Internationales Institut für Umwelt und Gesellschaft (IIUG) International Institute for Environment and Society Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin

IIUG pre 86-2

POLITICAL ECOLOGY AND THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

The State of the Art

by

Philip D. Lowe* and Wolfgang Rüdig**

*Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, University College, Wates House, 22 Gordon Street, London. In 1984 Visiting Fellow at IIUG. **Department of Science and Technology Policy, The University of Manchester, Manchester.

To be published in: British Journal of Political Science

IIUG, Potsdam er Str. 58, 1000 Berlin 30, Tel. 030 - 26 10 71

SUMMARY

In this paper the authors take issue with a number of re­ search approaches which play a dominant role in the field of environmental sociology. The most important of them, the "value change" approach, has its limitations. It is always necessary to explain how values are created and sustained, and it is therefore not appropriate to regard them as inde­ pendent variables. The focus should rather be upon the ways in which resources are mobilised in pursuit of particular interests generated by the structural context; and the ways in which that context is maintained or transformed by the struggles which it facilitates. The authors argue for a revived case study approach supple­ mented by survey analysis of the general public and of en­ vironmental groups and their members. In the past, surveys have grossly neglected the situational context of environ­ mental attitudes and action. However, the case study approach is also beset by several shortcomings. Case studies will have to be guided by theoretical approaches which put the indi­ vidual case into a broader perspective. Furthermore, the authors have noted that the concept of political power is conspicuously absent from much current work in environmental sociology. The second major new impetus to the case study approach should be a stronger emphasis on comparative work. Environ­ mental conflicts in different areas, from air pollution to liquified natural gas and nuclear energy, should play a big­ ger role; and the studies should emphasize different cultural and political patterns. This has generally not been done in comparative research. The authors believe that these short­ comings can to some degree be explained by the gap between researcher and research object.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Die Autoren setzen sich mit einer Reihe von Forschungsansät­ zen kritisch auseinander, die in der Umweltsoziologie eine dominierende Rolle spielen. Der wichtigste unter ihnen, der "Wertwandel"-Ansatz, stößt in vielerlei Hinsicht an Grenzen. So ist es beispielsweise stets erforderlich zu erklären, wie bestimmte Wertvorstellungen geschaffen und erhalten werden. Aus diesem Grunde können sie nicht als unabhängige Variablen betrachtet werden. Der Fokus sollte eher darauf gerichtet sein, wie Ressourcen in Verfolgung bestimmter Interessen mobilisiert werden, die sich aus dem strukturellen Kontext ergeben, und darauf, wie dieser Kontext durch die Konflikte, die er bewirkt, aufrechterhalten oder transformiert wird. Die Autoren plädieren für eine Wiederbelebung des Fallstudien­ ansatzes, ergänzt um Meinungsumfragen in der Bevölkerung so­ wie bei Umweltschutzgruppen und ihren Mitgliedern. Solche Um­ fragen haben in der Vergangenheit den situativen Kontext von Umweltverhalten und -handeln grob vernachlässigt. Der Fall­ studienansatz ist seinerseits ebenfalls mit einigen Unzuläng­ lichkeiten behaftet. Fallstudien bedürfen einer besseren theoretischen Basis, damit die individuellen Fälle auch in - 1 1 -

einem größeren Zusammenhang interpretiert werden können. Darüber hinaus haben die Autoren festgestellt, daß in vielen neueren Arbeiten zur Umweltsoziologie der Begriff "politische Macht" auffallend häufig fehlt. Ein weiterer neuer Impuls für den Fallstudienansatz sollte von einem vermehrten Einbezug komparatistischer Aspekte aus­ gehen. Analysen von Umweltkonflikten sollten mehr als bis­ her in unterschiedlichen Bereichen vorgenommen werden, z.B. von Luftverschmutzung zu Flüssiggas und Kernenergie, und sie sollten stärker auf kulturelle und politische Unterschiede abheben. Dies hat die komparatistische Forschung im allge­ meinen nicht zufriedenstellend geleistet, was nach Meinung der Autoren zum Teil dadurch erklärt werden kann, daß die Distanz zwischen Wissenschaftler und Untersuchungsgegenstand zu groß ist. 1

I. Introduction

The ’environment' as a political issue has had a mixed history. Its sudden upsurge in the late 1960s was followed by many ups and downs. It has, however,

continued to press itself onto the political agenda in various forms. Most recently, the rise of green parties in Western Europe has demonstrated that the environment is not one of many issues which come and go but has led to more fundamental political change.

The phenomena of environmental politics have attracted considerable attention from social scientists and in this paper we address some of the resulting literature. In general, the standard of scholarship has not been high, and our objective is to bring a sharper intellectual and methodological focus to the task of explaining the social and political manifestations of environmental concern. In summary, our objections are that the literature is divided between too much uninformed and heavy-handed empiricism, on the one hand, and too much grand theorising and pontificating on the other. We would argue that there has been insufficient attention to the specifics of environmental problems and conflicts, and insufficient, intelligent use of middle-range social and political theories.

