the emergence and spreading of the green growth policy

1

The Emergence and Spreading of the Green Growth Policy Concept

Paper prepared for Earth System Governance Conference 2012 Lund University 18-20 April 2012

Work in progress; please do not quote without permission from the author.

Lau Blaxekjær PhD Fellow

Department of Political Science University of Copenhagen

lbl @ ifs.ku.dk Abstract

Since 2009 the Green Growth policy concept has spread to become a global concept and is still in the

process of being defined. Green Growth can be seen as a contestation of the claim that the

environment and economic growth do not go hand in hand, but it is also clear that Green Growth

itself is contestable or an essentially contested concept. This paper poses the research question of

how the Green Growth policy concept has emerged and spread. It develops a model of a policy

concept’s life cycle and through the method of display it illustrates the emergence and spreading of

the concept. Korea and Denmark stand out as central Green Growth policy entrepreneurs. Central

policy leaders alter the Green Growth concept to fit their own perceived interests and thus OECD,

UNEP, and the World Bank have come together as policy leaders to advocate Green Growth in line

with Sustainable Development. The Global Green Growth Forum and the business community have

come together and emphasise Green Growth as public-private-partnerships and more in line with

Ecological Modernisation Theory. The paper identifies three battlegrounds for contestation of Green

Growth; i.e. the Clean Energy Ministerial, the G20, and the Rio+20 Summit.

Keywords: Green Growth, policy concept, essentially contested concept, concept entrepreneur.

Blaxekjær – The Emergence and Spreading of the Green Growth Policy Concept

2

1 Introduction

What is Green Growth? This question is almost as popular as the concept of Green Growth itself. It is

however surprising that – given the large extent to which Green Growth is being heralded as the

solution to the world’s climate change crisis and financial crisis – Green Growth has not yet been

analysed in a Political Science perspective. Green Growth is clearly a policy concept advocated by

many countries and organisations since 2009 such as South Korea, Denmark, UNEP, OECD, World

Bank, IEA and the G8-G20 in flagship reports, in conference statements, and on dedicated Green

Growth webpages. Green Growth seems to be a widely accepted policy concept or programme more

than a buzz word as it entails very concrete policy recommendations, plans, and even a national

framework act (in Korea) in the name of Green Growth. In a relatively short period of time, the

Green Growth policy concept has spread to become a global concept and still in the process of being

defined. Green Growth can be seen as a contestation of the claim that the environment and

economic growth do not go hand in hand, but it is also clear that Green Growth itself is contestable

or an essentially contested concept. This paper poses the research question of how the Green

Growth policy concept has emerged and spread.

Green Growth has not emerged out of nothing into nothing; there is a quite informed

debate in the real world of politics and in scholarship (and the place in between) on the subject

matter of the climate crisis and its connection with industrialisation and economic growth. This

debate is captured in global climate change negotiations within the UN and other international

organisations, as well as in the literature on Sustainable Development dating back to the

environmental awakening of the 1960’s (Hajer 1995; Hulme 2009) and Ecological Modernisation

Theory (EMT); an attempt to theorise Sustainable Development in a more academic direction, dating

back to the 1980’s (Hajer 1995; Mol and Spaargaren 2000). It is well-known in this literature that

these concepts are essentially contested concepts following Gallie (1956) (Jacobs 1999; Langhelle

2000; Spaargaren et al 2009), and interpretations of e.g. their policy implications vary from

moderate to radical (Langhelle 2000: 304). It seems relevant then, to compare the Green Growth

policy concept to Sustainable Development and EMT, bearing in mind, that Green Growth is at least

contestable if not yet contested. Important here is, that an essentially contested concept has an

appraising or normative character – and actors are central to this as proponents or opponents. To

follow this line of thinking, Finnemore and Sikkink’s (1998) model of a norm’s life cycle is used as the

basis for a new theoretical model of a policy concept’s life cycle. In Finnemore and Sikkink’s model,

norm entrepreneurs are central in the first stage of emergence, where they seek to persuade a

critical mass of norm leaders to embrace a new norm; cascading of the norm then follows in the

second stage, where norm leaders seek to socialise other states and organisations to become norm


3

followers; the life cycle ends with norm internalisation in the third and last stage. It should be noted,

that in this model the third stage does not follow automatically, cf. the basic idea of concept

contestation.

All in all, this paper will answer the question of how the Green Growth policy concept

emerged and spread, by firstly placing it in the context of the policy and academic debates on

Sustainable Development and EMT; and secondly, by applying the model of a policy concept’s life

cycle. In both analyses there will be a special focus on Green Growth as an essentially contested

concept to better understand how Green Growth might be different from Sustainable Development

and EMT, and how different actors put forth or defend different versions of the concept. To further

this understanding, focus is placed on concept entrepreneurs, concept leaders, and concept

followers. The structure of the paper is as follows. After outlining the historical context of the roots

of Green Growth as well the current context it plays into, the paper outlines the theoretical

framework and operationalisation of key concepts. In the next section, the applied method and data

material is presented and discussed. The analysis uses the display method to illustrate the

emergence and cascading of the exact phrasing of Green Growth (not Sustainable Growth, Green

Development, or other similar wordings) through document searches and analysis, cross-referencing,

semi-structured interviews, and field observations. This is done from a hermeneutic perspective,

where it is recognised that the narrative on Green Growth uncovered is the narrative of different

actors, and so source critique is also applied. Display method seeks to graphically illustrate the

analysis of data material, and is especially suitable in cases of inter-linkages and interdependencies

between the studied objects. The analysis of the emergence and cascading of the Green Growth is

mapped and illustrated in a serious of figures analysing concept entrepreneurs, concept leaders, and

concept followers in the organisation of the Green Growth policy concept.

On this basis the paper concludes 1) that Korea and Denmark should be seen as the

primary concept entrepreneurs; 2) that the OECD, UNEP, and World Bank should be seen as the

primary concept leaders of one version of Green Growth emphasising global equity and poverty

eradication, and that the Global Green Growth Forum and the business community are concept

leaders of a somewhat different version emphasising public-private-partnerships, thus illustrating

some degree of contestation; 3) that especially the G8-G20 and APEC should be seen as concept

followers. The analysis identifies several other actors and platforms involved with Green Growth one

way or another, and 4) it concludes from all the identified relationships shown in the displays that

the central battlegrounds for future contestation and possible trajectories for internalisation are the

Rio+20 meeting in June 2012 and the annual Clean Energy Ministerial.


4

2 Placing Green Growth in its historical and current context

This paper understands Green Growth as more than a buzz word.1 It is then important to be a bit

more precise. How can the growing amount of empirical evidence for a Green Growth policy concept

be understood?2 Green Growth comes from and speaks to the related concepts of Sustainable

Development and Ecological Modernisation. Green symbolises and appraises the environment and a

stable climate. Growth symbolises and appraises economic growth. Green Growth posits at its core,

that it is possible to have both. This is quite different from Sustainable Development, which does not

promise economic growth although there is a recognition that the developing world can justifiably

grow to reach a level comparable to the developed world. Sustainable Development is not only

about the environment; it also entails issues of population, peace and security, whereas Ecological

Modernisation is a more narrow economic concept born out of Western industrialised policy

problems detached from global issues and social justice. This point is made by Langhelle (2000); that

Sustainable Development and Ecological Modernisation are often conflated in the literature, though

there are significant differences.

Green Growth has, however, not received much academic attention as such. It is still a

concept in the making. Many see nothing new in the Green Growth policy concept. And some

academics adhering to other ‘green ideologies’ might even be offended by the Green Growth version

and therefore not wanting to spend time on it.3 Thus, it is understood primarily as a different name

or a buzz word for the familiar conceptual framings mentioned above. In a recent policy paper from

June 2011, former President of the International Institute of Sustainable Development, David

Runnalls, writes that the debate on sustainable development and now green growth can be traced

off and on again back to the 1972 inaugural UN Conference on the Human Environment in

Stockholm (Runnalls 2011: 1). This political concern of governments goes back to the 1960’s period

of environmental awakening, and the conflict between economic growth and sustainable

development is highlighted by the Club of Rome report from 1972; Limits to Growth (Hulme 2009:

62). This concern and policy debate is captured academically within the Ecological Modernisation

Theory (EMT) (Hajer 1995; Mol & Spaargaren 2000). It is well-known in the literature on sustainable

development and EMT that these concepts are contested, and interpretations of e.g. their policy

implications vary from moderate to radical (Langhelle 2000: 304). So it should not come as a surprise 1 A buzz word approach: “Green growth has become a buzz word in both policy and academic circles. A clear definition is still lacking, but most analysts would associate the term with environmentally sustainable, biodiverse, low-carbon and climate-resilient growth in human prosperity. That is, green growth is much more than just low-carbon growth of conventional GDP, although the focus often is on climate change mitigation and GDP-based measures of costs and benefits.” (Bowen & Fankhauser 2011: 1157). 2 See appendix A with collected documents and webpages. 3 Spaargaren et al (2009: 509) mention three rival social theories (rivals to EMT); “those rooted in neo-Marxism, radical or deep ecology, and structural human ecology/neo-Malthusianism, respectively.”


