uploadedfiles publications publications michael redclift and emma hinton

8/12/2019 UploadedFiles Publications Publications Michael Redclift and Emma Hinton

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uploadedfiles-publications-publications-michael-redclift-and-emma-hinton 1/14

Living sustainably:approaches for thedeveloped and

developing worldMichael Redclift and Emma Hinton



www.policy-network.netApril 2008 | Michael Redclift andEmma Hinton | Living sustainably | 1

p r o g r e s s

i v e g o v e r n a n c e L o n d o n 2 0 0 8

Living sustainably:approaches for thedeveloped anddeveloping world

Michael Redclift and Emma Hinton

MICHAEL REDCLIFTis professor of international environmental policy in theDepartment

of Geography at King’s College, London. In 2006 he was the rst recipient of the Frederick Buttel Award, from the International Sociological Association, for “an outstandingcontribution to international scholarship in environmental sociology”. He is the author of Frontiers: Historiesof Civil societies andNature, published by MIT Press in 2006, and Chewing

Gum: the Fortunes of Taste, published by Taylor & Francis in 2004.

EMMA HINTON is completing a PhD in the Department of Geography, King’s College,London. She has a degree in environmental science and considerable experience of

working both in government and in the NGO sector in the United Kingdom. Her current

research, which is funded under an ESRC/DEFRA award, is on sustainable consumption.



1. The debate around globalisation is acomplex one. Note that some writersremain sceptical about globalisation,either because they deny its novelty,or take issue with the wholeconceptual framework of globalisation. See, within the“globalisation” camp: Barnett et al.2005, Dicken 2007, Held 2004, Held &McGrew 2007, Stiglitz 2002,Wolf 2005,and the sceptical camp: Delong 1999and Hirst & Thompson 1999.

www.policy-network.net 2 | Living sustainably | Michael Redclift andEmma Hinton | April 2008

p r o g r e s s

i v e g o v e r n a n c e L o n d o n 2 0 0 8 Living sustainably: approaches for the developed

and developing world

Introduction The original titleof this paper—Whatdomestic policies might enableus to livemore sustainably,while helping the developing countries to improve their living standards without causing

excessive damage to their environments?—assumes a degree of similarity and convergencebetween“developing countries”. Is this plausible in the wake of China and India’s economic

emergence on the world stage? It is not clear, either, whether“helping”developing countries is

either practicable or desirable, andwhat“our”role might be. Should it be concentrated in healthand education policy (where it might be most useful), or extend to lessons in economic

development?The question makes a number of assumptions.

The paper does not examine the costs and benets of making large-scale structural changes in

the global economy (via WTO/Doha, economic partnership agreements, accelerated debtcancellation etc). Some or all of these changes may be necessary before the second part of the

question can be addressed adequately.

This paper is structured as follows: the rst half introduces analytical perspectives on both

globalisation and sustainable consumption, touching on critiques of current policies; and thesecond half suggests how we might begin to resolve some of the tensions between

globalisation and sustainability. We nish with a summary of policy recommendations.

Part one: analytical perspectives on globalisation and sustainableconsumption

Globalisation

However dened, globalisation is clearly a concept that is widely seen to characterise the

contemporary era—and to mark out what is distinctive about it. A partial list of reasons why itis seen to be important today is provided by Held (2004):1

Stretched social relations : Economic as well as political and cultural processes areincreasingly“stretched”acrossnational borders—events in onepart of theworld impactswiftly on another and with greater frequency than before.

Intensi cationof ows :Moreowsandnetworksencompassingmorepeopleinsharedsocial

spacesdistinct from traditional territorial (and state-linked) sense of space:work, leisure, etc. Increasing interpenetration : Here, economic and culturalpractices become intertwined

in complicated patterns across theglobe (and not reducible to oldargument of western“neo-colonialism”).

Global infrastructure : Global institutions are involved in economic or political

governance, but also information and communications technologies that underpinglobal markets, and are independent of national authorities.



