바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Space and Environment

ISSN : 1225-6706

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.30 No.1

Citation Share

The development of the environmental state and green transformation

Space and Environment / Space and Environment, (P)1225-6706; (E)2733-4295
2020, v.30 no.1, pp.48-78
https://doi.org/10.19097/kaser.2020.30.1.48

(2020). The development of the environmental state and green transformation. Space and Environment, 30(1), 48-78, https://doi.org/10.19097/kaser.2020.30.1.48

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to empirically analyze the development of the environmental state, focusing on OECD and European countries, to present the vision of the 3rd generation environmental state for green transition. If the 1st generation environmental state is defined as a state that effectively functions to reduce visible environmental pollutants by establishing environmental standards, environmental laws, institutions, organizations, etc. in the 1970s and 1980s, then the 2nd generation environmental state is a state which has responded to climate change through decarbonization policies such as carbon dioxide reduction and renewable energy expansion since the 1990s. Most European countries, which form the leading group of the 2nd generation environmental state, adopt the consensus democracy based on proportional representation election and the corporatism model. However, Europe’s environmental welfare state model still has high ecological footprints, revealing fundamental limitations in responding to ecological crises. In addition, spatio-temporal asymmetry occurs between the carbon dioxide emissions and the victims of climate change, making it difficult for the international community to cooperate in climate change. In this sense, I present the vision of the 3rd generation environmental state for green transformation with the concept of ‘double decommodification’ and ‘enlarged responsibility’ for climate change.

keywords
environmental state, green transformation, ecological modernization, decommification, consensus democracy, corporatism, 환경국가, 녹색전환, 생태적 근대화, 탈상품화, 합의제 민주주의, 조합주의

Reference

1.

고철환. 2008. ｢생태적 근대화, 지속가능발전, 그리고 우리나라에서의 함의｣. ≪인간·환경·미래≫ 1호, 123-155.

2.

구도완. 2002. ｢발전국가에서 녹색국가로｣. ≪시민과 세계≫ 3호, 274-293.

3.

구도완·여형범. 2008. ｢대안적 발전-생태적 공동체와 어소시에이션을 넘어서｣. ≪경제와 사회≫ 6호, 83-106.

4.

김수진. 2011. ｢8장 원자력 정책에 대한 몇 가지 가설｣. 김수진 외. 『기후변화의 유혹, 원자력』. 도요새.

5.

김인춘·최정원. 2013.｢생태적 근대화 모델과 생태복지국가의 구성｣. ≪OUGHTOPIA≫2(2)호, 73-108.

6.

문순홍. 2002. ｢녹색국가 논의의 구조와 과정-녹색국가의 유형 및 단계를 결정하는 변수들｣. ≪현상과인식≫ 26(12)호, 94-123.

7.

박희제. 2002. ｢[서평] 환경보호에서 사회발전론으로-녹색국가의 이론적 탐색｣. ≪환경사회학연구 ECO≫ 3호, 215-220.

8.

조명래. 2002. ｢국가론의 녹색화를 위한 시론｣. ≪한국정치학보≫ 36(2)호, 47-68.

9.

조명래. 2009. ｢녹색성장과 녹색사회의 구현｣. ≪국토≫ 1호, 67-70.

10.

최병두. 2009. ｢녹색의 의미와 녹색도시의 개념｣. ≪부산발전포럼≫ 119호, 8-11.

11.

최병두·신혜란. 2013. ｢탄소규제 전략으로서 녹색도시주의. 성찰적 재검토｣. ≪공간과 사회≫23(2)호, 40-84.

12.

한상진. 2017. ｢생태사회적 배제의 담론과 생태복지국가를 향한 대응｣. 『한국환경사회학회학술대회 자료집』, 51-62.

13.

홍성태. 2007. ｢문제는 생태적 개혁과 전환의 구체화다, 문순홍 엮음, 개발국가의 녹색성찰과 녹색국가의 탐색, 아르케(2006)｣. ≪경제와 사회≫ 12호, 301-307.

14.

Arrow, Kenneth, et al. 1995. “Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment,” Science, Vol. 268, pp. 520-521.

15.

Bomberg, Elizabeth. 2015. “Greening the state, American style,” in Bäckstrand, K., and Kronsell, A.(eds). Rethinking the Green State. London and New York:Routledge, pp. 122-237.

16.

Christoff, Peter. 2005. “Out of Chaos, a Shining Star? Toward a Typology a Green States,” in Barry. J and Eckersley. R.(eds). The State and the Global Ecological Crisis. Cambridge et al: MIT Press, pp. 25-52.

17.

Dryzek, J. S., Downes, D., Hunold, C., and Schlosberg, D., and Hernes, H. 2003. Green States and Social Movements. Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germnay and Norway. NY: Oxford University Press.

18.

Duit, Andreas. 2016. “The four faces of the environmental state: environmental governance regimes in 28 countries,” Environmental Politics, 25(1), pp. 69-91.

19.

Duwel, A. 2010. “Democracy and the environment: The visibility factor,” http://ssrn.com/abstract=1582299 [last accessed 2019.9.28].

20.

Eckersley, Robyn. 2016. “National identities, international roles, and the legitimation of climate leadership: Germany and Norway compared,” Environmental Politics, 25(1), pp. 180-201.

21.

Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Policy Press.

22.

Fiorino, Daniel J. 2011. “Explaining national environmental performance: approaches, evidence, and implication,” Policy Science, 44, pp. 367-389.

23.

Gough, Ian and Meadowcroft, James. 2011. “Decarbonizing the welfare state,” in Dryzek. J. S., Norgaard, R. B., and Schlosberg, D.(eds). Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 490-503.

24.

Hildingsson, Roger and Kahn, Jamill. 2015. “Towards a decarbonized green state? the politics of low-carbon goernance in Sweden,” in Bäckstrand. K., and Kronsell. A. (eds), Rethinking the Green State. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 156-173.

25.

Jahn, Detlef. 2014. “The Three Worlds of Environmental Politics,” in Duit. A.(eds). State and Environment. Cambridge et al: MIT Press, pp. 81-109.

26.

Jänicke, Martin. 2005. “Trend-Setters in Environmental Policy: the Character and Role of Pioneer Countries,” European Environment, 15, pp. 129-142.

27.

Koch, Max and Fritz, Martin. 2015. “Green states in Europe. A comprative view,” in Bäckstrand. K., and Kronsell. A.(eds), Rethinking the Green State. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 83-103.

28.

Scruggs, Lyle. 2003. Sustaining Abundance. Environmental Performance in Industrial Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Tobin, Paul. 2015. “Blue and yellow makes green? Ecological Modernization in Swedish climate policy,” in Bäckstrand. K., and Kronsell. A.(eds). Rethinking the Green State. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 141-155.

Space and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy