Pergamon ~~oforum, Vol. 27. No. I, pp. l-10. lYY6

Copyright 0 1996 Elsccicr Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All right\ reserved

lWlI~71X5/‘)6$15.~H~+~IlK~

1. Introduction

OOM-7185(95)00046-l

Integrating Sustainable Development and Economic Restructuring: a Role for

Regulation Theory?

DAVID GIBBS,* Hull, U.K.

Abstract: Despite the growing importance of environmental issues within inter- national and national economic policies, little attention has been paid to these issues in work on economic restructuring. However, the increasing adoption of the concept of sustainable development as a means to resolve conflict between the economy and the environment has major implications for the form and direction of economic restructuring. In this paper it is therefore argued that the growing adoption of sustainable development as a central guiding principle for economic development necessitates the incorporation of environmental issues into work on economic restructuring. The limited amount of existing work linking the environment with economic restructuring is criticized and it is suggested that there is considerable potential to use regulation theory to combine debates on economic restructuring and sustainable development. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

In the 1990s a major item on many natural and social

science research agendas continues to be the environ-

ment. Increasingly, the issues and problems raised by

this research have made their way onto international

and national policy making agendas in the form of

arguing that the concept of sustainable development

can resolve the impasse between economic develop-

ment and the environment. Some environmental re-

searchers have gone on to consider the impacts of

implementing sustainable development on industrial

and economic development (see for example, Ekins,

1986; Jacobs, 1991, 1994; Jenkins and McLaren,

1994). It is perhaps surprising, given the economic

background to many current environmental issues,

that they have not received more attention from those

involved in debates over economic restructuring.

While there was a short-lived concern with these

issues in the 1970s and the 1980s by economic geog-

raphers (see for example, Walker et al., 1979; Staf-

*School of Geography & Earth Resources, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX.

1

ford, 1985) the environment has, in the main, been

marginal to the economic restructuring research

agenda. A major concern of the latter, at least in

Western Europe and North America, over the past

decade has been the implications for local and re-

gional economies of the processes of economic re-

structuring consequent upon the shift from Fordism

to an as yet indeterminate form of post-Fordism

(Storper and Scott, 1992). Such processes have also

been the subject of theoretical investigation, with a

particular emphasis upon using the political economy

approach of regulation theory to understand and

explain change. Within this agenda. environmental

factors have played a minor role and research into

economic restructuring has effectively proceeded in

parallel with environmental research. The purpose of

this paper is to argue that the growing adoption of

sustainable development as a central guiding prin-

ciple for economic development necessitates the in-

corporation of environmental issues into work on

economic restructuring. After outlining the major

environmental issues and the growth of interest in

sustainable development in the next section, the

limited amount of research into economic restructur-

2 David Gibbs

ing and the environment is criticized. Following this, a preliminary attempt is made to explore the potential use of regulation theory to combine debates on econ- omic restructuring and sustainable development.

2. Environmental Issues and Sustainable Devel- opment

Given the aims of this paper this section provides a brief overview, rather than a detailed analysis, of

environmental issues and sustainable development (see Pezzey, 1992; Blowers, 1993; Bartelmus, 1994; Turner, 1993 and Turner et aE., 1994 for overviews of

the debates). Some environmental issues, such as

smells, noise and litter, are more of a social rather than an environmental problem. While possessing a high nuisance value, they are essentially amenity impacts where the effects are relatively obvious and the remedial measures relatively well known, How-

ever, others are likely to have major impacts upon the

world environment, such as the potential for global warming and sea level changes as a consequence of

the enhanced greenhouse effect. Addressing these environmental issues is more problematic, given that both their impacts and the remedial measures pro-

posed are less certain. For the purposes of this paper, the notable point concerning these issues is that they are primarily generated by economic and industry-

related activities. For example, the main greenhouse gases, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and methane, result from electricity generation and use, transport,

coal mining and manufacturing production. In total, it is estimated that 62% of greenhouse gases pro- duced by human activity arise from industrial pro-

cesses, energy consumption and transport (Houghton

et al., 1992). Different pollutants result from different

sources, however. For example, in the U.K. the two main sources of nitrogen oxides are power stations and road transport; carbon dioxide results mainly from power stations and industry, while industry is the primary source of methane and volatile organic compounds (Smith, 1993; H.M. Government, 1990). Emissions of these pollutants on a world scale are not restricted to developed countries, but are also found in the former centrally planned economies of Eastern and Central Europe and increasingly in newly indus- trializing countries (Ludwig, 1990; Mumme and San- chez, 1992).

A major policy response at various spatial scales to these problems has been to argue that sustainable

development must form the basis of future economic development (H.M. Government, 1990, 1994; C.E.C. 1992; U.N.C.E.D. 1992). As opposed to earlier environmentalists’ claims that a ‘no-growth’

policy was needed, current environmental debates revolve around what type of development is to be achieved, with the objective of integrating economic

and environmental policies. Although sustainable development is a concept that has been around in

various guises for several years it acquired popular

momentum with the publication in 1987 of Our Com- mon Future, the report of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, or

the Brundtland Report as it is often called. Sustain- able development, in the much-quoted definition

utilized by the World Commission, ‘meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’

(W.C.E.D. 1987, p. 43).