5

that the Green Growth policy concept also lacks a clear definition as is often pointed out by

practitioners4 and in various flagship reports and policy papers (e.g. OECD 2011; Huberty 2011;

Bowen & Fankhauser 2011).

Political Science has yet to analyse the Green Growth policy concept. There is,

however, one example where Green Growth is mentioned. In a discourse analysis of climate

mainstreaming in world politics (Methmann 20105) Green Growth is understood as part of a

discursive pillar called “growth ethics” and is called an idea “which has in particular emerged during

the economic recession at the end of the last decade.” (Methmann 2010: 365). And in a policy paper

prepared for Green Growth Leaders6 titled Shaping the Green Growth Economy: A review of the

public debate and the prospects for green growth (Huberty 2011), the Green Growth Policy Concept

and the policy debate is examined in terms of its empirical promises. Huberty, however, does not

clearly separate the new Green Growth concept from existing Sustainable Development or EMT

debates and scholarship; and Green Growth is evaluated on its economic prospects, not on the

political contestations of a deeper meaning. As this paragraph has shown, Green Growth does not

feature prominently in Political Science.

Green Growth does not stand out in the economic literature as well considering the

obvious connection between the literature on sustainable development and ecological

modernisation. In The Ecological Modernisation Reader (Mol, Sonnenfeld and Spaargaren 2009) with

its 26 contributions, there is no mention of the concept of Green Growth and it is absent in the index.

A more thorough search for ‘Green Growth’ in the literature does not support that Green Growth as

such was part of the early debate on sustainable development in the 1970s or the Ecological

Modernization Theory debates in 1980s and 1990s. The first recorded mention of the concept of

Green Growth dates back to Paul Ekins book, Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability:

The Prospects of Green Growth, first published as paperback 25 November 1999, but with the

preface and acknowledgement section dating to January 1999 (Ekins 1999: x). Earlier works on

economic growth have not directly mentioned Green Growth, but have, however, mentioned ‘Green’

in connection with e.g. ‘GDP’, ‘GNP’, and ‘Economy’ (Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E., 1989,

Blueprint for a Green Economy; Jacobs, M., 1991, The Green Economy; and Barker, T. and Lewney, R.,

1991, ‘A Green Scenario for the UK Economy’ in Barker, T. (Ed.) Green Futures for Economic Growth:

Britain in 2010, Cambridge Econometrics, Cambridge, pp. 11– 38). However, these earlier Green

Growth discussions stay more or less within the economic academic community, and do not include

4 Based on interviews and field observations, see appendix. 5 ‘Climate Protection’ as Empty Signifier: A Discourse Theoretical Perspective on Climate Mainstreaming in World Politics. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 2010 39: 345. 6 See figure 3 below.


6

discussions or analyses of what the concept of Green Growth as such is. And since it is the purpose

of this paper to focus more explicitly on the policy concept of Green Growth, the Sustainable

Development and EMT literature will not be reviewed here (for this see e.g. Hajer 1995; Mol,

Sonnenfeld and Spaargaren 2009). The closest we get to an explicit use of Green Growth as concept

in the economic literature is, firstly, a phrase from the preface by Ekins, and secondly, the promise

from the book’s inlay.7 Green Growth as such is, however, not mentioned in the remainder of the

book. The first more popular mention of Green Growth is from 27 January 2000 when the Economist

writes in a short notice, that Green Growth countries should also be measured on environmental

impact, and that the Nordic countries do well, according to a Yale University report on the matter to

be presented at the Davos World Economic Forum (Economist 2000). In both Ekins book and The

Economist, Green Growth actually serves more as a buzz word than as a well-defined concept for a

new political economy in an age of global warming and climate change politics. And it is still difficult

to separate Green Growth from Sustainable Development and EMT. For the next five years, Green

Growth probably stays verbal with seemingly no academic analysis as well as no official documents

on the concept.8

In the increasing empirical accounts of Green Growth (policy papers, reports, and

speeches) Green Growth is framed on the backdrop of the double crisis of the global climate and the

global economy. Green Growth is heralded as a win-win solution where green action (both

mitigation and adaptation) will not only help solve the climate change problem it will also secure

economic growth.

“The interlinked challenges of climate change, energy security and the sustainable and

efficient use of natural resources are amongst the most important issues to be tackled

in the strategic perspective of ensuring global sustainability. A shift towards green

growth will provide an important contribution to the economic and financial crisis

recovery. We must seize the opportunity to build on synergies between actions to

combat climate change and economic recovery initiatives, and encourage growth and

sustainable development worldwide.“ (G8 2009 Declaration: paragraph 60)

7 “The central focus of the book is the relationship between environmental sustainability and economic growth, and the prospects of achieving environmentally sustainable economic growth, the ‘green growth’ of the book’s sub-title.” (Ekins 1999: ix). And “Paul Ekins breaks new ground in defining the conditions of compatibility between economic growth and environmental sustainability, and provides measures and criteria by which the environmental sustainability of economic growth, as it occurs in the real world, may be judged. It is argued that ‘green growth’ is not only theoretically possible but economically achievable and the author shows what environmental and economic policies are required to bring this about. Finding the political will to implement these policies is the challenge at the heart of sustainable development.” (Ekins 1999: i). 8 My interviewees support the understanding that Green Growth has been around for some time before COP15 (2009), but only something people would speak about.


7

Bowen and Fankhauser write that the Green Growth narrative is attractive because it “allows

environmental protection to be cast as a question of opportunity and reward, rather than costly

restraint.” (2011: 1157).

Green Growth is about economic recovery, and this gives it a Western and developed

world glow. There is, however, strong evidence suggesting that Green Growth as policy concept was

initially developed with broader economic and political objectives in mind. On 15 August 2008,

Korea’s newly elected President Lee Myung-bak, at the 60th anniversary of the founding of the

Republic of Korea, announces that the vision for the next 60 years is “Low Carbon, Green Growth”,

and “if Korea makes an audacious and swift move just as it did to advance its information capabilities

to make up for belated industrialisation, the country will undoubtedly be reborn as a green power.”

(Lee 2008). Green Growth is as early as 2008 presented as Korea’s new national strategy, and

President Lee is indicating that nations are facing a new era and a race to become green powers

both in terms of providing the energy (power) and in terms of economic and political power.

This section has shown that Green Growth does not figure prominently in Political

Science nor in the existing Sustainable Development or EMT literature suggesting that Green Growth

belongs to the policy sphere as also indicated by its presence in e.g. Korean politics.

3 Theoretical perspectives: contested concepts, emergence and cascading

In the following section, the applied theoretical concepts are accounted for. This paper applies a

social constructivist approach to the analysis of what Green Growth is, and the theoretical

framework in this section is understood in this perspective. At the ontological level, this paper does

recognise the existence of a real world of politics, however, this world is inhabited by actors

continuously interacting, interpreting, and socially constructing it. Political actors can take many

shapes, from politicians to international organisations, and even scholars participate (double

hermeneutically, cf. Giddens). Here it suffices to say, that from the previous section it is clear that

Green Growth is more than a buzz word; that it is in fact a policy concept. It is also clear that Green

Growth speaks to other similar concepts like Sustainable Development and Ecological Modernisation,

and that the academic and policy context of the many debates date back to the environmental

awakening of the 1960’s. And it is worth to follow up upon the statement that these concepts are

essentially contested.

“Conceptual confusion in the social sciences—and certainly in political science—is a

major source of difficulty in both theory and empirical analysis. The literature is


8

replete with concepts that are applied inconsistently. This in turn influences the

coherence of research and the cumulation of findings in the study of politics.” (Collier

et al 2006: 211).

In a Political Science analysis of the Green Growth policy concept, it seems fruitful to begin with

essentially contested concepts as the basic understanding of Green Growth as a policy concept. A

policy concept is thus understood as first of all an applied concept in the real world of politics, not

directly applied in the world of scholarship, but contestable by any actor participating in politics (cf.

Gallie 1956). Important here is, that an essentially contested concept has an appraising or normative

character – and actors are central to this as proponents or opponents. In this perspective, it is

possible to understand Green Growth as a policy concept separate from Sustainable Development

and EMT. It is being used by proponents, like Korea’s President Lee, who explicitly has chosen to use

Green Growth. As Gallie writes:

“More simply, to use an essentially contested concept means to use it against other

uses and to recognize that one's own use of it has to be maintained against these

other uses. Still more simply, to use an essentially contested concept means to use it

both aggressively and defensively. (Gallie 1956: 172).

To follow this line of thinking, Finnemore and Sikkink’s (1998) model of a norm’s life cycle can serve

as template. In this three-stage model, norm entrepreneurs are central in the first stage of

emergence, where they seek to persuade a critical mass of norm leaders to embrace a new norm;

cascading of the norm then follows in the second stage, where norm leaders seek to socialise other

states and organisations to become norm followers; the life cycle ends with norm internalisation in

the third and last stage. It should be noted, that in this model the third stage does not follow

automatically, cf. the basic idea of concept contestation.

In the analysis of the Green Growth policy concept focus will be placed on 1) concept

entrepreneurs, 2) concept leaders, and 3) concept followers. There is no standard definition of a

policy concept, so this paper suggests a broad understanding; a policy concept is a practice-oriented

concept in the political field9 explicitly describing a political programme10 and possibly principles for

its implementation.11 Concept entrepreneurs are understood as those actors who are instrumental

9 Cf. Bourdieu. 10 Cf. Campbell’s understanding of programmes (2004, chapter 4). 11 Principles could be market-based, state-driven, consumer-driven, or through public-private-partnerships, and other policy principles.


9

in the emergence and spreading of the Green Growth policy concept. Who formulated the first

policy and concept papers? Who put Green Growth first and most consistently on the international

agenda? Concept leaders are understood as those actors who are instrumental in the further

cascading of the Green Growth policy concept. Who adopted Green Growth from the initial

emergence by concept entrepreneurs and has put it on their own policy agenda to influence other

actors? Who are participating apart from the concept entrepreneurs in the ‘aggressive and defensive

use of the concept’? Concept followers are understood as those actors who are clearly not concept

entrepreneurs and leaders, but have indicated they will adopt the recommended Green Growth

agenda – or sometimes even towards the internalisation stage of the cycle, concept followers are

those actors who implement Green Growth, because it is simply understood as the most appropriate

policy and aligns with their perceived interests. In the following quote the term ‘norm’ or ‘normative’

is replaced with ‘policy concept’ or ‘conceptual’.

“[N]ew [policy concepts] never enter a [conceptual] vacuum but instead emerge in a

highly contested [conceptual] space where they must compete with other [policy

concepts] and perceptions of interest. (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998: 897).

Finnemore and Sikkink mention in relation to norm entrepreneurs, that they must have an

organisational platform from and through which they spread the norm internationally. This platform

can exist or be invented. If it exists, and here they mention among others the World Bank and UN,

these organisational platforms are also actors in themselves and thus affect the policy concept that

is further spread. This clearly leads to cascading but the policy concept can easily have been

contested or at least altered, so it better fits the organisational platform or now concept leader’s

own logic of appropriateness (cf. Finnemore and Sikkink 1998: 899). Platforms can also be invented.

Actors who invent platforms may be understood as either concept entrepreneurs or concept leaders,

and this practice can be understood as both a defensive and aggressive strategy.

4 Applied method and methodology: From the concept model to display

In this section the paper presents the applied method and methodology, it describes the data from

collection to analysis, and it discusses the value on the basis of source critique. This section ends

with an outline of the following analysis. The applied method is chosen, because it fits well with the

hermeneutical circle working both deductively and inductively with the data material and because it

on the one hand follows predefined categories from the theoretical model, and on the other allows


10

for flexibility in the analysis of these categories and relationships. In the next paragraph, this paper

will present the Display method. Display is a method that seeks to graphically illustrate the analysis

of data material, and is especially suitable in cases of inter-linkages and interdependencies between

the studied objects. The method’s objective is two-fold; it should both present relationships and

evolvement (if applied over time) to illustrate how the parts relate in systemic patterns that weren’t

otherwise visible, and it should also provide the researcher with new knowledge to rethink the

categories and theoretical claims (Dahler-Larsen 2010: 205). According to Dahler-Larsen (2010: 195-

199) displays should follow three rules; it should present data through displays 1) authentically, 2)

inclusively, and 3) transparently. And displays should also be easy to read and understand.

In an authentic display, the data must appear as it is. This is to illustrate to the reader

and the researcher that the display has not “jumped to a conclusion” that the data cannot bear. This

is, however, difficult when the display is a graphic figure of shapes and arrows and not a table with

text. In the displays shown developed in this paper, the shapes and arrows are clearly defined in

terms of what they represent, and the authentic statements from the sources are placed in the text

that accompanies the displays. In an inclusive display, all data found to represent a category must be

shown. This is to secure that anomalies are identified, and that categories and expectations can be

rethought, cf. the hermeneutical circle, and to secure that conclusions can be made on the basis of

all data. This also makes the displays rather complex. In the displays in this paper some categories

are therefore defined rather broadly to minimise disturbing complexity. The displays presented in

this paper has thus undergone many attempts, which is quite normal (Dahler-Larsen 2010: 209), to

live up to the three rules and still be easy to read and understand. The third rule of transparency in

displays relates to how the displays are built, and this paper thus presents these principles in the

beginning of the analysis. The displays are used to conclude from the visible to more conceptual

claims thus connecting the data with the theoretical model (Dahler-Larsen 2010: 209).

Both academic literature and the data material collected and analysed have been

collected through different internet searches both before and after attending different Green

Growth events, where specific Green Growth material were handed out, e.g. flagship reports. The

Sustainable Development and EMT literature has not been found to deal with the Green Growth

policy concept (cf. the background section above). Since the research question and theoretical

model deals with Green Growth as a policy concept, data collection has focused on policy

documents, e.g. reports, concept papers with clear policy relevance. Thus data relating to the

“Green Economy”, “Sustainable Growth” or similar concept have not been included unless the

specific sources also deal explicitly with Green Growth. Cross-referencing (new searches based on


11

found sources’ references) have been used to supplement internet searches, which has produced

some extra sources not found on “Green Growth” searches alone.

The sources have been categorised, analysed, and evaluated according to the

principles of source critique in the Social Sciences (Ankersborg 2009). The analysis of the emergence

and spreading of the Green Growth policy concept is based on primary sources totalling XX. The

written sources are all firsthand, since each source represents its own understanding of Green

Growth in a policy perspective. All sources are publicly available online, which has been used to date

and list sources chronologically12, and are thus the official statements giving credibility, force, and

validity to the content in terms of representing what they state to represent.13 For the purpose of

this paper, this gives the sources high source value. The paper has also drawn on five semi-

structured interviews and field observations. Interviews has focused on Green Growth and are

categorised as primary sources with both first and second hand content. Field observations are the

author’s notes from different events like the Global Green Growth Forum held in Copenhagen,

Denmark, 11-12 October 2011 and Green Growth side events held during COP17, Durban, South

Africa. Interviews and field observations are mainly used for triangulation purposes against

document sources. All sources are listed in appendices A and B. In the analysis section, further

comments on sources are made when relevant, e.g. using source critique, in relation to

contestations, to “interrogate the sources” about the “tendencies” of the sources and to be

“suspicious” and look for “silent” content. It is particularly of relevance to ask about the “motives” of

the sources (Ankersborg 2009: 88-97).

This section ends with presenting the structure of the analysis. Firstly, it describes

how the displays are put together and what they show and do not show. Secondly, based on

evidence from the collected sources the displays are built and presented in chronological order

beginning with the period 2005-2008, then the following years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Thirdly,

the displays are then interpreted in relation to the policy concept life cycle model.

5 Analysis: The emergence and spreading of the Green Growth policy concept

In the following, this paper will present a more specific timeline and organisation of the Green

Growth policy concept beginning with its origins and mapping how and to where it has spread. By

organisation is meant how the concept spreads from concept entrepreneurs to concept leaders and

followers. Five displays or figures (2-6) illustrate the timeline and organisation of the concept from

the years 2005 to the beginning of 2012. Figure 1, see below, explains the shapes and associations in

the proceeding figures. There are three different types of actors: Country, multilateral organisation, 12 Sometimes by the document’s electronic time stamp, if not indicated otherwise. 13 This is not the same as representing an objective truth, a discussion that is beyond the scope of this paper.


12

and forum. For the sake of simplicity forum is understood broadly to encompass both public and

private research institutes, think tanks, and media companies. A fourth shape illustrates events

(often annual), and a fifth shape illustrate a project implementing Green Growth. Focus has been on

the global spreading (and thus the many national and sub-national projects being implemented in

e.g. Korea are not represented). There are three types of association between the shapes: These are

1) a symmetrical arrow illustrating e.g. a formal partnership or mutual influence between two actors,

2) a one-directional arrow illustrating influence from one actor/event to another actor/event/project.

Influence can be an actor setting up a forum, financing, hosting, or agenda-setting. In each specific

case the association will be explained. And 3) a formal association that is not directly connected to

Green Growth, but still influences the relationship between the actors, e.g. the Free Trade

Agreement between Korea and the EU. The key principles of building the displays are closeness

between connected shapes and that the shown distance does not represent relative distance.