2. These claims are supported by abattery of “facts”, for example: a)Dramatic growth in air travel: in 1950,there were 25 million air passengers;in 1996 400 million; in 2000 1.4 billion.b) Internet growth: from just 50 pageson WWW in 1993 to 50 million in 2000.Internet users—25 million in 1995 to400 million by the end o f 2000. c)Cross-border nancial ows: foreigncurrency traded per day in the 1970swas US $10–20bn, whereas about US$1.5 trillion per day in 2000s. d) Worldexports: value of exported goods wasUS $58bn in 1948 compared with US$6 trillion in 2000.


p r o g r e s s

i v e g o v e r n a n c e L o n d o n 2 0 0 8Among the“hyper-globalists”, a numberof fundamental economic changes aresaid to support

their case:

Growing international trade : Lowering of national trade barriers, greater competition

and globally-oriented consumption tastes; Increasing foreign direct investment : Rapid growth in new investments, mergers and

acquisitions and technology transfers; Accelerated technological change : Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction”of old

ways of doing things leads to accelerated cross-border ows—for example

transportation, electronics and bio-engineering; Rapid global communications : Internet, mobile phones, conventional media (eg

24-hour“breaking”news channels); Increasing labour and leisure-related mobility : Temporary or permanent migration

drawn from all economic classes binds places and people together as never before;

international tourism.2

“Preference accommodation” and“spaces of intention”

The current UK Labour policy agenda for sustainability rests upon certain ideological and

epistemological foundations(Seyfang 2004-2), producing a“privilegednarrative”(Hobson 2002)

that seeks to achieve sustainability at arm’s length (Hobson 2004). While Labour’s “third way”paradigm sees responsibility for sustainability as the mutual obligation of citizens and state,

sustainability has insteadbeensteered throughpolicy networks, trusts and market mechanisms

rather thancoming from government itself (Hobson2004). Sheargues that this approach results

from the Labour government’s ideological commitment to make globalisation “work for thepeople” through increased consumer choice and reduced regulation, where policyaccommodates business demands rather than vice versa (a process known as preference

accommodation).

Sustainable consumption isoften framedas a publicknowledgeproblem (Hobson 2002, Seyfang

2004-4),withpolicy approaches based on voluntaryconsumerinformationcampaigns; andpublicparticipation has become a key component of the official discourse. An implicit assumption is

thatenvironmentalproblems have immediate resonancewith individuals; individualsareassumed

to either want to become “greener” but do not know what to do, or simply learn environmentalfacts,which then awakensa latent sense ofenvironmental responsibility(Hobson2006-2).A varietyof social scientists working on consumption have critiqued models of behaviour change that

underpin sustainable development strategies, arguing that a reliance on information advances

has impoverished the debate, and simplistic representations of consumption behaviour have

incorrectly portrayed individuals as rational actors.

The current policy approach identies motivated consumers and market transformationbased

on individual consumer preferences as the unit of activity (Seyfang 2006); “the normative and

economic overtones of Labour’s approach, despite talk of sustainable communities, appear tocut out scales of action other than that of the rational individual”(Hobson 2004, p.135). But this




p r o g r e s s

i v e g o v e r n a n c e L o n d o n 2 0 0 8 positioning of the individual as the locus of activity has been attacked as unfair, pitting

individuals against global institutions to solve global problems (Seyfang 2004-4), and has been

branded a“form of social control through self-discipline”(Hobson 2002, p. 113).

The problem is compounded by a difficulty in providing quantitative indicators for changes inenvironmentalquality andhuman wellbeing. What gets measured counts; GDPdoesn’t consider

quality of life, and neither does most economic policy. An alternative advocated in Agenda 21andonly recently re-emerging in policy critique (egs SDC2006, NewEconomicsFoundation) is

the idea of an alternative accounting mechanism to prioritise wellbeing over material

accumulation, eg a Measure of Domestic Progress (Seyfang 2004-4, Jackson 2005). In themeantime, government hasproved unwilling to stimulate wide publicdebate andaction about

new formsof“qualityof life”, crafting insteada series of policies that aimtoachieve“sustainability

by stealth”, introducing modest policy changes that do not question prevailing lifestyles and

consumption expectations (Robins 1999).

It has been argued that the UK“strategy”is biased

towards individualistic, market-based and

neo-liberal policies, and takes as its premise an

imagined“rational individual calculator”(Seyfang

2004-1).As McManus suggests,“politically acceptable policies forsustainability would be ecologicallyineffective,whileecologicallymeaningfulpolicies remainpoliticallyimpossible”(McManus1996,p.68).