The literature can broadly be split into two areas: the first covering primarily the attitudes and values of the mass public; and the second examining environmental groups, activists and actions. After reviewing each of these, we will then examine what potentially can be learnt from comparing environmental politics in different countries. 2

II. Environmental Attitudes and Value Change

Most of the empirical research conducted internationally on environmental movements has assumed that the key causal factor is a widespread change in values, i.e. that the environmental movement arises from a secular shift in popular attitudes. The explicit assumption is that values determine behaviour.

Survey research on environmental attitudes has been one of the most frequent approaches taken by environmental sociologists, particularly in the

United States. A stream of surveys has been carried out, trying to establish the size and social characteristics of support for environmental protection measures (see Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978a, for a comprehensive compilation of the earlier studies in this field). Most of this research, though usually quite atheoretical, is within an empiricist tradition of political psychology.

Many studies have been little more than crude opinion polls. As Heberlein

(1981) comments: "The literature on environmental attitudes broadly defined is remarkably atheoretical and ad hoc. It neither builds on nor, with several exceptions, contributes to attitude theory".

Even so, there have been a number of interesting findings. Firstly, despite variations in the degree of concern, there appears to be a relative stability of attitudes to environmental protection. A number of longitudinal studies initially seemed to suggest that in the U.S. popular concern for the environment had peaked in the early 1970s only to decline sharply in subsequent years. Recently, this has been called into question. Drawing on more comprehensive survey data collected on a nation-wide basis and requiring respondents to make trade-offs rather than merely identify problems, Mitchell (1979a;1984), Lowe and his colleagues (1980) and Lake (1983) have shown that environmental attitudes are much more stable and have remained widespread. Indeed, it has been argued that the superficial beliefs that most other surveys have tapped are merely a 3

reflection of the immediately prevailing preoccupations of the mass media

(Heberlein 1981). There has been much less survey work in other countries,

though a series of surveys has shown that the relative importance popularly

accorded to the protection of the environment by the West German public is

high and stable over time (Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen 1978).

The other main thrust of attitudinal research has been to correlate

pro-environmental beliefs with demographic characteristics. From a review of

21 separate Amecican studies, Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) conclude that the

data consistently support three empirical generalisations: that "younger people, well educated people, and politically liberal people tend to be more concerned

about environmental quality than their older, less educated and politically

conservative counterparts". No consistent relationships were found for party identification, rural-urban residence, and occupational status.

The variation in concern with age has been explained in terms of the young being less integrated into the dominant social order and therefore more ready to accept solutions to problems which may require substantial changes in traditional values and behaviour (Hornback 1974). A rival explanation is that these age differences are not life-cycle effects but arise from the historically-specific, formative experiences of distinct age-cohorts, such as the anti-Vietnam protest (Buttel & Flinn 1978; Malkis & Grasmick 1977). Variations in concern with levels of education have been explained by reference to the concept of relative deprivation. The better educated, it is suggested, experience superior environmental conditions at work and in their leisure time, and are therefore likely to be more sensitive to environmental deterioration

(Morrison et al. 1972). Finally, variations in concern with left or right political leanings.have been explained on the basis that support for more strenuous environmental protection implies a lack of trust in the capacity of 4

business or industry to act responsibly, and a preference for more

interventionist government (Dunlap 1975; Buttel & Flinn 1976).

The search for more profound theoretical explanations than these low-level

hypotheses has gone beyond the narrow confines of attitudinal studies. The

question of the widespread value changes amongst Western publics underlying new

social movements has been centrally addressed in the writings of post-industrial

society theorists. The most influential author has been Ronald Inglehart,

who, in a series of writings (1971, 1977, 1981), formulated his thesis of

"post-materialist value change". Inglehart diagnosed a widespread shift away

from the unquestioned predominance of economic and basic security values

towards an increasing emphasis upon what Maslow had characterised as "higher

order" needs (i.e. the needs for love, esteem and status and for intellectual

and aesthetic satisfaction). The former, Inglehart termed "materialist values";

and the latter "post-acquisitive" and, later, "post-materialist" values.

Inglehart’s explanation originally rested on two propositions: firstly,

that basic needs have to be met before non-material needs can play any role,

and, secondly, that value systems are acquired in the formative years of

childhood and youth, and tend to remain relatively stable thereafter. These

account for the different priorities represented among people raised amidst

post-war prosperity and security. Unlike their parents or grandparents who

grew up during the Depression or one of the World Wars when scarcity and

physical danger posed such immediate threats, the post-war generation, it is

suggested, has been freed to demote safety and material needs among their

personal priorities and concentrate instead upon fulfilling their belonging needs and intellectual and aesthetic drives. In more recent writings Inglehart

(1979, 1981) has added a scarcity hypothesis to tie up with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Similar to the economic theory of diminished marginal utility, this 5 proclaims that people accord a higher priority to whatever needs are least met.

