A critical review of Environment and modernityin transitional China

Ying+Wang

Abstract：Some western scholars assert that China has stepped into Ecological Modernization society since the beginning of the 21st century.Arthur Mol is one of them，who confirms this same opinion in his many articles.This study focuses on this one research and points out that there are still lack of strong evidences to support this typical idea completely.

Keywords：China；Environmental Protection；Ecological Modernization

Introduction

Over the last several decades，many researchers and politicians have held pessimistic and negative views on the Chinese environmental trend and development.However，some more optimistic and positive opinions have emerged in the western academia in the last several years[1].This article，Environment and modernity in transitional China，is typical one of this kind of trend，written by Arthur P.J.Mol，Chair and professor in environment policy at the Department of Social Science，Wageningen University，Hollandseweg，who is one of the foremost scholars in the environmental sociology.In this article，the author tries to answer the question，whether the western ecological modernization（EM）framework is suitable for developing countries and whether Chinese environmental reforms could be regarded as EM or not.After compared Chinese practice to European modes，as the title of the article indicates，the authors answer is pretty positive（although，at the same time，he points out that China shows a different mode and style）.

Summary

At the beginning of Mols article，the author depicts briefly the origination and process institutionalization of EM in developed societies，and their diffusion in some developing countries.With citing a great number of previous studies，the article deduced that there is a basic feature of EM theory.That is “the centripetal movement of ecological interests，ideas and considerations within the social practices and institutional developments of modern societies”.

Based on this recognition，the author，with the help of information classification and footnote，elaborates the development process and characteristics of environmental practice in western and China respectively at four aspects（political modernization，economic actors and market dynamic，civil society and international integration（only China））.Then，some positive evidences showed in these four elements in Chinese environmental reforms.They are：a）a significant decentralization and a transfer away from strict environmental governance and hierarchy；the division between state-owned firms and governments，b）the cancel of subsidies on natural resources，the introduce of environmental fees and tax，and the attention to environmental factors in market，c）the rise of government-organized NGOs，the increasing pressure from local people on environmental problems，and the informal social norms influence，d）the growing openness and integration in the global economy.Eventually，based on those features，the conclusion is drawn that China is in the process of EM.

Critique and Valuation

It is worthy to mention that Mols article draws its conclusion quite logically，by adopting qualitative analysis and deductive seasoning with a plentiful of profound peer-reviewed journals，government reports and statistic data.The author fist abstracts the basic criteria for EM.Then，the western societies exercises are employed as exemplification to justify the criteria，as these core features are shared in the real practices.Following this，the author enumerates the changes，achievements and problems in Chinese environmental reforms in four elements mentioned above，in which some features demonstrated are in line with the basic criteria.According to these findings，the conclusion is naturally obtained.

Another important point is that the article demonstrates a broad and deep insight into Chinese environmental employment.It provides not only the general history of Chinese environmental reform and practice since 1970s，but also the administrative changes，governance mode，political institution，economic market variation，social convention and public participation in Chinese environmental processes.At the same time，it analyzes the problems and their underlying background and causes.For example，the author argues that the reasons which restrict the public from getting involved in environmental policy-making in China result from absence of environmental monitoring，information transferring distortion，isolation from environmental date，the lack of right-to-know and restricted internet use.

Although Mols article sounds reasonable and plausible，but there are still several blemishes or questions which deserve to be drawn attention.Firstly there is a question，can we surely believe China is on its way of EM after reading this article.As the author said it is difficult to define the key feature of CM，because it is still in developing and there are some “competing” arguments.So，how the author proves his criteria is objective and just is a question.York & Rosa[2]argues the definition should be not merely the demonstration of institutional changes，should also show the eco-transformation of production and consumption with high periodicity due to modernization，no expansion of one industrys impact on environment while the reduction in another industry，and the speed of resource efficiency beyond the increase of whole production，which sounds like a criticism to Mols definition.Additionally，there is also no consensus of how to define the yardsticks of measurement in developing societies.Frijns et al.[3]employs three factors（state-market relations，technology development and environmental awareness）on Viet Nam case study，and Andersen[4]utilizes two elements（environmental indicators，political and institutional developments）on east Europe case.Their results are not very positive.That may indicate that using different modes or definitions may obtain different results，which brings the reader doubts，how can we judge objectively the EM conditions of industrializing countries？ Is the outcome of this article completely reliable？

Moreover，the answer in Mols article to another significant question is quite vague and unclear.That is whether and to what extent the notions of EM in developed countries are of any use in industrializing societies？ The question is posed by the author in the abstract and introduction of the article.Actually，the author does not give a direct and clear reply or even a plainly qualitative answer to it.Even through Mol and Sonnenfeld argues in 2000，to this point，that ‘some processes of ecological modernization are global（even while others are not），and thus this body of theory remains at least partially relevant around the world[5]，as to Chinese case in this article，such a general and abstract answer does not make sense.

Finally，it might have been useful to provide more information about the Chinese environmental reforms and practices，which are significant in Chinese environment performance.For example，green GDP accounting was conducted since 2004 by State Environmental Protection Administration of China（SEPA）and National Bureau of Statistics（NBS）[6]to evaluate the socio-economic development，the emerging and development of fork think-tank since 2001[7]，the release of Environmental Protection Administrative Permission Hearing Regulation by SEPA and the spreading of social media[8].

Conclusion

Mols article was written by the utilization of a great quantity of evidences and materials，providing a wide scope and deep perception in Chinese environmental institutionalization，transformation，governance，political and social perplexity，which makes it a good material for academics and policy-makers who want to grasp overall information about Chinese environmental situation.However，there are still some shortcomings which cannot be ignored.They are，the author does not clearly answer all questions he quested，misses some useful information to strengthen his arguments，and the article may not totally satisfy the readers questions，are the criteria impersonal？ Whether we can positively assert without doubt that China is in the community of EM in 2006？

Reference：

[1]Yee，W.et al.2013.Assessing Ecological Modernization in China：Stakeholder Demands and Corporate Environmental Management Practices in Guangdong Province.The China Quarterly 213，p.101-129.

[2]York，R & Rosa，E.2003.Key Challenges to Ecological Modernization Theory：Institutional Efficacy，Case Study Evidence，Units of Analysis，and the Pace of Eco-Efficiency.Organization & environment 16（3）.p.273 -288

[3]Frijns，J，Phuong.T.P.and Mol.A.P.J.2000.Ecological modernisation theory and industrialising economies：The case of Viet Nam.Environmental Politics 9（1），p.257-292

[4]Andersen，M.S.2002.Ecological Modernization or Subversion？ The Effect of Europeanization on Eastern Europe.American behavioral scientist 45（9），p.1394-1416

[5]Mol，A.P.J and Sonnenfeld，D.A.2000.Ecological Modernization Around the World：An Introduction.In：Mol，A.P.J and Sonnenfeld，D.A.eds.Ecological Modernisation Around the World：Perspectives and Critical Debates.1st ed.London：Frank Cass Publishers，p.3-16

[6]SEPA and NBS.2006.China Green National Accounting Study Report 2004.08 Sept 2006.http：//www.gov.cn/english/2006-09/11/content_384596.htm

[7]Liu，H.2005.The Status of Fork Think-tank in China.Singtao Daily（Hongkong）.http：//www.dajunzk.com/minjianzk.htm.

[8]China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development.2013.Media and Public Participation Policies on Promoting Chinas Green Development.https：//www.chinadialogue.net/reports/6808-Media-and-Public-Participation-Policies-on-Promoting-China-s-Green-Development/en