In concentrating on efficiency rather than consumption, policymakers stick close to a politically safe

position,providinginformationandadvicebutnotgoingso faras totell consumersanddecision-makers

how to live their lives.The result is a somewhat technocratic approach that fails toengagewithwhatour needs are and how they are constructed and reproduced, both through the physical and socialinfrastructure (Shove2006)andthrough thepolicydiscourse.Seyfang(2004-4)arguesthatsustainable

consumptionwouldbemore likely tobeachievedif governmentacted toshift societalvalues,publicly

questioningtherationale ofcontinuingeconomicgrowth,andforcingrmstotakeactionrather than

relyingoncorporate,consumer-drivenselfgovernance.

Lundqvist (2001) also argues for efforts to naturalise ecological evaluations just as economic

rationales have been naturalised in the public mind, nding a new role for the state as a “green

st in a velvet glove”. Others recommend the development of shared visions and approachesamong a range of stakeholders and the public, realigning a wider range of policies, fromemployment law to trade (Michaelis 2003-1) and addressing the institutionalisation of

increasingly resource-intensive ways of life (Hand, Southerton & Shove 2003). McGregor (2001)

calls for a new participatory consumerism which would make apparent the oppression and

market myths created by free-market proponents.

Finally, the awareness that many individuals are motivated by ethical considerations in their

consumption choices has prompted a debate about the “spaces of intention” that underlie

ethical decision-making in a number of elds, notably tourism, food provisioning and personalinvestment. The riseof“ethical”consumption (corporate social responsibility etc) has alsofuelled

It has been argued that the UK“strategy”is biased towardsindividualistic, market-based and neo-liberal policies




p r o g r e s s

i v e g o v e r n a n c e L o n d o n 2 0 0 8a discussionof the spatial implications of consumer behaviour and consumer intentions (Bryant,

Goodman & Redclift 2008, in press).

Beyond“preference accommodation”

Alternative lifestyles

Despite the attention given to changing our lifestyles and ideas about the quality of life at Rio,discourses around alternative lifestyles have tended to be marginalised as a result of political

support for the eco-efficiency agenda, resulting in its mainstreaming in the discourses of

sustainability. The efficiency discourse has been totalising, even beginning to appropriatealternative discourses, for instance eclipsing other aspects of sustainability in discussions of

shared services (Halme, Jasche& Sharpe2004). Institutional andsocio-cultural barriers have also

been cited as factors in the limited attention paid to alternatives (Mont 2004).While it is within

the realm of political possibility that policies which confront these barriers will be developed,

the failure to do so ensures that eco-efficiency is the only feasible kind of sustainability to beaddressed. There are still, however, some calls for social innovations in lifestyles and cultures to

accompany such techno-centric solutions (eg Green & Vergragt 2002, Michaelis 2003-3).

Voluntary simplicity (comprising down shifters, strong simpliers and the simple living

movement (Etzioni 2006)) is a choice to live a simpler lifestyle, and is often denigrated in theliterature as being irrelevant and the choice of an affluent few (Robins & Roberts 2006). An

international study spanning continents, decades and methods (Librova 1999) found that

participants tended to be relatively affluent, well-educated, engaged in wide social networks,

with altruistic beliefs who consume alternatively in order to set themselves apart from themajority. The voluntary simplicity movement is often presented as the sole manifestation of anti-consumerism in the literature; however, there exists a profusion of alternative campaigns

that set out to challenge the negative stereotyping of consuming less through subversive

advertising, humour, theatre and art (Robins & Roberts 2006), including AdBusters campaigns

like“buy nothing day”with its array of themed events worldwide.

Eco-localismAnothermarginaliseddiscourse is thatof the local economymovementor“eco-localism”, which

posits that economic and environmental sustainability can be secured by the creation of localor regional community economies. Building on theprinciples of LocalExchangeTrading (LETS)schemes, it seeks to strengthen mutual indebtedness, rather than individualprot. Indebtednesstoneighbours and community is seen, within this lens, as a way of enhancing social capital andincreasing, paradoxically, individual’s personal comfort zone. Eco-localism includes localcurrencies, communitycorporations andbanks, food co-ops, micro-enterprise, farmers’markets,permaculture, community supported agriculture, car sharing schemes, barter systems,co-housing and ecovillages, home-based production, localist business alliances, time banks,mutual aid and regional food economies (Curtis 2003).