Distances (length of associations) do not indicate stronger or weaker relationships in the real world

of politics. However, the relative place (and closeness) does indicate how the real world of politics is

organised, although not in a one-to-one mirror.14

Figure 1: Shapes and associations used in figures 2-6:

Types of associations: ONE: Partnership or other form of Green Growth agreement. TWO: Direct influence, financing, planning, hosting, and/or agenda-setting. THREE: Relevant association, informal association, and/or overlapping membership and participation.

The earliest Green Growth policy sources are from 2005. In March, Green Growth as policy concept

enters the global scene when it is first brought forward in Korea.15 Green Growth as policy concept is

adopted at the Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and the Pacific

14 The reader is advised to initially take a look at figure 6 to get an impression of where the other figures lead. 15 The Meeting is held in Korea, but the electronically marked author of the PDF document is “ApichaiT” suggesting that the first concept paper is created at the UNESCAP office in Thailand.


13

(MCED5) within the framework of UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for

Asia and the Pacific). From this meeting the first concept paper (two pages) on Green Growth

appears (MCED 2005; UNESCAP 2011a). It bears some resemblance to the ideas found in Ekins

(1999), e.g. it mentions “ecological efficiency” and a “new “Green Growth” paradigm which

harmonizes “economic growth” with “environmental sustainability.” However, it is clear that the

main focus is on the specific Asia-Pacific problems of population growth, rapid economic growth,

and poverty, very different from the EMT literature, but closer to Sustainable Development.

UNESCAP most recent concept paper dates from March 2011 and explains in more detail what the

differences between Green Growth, Green Economy, and Sustainable Development are (UNESCAP

2011a). At the meeting Green Growth is adopted as a new policy focus for UNESCAP, which also

leads to the establishment of www.greengrowth.org. Also at the meeting, a UNESCAP project, the

Kitakyushyu16 Initiative for a Clean Environment (KI), lead by Japan through the Institute for Global

Environmental Strategies (IGES), is positively evaluated after its first five-year period, and it is

decided that the focus of the next five-year period is going to be Green Growth. KI involves city-

projects around Asia and the Pacific. After conclusion of the project in 2010, more than 170 cities

and municipalities have participated following a Green Growth strategy (IGES 2010). This seems to

be the only reference to Green Growth at IGES and in official Japanese government sources, e.g. the

“New Growth Strategy” from 2010 (Government of Japan 2010).17 This initial emergence and

organisation is summarised in figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Organisation of the Green Growth policy concept in 2005

Abbreviations: UNESCAP: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific ROK: Republic of Korea (South Korea) JP: Japan IGES: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (Japanese think tank) MCED5: UNESCAP’s Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia KI: Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environment

16 The Northern city of Kyushu, which is the third largest and the most southwesterly of the four main islands of Japan. 17 This is supported by my fieldwork observations made at COP17 in Durban talking to IGES senior staff and attending numerous side events on Green Growth and Low-Carbon Society. Japan and IGES seem to be strategically applying the concept of Low-Carbon Society.


14

From 2005 and 2008 Green Growth is mainly being developed within UNESCAP and Korea through

the Seoul Initiative Network on Green Growth proposed by Korea and established at the MCED5

(UNESCAP 2012). However, on 15 August 2008, Korea’s newly elected President Lee Myung-bak, at

the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Korea, announces that the vision for the next

60 years is “Low Carbon, Green Growth”, and “if Korea makes an audacious and swift move just as it

did to advance its information capabilities to make up for belated industrialisation, the country will

undoubtedly be reborn as a green power.” (Lee 2008). Green Growth has now also become a

national strategy, and President Lee is indicating that nations are facing a new era and a race to

become green powers both in terms of providing the energy (power) and in terms of economic and

political power. Lee establishes the Presidential Committee on Green Growth, and by July 2009, the

Committee has finalised Korea’s new Five-Year National Plan for Green Growth, by January 2010, the

National Assembly and the President have passed and signed the Framework Act on Low Carbon,

Green Growth. In this Act the vision for Korea’s Green Growth strategy is laid out and among many

elements it clearly states that Korea understands Green Growth both as a national and an

international strategy. Through national examples Korea is to engage in spreading the Green Growth

policy concept through international cooperation:

“[…] [the Framework Act] mandates strengthening environmental diplomacy to tackle

climate change and to increase international cooperation as a world leader in the field

of green growth. It promotes information sharing and networking with international

organizations and foreign governments to jointly pursue global green growth. (GGGI

2011: 30)

From these early and few sources, Korea can be seen as candidate to the position of concept

entrepreneur and UNESCAP as concept leader. Japan is apparently not participating strongly in the

Green Growth concept construction and positioning. It should also be noticed, that in the official

“history of Green Growth” being written in Korea at the moment (ROK 2012; GGGI 2012) there is no

mention of the time before Lee’s national speech in August 2008. Green Growth in Korea is

constructed as President Lee’s project and invention.18 In Korea, Green Growth encompasses public-

private-partnerships, investments in the green sector, market-driven principles, and also ensuring

better quality of life (daily life). And “Korea’s green growth will help the country enhance its

18 This paper will also contribute to this construction as it illustrates that President Lee has been one of the key actors in pushing Green Growth onto the global agenda, but stating clearly, that Lee is not from whom it first began.


15

contribution to the development of the global community. With this contribution, Korea hopes to

serve as a role model, a responsible member committed to the creation of responsibility for the

planet.” (Presidential Committee on Green Growth 2012).

2009 – OECD, G8, UNEP, and Denmark become advocates of Green Growth

On 25 June 2009, the 30 OECD countries plus Chile, Estonia, Israel, and Slovenia sign the Declaration

on Green Growth commissioning the OECD to develop a Green Growth Strategy. The context of the

declaration is finding sustainable solutions as the way out of the financial crisis ahead of COP15

(OECD 2009). It should be noticed that the 2009 OECD meeting was held in, prepared and chaired by

Korea. On 10 July 2009 at the G8 summit in Italy, leaders express their will to work for Green

Growth (G8 2009: 18). This is further strengthened the following years at the G8 Summit 26-27 July

2010 in Canada, and the G8 Summit 26-27 May 2011 in France. No mention of Green Growth can be

found in the 2007 or 2008 G8 communiqués (G8 2011 website). The direct influence from Korea to

G8 is not very clear, though. G8 do not reference Korea directly, but references discussions at the

previous 2008 G8 Summit in Japan. It is noted, that Korea represented by President Lee participated

for the first time. Climate change was on the agenda, and the host country, Japan, had suggested the

concept of “Cool Earth” (Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2008). But it is the concept of Green

Growth and not Cool Earth that finds its way to the G8 Declaration in 2009. Most likely because it

has a stronger economic appeal fitting to the existing conceptual space and perceptions of interest.

Korea might have influenced G8 at the Japan Summit and through OECD, but more evidence is

needed on this connection. The next clear example of Korea’s entrepreneurship comes on 20 August

2009, when UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) and Korea pledge a Green Growth

Partnership (UNEP 2009).

In 2009, the Danish Government first presents a Green Growth strategy

(Miljøministeriet 2009) and later mentions Green Growth as part of a national reform programme. It

is seen as a contribution to the EU’s growth and employment strategy (The Danish Government

2009). Green Growth is in Denmark at this time focused on national agriculture and local

environmental issues. During COP15 held in Copenhagen, the Danish and Korean delegations has

discussions on Green Growth, which then lead to the state visit to Korea by the Danish Prime

Minister in early 2010.19 This further spreading of Green Growth is summarised in figure 3 below.

19 Interview with Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


16


Abbreviations (bold marks the 2009 additions): UNESCAP: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific ROK: Republic of Korea (South Korea) JP: Japan IGES: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (Japanese think tank) MCED5: UNESCAP’s Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia KI: Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environment G8: Group of Eight (USA, Japan, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Russia) UNEP: United Nations Environment Program OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development DK: Denmark

2010 – Further deepening and Mexico, G20, APEC, and the business community become advocates of

Green Growth

On his state visit to South Korea 10-12 March 2010, the Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen

meets with President Lee. Green Growth is a top priority of the discussions. The Danish Prime

Minister wanted an international perspective on his own high profile policy initiative; the Growth

Forum (Statsministeriet 2010). Soon after this meeting, on June 16 2010, Korea establishes the

Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), a non-profit foundation and think tank. GGGI will become an

important focal point of Korea’s spreading of the Green Growth policy concept. GGGI is created as a

strategic platform of Korea as concept entrepreneur. Connections to Denmark are also made

through personal ties. Korean senior economist and diplomat, Dr. Soogil Young, Chairman of The

Presidential Committee on Green Growth also becomes member of the council of a new private

initiative in Denmark, launched 29 September 2010, the Green Growth Leaders, founded and hosted

by Danish think tank Monday Morning (www.greengrowthleaders.org/about/).20 Also in Denmark, a

new Green Growth consultancy company is established, World Climate Ltd (WCL), targeting

governments, business, financiers, and philanthropists to accelerate Green Growth

20 Other founding members are: City of Copenhagen, DONG Energy and Realdania.


17

(www.wclimate.com). WCL arranges their own event, the World Climate Summit (WCS) annually at

the COPs.

