The Hare and the Tortoise: Dead in the Heat? Cross-National Differences and Knowledge Gaps in Environmental Policy

Abstract

Lundqvist gave us the memorable metaphor of the hare and the tortoise to compare national policy styles relating to environment (Lundqvist, 1980; Richardson and Watts, 1999[ 1985]). Cross-national comparisons can deliver useful lessons on environmental policy successes as well as on relevant attitudes, values, and behaviors. However, both policy instruments and attitudes require careful contextual analysis if we are to understand the conditions under which they can be transferred. And we must ask, with Caldwell ( 1999), whether research can produce the necessary knowledge in time to help us effectively address the climacteric. And will such research provide answers to problems of global environmental change? Caldwell's title itself encapsulates a range of key challenges to environmental social science. Humanity raises the question of differences within and between nations in attitude and behavior to the environment. Destined touches two nerves: the role of heredity?whether we are epigenetically programmed in ways which will frustrate rational, collective strategies forthe global environment?and of faith, or organized religions, in understanding the degree of individuals' ability or will to modify their environmental behavior. Self-destruct poses the question of how, and what, we destroy, provoking a search for criteria for identifying the authentic human self, and the threats to it. Will a humanity mutated by the effects of hormone concentrations in food and water or by genetic engineering be worthy of the name? And it raises the question of the extent to which the climacteric is the collective responsibility of ail humanity, or primarily the responsibility of advanced industrial societies, and the elites in these societies. Taking a cross-national comparative perspective rooted in Europe, I shall attempt to identify some critical gaps in our knowledge of the attitude-behavior relationship; to draw some lessons from what we know about environmental policy successes; and, finally, to indicate some sources of hope for global environmental governance. Taking consilience (Wilson, 1998) as a metaphor, we do need to map the gaps in the unity of environmental knowledge. One key gap in our understanding of the attitude-behavior relationship in environmental policy (notwithstanding the excellent efforts of authors such as Gardner and Stern, 1996) is the response of the individual to the array of opportunities to behave in an environmentally benign manner. From the bottom-up perspective, the individual citizen may engage in environmentally benign behaviors at three levels: personal conduct, such as energy conservation, recycling, and mobility choices; economic behavior, such as green consumerism, ethical investment, and consumer boycotts; and political action in environmentalist groups or political parties. The opportunities will depend, respectively, on public infrastructure provision, with availability, safety, and convenience key determinants of use; market opportunity structures, including green consumer and ethical investment choices; and political opportunity structures, including social movement and political party activism, opportunities to participate in environmental decision-making, or to challenge decisions in the courts. This complex of decision situations facing the individual in any locality or nation is important both for its informal educational effect?to see an opportunity is to be reminded of the environmental issue?and because we need a better understanding of the role of functional equivalents across nations. A related knowledge gap is in our understanding of the behavior of political leaders. The polls continue to show that Nicholas Watts gained an MSc in Environmental Psychology at Surrey and DPhil in Political Science from the Free University (FU) Berlin, having studied languages and psychology at undergraduate level. He has taught at Surrey; Bristol Polytechnic; Free University, Berlin; University of California, Davis and is presently Principal Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of North London. He was previously Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Policy Research Unit at the Science Center Berlin (WZB) and Research Director of the Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society. He has been Visiting/Associate Fellow at the University of Strathclyde (Department of Government); University of Warwick (European Public Policy Institute); University of Lancaster (Center for the Study of Environmental Change); Max Planck Institute for Education and Human Development, Berlin; University College London (Center for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment). His work focuses on interdisciplinary cross-national comparative analysis of environmental awareness, movements, politics, and policy, mainly in the European Union countries and Ukraine. He is a member of the Governing Board and Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Human Ecology Council, an Executive Committee Member of the UK Council for Graduate Education, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Correspondence to School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Environmental and Social Studies, University of North London, 62-66 Highbury Grove, London N5 2AD, United Kingdom (E-mail: n.watts@unl.ac.uk).