A commitment to sustainable development has entered into all levels of policy making from the United Nations Commission on Environment and

Development’s (U.N.C.E.D.) global Agenda 21 pro- gramme (the 1992 ‘Earth Summit’) in Rio de Janeiro,

to the European Union’s Fifth Environmental Action Programme, entitled ‘Towards Sustainability’, to the national and local level (C.E.C. 1992; Gibbs, 1994a; H.M. Government, 1994; L.G.M.B., 1993; U.N.C.E.D., 1992). Many policy makers are agreed that sustainable development must form the basis of future economic policy, even if they are rather more

vague on what it means and how to achieve it. Policy makers have not been alone in their conversion to

sustainable development. In the early 1990s the International Chamber of Commerce (I.C.C.)

launched a Business Charter for Sustainable Devel-

opment (I.C.C., 1991) and the Business Council for Sustainable Development (B.C.S.D.) published an investigation of the implications of sustainable devel- opment for international business (Schmidheiny, 1992).

Sustainable development has been approached from a variety of different perspectives (Pezzey, 1992; Turner, 1993). A spectrum of perspectives from a technocentric ‘very weak sustainability’ position through to an ecocentric position of ‘very strong sustainability’ can be identified (see Table 1). This spectrum from weak(er) to strong(er) versions of sustainability is important because of the implications for understanding how implementing sustainable

Sustainable development and economic restructuring

Table 1. The spectrum of sustainable development

Version Features

Very weak sustainability

Weak sustainability

Strong sustainability

Very strong sustainability

Overall stock of capital assets remains stable over time, complete substitution between human and natural capital. Essential link between willingness to pay and sustainable development.

Limits set on natural capital usage. Some natural capital is critical, i.e. non-substitutable. Related to the precautionary principle or safe minimum standards. Tradeoffs still possible.

Not all ecosystem functions and services can be adequately valued economically. Uncertainty means whatever the social benefits foregone, losses of critical natural capital are not possible.

Steady-state economic system based on thermodynamic limits and constraints. Matter and energy throughput should be minimized.

Source: Derived from Turner (1993).

3

development will affect the economy (Gibbs, 1994b). Advocates of weak sustainability approaches assume that there is a very high degree of substitutability between human capital and natural capital. In these approaches environmental concerns assume a higher priority in economic policy, but there is no specifi- cation of the environmental quality to be achieved.

The emphasis will effectively be on raising environ- mental efficiency, i.e. reducing the environmental

impact of each unit of economic activity and address- ing individual parts of the economy, such as firms or

sectors, without a holistic approach to the environ- ment. Strong versions of sustainability, however, take issue with the assumption of almost infinite substitutability of resources and specify minimum levels of environmental quality to be achieved prior to consideration of other goals (Turner, 1993). Strong versions of sustainable development begin from a presumption that society cannot simply let economic activity result in a continual decline in the quality and functions of the environment even though it may be

beneficial in other ways (Daly and Cobb, 1989; Jacobs and Stott, 1992). In strong versions of sustain- able development there are lower limits to environ- mental quality, such that a sustainable economy is a constrained economy (Jacobs, 1991). Strong versions of sustainable development will require targets to be set for environmental impacts, such as emission levels, and measures taken to constrain firms and individuals to ensure that these targets are met such that the whole of the economy is affected, rather than some of its constituent parts (Jacobs and Stott, 1992). The spectrum is thus associated with differing views

on the required degree of intervention into the econ- omic system, which is necessary and sufficient for sustainable development (Turner, 1993). Under weak versions of sustainability the market plays a much greater role than in strong versions where direct intervention is necessary. A recent critique of the

concepts of weak and strong sustainability argues that both strong and weak versions are flawed and that

both can simply be replaced by the economist’s con- cept of optimality (Beckerman, 1994,1995a,b). How- ever, Beckerman’s definitions of strong sustainability

(as the preservation of all natural capital at any price) and weak sustainability (as enabling tradeoffs be- tween natural and human capital, subject to main- taining human well-being) are a rather crude caricature of the spectrum as outlined by Turner (1993).

3. Economic Restructuring and the Environment

The dominant research agenda within debates over

economic restructuring in recent years has been the practical and theoretical significance of changes from Fordism to some form of emergent post-Fordism (see for example the collections of papers in Dunford and Kafkalas, 1992; Storper and Scott. 1992; Amin, 1994). While there is considerable debate over under- standing the processes behind such changes, there is general agreement that ‘something fundamental has occurred’ and that this is reflected in changing indus- trial location and organization. A new set of indus- trial regions based on flexible production and new

4 David Gibbs

information and communication technologies has grown outside the core areas of mass production (Scott and Storper, 1992).

The limited amount of research which has considered these developments from an environmental perspec- tive has largely failed to appreciate the non-

deterministic nature of this work on economic re- structuring. A common theme has been to conflate

these observed changes in the economy with being the inevitable outcomes of a move to a specific form of post-Fordist economy, where new technologies and organizational structures enable a move towards dis-

persed and self-contained local economies. These arguments (see for example Friends of the Earth,

1990; Elkin et al., 1991; W.C.E.D., 1987) are largely derived from an optimistic reading of work on flexible

specialization and the creation of industrial districts (for example the work of Piore and Sabel, 1984; Hirst and Zeitlin, 1992). In such a scenario, flexible special- ization is seen as creating potential for the incorpor-

ation of environmental improvement. Thus Welford and Gouldson (1993) argue that the growth of small firms and smaller units of larger firms is an essential

part of a post-Fordist restructuring of industry towards a form of flexible specialization which will of

necessity incorporate total quality management and environmental management strategies.

In the Brundtland Report it is stated that the develop- ment of dispersed and self-contained economies will

have major environmental benefits, such as relieving urban areas of population and pollution pressures, producing consumer goods that cater to local markets and helping to diffuse environmental technologies (W.C.E.D., 1987). Information and communication technologies are said to offer new ways of working and make working at, or closer to, home a real

possibility with consequent reductions in pollution: “advanced . . technologies will help to bring pro- ductive work back into the home and neighbourhood, and enable local work to meet a greater proportion of

local needs than today” (Robertson, 1986, p. 87). A frequent assumption is that such information and communication technologies are inherently benign and that they allow opportunities for substitution between commuting and teleworking (Clark, 1993). Such technological change and a trend towards dis- persed small scale businesses is argued to be some- how naturally more environmentally-friendly than large business because dispersal is thought to involve local control (Friends of the Earth, 1990; Galtung,

1986). Such local control is proposed to mean less resource use and pollution than if control operates through distant decision makers with no local roots (Crabtree, 1990). A more self-reliant set of local economies will emerge that combines local control with reduced environmental impacts (Dauncey,

1986).

However, the supposedly beneficial environmental

consequences of recent trends in economic restruc- turing outlined by these authors rest upon a number of unsubstantiated assumptions. While the develop- ment of smaller scale and decentralized industry has

been a major trend within the structure of industry in developed countries in recent years, this does not automatically mean independent small firms. Large firms have been engaged in a process of disintegration and devolution to form smaller units. Production may be decentralized, but the decentralization of control and local autonomy may be limited. Moreover, the

local nature of production does not prevent problems arising such as the generation of local pollutants which contribute to global problems. The question of whether smaller units of a corporation are environmentally-beneficial, whereas large units of

the same organization are not is, perhaps, a moot point. The issue of whether a small unit or firm automatically leads to greater environmental respon- siveness is also a highly debatable one. Ironically, this

may be the case for small units of environmentally- aware corporations, but small firms do not necessarily have a good environmental record. In some cases their compliance rate with pollution restrictions and enforcing regulations on workplace and employee conditions, for example, are much poorer than larger firms (Robins and Trisoglio, 1992). Not only may large firms have the resources to invest in processes

and products for sustainable development, but they may be, for instance, more energy efficient or better able to utilize pollution abatement technologies due to their economies of scale. In some areas, such as waste disposal, small firms may be squeezed out of the market by increasingly stringent regulations. Cer- tainly any policy for sustainable development must address the issues of large firms, not only because of their importance for most economies, but also be- cause they may be in the forefront of moves towards sustainable development rather than a hindrance (Schmidheiny, 1992).

In total, work which has considered the environmen- tal impact of recent economic restructuring has taken

Sustainable development and economic restructuring 5

a partial view. An overemphasis upon some specific

concrete forms-the development of flexible special-

ization, smaller production units, new technologies-

has given rise to an argument that these are a necess- ary outcome of a post-Fordist economy and, more- over, one which will be in accordance with environmental improvement. This raises a number of problems. First, it assumes that these developments are inevitable and that incorporating sustainable development aims into policy will be going with the grain of economic restructuring. Second, it places a strong emphasis on changes in production as opposed to consumption issues. Third, it ignores the social

processes underlying economic restructuring, and the role of public policy in articulating these. The expla-

nations that this work offers are partial and over- prescriptive. Recent research into economic restruc-

turing has an important role to play in helping our understanding of the economic and spatial processes that underlie environmental problems. A more pro-

ductive explanation may come through making an explicit attempt to integrate environmental issues

into regulation theory. The next section of the paper investigates this potential in more detail.

4. Regulation Theory and the Environment

From an initial concern with documenting the rise of

new forms of organizational and production change, there has been a shift in research on economic re- structuring towards more significant theoretical work utilizing the political economy approach of regulation

theory as a means by which to understand the major changes underway in the world economy (Dunford and Kafkalas, 1992; Peck and Tickell, 1992,1994a,b; Storper and Scott, 1992; Tickell and Peck, 1992; Hudson, 1994). Regulation theory is an attempt to integrate the structural dynamics of capitalism with the institutional forms of society and provides a

conceptual framework for understanding processes of capitalist growth, crisis and reproduction. The

approach focuses on relationships between the pro- cess of accumulation and the ensemble of institutio- nal forms and practices which together comprise the

mode of social regulation (Peck and Miyamachi, 1994). These institutional forms and practices guide and stabilize the accumulation process and create a temporary resolution to the crisis tendencies which are seen to be endemic in the accumulation process. The mode of regulation is neither predetermined nor inevitable, as structural forms result from social

struggles and conflict. The mode of regulation is the

means of institutionalizing these struggles between

competing interests leading to the bounds that repro-

duce and legitimate the balance between production and consumption within a particular regime of accumulation (Marsden et al., 1993). This places emphasis on the relationships between the main

social actors in these processes, including the local and national state which act as mediators (Hudson, 1994). However, change in the social mode of regu- lation may be an outcome or a cause of economic change. The latter point is particularly relevant when considering the integration of the environment with

economic restructuring. It could be argued that the

rise of sustainable development indicates a growing social concern with the relevant balance between production and consumption. Certainly sustainable

development brings both production and consump- tion to the fore as inseparable in environmental

impact terms (Marsden et al., 1993).

A theoretical approach which integrates the econ- omic with the social would seem particularly appro- priate to incorporate environmental concerns

(Burgess, 1990). However, relatively few attempts have been made to link the explanatory power of regulation theory with emergent environmental con- cerns, the main exceptions being the work of Lipietz

(1992a.b) and Altvater (1993), who both see Fordism as inherently destructive of the environment, and

Drummond and Marsden (1995). The logic of a capitalist regime of accumulation founded on inten- sive growth and mass production for mass consump-

tion has been to both produce and stimulate consumption to the maximum (Lipietz, 1992b). (However, this was also true of former Eastern Euro-

pean state capitalism where the maximum accumu- lation of the means of production was the driving force of the system.) Industrial mass production not only required mass purchasing power and hence a Fordist social system of labour and remuneration, it also demanded massive supplies of raw materials and energy from the global economy. The reification of social relations-where people relate to one another

with money and commodities on the market+auses natural constraints on production and consumption to disappear from the consciousness of society. Nature only becomes relevant when it imposes addi- tional costs or disrupts human life (Altvater. 1993). Indeed, under Fordism, the ‘implacable logic’ of the system is that it is better to set about repairing any damage (thus boosting consumption) than not to

David Gibbs

pollute in the first place. The alternative, of reducing pollution by adding it to production costs, aggravates the supply-side crisis, with the result that it is seen as an unaffordable luxury-the choice is between jobs

and the environment. Such an impasse is not simply a question of having taken an unfortunate technical decision. ‘The ecological crisis highlights the inter- connection and interweaving of all the subsystems which the functionalist approach of productivism tried to isolate and put into separate boxes’ (Lipietz,

1992b, p. 55). In a market-led solution the conse-

quences of production and consumption are intro- duced into the system of values in a manner such that

they are handled as expenditure on ‘defensive costs of

growth’. Rebuilding the environment may itself thus become a field of capital accumulation, whereby the expansionist drive turns to reconstruct the environ-

ment itself as an artifact (Altvater, 1993). However, even if, for example, industrial waste is converted into use values to satisfy human needs, then it can

only be done through fresh expenditure of energy and materials and the repairs thus become part of the problem. The alternative is to organize the trans-

formation of energy and materials from the outset in such a way that unavoidable entropy increase is kept

as low as possible and to build into the functioning of the economic system a series of imperatives which

prevent ecological damage (Altvater, 1993). Indeed, this is precisely the argument which is advanced in

policies for sustainable development.

The logic of this is that any attempt to resolve the current environmental crisis solely through market mechanisms will be inadequate. The internalization

of environmental effects only represents a stop-gap, which does not compensate for the way in which natural conditions are altered through the throughput of materials and energy in production and consump- tion. Economic instruments may assist in decision

making and provide some relief, but:

Even if changes in the natural environment are valued in prices and compensated in money, they remain for some time a fact with which all economic actors have to reckon. Financial compensation for hydrospheric pollu- tion does not make the water clean again, and a charge for carbon dioxide emission does not hold back the greenhouse effect, so long as major technical changes are not introduced in the production process and con- sumer habits, individual and collective, are not adjusted to energy-saving norms. New procedures for market regulation are thus not alone specific. (Altvater, 1993, p. 186)

Moreover, because an ecological critique of political

economy hinges on an analysis of use-value, as materials and energy are transformed during the creation of use-values, the economic-ecological

impasse can not simply be treated as an ethical problem with the solution in changes of behaviour,

such as using less energy or leaving the natural en- vironment in no worse a condition for future gener- ations. Neither ethical nor purely market-led rules

are adequate. Such rules are insufficient without institutionalized rules of ecological behaviour. These imperatives must be institutionalized and equipped

with sanctions, so that they become behavioural con- straints for everyone. The ordering principles of this

new approach must be to develop not only technolo-

gies that use less energy and materials, but also new forms of production and consumption (Leff, 1995;

O’Connor, 1994).