Eco-localism has emerged in opposition to the hegemony of neo-liberalist and mainstreamthought. It promotes a localised economic space, in contrast to an ever-expanding scale of



3.“Ecological modernisation”usuallyrefers to economic and social changeswhich seek to internaliseenvironmental externalities,producing greener products andservices. The policy focus onenvironmental technologies fallswithin this frame of reference. See, forexample Hajer 1995, Hajer 1996, Leroy& VanTatenhove 2000, and Mol 1997.


p r o g r e s s

i v e g o v e r n a n c e L o n d o n 2 0 0 8 economic life, andprovides a political expressionmuchmore effective thantheethicalconsumer’s

“spaces of intention”(Barnett,Cloke,Clarke & Malpass 2005; Clarke, Barnett, Cloke & Malpass 2007).

It advocates anenhanced capacity for local communities tomanage moneytoservepoliticalgoals,

incontrast to theneoliberal“depoliticisation”of theeconomy; anda more communitarian senseof

identity, in contrast to the individualism advanced by right-wing libertarians (Helleiner 2002).Eco-localismhasalso been recommendedasa meansofstrengthening socialcapital andcultivating

ecological citizenship (Smith2005, Sefang2006, andDobson2003).

However, eco-localism has problems attached to it. Locally produced goods are likely to carry

higherprices, pushing this kindof alternative consumption outof thereachof the less affluent;and only a limited number of goods can be produced locally thus necessitating inter-local

bartering and effectively de-localising the economy. Finally, local currency schemes do not

interface well with taxandbenetsystems (Seyfang 2004-4); andeco-localism, like mainstream

approaches to sustainable development, relies on the majority of the population endorsing

non-materialist values, which psychological and sociological studies suggest is unlikely.

Inequality and mainstream policy on the environment

Most importantly, the mainstream“sustainability”discourses fail to address inequality.“Sustainable

development” policies may conict with the social and economic wellbeing of groups andcommunities (Burningham & Thrush 2001). Leaving the market to control the prices of “green”

products tends tomakethemmore expensiveandlessaccessible thanlesssustainablealternatives

(Seyfang2004-4).This placesmuch ofmainstreamethical consumptionbehaviouroutof thereach

of thenanciallydisadvantaged consumer,whois lessabletomakelong-termsavingsinvestmentslikethoseassociated with solarpower, for instance (Steedman2003, Holdsworth& Steedman2005).“Stronger” sustainable development policy, involving alternative lifestyles and the notion of

consuming less, is more compatiblewith equality butmore incompatiblewith the status quo.The

benets are felt in terms of social solidarity, and a renewed sense of the purpose of work, rather

than thepurchaseof ever increasing volumes of ethically-vetted commodities.

Some policies to affect a transition towards greater accommodation between the market and

the environment, such as “ecological modernisation”,3 have become increasingly mainstream,

while othershave become marginalised.Whyhave somediscoursesbecome privileged? Energyefficiency has become one of the most privileged of narratives, possibly as a result of theconcerted researcheffort dedicated to theproductionof innovative, energyefficient technology

during the oil crises in the 1970s and 1990s. More recently a new international language of

climate change has privileged carbon above all other environmental impacts in the dominant

discourse, and now both policymakers and NGOs have attempted to tailor their sustainability

or environmental efforts in order to jump on the “carbon bandwagon”and thereby maintaincredibility and gain access to scarce funding sources.

Wasteandwater areother strategicdiscourses, where policyalternativesarehighlycontested.Theyare industries which require the compliance of the UK government, as a result of European



4. There is considerable unease inmany local authority areas with themove towards alternate weeklycollections of waste and recyclablematerials. Similarly, the UK is(unusually) a latecomer to watermetering (except in new-build),compared with our EU partners.

5. For example, recent moves to ban

inefficient light bulbs suggest thatgovernment is taking the lead to banthe manufacture and sale in the UK of incandescent light bulbs by 2010 onthe back of NGO campaigns and EUlegislation. However, incandescentbulbs will still be available outsideEurope—so this is where globalisationneeds to come in, we need tonegotiate a global ban on certainproducts. Similarly the congestioncharge in London, which has seenmassive increases in public transportuse and decreased car reliance, andthe new proposals to stagger thecharge depending on vehicularemissions, has only been possible as aresult of one local council havingdifferent powers from the rest of thecountry.