The next milestone in Korea’s spreading of the Green Growth policy concept is laid,

when President Lee, on 11-12 November 2010, hosts the G20 Summit in Seoul. Here the G20 adopts

Green Growth as a key priority. Also, the B20 (Businesses in G20 countries) and B4E (the Business for

Environment network) agree to Green Growth at their simultaneous summits in South Korea (Seoul

G20 Summit 2010; Seoul G20 Business Summit 2010). The B20 summit is prepared and chaired by

Korean industry and business associations in cooperation with the Korean government. On 14

November 2010, the APEC leaders agree on a new growth strategy with five elements, one of them

being sustainable or green growth. APEC speaks of sustainable growth the first time in 1993, but

APEC now officially aligns its position on sustainable growth with the G20 Green Growth strategy

(APEC 2010). In December 2010 at the COP16 meeting in Mexico Green Growth is on the agenda

several times, firstly at the WCS bringing together key stakeholders and media, and secondly,

Denmark and South Korea announces the Green Alliance between the two countries and the launch

of the Global Green Growth Forum – a Danish initiative with a permanent secretariat in the Danish

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a high-profile annual Forum targeted state and business leaders.

Mexico is invited as partner in this Green Alliance with Korea and Denmark. Korea and Denmark

hope to strengthen Green Growth on the G20 agenda, as Mexico will host the G20 in 2012.21 This

deepening and development is illustrated in figure 4 below.

Denmark emerges as a concept entrepreneur in close cooperation with Korea, and in

Denmark several concept leaders become active, drawing on Danish and Korean agenda setting.

Mexico has the potential to become a concept leader, but still relying on activities of Denmark and

Korea. APEC clearly states, that its position is to follow G20. This is probably due to the fact, that

APEC’s stated interests lie more with trade-specific issues than with environmental and climate

issues (APEC 2010).



18


Abbreviation (bold marks the 2010 additions):

UNESCAP: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

ROK: Republic of Korea (South Korea)

JP: Japan

IGES: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (Japanese think tank)

MCED5: UNESCAP’s Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia

KI: Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environment

G8: Group of Eight (USA, Japan, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Russia)

UNEP: United Nations Environment Program

OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

DK: Denmark

GGGI: Global Green Growth Institute (Korean think tank)

MEX: Mexico

G20: Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (USA, Japan, Canada, Great Britain, Germany,

France, Italy, EU, Turkey, Russia, South Korea, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Saudi

Arabia and Australia)

B20: The business community organisations in the G20 member states

B4E: Forum for Businesses for the Environment

APEC: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

GGL: Green Growth Leaders (Danish think tank)

WCL: World Climate Ltd. (Consultancy and event company)

WCS: World Climate Summit


19

2011 – Further deepening and World Bank, EU and ICLEI become advocates of Green Growth

GGGI begins the year, on 30 January 2011, by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with

the World Economic Forum (WEF) to promote green growth through public-private partnerships

(PPP). Japan gives initial funding to GGGI, in March United Arab Emirates (UAE) commits to multi-

year funding, and in late April Australia commits to multi-year funding of GGGI. GGGI opens a

regional office in UAE “to serve the Middle-East and North Africa” (GGGI 2012b). Korea signs another

MOU, 5 May 2011, between the Korean Ministry of Administration and Security and ICLEI – Local

Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) to introduce practices of local examples of Green Growth in

Korea to other ICLEI members globally, and setup an East Asian ICLEI office to accelerate local Green

Growth in Korea and Asia (ICLEI 2011). Korea deepens the partnership with Denmark, and on 12 May

2011, the Global Green Growth Forum (3GF) is launched in Copenhagen during President Lee’s state

visit to Denmark (3GF 2012; Statsministeriet 2011). 3GF is an organisational platform placed under

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, suggesting that it is created with international cooperation in mind.

Green Growth in Denmark has since 2009 changed from a focus on national agriculture to active

participation and international agenda setting of a new growth model. Another example of

Denmark’s spreading of the Green Growth policy concept is in relation to the Nordic Council of

Ministers (Norden), where the Danish Prime Minister suggests a Working Group on Green Growth at

Norden’s meeting in Denmark in May 2010. Norden publishes the working group’s report in October

2011, called The Nordic Region – Leading in Green Growth (Norden 2011).

In between Korea’s Green Growth activities in early 2011, the World Bank together

with UNEP has ‘moving to a Green Growth approach to development’ on the agenda at its

Environment Week, on 23 March 2011. The World Bank later publishes two policy papers on Green

Growth (World Bank 2011a; 2011b; 2011c). The World Bank explicitly reference UNEP and OECD as

main inspirational sources. In the World Bank the work on Green Growth is placed under the

Sustainable Development Network.22 On 26-27 May 2011 the OECD launches its Green Growth

Strategy and a 144 page report, Towards Green Growth (OECD 2011).

During 2011, the EU Commission and especially Commissioner for Climate Action,

Connie Hedegaard, begin talking more explicitly about Green Growth in relation to the EU’s strategy

for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and the EU’s Roadmap for moving to a competitive low-

carbon economy in 2050 (the 2050 Roadmap). The EU does not officially apply the concept Green

Growth, although it is found in headlines on the main webpage of DG Climate Action23 and is often

22 It is noticed that the Vice President for Sustainable Development at the time is a Dane, Inger Andersen. 23 See e.g. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/roadmap/index_en.htm


20

used in panel discussions and policy speeches by Connie Hedegaard.24 This is most likely due to the

increasing application of the concept elsewhere, and it cannot be ruled out, that it is due to Connie

Hedegaard’s past experience as Minister for Climate in the Danish Government responsible for

COP15, at a time when the Green Growth concept was talked about strategically in the Government.

The connection from Denmark to the EU as illustrated in figure 5 below in terms of influencing EU to

put the Green Growth policy concept on the agenda is however strongest in the first half of 2012,

when Denmark as EU President is responsible for preparing EU’s position and participation in the UN

Rio+20 meeting in June 2012, where the global green economy is a main topic. In relation to Korea,

the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement could also be an important link of green trade as this is part of

Korea’s Green Growth diplomatic strategy. It seems that the EU can be termed concept leader.

In the latter half of 2011, several Green Growth events take place. GGGI and OECD

jointly organises the inaugural Global Green Growth Summit hosted by the Korean Government, 20-

21 June 2011 in Seoul. It celebrates OECD’s 50th anniversary. 3GF holds its inaugural annual event in

Copenhagen, on 12-13 October 2011, named the Global Green Growth Forum, co-organised with

WCL, with a focus on PPP co-ordinated with WEF. The 3GF outcome or recommendations is brought

forward to COP17, to Rio+20 through Denmark as EU President, and also to the Clean Energy

Ministerial (CEM), a high-level global forum with 23 governments and energy sector stakeholders.25

GGL holds their inaugural event at the same time 13-14 October 2011 also in Copenhagen. This is

named the Take Lead Conference (TLC) and displays a very mixed agenda covering the local, state,

and global level as well as PPP, questions of communication and green tech developments. At COP17,

WCL holds its second Summit also with a focus on PPP.

Also late in 2011, APEC’s annual meeting is held in USA, 12-13 November 2011, and

again Green Growth is strongly on the agenda and among others backed by President Obama (APEC

2011). Surprisingly, the G20 Green Growth process from the 2010 Seoul Summit is not taken up at

the following G20 Summit in France, perhaps because France holds dual presidency in 2010, and

Green Growth within the G8 group is being strengthened (G20 2010; G20 2011). It also suggests that

G8 and G20 should more be seen as concept followers than concept leaders. This deepening and

development is illustrated in figure 5 below.

24 Interview with Kristian Ruby. Interview with Annika Ahtonen. Field observations at 3GF 2011 and European Parliament Green Party panel discussion on the Road to Durban (both panels are available online on video stream, see appendix). 25 The 23 governments participating in CEM initiatives are Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, the European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. CEM was proposed at COP15 by the USA. The third meeting will be held in London in April 2012.


21


Abbreviations (bold marks the 2011 additions): UNESCAP: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific ROK: Republic of Korea (South Korea) JP: Japan IGES: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (Japanese think tank) MCED5: UNESCAP’s Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia KI: Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environment G8: Group of Eight (USA, Japan, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Russia) UNEP: United Nations Environment Program OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development DK: Denmark GGGI: Global Green Growth Institute (Korean think tank) MEX: Mexico G20: Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (USA, Japan, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, EU, Turkey, Russia, South Korea, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Australia) B20: The business community organisations in the G20 member states B4E: Forum for Businesses for the Environment APEC: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation GGL: Green Growth Leaders (Danish think tank) WCL: World Climate Ltd. (Consultancy and event company) WCS: World Climate Summit 3GF: Global Green Growth Forum (both organisation and annual event) CEM: Clean Energy Ministerial UAE: United Arab Emirates AU: Australia Norden: Nordic Council of Ministers (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland) EU: European Union World Bank: World Bank Sustainable Development Network GGGS: Global Green Growth Summit


22

WEF: World Economic Forum TLC: Take Lead Conference ICLEI: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives – Local Governments for Sustainability

201226 – The future of Green Growth?

In January 2012, the Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP) is launched at an inaugural

conference in Mexico. This initiative is a deepening of Koreas global partnerships. The GGKP is a

collaboration between GGGI, UNEP, OECD, and the World Bank. It is launched for the partners to

work together to “provide practitioners and policymakers with better tools to foster economic

growth and implement sustainable development”. And, as written on the webpage:

“GGKP's mission is to enhance and expand efforts to identify and address major

knowledge gaps in green growth theory and practice, and to help countries design

and implement policies to move towards a green economy.”

(www.greengrowthknowledge.org).

The second added element is The Rio+20 Summit, 20-22 June 2012, which is mentioned by quite

many sources as a primary target of Green Growth diplomacy, since Rio+20 has the green economy

as main part of the agenda. There are two main priorities of the meeting:

“The Conference will focus on two themes: (a) a green economy in the context of

sustainable development and poverty eradication; and (b) the institutional framework

for sustainable development.” (UNCSD 2012).

This deepening and development is illustrated in figure 6 below.

26 At the time of writing (February 2012) only a few developments have been included in the figure and analysis. These are, however, too important to ignore.


23


Abbreviatiosn (bold marks the 2012 additions): UNESCAP: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific ROK: Republic of Korea (South Korea) JP: Japan IGES: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (Japanese think tank) MCED5: UNESCAP’s Fifth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia KI: Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environment G8: Group of Eight (USA, Japan, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and Russia) UNEP: United Nations Environment Program OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development DK: Denmark GGGI: Global Green Growth Institute (Korean think tank) MEX: Mexico G20: Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (USA, Japan, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, EU, Turkey, Russia, South Korea, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Australia) B20: The business community organisations in the G20 member states B4E: Forum for Businesses for the Environment APEC: Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation GGL: Green Growth Leaders (Danish think tank) WCL: World Climate Ltd. (Global media and events company)


24

WCS: World Climate Summit 3GF: Global Green Growth Forum (both organisation and annual event) CEM: Clean Energy Ministerial UAE: United Arab Emirates AU: Australia Norden: Nordic Council of Ministers (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland) EU: European Union World Bank: World Bank Sustainable Development Network GGGS: Global Green Growth Summit WEF: World Economic Forum TLC: Take Lead Conference ICLEI: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives – Local Governments for Sustainability GGKP: Green Growth Knowledge Platform Rio+20: United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

Not in the figure, but worth mentioning, is the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN).27 Inspired by OECD, UNEP, UNESCAP, the World Bank, and Green Growth Leaders, CDKN has written an 8-page guide to Green Growth for developing countries (Low 2011). This growing literature of guides and manuals, as well as new knowledge platforms are all evidence to the establishment of the supply side of knowledge on Green Growth and its possible implementations. The demand side of knowledge is certainly there from the actors involved in spreading the Green Growth policy concept as they have to deliver hard evidence to back the promises of Green Growth to be taken seriously.28 In both Huberty 2011 and Hoffmann 201129 Green Growth does not solve the climate crisis in itself. A greater (and maybe impossible) transformation is needed.

Interpretations of the emergence and spreading of the Green Growth policy concept

From the above tracing of the Green Growth policy concept emerges a clear pattern of a specific

timeline and organisation; from beginning with its origins and mapping of how and to where it has

spread and which actors play a key role in these processes. How can this pattern then be

interpreted? First of all, it should be clear that Green Growth is indeed a policy concept that has

spread rapidly since especially 2009. Green Growth as policy concept is now in the second stage of

its life cycle, where contestation is only beginning. As for actors, Korea (and President Lee, although

somewhat constructed) is the main concept entrepreneur in the spreading of the policy concept,

which seems to be readily adopted across many countries and organisations from public to private

organisations. It is now more than an idea. This narrative is also caught in the concept note prepared

for the GGGS in June 2011:

27 Alliance consisting of PwC, ODI (The Overseas Development Institute, UK), LEAD (Established by the Rockefeller Foundation), SouthSouthNorth, INTRAC (International NGO Training and Research Centre), and Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano. CDKN is now associated with the new Green Growth Knowledge Platform. 28 Interview with Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Interview with EU Climate Action. 29 And Ekins 1999 if this contribution is counted as part of the Green Growth literature.


25

“Initiated by the Korean government in 2008, green growth has been spreading fast

across the globe. Green growth is neither enforced by any authority nor a one-off

trend to boom and bust. Many countries and international organizations have

adopted green growth from their recognition of the importance of green growth as a

necessary path for a sustainable and at the same time prosperous future.” (GGGS

2011: 5)

Of course, this statement clearly underplays Korea’s heavy role in spreading the concept and acting

as concept entrepreneur, and it also illustrates the Korean understanding of the beginning. It does,

however, point to an important dynamic of spreading, that in order to promote a policy concept

successfully, the receiving actors must recognise its value – it must in some way already fit – or be

easily made to fit – existing ways of viewing the world in terms of problems and solutions. What is

also clear is that Denmark has positioned herself as a concept entrepreneur, which is not surprising

given Denmark’s role as a norm entrepreneur of environmentalism. Denmark is an example of a

“militarily weak, economically dependent, small [state] that deliberately act as ‘norm entrepreneurs’

in global eco-politics, conflict resolution, and the provision of aid.” (Ingebritsen 2002: 11). The

objectives of Denmark range from the more abstract of making the world a better place to the

concrete of exerting influence in international forums like the G20,CEM and at the Rio+20 Summit.

Spreading the Green Growth policy concept is also compared to Denmark’s Development Aid.30 To

answer the question of why Korea suddenly emerges in the international society as a concept

entrepreneur, part of the answer should be found in the Scandinavian soft power model. It is not a

coincidence that Korea and Denmark have joined forces. The Green Growth Alliance is the first

international alliance that Korea makes with a foreign country besides the security alliance with the

USA. Korea draws on the normative legitimacy of Denmark in the international society, and Denmark

benefits e.g. from Korea’s position as member of G20.

As for concept leaders, the displays illustrate two version of Green Growth being

represented by different concept leaders. OECD, UNEP, and World Bank should be seen as the

primary concept leaders of one version of Green Growth in line with their existing emphasis on

Sustainable Development. The Global Green Growth Forum and the business community are

concept leaders of a version emphasising public-private-partnerships and an industrial and energy

transformation similar to EMT, thus illustrating some degree of contestation, although it is not a

contestation of the core of Green Growth. Green Growth thus seems to speak to both Sustainable



26

Development and EMT. This makes it even easier to be a concept follower,31 where the displays have

identified the G8, G20, APEC, ICLEI and a range of countries like Australia, UAE, and Japan. Mexico

has still to find her place in the alliance with Korea and Denmark.

Some central battlegrounds for contestation of the collected knowledge and

recommendations on the Green Growth policy concept are the annual Clean Energy Ministerial, the

G20 and the Rio+20 Summit. As for the CEM, this seems to be a forum for a more narrow focus on

energy-related issues and not Green Growth in its totality and as such the focus here will be more on

alignment with existing EMT policies. G20 represents around 90 % of global GDP, 80 % of global

trade, and two thirds of the world’s population (www.g20.org). The 2012 G20 Summit in Mexico will

again pick up on Green Growth, and the Mexican presidency has already published a discussion

paper on Green Growth. Targeting the G20 is targeting the world economy as a whole. What the

result will be is too early to say, but it is more complex and more open to contestation than the CEM.

The Rio+20 Summit represents the UN system and the line of Earth Summits (Stockholm 1972, Rio

1992, Johannesburg 2002). Targeting Rio+20 is targeting and aligning with the concept of

Sustainable Development and a recognition that Green Growth has a global scope and thus

addresses interlinked and interdependent issues (to paraphrase the famous Brundtland quote that

everything is interlinked), e.g. issues of poverty and equity in global climate change politics.