Work from a regulationist approach indicates that such new forms could be developed given that the outcomes of economic restructuring are far from necessary, but open to debate and shaping (Geddes,

1996). There are opportunities to shape future devel- opment on a more sustainable basis. Past historical compromises have ‘resolved’ capitalist crises, which

at the time could have developed in various ways, such as the conflict between Fascism, Communism

and Social Democracy in the 1930s (Lipietz, 1992a). The latest crisis is as yet unresolved and we are in the middle of a period of conflict where debate is over

what form the new compromise should take. The currently ascendant neo-liberal ‘solution’ not only has a number of social and economic problems (the

polarization of society, the widening gap between

workers and firms, the return of business cycles, the way that the free trade spirit of neo-liberalism is a source of international instability) but, importantly, it continues to foster a use of the natural environment which will ultimately undermine its own basis

(Lipietz, 1992a; Peck and Tickell, 1994b).

A key area for future research, therefore, is to exam- ine the extent to which recent political, social and economic moves towards sustainable development

can be interpreted as part of an emergent mode of social regulation. It can be suggested that the current patchwork of international environmental agree- ments, growing public awareness of environmental issues, the rise of ‘green consumerism’, corporate environmentalism and the incorporation of sustain- able development into local and national economic policy represent constituent elements of a new mode

Sustainable development and economic restructuring 7

of social regulation (McGrew, 1993). However, at

present whether they can cohere into a mode of regulation is very much open to future shaping

through social struggle and conflict. It may be more appropriate at present to see environmentalism as one of a number of alternative strategies of regulation or new collective wills which have the potential to have a radical impact upon the conditions of existence of a regime of accumulation (Jessop, 1990). That the outcome may not necessarily be environmentally benign is indicated by the fact that certain elements of

capital are already using the concept of sustainable development for the continuation of a particular set of social relations (Blowers, 1993; Harvey, 1993). Its

adoption as a concept by the I.C.C. and B.C.S.D. may be a reflection of this and, as O’Riordan (1992)

points out. is an aspect of the changing relationship

between modern environmentalism and legitimation of the survival of capitalism. It is well to heed Har- vey’s (1993, p. 22) words that ‘all ecological projects (and arguments) are simultaneously political- economic projects (and arguments) and vice versa. Ecological arguments are never socially neutral any more than sociopolitical arguments are ecologically neutral’.

In the longer term the whole issue of environmenta-

lism and sustainable development may prove to be a

Pandora’s box which policy makers and industrialists wish they had never opened. While the scale and consequences of environmental problems are such

that the modest reforms currently on offer through weak forms of sustainability are inadequate for the task, it is possible that these reforms will create a

momentum for the more radical measures of stronger sustainability (O’Riordan, 1992). If sustainable development does become the guiding principle of economic development then radical changes in the form and nature of capitalism will be proposed. At

the very least, sustainable development measures are incompatible with the type of neo-liberal, free- market policies that have gained ground in many developed countries in recent years (Jacobs, 1991; Peck and Tickell, 1994b). Coordination, coop- eration, equity and democratic involvement are es- sential features of policies for sustainable development. If only lip service is paid to sustainable development, ignoring environmental problems will not miraculously cause the threat from environmen- tal degradation to capitalism to go away.

At present sustainable development and state action

(‘real regulation’) to achieve it can largely be seen as a

continuation of past measures to legitimate certain

levels of environmental impact. Thus past pollution

legislation acted to legitimate certain fractions of capital and exclude other fractions, for example in the original U.K. Alkali Acts of the 1860s (Jenkins, 1994). New definitions of the acceptable level of

environmental impact, at a level which will necessit- ate major change in the operation of capitalism, are likely to result from the incorporation of sustainable development into policy. Exactly how this is to be

achieved remains unclear (McManus, 1994). One area of broad agreement however is that current economic and social processes are unlikely to lead to

automatic adjustment towards sustainable develop- ment. ‘It follows from this that if sustainability is to be

progressed it will be because it has been purposively

and objectively promoted through policies informed and empowered by a substantive theory of what

sustainable development must be and how it can be brought about and maintained’ (Drummond and Marsden, 1995, p. 53). Regulation theory offers a theoretical context which can help to inform how such adjustments can be made. The mode of social regu-

lation has a variety of forms, from the ‘real regu- lation’ of laws and concrete structures through to

more intangible elements, such as values and norms of behaviour. Peck and Tickell (1992) suggest that

five levels of abstraction can be identified (see Table 2). While these levels have neither potential or mean- ing in isolation, they do allow a consideration of the

potential ‘intervention points’ for action (Drummond and Marsden, 1995).

The existence of these levels of abstraction indicates that sustainable development will need to be pro- moted at a number of intervention points and at a number of spatial scales. Intervention at the level of regulatory forms may be easier to initiate and com-

prehend, but such concrete forms of intervention

must be underpinned by complementary social values and norms, i.e. the mode of social regulation as a whole (Drummond and Marsden, 1995). As Flynn and Marsden (1995, p. 1186) point out, “regulation may be formalised through the enactment of legisla- tion or established socially through sets of social practices, backed up by political and/or economic power”. The value of taking a regulation approach lies in identifying the need for this totality of approach rather than upon any individual form or scale. The use of regulation theory suggests that ‘real regulation’ by itself will not be enough to move

8 David Gibbs

Table 2. Modes of social regulation

l The mode of social regulation (MSR) represents the concept in its most abstract form. as a generalized theoretical structure abstracted from the concrete conditions experienced in individual nation states (e.g. competitive regulation, monopoly regulation).

Within each MSR, a certain set of regulatory functions must be dispensed in order for the accumulation system to be stabilized and reproduced (e.g. the regulation of business systems, formation of consumption norms).

The regulatory system is a more concrete and geographically specific manifestation of the abstract MSR, typically (although not necessarily) articulated at the level of the nation state (e.g. U.S. Keynesianism, Pax Britannica).

Regulatory functions are dispersed through the operation of regulatory mechanisms, specific to each regulation system, which are historically and geographically distinctive responses to the regulatory requirements of the accumulation system (e.g. mobilization of labour power, codification of financial regulation).

Regulatory forms represent those concrete institutional structures through which regulatory mechanisms are realized, although there need not be a straightforward one- to-one correspondence between mechanism and form (e.g. local states, legislative systems).

Source: Peck and Tickell (1992).

5. Conclusions towards sustainable development, but that this must

be combined with changes in values and attitudes

(Goodwin et al., 1995). Regulation theory proposes

that the form of social regulation and the balance

between production and consumption is open to

struggle between competing interests. Shifts in values

and attitudes will themselves be highly differentiated,

‘in some areas and situations a more sustainable

future will be promoted and in others resisted’ (Flynn

and Marsden, 1995, p. 1189). The spectrum of sustai-

nability outlined in Table 1 may be associated with a

spectrum of policy and social changes which attempt

to address the challenge of sustainable development.

This could range from a ‘business as usual’ scenario,

where very weak sustainability is promoted through

purely market measures, through to weak sustainabi-

lity, where market measures are combined with some

measures of international cooperation and agree-

ment, through to stronger sustainability, where inter-

national agreements and binding protocols are

produced, together with national and local im-

plementation. Combined with major changes in indi-

vidual and collective behaviour, this would

effectively mean the establishment of a new regime of

accumulation and mode of social regulation. It seems

unlikely that weaker sustainability measures will be

sufficient to resolve the structural challenges to the

Fordist regime of accumulation posed by the major

environmental issues outlined in Section 2, but the

exact form of stronger sustainability measures still

require clarification (Pezzey, 1992).

This paper started out from the premise that environ-

mental problems are largely the product of economic

and industrial activity and therefore should be of

interest to those involved in debates over economic

restructuring. Moreover, the potential impacts upon

global economies and societies from these environ-

mental problems if left unchecked (global warming,

sea level change) are of such an order of magnitude

that they necessitate a whole new approach to con-

cepts of economic development. Such a new

approach is supposedly enshrined in the idea of sus-

tainable development, but it has been argued here

that approaches to economic restructuring that have

been developed to date from an environmental per-

spective lack rigour and rest largely upon unsup-

ported assumptions concerning the role of technology

and industrial organization. It is in this context that

recent work on economic restructuring helps to

illuminate some of these issues through work on the

transition from Fordism. This work illustrates the

problematic nature of dispersed industrial develop-

ment and points out that economic activity is under-

going concentration rather than a move towards local

control. The contradictory nature of information and

communication technologies can also be highlighted,

in that while they can act as a means of dispersal and

decentralization, they also allow centralization of

control. These stand in contrast to an environmental

analysis which conflates observed economic changes

Sustainable development and economic restructuring 9

with necessary outcomes. The benefits of adopting a Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the En-

regulation& approach are that regulation theory vironment and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press, Bos- ton MA.

makes clear the non-deterministic nature of post- Dauncey, G. (1986) A new local economic order, In: The Fordism and that the future form of the economy is Living Economy: a New Economics in the Making, pp,

open to shaping and debate; it emphasizes the need to 264-272, P. Ekins (Ed.). Routledge, London.

consider both economic and social processes as an Drummond, I. and Marsden, T. (1995) Regulating sustain-

able development, Global Environmental Change, 5, integrated whole; and it indicates that sustainable 5163.

development will need to be promoted at a variety of Dunford, M. and Kafkalas, G. (1992) Cities and Regions in

levels and scales. In practical terms, more research in the New Europe: the Global-Local Interplay and Spatial

this area would directly contribute to devising appro- Development Strategies. Belhaven, London.

