rather
than as a means to more power or more returns, respectively (see York et al. 2003).
Thereby, its ecological enhancement leaves the inherent optimism of original
Modernization Theory behind. By recognizing the importance of conservation as a
genuine goal, it acknowledges that someone has to deal with the environmental
consequences that arise from economic progress, because these will not simply
disappear as a side effect of further modernization. According to the institutional
alignment of the theory, the accountability for doing so lies a little more within the
political than within the economic sphere of society. Nevertheless, the theory also
claims that modernization will turn out just fine if enough political freedom for
development is given. While there is some evidence that international institutional
penetration can reduce environmental damage (see for example Schofer and
Hironaka 2005), it remains unclear whether such institutional impact can eventually
202
T. Gaens et al.
(ibid: 372). The reasoning for this evolutionary thought relies on the two assumptions that a) the environmental benefits of technological progress outweigh or even
exceed its negative impacts and b) societies generally treat their environments as a
“luxury good” (York et al. 2003), which will be incorporated into the capitalist logic
of improvement through competition, once the existential needs of the people are
satisfied—or in other words, once the market of existential goods is saturated and
investors turn to more sophisticated demands to meet, to keep their business running
(for a critical view on the understanding of endangered species preservation as a
market good see Shogren et al. 1999 and Erickson 2000).
In summary, it is predicted that economic progress first may cause problems
which, however, will get fewer as the development continues, and from some point
on even may decline. Over time, this is expected to lead to an inverted U-shaped
correlation between economic growth and environmental damage, the so-called
environmental Kuznets Curve (for an overview on research related to the Environmental Kuznets Curve approach see Stern 2017, cf. also Aşıcı 2011).
Thus, by its basic neoliberal rationale that progress will finally solve all the
problems it created before, modernization theory gives a scientific justification for
the subordination of environmental protection to economic performance. Accountability for a harmful treatment of nature is rejected with reference to the loose
promise that the same behaviour which led into crisis will afterwards solve the
crisis. Although there lies some hope in this thought, the insistence on modernization
as rationale raises the suspicion that modernization theory rather rests on the
neoliberal narrative than on solid empirical groundwork (see ibid).
A specification of Modernization Theory is the Ecological Modernization Theory. Its basic idea is, similar to its economic equivalent, that increasing modernization is the appropriate way to decrease pressure on our environment (e.g. Mol 1995).
Its reasoning though goes beyond the economic sphere and takes into account the
institutional change which comes along with the modernization of society. The
argument here is that modernization as a whole includes an increasing awareness
for the importance of a healthy environment for the well-being of mankind, given
that enough individual and political freedom exists. Companies as well as political
institutions are then expected to treat ecological progress as a genuine goal rather
than as a means to more power or more returns, respectively (see York et al. 2003).
Thereby, its ecological enhancement leaves the inherent optimism of original
Modernization Theory behind. By recognizing the importance of conservation as a
genuine goal, it acknowledges that someone has to deal with the environmental
consequences that arise from economic progress, because these will not simply
disappear as a side effect of further modernization. According to the institutional
alignment of the theory, the accountability for doing so lies a little more within the
political than within the economic sphere of society. Nevertheless, the theory also
claims that modernization will turn out just fine if enough political freedom for
development is given. While there is some evidence that international institutional
penetration can reduce environmental damage (see for example Schofer and
Hironaka 2005), it remains unclear whether such institutional impact can eventually
202
T. Gaens et al.