6 Conclusion

To answer the research question of how the Green Growth policy concept has emerged and spread,

the above analysis has made four points. 1) Korea and Denmark are the central concept

entrepreneurs responsible for the emergence and initial spreading of the Green Growth policy

concept. 2) The OECD, UNEP, and World Bank are concept leaders of a Green Growth policy concept

in line with Sustainable Development. The Global Green Growth Forum and the business community

are concept leaders a Green Growth policy concept in line with EMT emphasising public-private-

partnerships. 3) Concept followers include the G8, G20, and APEC among others. And 4) The Rio+20

Summit will become a central battleground for the immediate contestation of the Green Growth

policy concept and the G20 will become a central battleground in the longer run.

Through the proposed model of a policy concept’s life cycle this paper has also

demonstrated that soft power in international relations can be understood as the spreading of policy

concepts and not just norms. This further opens up a range of new research questions, e.g.

concerning the further development of Green Growth from second to third stage. This should be

revisited after the Rio+20 Summit. It also raises questions about how to understand Korea and

31 Cf. Hajer’s (1995) discourse coalitions.


27

Denmark as Green States in the international society. From these questions it is also relevant to

compare the Green Growth policy concept with other (climate change) policy concepts like the Low-

Carbon Society advocated by especially China and Japan. Is the Green Growth strategy also a central

part of Korea’s positioning herself in East Asia vis-à-vis China and Japan?


28

Appendix A: Green Growth documents and webpages Table A.1: Green Growth documents

Source name

Document name Date published

Available from Author(s)

APEC 1 The APEC Leader’s Growth Strategy

14 November 2010

http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2010/2010_aelm/growth-strategy.aspx

APEC

APEC 2

An Analysis of APEC’s Green Growth Strategy in the Context of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Paper presented at APEC Study Center Consortium Conference 2011)

26 August 2011

http://basc.berkeley.edu/ascc/presentationpapers.htm

I-Chun Hsiao, United Nations Foundation, USA.

Jerry I-H Hsiao, Taylor’s Law School, Taylor’s University, Malaysia.

APEC 3

APEC 2011 Leaders’ Declaration 13 November 2011

http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2011/2011_aelm.aspx

APEC

APEC 4

APEC Study Center Consortium Conference 2011 Key Findings and Policy Recommendations: Green Growth, Trade Integration and Regulatory Convergence

21 November 2011

http://basc.berkeley.edu/ascc/files/ASCC_2011_%20Key_Findings.pdf

APEC Study Center Consortium (ASCC)

DK 1

Grøn Vækst

(Danish Government Report on the new Green Growth strategy)

30 April 2009

http://www.mim.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/Groen_vaekst

Ministry of the Environment, Government of Denmark

DK 2

Danmark som Grøn Vækstnation

(Denmark as Green Growth Nation, press release from the Minister of Economic and Business Affairs, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Climate and Energy, and Minister of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries)

30 April 2009

http://www.evm.dk/aktuelt/pressemeddelelser/2009/danmark-som-groen-vaekstnation

Ministry of Economic and Business Affairs, Government of Denmark

DK 3 Denmark’s National Reform Programme – First Progress Report: Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Employment Strategy (The Lisbon Strategy)

15 October 2009

http://uk.fm.dk/publications/2009/dk-national-reform-programme/

Ministry of Finance, Government of Denmark


29

DK 4 Et Danmark, der star sammen – Regeringsgrundlag

(The Government’s platform)

3 October 2011

http://www.stm.dk/_a_2821.html Government of Denmark

G8 1 G8 Leaders’ Declaration 2009: Responsible Leadership for a Sustainable Future

10 July 2009 http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/root/bank_objects/20090710_G8_Final_Declaration_ENG.pdf

G8

G8 2 G8 Leaders’ Declaration 2010: Muskoka Declaration: Recovery and New Beginnings

26 June 2010

http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/root/bank_objects/20100626__Leaders_declaration_finale_ENG.pdf

G8

G8 3 G8 Leaders’ Declaration 2011: Renewed Commitment for Freedom and Democracy

27 May 2011

http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/g8/english/the-2011-summit/declarations-and-reports/declarations/renewed-commitment-for-freedom-and-democracy.1314.html

G8

G20 1 G20 Seoul Summit Leaders’ Declaration 2010

12 November 2010

http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/root/bank_objects/EN_declaration_finale_seoul2010.pdf

G20

G20 2 Discussion Paper: Mexico’s Presidency of the G-20

21 January 2012

http://www.g20.org/images/pdfs/disceng.pdf G20

B20 1 Seoul G20 Business Summit: Findings and recommendations from participants

24 January 2011

http://www.seoulg20businesssummit.org/download/download.asp?fn=G20_Discussion_document_OFFICIAL_final%282%29.pdf&fc=F

Seoul G20 Business Summit Organizing Committee

B4E 1 Business for the Environment Global Summit 2010 Summary Report (part 1 and part 2): Powering Growth for the Global Green Economy

11 July 2011 http://www.b4esummit.com/wp-content/uploads/Summary-Report_B4E-Seoul-2010_Part01.pdf and http://www.b4esummit.com/wp-content/uploads/Summary-Report_B4E-Seoul-2010_Part-2.pdf

B4E

3GF 1 Korea and Denmark join hands in Global Green Growth Initiative

(Press release)

8 December 2010

http://www.globalgreengrowthforum.com/news/

Government of Denmark

3GF 2 The Global Green Growth Forum – 3GF

(Press release)

9 April 2011 Various embassies’ websites, e.g.

http://australien.um.dk/en/about-us/news/newsdisplaypage/?newsID=3CDFFF01-BC29-45FB-967E-C3D51889DD36

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark

3GF 3 Global Green Growth Initiative – Global Green Growth Forum (3GF)

19 April 2011

http://um.dk/en/politics-and-diplomacy/global-green-growth-initiative/

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark

3GF 4 Global Green Growth Forum 2011 Chairman’s summary by the governments of

12 October 2011

http://www.globalgreengrowthforum.com/chairmans-summary/

Governments of Denmark, Korea


30

Denmark, South Korea and Mexico, October 11 – 12, 2011

and Mexico

GGGI 1 Green Growth in Motion: Sharing Korea’s Experiences

May 2011 http://www.gggi.org/research/green-growth-in-motion

GGGI

GGGS 1 GGGS (Global Green Growth Summit) 2011 Concept Note

2 June 2011 http://www.gggsummit.org/02_program/Concept_Note_of_GGGS.pdf

Government of Korea and GGGI

Norden 1

The Nordic Region – leading in green growth.

1 November 2011

http://www.norden.org/da/publikationer/publikationer/2011-736

Norden

OECD 1 Green Growth: Overcoming the Crisis and Beyond

25 June 2009

http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3343,en_2649_201185_43164671_1_1_1_1,00.html

OECD

OECD 2 Declaration on Green Growth 25 June 2009


OECD

OECD 3 2009 Ministerial Conclusions 25 June 2009


OECD

OECD 4 Towards Green Growth. Report to OECD Ministerial Council Meeting

25 May 2011


OECD

ROK-DK 1

Joint Statement on the Establishment of a Green Growth Alliance between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark (Press version)

29 November 2011

http://sydkorea.um.dk/~/media/Sydkorea/Documents/Basic%20Info/GreenGrowthAlliancePressVersion.ashx

Governments of Denmark and Korea

ROK-DK 2

Joint Statement on the Establishment of a Strategic Partnership Between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark

29 November 2011

http://sydkorea.um.dk/~/media/Sydkorea/Documents/Basic%20Info/JointStatement.ashx

Governments of Denmark and Korea

UNEP 1 The Republic of Korea and UNEP Pledge Green Growth Partnership. (Press Release)

20 August 2009

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=594&ArticleID=6277&l=en&t=long

UNEP and Government of Korea

UNEP 2 Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication (Report)

December 2011

www.unep.org/greeneconomy UNEP

UNESCAP 1

Green Growth @ a Glance March 2005 http://www.unescap.org/mced/documents/presession/english/Green_Growth_concept.pdf

UNESCAP

UNESCAP 2

Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environment FINAL REPORT

May 2010 http://www.iges.or.jp UNESCAP and IGES

WB 1 Greening Growth through Strategic Environmental Assessment of Sector Reforms

May 2011 http://go.worldbank.org/UPPWM2A9D0

World Bank


31

WB 2 From Growth to Green Growth: A Framework.