p r o g r e s s

i v e g o v e r n a n c e L o n d o n 2 0 0 8legislation towhich the UKhas signedup, aswellas the priorexistence ofmuch ofthe infrastructure

required to implement change, in the form of the UK Environment Agency. It is also notable that

attempts toraise thethresholdsfor sustainablepractice insome policy areas—notablyenergyand

water policy—create problems for government/citizen relations in the UK, because public

perceptions that they are “natural monopolies”cannot easily be accommodated to a businessmodel, and this model sits uneasily with demands for greater publiccompliance. This maybe one

legacy of the early privatisation of these utilitiesandthefailure to include environmental factors inthe publicservicewhen they were nationalised industries. 4

Other policy approaches remain at the margin, despite an apparent“hunger”for new points of departureandevidenceof“spaces of intention”, illustrated by the growth of interest in fair trade,

ethical consumption, and the almost pathological search, on the part of some charities, for the

endorsement of celebrities.

Part two: reconciling globalisation and sustainability

Towards a more“inclusive”globalisation?

How do we satisfy this new hunger for genuinely new points of departure for policy, which,

while recognising globalisation as a background reality, also seeks to shape its effects in waysthat are more in keeping with robust social democratic and green traditions? One answer is to

revisitglobalisation itself. It might be assumedthatan“inclusive”globalisation carriesmost of the

benets of globalisation, without the obvious costs to individuals and communities. The

following are suggestions for ways forward, out of the impasse:

Political steerage

We need to decide what we want the state to do, rather than simply “roll it back” because of

ideology or political andnancial expediency (the private nance initiative). If government is to

set the political agenda, then government has to govern. Much of the resistance to“the state”

today is resistance to bureaucracy andapparent lack of accountability, rather than resistance togovernment getting on with the business of governing. As far as environmental policy is

concerned this means clearly establishing the role of both regulation and markets, in the mind

of citizens (and“consumers”) as well as“experts”. Policy needs to explain thelogic of the“mix”andthe benets of a mixed approach.

There are various examples of policies which at rst appeared fringe-like or eccentric which have

already gained very wide acceptance. They suggest it is possible to govern decisively while

negotiating for international compliance and wider agreement. 5 Moves towards mainstreaming

sustainable behaviour are only possible within situations of strong policy control (light bulbs inEuropeanpolicy,andcongestioncharging inLondonpolicy).Policyinitiativestowards thedeveloping

countries with high rates of economic growth might also offer assistance in elds such as energy

policy andtransport, rather than focusing on the supposed benets of economic competitivenessand gains from trade.



6 The government has, for a numberof years already, had an agreementwith energy suppliers called theEnergy Efficiency Commitmentwhereby energy suppliers mustachieve carbon reduction targets indomestic energy efficiency. The newphase which starts in March and runsuntil 2011 will add micro-generation,biomass community heating andcombined heat and power to theenergy efficiency measures of thecurrent. EEC energy suppliers havetended to meet their commitments bygiving out free low-energy light bulbsand offering discounted loft andcavity wall insulation.


p r o g r e s s

i v e g o v e r n a n c e L o n d o n 2 0 0 8 Wealsoneed to move towards establishing newnorms forvalorising“livingwith little/less”. There is

accumulating evidence that a high quality of life can be acquired without high levels of personal

consumption, in terms of disposable income, and that wellbeing has more to do with integrating

systems of social support, and increased personal security, than with consuming more (Goodland,

Daly & Serafy1992).Might itbethecase that achievinggreatersustainability, andholdoverourfragileenvironments, isbest served not by workingharder toconsumemore butby working less, earning

less, consuming less and spending less? Moves towards mainstreaming sustainable behaviour areonly possible when there is strong policy control and an example of good practice to hand, rather

than aninvitation toemulate resourceproigacy. Examplesmightbemoves toensurethat cropslike

soya, which compromise ecosystems, and have damaging secondary effects (in both north andsouth),areactively discouraged by theUK governmentwithinglobal policy regimes.

Proclaim benets

Many new areas of environmental policy and sustainable provision are “win-win” areas, but the

benets of acting along “least cost” lines are not proclaimed in easily understood terms. Often,lowering prices for lowered consumption (water, electricity) has several clear benets as well as

costing consumers less. The relationship between consumption, environmental externalities and

costs to theconsumer becomes more transparent. 6 For utility companies thereduction in resource

use can mean that future investment costs are reduced, too, insmallerplants. Incentives needtobe

devisedwhichactivelyencouragemore sustainableprovision,with returnsfor both businessandthecitizen. Lowerhousehold expenditure on environmental goods (energy, waste, food, transport etc)

encourages a different mind-set from the dominant view that“activity on the high street”needs to

be encouraged at all costs. A long-term, community conscious and more sustainable mind-set is

frequentlyevokedinpolitical(andgovernment)literature,but is rarelyencouraged inpractical termson the ground.