Ekins, P. (1986) The Living Economy: a New Economics in priate policy outcomes. In theoretical terms such the Making. Routledge, London.

work could investigate the creation of the institutio- Elkin, T., McLaren, D. and Hillman, M. (1991) Reviving

nal basis of sustainable economies or the form of the the City. Friends of the Earth, London.

mode of social regulation associated with sustainable Flynn, A. and Marsden, T. (1995) Guest editorial, En-

vironment and Planning A, 27, 1180-l 192. development and whether this can cohere to resolve Friends of the Earth (1990) Beyond Rhetoric: an Economic

the crisis of capitalism that stems from environmental Framework for Environmental Policy Development in

problems. the 1990s. Friends of the Earth, London.

Galtung. J. (1986) Towards a new economics: on the theory

Acknowledgements-The financial support of the Econ- and practice of self-reliance, In: The Living Economy: a

omic and Social Research Council’s Global Environmental New Economics in the Making, pp. 98109, P. Ekins

Change Programme (grant number L320253132), under (Ed.). Routledge, London.

which this research is being conducted, is acknowledged. I Geddes, M. (1996) Local strategies for environmentally

am particularly grateful for the comments of two anony- sustainable economic development, International Jour-

mous referees, and to Graham Haughton. Ray Hudson, nal of Urban and Regional Research.

Jamie Peck and Adam Tickell, on earlier versions of this Gibbs, D. (1994a) Towards the sustainable city: greening

paper. the local economy, Town Planning Review, 65,99-109.

Gibbs, D. (1994b) The implications of sustainable develop- ment for industry and employment in the 1990s The Environmentalist, 14, 183-192.

References Goodwin, M., Cloke. P. and Milbourne, P. (1995) Regu-

lation theory and rural research: theorising contempor-

Altvater, E. (1993) The Future of the Market: an Essay on ary rural change, Environment and Planning A, 27,

the Regulation of Money and Nature after the Collapse of 124551260.

‘Actually Existing Socialism’. Verso, London. Harvey, D. (1993) The nature of environment: the dialec-

Amin, A. (1994) Post-Fordism: a Reader. Blackwell, tics of social and environmental change, Socialist Regis-

Oxford. ter, pp. l-51. Merlin Press, London.

Bartelmus, P. (1994) Environment, Growth and Develop- Hirst, P. and Zeitlin, J. (1992) Flexible specialization

ment: the Concepts and Strategies of Sustainability. versus Post-Fordism: theory, evidence and policy imph-

Routledge, London. cations, In: Pathways to Industrialisation and Regional

Beckerman. W. (1994) ‘Sustainable development’: is it a Development, pp. 70-115, M. Storper and A. Scott

useful concept? Environmental Values, 3, 191-209. (Eds). Routledge, London.

Beckerman, W. (1995a) How would you like your ‘sustai- H.M. Government (1990) This Common Inheritance, Cm

nability’, sir? Weak or strong? a reply to my critics, 1200. H.M.S.O., London.

Environmental Values, 4, 169-179. H.M. Government (1994) Sustainable Development, Cm

Beckerman, W. (1995b) Small is Stupid: Blowing the Whis- 2426. H.M.S.O.,London.

tle on the Greens. Duckworth, London. Houghton, J. T., Callander, B. A. and Varney, S. K. (1992)

Blowers, A. (1993) Planning for a Sustainable Environ- Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the

ment. Earthscan, London. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cam-

Burgess, J. (1990) The production and consumption of bridge University Press, Cambridge.

environmental meanings in the mass media: a research Hudson, R. (1994) New production concepts, new pro-

agenda for the 199Os, Transactions of the Institute of duction geographies? Reflections on change in the auto-

British Geographers, 15, 139-161. mobile industry, Transactions of the Institute of British

Clark, M. (1993) Long term livelihood, Town and Country Geographers, 19, 331-345.

Planning, March, 3841. International Chamber of Commerce (1991) The Business

Commission of the European Communities (1992) Charter for Sustainable Development. ICC, Paris.

‘Towards Sustainability’-a European Community Pro- Jacobs, M. (1991) The Green Economy. Pluto Press, Lon- gramme of Policy and Action in Relation to the Environ- don. ment and Sustainable Development. COM 92(23), CEC, Jacobs, M. (1994) Green Jobs? The Employment Impli- Brussels. cations of Environmental Policy. World Wide Fund for

Crabtree, T. (lY90) Regenerating local economies, Town Nature, Godalming. and Country Planning, June, 176178. Jacobs, M. and Stott, M. (1992) Sustainable development

Daly,H. E.andCobb,J.B. (1989) FortheCommonGood: and the local economv. Local Economv. 7.261-272. 2

10 David Gibbs

Jenkins, T. (1994) The relationship between innovation and environmental regulation in the U.K. specialised organic chemicals industry, Unpublished PhD thesis, Manchester Metropolitan University.