Initially, Inglehart did not refer to the environmental movement as an expression of post-materialist value change. Indeed, the only relevant item on his scale - "Try to make our cities and countryside more beautiful” - proved to be unrelated to the materialist/post-materialist divide. Hildebrandt and

Dalton (1977) were perhaps the first to identify environmental concern and protest against nuclear energy with post-materialism. The connection became more suggestive through the work on "unconventional political participation" by Barnes and Kaase and their colleagues (1979). Inglehart himself first addressed the connection in 1979 and has devoted more attention to it in later papers (1981, 1983a) in which he advances the claim that post-materialists

"furnish the ideologues and core support for the environmental, zero-growth and anti-nuclear movements; and their opposition to those who give top priority to re-industrialisation and re-armament constitutes a distinctive and persistent dimension of political cleavage" (Inglehart 1982).

Recently, there has been a wave of articles drawing on the concept of

'post-materialist value change' as a major explanatory factor for the rise of environmentalism, though some of them do express reservations about one or other element of Inglehart's theory (Watts 1979; Watts & Wandesforde-Smith

1981; Müller-Rommel and Wilke 1981; Handley and Watts 1981; Müller-Rommel

1982a, 1983b). Corroborating survey data suggest that 'post-materialists' are more likely than 'materialists' to:

- support environmental protection measures;

- be opposed to nuclear energy and "stronger military defence

efforts";

- have a high opinion of the environmental movement (Inglehart 6

1981, 1983);

- Support actively the ecological, anti-nuclear energy

and peace movements (Müller-Rommel 1984a, 1985); and

- vote for a green party (Müller-Rommel & Wilke 1981;

Müller-Rommel 1983b, 1984b; Schmidt 1984).

One author has summarised the argument in the following terms:

environmentalist politics arise because of the growth of a new generation of well-educated and materially-secure activists with a taste for direct action politics and a very basic disposition to devalue unfettered economism in favour of higher-order goals that naturally include greater social integration, democratic partici­ pation, and aesthetically pleasing surroundings (Marsh 1981, p.136).

Other writers associate post-materialism with the more radical expressions of

environmentalism. For example, Watts and Wandesford-Smith (1981) argue that:

The ideological shift characteristic of post-materialists is not found among all environmentalists, some of whom are quite comfortable with the dominant values of the system. The overlap is rather between post-materialism and those recently developing elements of the environmental movement that have begun to articulate a critique of the techno-scientific rationale of industrial society.

This links up with other theories which see radical environmentalism as being motivated by a distinct world view, termed the New Ecological (or Environmental)

Paradigm, at odds with many of the core values of industrial society, such as economic growth, material progress and technological optimism (Dunlap and

Catton 1980; O ’Riordan 1981; Dunlap and Van Liere 1978b; Cotgrove 1982).

A major problem in assessing the relationship between ’post-materialism’ and

’environmentalism’ is the danger of tautology. Originally, 'post-materialists’ were defined as those who give priority to "protecting freedom of speech” and

"giving people more say in the decisions of government” over the "protection of order in the nation" and the "fighting of prices" (Inglehart 1971). The term 'post-materialism', however, is increasingly used not exclusively as an analytical concept in connection with Inglehart's original scale, but 7

heuristically to characterise a generic set of values and attitudes which

include environmental ones (Fietkau 1982a; Fietkau et al. 1982). Inglehart's

original theory is thus not necessarily accepted by authors who seek to explain

'post-materialist value change'. Fietkau (1982a), for example, draws on a

number of psychological explanations to suggest that environmental consciousness

is a reaction to the experience of loss of control over one's immediate

surroundings through the emergence of new - ecological - problems not amenable

to established processes for problem solving.

A theory can be evaluated at different levels: are its assumptions

plausible? is it logically consistent? and how well can it explain social

reality? Inglehart's theory has come under attack on all three counts:

Maslow's hierarchy of needs, or Inglehart's use of it, is by no means

universally accepted (Herz 1979; Fietkau 1982a; Flanagan 1982). Similarly,

the assumption that values acquired during adolescent socialisation remain

I relatively stable throughout life has been seriously questioned (Lafferty

1976; Herz 1979; Lehner 1979). Some authors see a contradiction in Inglehart’s

combining of the hierarchy of needs/scarcity hypothesis with the socialisation

hypothesis: the former assumes that people change their values according to

the relative fulfilment of different needs; whereas the latter proclaims the

stability of a value system once it has been acquired.