Public cultureFinally we need to “naturalise” the sustainability rationale, in much the same way as theeconomic/business rationale was naturalised after 1980. This involves at least two steps:

1. To establish the monetary and non-monetary costs of not taking strong sustainability

measures, and to communicate these as a matter of urgency and precaution,

simultaneously being mindful to avoid sensationalismanda specialist“science”discourse,since these two factors can have a negative impact on the public.

2. A start could be made by demonstrating the international and mutual gains from

exchange of knowledge over trade and the environment, and the need to“join-up”the

two elds through government-led initiatives. For example, recent interesting initiatives

on “fair trade”and ethical consumption throughout western Europe have largely taken

place without strong government activity, and in the context of a kind of alternativehedonism. The links between consumersof industrialised food, protectionist agricultural

policies in theEuropean Union, andsoya producers in Argentina andBrazil, could be the

subject of policy initiatives and public debate that extends beyond the contours of interested NGOs, and in which government took a lead.




p r o g r e s s

i v e g o v e r n a n c e L o n d o n 2 0 0 8“Aspirational” behaviour

Another important move would be to take seriously peoples’ aspirational interest in the

environment, and to place it at least on an equal footing with the aspiration to increase

household income. This might be acknowledged through advertising the intergenerational

benets of measures to improve theenvironment andsustainability now, including the issue of government“sustainability”bonds (on the model the government pioneered for income bonds

for new born babies).

How would these principles and policy suggestions change ourresponsibilities to the developing world? There are three conditions without which participatory governance can have little effect: a

strong state, a well developed civil society, and an organised political movement, such as a

political party (Gaventa 2004). However, attempts to “encourage” these conditions in the

developing world are fatally awed since the northern industrial powers cannot separate theirprofessed interest in good governance from their economic and strategic interests (cf the Iraq

war). Interventions stem from ourcontinueddrive for economic growth around hydrocarbons.

If we re-conceptualise “national wealth”, we might begin to de-couple interventions from

material interests in another state’s resources.

The single biggest problem for the

industrialised world in its dealings with the

global south is that it always strives for

universal solutions to environment anddevelopment “problems”. Development policy has followed a series of “buzz words” andfashions—“basic needs”, “betting on the strong”, “participatory appraisal” etc. In most cases

these“methodologies”ignored the eldsof knowledge in the receiving country andwere sown

regardless. The latest paradox is the fate of methodologies of social inclusion, most of which

have been parachuted into visibly unprepared cultures.The effect of providing methodologies

of inclusion has been to exclude most beneciaries of change. This is the burden of theargumentput forward by recent work on local governance andsocial mobilisation in thesouth

(Waddington & Mohan 2004, Hyden 1997, Mohan & Stokke 2000, Gaventa 2004, Fung & Wright

2001, Mohan & Hickey 2004).

From the viewpoint of “spaces of intention” there is an impressive amount of affective concern

in the north, cultivated by NGOs and demonstrated by themed rock concerts and celebrity

endorsements. However, thepolicy discourserarely focuses on viewing wealthas wanting little

rather than having a lot. There are clear gains in reversing previous approaches and viewing

climate changepolicy as the driver of social change, rather than an obstacle in the way of socialadvances. Similarly we might view human and environmental security as a goal of global

governance. As the bigger economies of the south develop economically, more of their

environmental problems are shared with the north, so a rst step would be the admission thatwe have at least as much to learn as to teach.

In most cases these“methodologies”ignored the fields of knowledge in the receiving country




p r o g r e s s


ReferencesAppadurai, A. ed. 2000, Globalisation , special issue of Public Culture:Society for Transnational CulturalStudies , vol.

12, no. 1.

Barnett, A. et al. eds. 2005, Debating globalisation , Cambridge, Polity [intro to debates].

Barnett, C., Cloke, P., Clarke, N. & Malpass A. 2007, ‘Globalising the consumer’, in M. Gottdiener ed., New forms of

consumption: consumers, culture andcommodi cation , Lanham, Rowan and Little eld.Baumann, Z. 1998, Globalisation , Polity Press, Cambridge.