Jenkins, T. and McLaren, D. (1994) Working Future? Jobs and the Environment. Friends of the Earth, London.

Jessop, B. (1990) Regulation theories in retrospect and prospect, Economy and Society, 19,153-216.

Leff. E. (1995) Green Production: Toward an Environmen- tal Rationality. Guilford Press, New York.

Lipietz, A. (1992a) Towards a New Economic Order: Postfordism, Ecology and Democracy. Polity Press, Cambridge.

disorder, In: Post-Fordism: a Reader, pp. 280-315, A. Amin (Ed.). Blackwell, Oxford.

Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (1994b) Jungle law breaks out: neoliberalism and global-local disorder, Area, 26, 317- 326.

Pezzey, J. (1992) Sustainability: an interdisciplinary guide, Environmental Values, 1,321-362.

Piore, M. and Sabel, C. (1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. Basic Books, New York.

Lipietz, A. (1992b) The regulation approach and capitalist crisis: an alternative compromise for the 199Os, In: Cities and Regions in the New Europe: the Global-Local Inter- play and Spatial Development Strategies, pp. 309-334, M. Dunford and G. Kafkalas (Eds). Belhaven, London.

Local Government Management Board (1993) Greening Economic Development. L.G.M.B., Luton.

Ludwig, H. F. (1990) Moving towards economic-cum- environmental sustainability in Asian developing countries, The Environmentalist, 10, 237-280.

McGrew, A. (1993) The political dynamics of the ‘new’ environmentalism, In: Business and the Environment: Implications of the New Environmentalism, pp. 12-26, D. Smith (Ed.). Paul Chapman Publishing, London.

McManus, P. (1994) Sustainability and international polit- ical economy: a lasting relationship or a one night stand? Paper presented to the conference ‘Struggling with Sus- tainability’. Staffordshire University, 15 September.

Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R. and Flynn, A. (1993) Constructing the Countryside. U.C.L. Press, London.

Robertson, J. (1986) What comes after full employment? In: The Living Economy: a New Economics in the Making, pp. 85-96, P. Ekins (Ed.). Routledge, London.

Robins, N. and Trisoglio, A. (1992) Restructuring industry for sustainable development, In: Policies for a Small Planet, pp. 157-194, J. Holmberg (Ed.). Earthscan, London.

Scott, A. and Storper, M. (1992) Industrialization and regional development, In: Pathways to Industrialisation and Regional Development, pp. 3-17, M. Storper and A. Scott (Eds). Routledge, London.

Schmidheiny, S. (1992) Changing Course: a Global Busi- ness Perspective on Development and the Environment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Smith, D. (1993) Business and the Environment. Rout- ledge, London.

Mumme, S. P. and Sanchez, R. A. (1992) New directions in Mexican environmental policy, Environmental Manage- ment, 16.465474.

Stafford, H. A. (1985) Environmental protection and industrial location, Annals of the Association of Ameri- can Geographers, 75,227-240.

Storper, M. and Scott, A. (1992) Pathways to Industrialisa- tion and Regional Development. Routledge, London.

Tickell, A. and Peck, J. (1992) Accumulation regulation and the geographies of post-Fordism: missing links in regulationist research, Progress in Human Geography, 16,190-218.

O’Connor. M. (1994) Is Capitalism Sustainable? Political Economy and the Politics of Ecology. Guilford Press, New York.

O’Riordan, T. (1992) The environment, In: Policy and Change in Thatcher’s Britain, pp. 297-324, P. Cloke (Ed.). Pergamon, Oxford.

Peck, J. and Miyamachi, Y. (1994) Regulating Japan? Regulation theory versus the Japanese experience, En- l,ironment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12, 639- 674.

Turner, R. K. (1993) Sustainability: principles and prac- tice, In: Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice, pp. 3-36, R. K. Turner (Ed.). Belhaven, London.

Turner, R. K., Pearce, D. andBateman, I. (1994) Environ- mental Economics: an Elementary Introduction. Harves- ter Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Develop- ment (1992) Agenda 21, UNCED, Conches, Switzer- land.

Walker, R., Storper, M. and Gersh, E. (1979) The limits of environmental control: the saga of Dow in the delta, Antipode, 11,48-60.

Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (1992) Local modes of social Welford, R. and Gouldson, A. (1993) Environmental Man- regulation? Regulation theory, Thatcherism and agement and Business Strategy. Pitman, London. uneven development, Geoforum, 23,347-363. World Commission on Environment and Development

Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (1994a) Searching for a new (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, institutional fix: the after-Fordist crisis and global-local Oxford.