1 November 2011

http://go.worldbank.org/8F95PDWZO0 World Bank

Table A.2: Green Growth webpages

Webpage Owner(s) greengrowth.org UNESCAP greengrowth.go.kr Korean Presidential Committee on Green Growth gggi.org GGGI globalgreengrowthforum.org Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs greengrowthleaders.org Monday Morning oecd.org/greengrowth OECD unep.org/greeneconomy UNEP greengrowthknowledge.org OECD, UNEP, World Bank and GGGI


32

Appendix B. List of interviews Background interviews: Kristian Ruby, Assistant to the Climate Commissioner, 10 November 2011. Annika Ahtonen, Policy Analyst, European Policy Centre, 10 November 2011. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 20 January 2012 Marie-Lousie Wegter, kontorchef i Global Green Growth Forum Sekretariatet (MLW) Erik Næraa-Nicolajsen, Souschef i Kontoret for miljø, klima og energi (ENN) Tomas Anker Christensen, Centerchef, Globale Udfordringer (TAC)


33

References

3GF (2010). Korea and Denmark join hands in Global Green Growth Initiative. Press release. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.globalgreengrowthforum.com/news/

3GF (2011a). The Global Green Growth Forum – 3GF. Press release. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://australien.um.dk/en/about-us/news/newsdisplaypage/?newsID=3CDFFF01-BC29-45FB-967E-C3D51889DD36

3GF (2011b). Global Green Growth Initiative – Global Green Growth Forum (3GF). Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://um.dk/en/politics-and-diplomacy/global-green-growth-initiative/

3GF (2011c). Global Green Growth Forum 2011 Chairman’s summary by the governments of Denmark, South Korea and Mexico, October 11 – 12, 2011. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.globalgreengrowthforum.com/chairmans-summary/

3GF (2012). Preparation. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.globalgreengrowthforum.com/the-forum/

Ankersborg, Vibeke (2009). Kildekritik i et samfundsvidenskabeligt perspektiv. Frederiksberg. Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.

APEC (2010). The APEC Leader’s Growth Strategy. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2010/2010_aelm/growth-strategy.aspx

APEC (2011). APEC 2011 Leaders’ Declaration. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2011/2011_aelm.aspx

B20 (2010). Seoul G20 Business Summit: Findings and recommendations from participants. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.seoulg20businesssummit.org/download/download.asp?fn=G20_Discussion_document_OFFICIAL_final%282%29.pdf&fc=F B4E (2011). Business for the Environment Global Summit 2010 Summary Report (part 1 and part 2): Powering Growth for the Global Green Economy. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.b4esummit.com/wp-content/uploads/Summary-Report_B4E-Seoul-2010_Part01.pdf and http://www.b4esummit.com/wp-content/uploads/Summary-Report_B4E-Seoul-2010_Part-2.pdf Barker, T. and Lewney, R. (1991). A Green Scenario for the UK Economy. In: Barker, T. Ed. Green Futures for Economic Growth: Britain in 2010. Cambridge Econometrics. Cambridge. pp. 11– 38. Bowen, A., & Fankhauser, S. (2011). The green growth narrative: Paradigm shift or just spin? Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1157-1159. Clean Energy Ministerial (2012). About the Clean Energy Ministerial. Last accessed 7 February 2012 from: http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org/about/index.html Economist (27 January 2000). Green Growth. Last accessed on 26 January 2012 from http://www.economist.com/node/328735


34

Ekins, Paul (1999). Economic Growth Human Welfare and Environmental Sustainability: The Prospects for Green Growth. London. Routledge. Finansministeriet (2009). Denmark’s National Reform Programme – First Progress Report: Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Employment Strategy (The Lisbon Strategy) Last accessed on 26 January 2012 from http://uk.fm.dk/publications/2009/dk-national-reform-programme/

Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(04), 887-917. Gallie, W. B. (1955). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, pp. 167-198. G8 (2009). G8 Leaders’ Declaration 2009: Responsible Leadership for a Sustainable Future. Last accessed 26 January 2012 from http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/root/bank_objects/20090710_G8_Final_Declaration_ENG.pdf

G8 (2010). Last accessed 26 January 2012 from

G8 (2011). Last accessed 26 January 2012 from

G20 (2010). Seoul G20 Summit 2010 Leaders’ Declaration. Last accessed 26 January 2012 from http://www.g20-g8.com/g8-g20/root/bank_objects/EN_declaration_finale_seoul2010.pdf

G20 (2012). Discussion Paper: Mexico’s Presidency of the G-20. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.g20.org/images/pdfs/disceng.pdf GGGI (2011). Green Growth in Motion: Sharing Korea’s Experience. Last accessed 26 January 2012 from http://www.gggi.org/research/green-growth-in-motion

GGGI (2012a). History. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.gggi.org/about/details/history

GGGI 2012b Partner Countries. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.gggi.org/partner-country/all

GGGS (2011). GGGS (Global Green Growth Summit) 2011 Concept Note. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.gggsummit.org/02_program/Concept_Note_of_GGGS.pdf

Government of Denmark (2011). Et Danmark, der star sammen – Regeringsgrundlag. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.stm.dk/_a_2821.html

Hajer, Maarten A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and the Policy Process. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Hoffmann, Ulrich (2011) Some Reflections on Climate Change, Green Growth Illusions and Development Space, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Discussion Papers, No. 205, Last accessed 12 March 2012 from http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/osgdp2011d5_en.pdf

Huberty, Mark, 2011, Shaping the Green Growth Economy: A Review of the Public Debate and the Prospects for Green Growth, Report prepared for Green Growth Leaders. Last accessed 20 June 2011

http://www.stm.dk/_a_2821.html


35

http://greengrowthleaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/110819Shaping-the-Green-Growth-Economy_report_26.6.pdf ICLEI (2011). Korea and ICLEI working towards Green Growth in East Asia. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1487&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4629&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=983&cHash=5daea04f84 Ingebritsen, Christine (2002). Norm Entrepreneurs. Cooperation and Conflict, 37(1), 11-23 Jacobs, M. (1991). The Green Economy. London Pluto. Press. Jacobs, M. (1999) Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2008). G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit. Official webpage. Last accessed on 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/summit/2008/info/index.html

Langhelle, Oluf (2000). Why ecological modernization and sustainable development should not be conflated. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 2 (4): 303-322.

Low, Lit Ping (2011). Green growth: implications for development planning. A CDKN Guide. Climate and Development Knowledge Network and PwC.

Miljøministeriet (2009). Grøn Vækst. Last accessed on 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.mim.dk/Nyheder/Temaer/Groen_vaekst

Mol, Arthur P.J., David A. Sonnenfeld and Gert Spaargaren (2009). The Ecological Modernisation Reader: Environmental Reform in Theory and Practice. Oxon and New York. Routledge.

Norden. 2011. The Nordic Region – leading in green growth. Report by the Nordic prime ministers’ Working Group for Green Growth. Copenhagen, Denmark.

OECD (2009a). Green Growth: Overcoming the Crisis and Beyond. Last accessed on 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3343,en_2649_201185_43164671_1_1_1_1,00.html OECD (2009b). Declaration on Green Growth. Last accessed on 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3343,en_2649_201185_43164671_1_1_1_1,00.html OECD (2009c). Ministerial Conclusion. Last accessed on 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3343,en_2649_201185_43164671_1_1_1_1,00.html OECD (2011). Towards Green Growth. Last accessed on 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,3746,en_2649_37465_47983690_1_1_1_37465,00.html Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. 1989 Blueprint for a Green Economy, Earthscan, London.


36

Presidential Committee on Green Growth. 2012. Concept of Korea’s Green Growth. Last accessed on 31 January 2012 from http://www.greengrowth.go.kr/?page_id=42482

Statsministeriet, 2010, Statsministeren til Asien. Last accessed on 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.stm.dk/_p_13092.html Statsministeriet, 2011, Sydkoreas præsident Lee Myung-bak på statsbesøg, Last accessed on 26 January 2012 from http://www.stm.dk/_p_13419.html

UNCSD (2012). Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Objectives & Themes. Last accessed on 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/objectiveandthemes.html

UNEP 2009 Press Release, The Republic of Korea and UNEP Pledge Green Growth Partnership, downloaded from http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=594&ArticleID=6277&l=en&t=long

UNESCAP (2012). Seoul Initiative Network on Green Growth. Last accessed on 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.greengrowth.org/seouls.asp

UNSDC 2012, United Nations Sustainable Development Conference, Rio+20 Summit website, last accessed on 29 January 2012 from http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.html

ROK. 2012. Declaration of Low Carbon Green Growth as a National Vision. From a history of rapid catch-up, towards a green dream. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://www.greengrowth.go.kr/?page_id=42478

World Bank (2011a). Moving to a Green Growth approach to Development. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSDNET/0,,menuPK:64885113~pagePK:7278667~piPK:64911824~theSitePK:5929282~contentMDK:22865936,00.html

World Bank (2011b). Greening Growth through Strategic Environmental Assessment of Sector Reforms. Environment Notes. No. 7. May 2011. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://go.worldbank.org/UPPWM2A9D0

World Bank (2011c). From Growth to Green Growth: A Framework. Policy Research Working Paper. No. 5872. Last accessed 20 Feb 2012 from http://go.worldbank.org/8F95PDWZO0