Bayart, J.F. 2007, Global subjects: a politicalcritiqueof globalisation , Cambridge, Polity.

Bhabha, H.K. 1994, The locationof culture, London, Routledge.

Bhagwati, J. 2005, Indefenceof globalisation , Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Burningham, K. &Thrush, D. 2001, Rainforests area longwayfromhere: the environmental concernsof

disadvantagedgroup s, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Conway, D. & Heynen, N. eds. 2006, Globalisation’scontradictions: geographies of discipline, destruction and

transformation , London, Routledge [section 1].

Curtis, F. 2003,‘Eco-local ism and sustainability’, Ecological Economics, vol. 46, pp. 83–102.

Dicken, P. 2007, Global shift: mapping thechangingcontoursof the world economy . 5th ed. London, Sage.

Dinopoulos, E. et al. eds. 2007, Globalisation:prospectsand problems , London, Routledge.

Dobson, A. 2003, Citizenship and theenvironment , Oxford.

Etzioni, A. 2006,‘Voluntary simplicity—characterisation, select psychological implications and societal

consequences’, in T. Jackson, ed., Earthscanreader in sustainable consumption London, Earthscan.

Ferguson, J. 2006, Global shadows: Africa in theneoliberal world order, Durham, NC, Duke University Press.

Fung, A. &Wright, E.O. 2001, ‘Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory governance’,

Policy and Society , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 5–41.

Gaventa, J. 2004, ‘Towards participatory governance: assessing the transformative possibilit ies’, in S. Hickey and

G. Mohan eds., Participation:from tyranny to transformation? , New York, Zed Books, pp. 1–25.

Glenn, J. 2007, Globalisation: north-south perspectives , London, Routledge [ch 1-3].

Goodland, R. Daly, H. & Serafy, H. 1992, Population, technology, lifestyle , New York, Island Press.

Green, K. & Vergragt, P. 2002, ‘Towards sustainable households: a methodology for developing sustainable

technological and social innovations’, Futures, vol. 34, pp. 381–400.

Hajer, M.A. 1995, The politics of environmentaldiscourse: ecological modernisationand the policy process , Oxford,

Clarendon Press.

Hajer, M.A. 1996,‘Ecological modernization as cultural politics’, in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski & B. Wynne eds., Risk,

environmentand modernity:towardsa new ecology , London, Sage.

Halme, M., Jasch, C. & Scharp, M. 2004, ‘Sustainable homeservices? Toward household services that enhanceecological, social and economic sustainability’, Ecological Economics, vol. 51, pp. 125–138.

Hand, M., Southerton, D. & Shove, E. 2003, Explaining dailyshowering: a discussion of policy and practice , ESRC

Sustainable Technologies Programme,Working Paper Series no. 2003/4.

Harvey, D. 2005, A briefhistory of neoliberalism , Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Held, D. ed. 2004, A globalising world? , 2nd ed., London, Routledge.

Held, D. & McGrew, A. 2007, Globalisation/anti-globalisation , 2nd ed. Cambridge, Polity.

Held, D. & McGrew, A. eds. 2007, Globalisation theory , Oxford, Blackwell.

Helleiner, E. 2002,‘Think globally, transact locally : the local-currency movement and green pol itical economy’,

in T. Princen, M. Maniates & K. Conca eds., Confronting consumption , Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, pp. 255-273.



www.policy-network.netApril 2008 | MichaelRedclift and Emma Hinton | Living sustainably | 11

p r o g r e s s


Hickey, S. & Mohan, G. 2004, ‘Towards participation as transformation: critical themes and challenges’, in S.

Hickey & G. Mohan eds., Participation:from tyranny to transformation? , New York, Zed Books.

Hirst, P. & Thompson, G. 1999, Globalisation in question: the internationaleconomyand thepossibilities of

governance , 2nd ed., Cambridge, Polity.

Hobson, K. 2004,‘Sustainable consumption in the United Kingdom: the “responsible”consumer and

government at “arms length”’, Journal of Environment Development , vol. 13, pp. 121–139.

Holdsworth, M. & Steedman, P. 2005, Sixteen pain-free ways to help save theplanet , National Consumer Council.

Hudson,W. & Slaughter, S. eds. 2007, Globalisationandcitizenship: thetransnationalchallenge , London, Routledge.

Hyden, G. 1997, ‘Civil society, social capital and development: dissection of a complex discourse’, Studies in

Comparative InternationalDevelopment , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 3–30.

Johnston, R.J. et al. eds. 2002, Geographies of social change , 2nd ed., Oxford, Blackwell.

Jones, A. 2006, Dictionaryof globalisation , Cambridge, Polity.

Kraidy, M.M. 2005, Hybridity:or the cultural logicof globalisation , Philadelphia, Temple.

Lechner, F. & Boli, J. eds. 2003, Theglobalisation reader , Oxford, Blackwell.

Leroy, P. & van Tatenhove, J. 2000, ‘Political modernisation theory and environmental politics’, in G. Spaargaren,

A.P.J. Mol & F.H. Buttel eds., Environment and global modernity , London, Sage, pp. 187–208.

Librova, H. 1999,‘The disparate roots of voluntary modesty’, Environmental Values , vol. 8 pp. 369–380.

Lundqvist, L.J. 2001, ‘A green st in a velvet glove: the ecological state and sustainable development’,

Environmental Values, vol. 10, pp. 455–472.

Mackinnon, D. & Cumbers, A. 2007, An introduction to economicgeography: globalisation,uneven development

and place , London, Pearson.

Mazlish, B. 2006, Thenew globalhistory , London, Routledge [ch 1 and 2].

McGregor, S. 2001, ‘Participatory consumerism’, ConsumerInterests Annual , vol. 47.

Michaelis, L. 2003-1, ‘Sustainable consumption and greenhouse gas mitigation’, ClimatePolicy , vol. 3, no. 1, pp.

135–146.

Mohan, G. & Stokke, K. 2000, ‘Participatory development and empowerment: the dangers of localism’, Third

WorldQuarterly , vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 247–268.

Mol, A. 1997, ‘Ecological modernisation: industrial transformations & environmental reform’, in M. Redclift & G.

Woodgate eds., The internationalhandbookof environmental sociology , Edward Elgar, Chichester.

Mont, O. 2004,‘Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared use’, Ecological

Economics , vol. 50, pp. 135–153.

Mooney, A & Evans, B. eds. 2007, Globalisation: the keyconcepts , Routledge.

Murray,W. 2005, Geographies of globalisation , London, Routledge.

Pieterse, N.J. 2004, Globalisationand culture: global mélange , Oxford, Rowman & Little eld.

Radcliffe, S. ed. 2006, Culture anddevelopment in a globalising world: geographies, actors and paradigms , London,

Routledge.

Robins, N. & Roberts, S. 2006, ‘Making sense of sustainable consumption’in T. Jackson ed. Earthscan reader in

sustainable consumption , London, Earthscan.

Ruccio, D.F. 2007, Development and globalisation:a Marxian classanalysis , London, Routledge.

Seyfang, G. 2004-1,‘Consuming values and contested cultures: a critical analysis of the UK strategy for

sustainable consumption and production’, Reviewof Social Economy , vol. 62, no. 3.

Seyfang, G. 2004-2, Localorganic food: thesocial implicationsof sustainable consumption , CSERGE Working Paper

EDM 04-09.

Seyfang, G. 2004-4, Ecowarriors in the supermarket? Evaluating the UK Sustainable Consumption Strategyas a tool

for ecological citizenship , CSERGE Working Paper EDM 04-07.




p r o g r e s s


Smith, G. 2005, ‘Green citizenship and the social economy’, Environmental Politics , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 273–289.

Steedman, P. 2005, Desperatelyseeking sustainability , National Consumer Council.

Stiglitz, J. 2002, Globalisation and its discontents , London, Penguin.

Stiglitz, J. 2006, Making globalisation work , New York, W.W. Norton.

Waddington, M. & Mohan, G. 2004,‘Failing forward: going beyond PRA and imposed forms of participation’, in S.

Hickey and G. Mohna eds., Participation: fromtyrannyto transformation? , New York, Zed Books, pp.

1–25.Wolf, M. 2005, Why globalisation works , 2nd ed., New Haven,Yale University Press.



Policy Network Third oor11 Tufton StreetLondon SW1P 3QBUnited Kingdom

t: +44 (0)20 7340 2200f: +44 (0)20 7340 2211e: [email protected]

uploadedfiles publications publications michael redclift and emma hinton

Documents