This theoretical challenge has been backed up by empirical studies in

Western European countries which have shown that worsening economic conditions

led to dramatic swings in value orientations among all age cohorts during the

late 1970s (Böltken and Jagodzinski 1985; Van Deth 1983). These findings of

significant intra-individual value change cast doubt on the dominant cohort

effect implied by Inglehart's theory. Others have reassessed Inglehart's findings on value change in Japan, arguing that ageing rather than generational 8

change is wholly or partly responsible (Flanagan 1982; Jagodzinski 1983).

Inglehart (1985a & b) has dismissed some of these results as sampling

anomalies or misunderstandings of his theory, and has accounted for fluctuations

in support for post-materialism by reference to changes in the infation rate.

Though this appears empirically convincing, it renders talk of value change

trivial if its index is so dependent on the erratic movements of one parameter.

It would also seem to represent a weakening of Inglehart's original socialisation

hypothesis; and his more recent clarification of his position — that value

change can be explained by short-term period effects superimposed on long-term

cohort effects (1983) — • appears to be sufficiently imprecise to make a final

falsification of his theory difficult. It thus appears questionable to make

Inglehart's theory of value change the basis of environmental sociology.

Indeed, we have fundamental misgivings about the general enterprise to

conceptualise environmentalism purely in terms of value change. One of our main reservations is that this effectively divorces environmental concern

from ecological problems. The environment is seen as just one among many

"post-materialist" issues which suddenly emerged to prominence, unrelated to any change in the environment, through a shift in values among people who had nothing else to worry about. Such a line of thought can lend itself to the view that environmentalism is not only a luxury, but is socially pathological.

For example, starting from the unsupported assumption that environmental concern in America has emerged at a time when environmental hazards are objectively at their lowest level, Douglas and Wildavsky (1982) argue that there is no causal relationship between environmental problems and the environmental movement; and they proceed to analyse it as a form of sectarian protest with origins in peculiar features of American culture (see Holdren 1983 for a thorough critique). 9

Equally, within the value change tradition, the form and content of political

action are regarded as essentially epiphenomenal. Survey research on

post-materialism and unconventional political action carried out in the 1970s

conspicuously lacked any reference to concrete conflicts but rather dealt with

the 'potentials’ identified in the sampled attitudes of mass publics, thereby

neglecting the context in which actions do or do not occur and through which

values are mediated. Whatever the relative merits of sampling methods and data

analysis of the different studies, the crucial question is whether the immense

effort committed to this form of research is of any use in the explanation of

real political phenomena. Depite the arbitrary connections various investigators draw between particular parameters of their survey material and actual events, it appears to us that the enormous literature generated around Inglehart’s

theory deals essentially with research artefacts whose relevance to the analysis of political reality is at best tenuous.

Moreover, the derivation of belief systems from questionnaire responses conveys the impression that values are distinct, absolute and timeless entities, even though people are ambivalent about many of the attitudes they hold and draw (often quite eclectically) on specific and evolving traditions of argument to defend or promote their positions. Ihdeed, after a decade of research little is known about popular environmental attitudes. There are few systematic studies that describe how people feel towards different environments, nor is there much information about how these feelings are organised into belief systems. There is a clear need for basic research on the significance people attach to changes in their own environment and what makes some translate concern into action. The relation between environmental problems and environmental attitudes is, in our view, one of the major research topics which has not been adequately addressed. What is needed instead of large-scale, mass opinion surveys 10

are detailed studies of local responses (or non-responses) to specific problems

in order to elucidate the determinants of concern and action.

Here research has been rather sketchy. A review of surveys on attitudes

towards nuclear installations shows quite clearly that concern is greatest

before construction, and that host communities develop a positive attitude to

plants in operation (Rüdig 1983a). Similarly, surveys of communities with

polluting industries show that people employed by or living close to the plants

express less concern about environmental conditions than do others (Evans &

Jacobs 1981; Francis 1983). These responses can best be explained as a process

of ’adaptation’ involving denial and suppression of the environmental hazards.

Recent studies of the perception and politics of hazardous working conditions

reveal similar processes at work (Kazis & Grossman 1982; Prescott-Clarke

1982; Nelkin & Brown 1984).

There are many other factors which could influence the formation of

environmental attitudes; two of the most important being the education

system and the media. Through television and newspaper coverage, for example, nature and the countryside have become key aspects of popular culture; public opinion has been alerted to various environmental hazards; and a succession of environmental issues has been placed on the political agenda. This raises important questions about the attitudes of journalists and broadcasters to environmental issues, the editorial constraints they face, and the impact of environmental reporting on popular and elite opinion (Lowe & Morrison 1984).

There is also a need for research on the history of ideas and cultural tastes, to put present environmental ideas into a broader context and to establish a deeper understanding of environmentalism’s historical role. Right from its earliest stages, industrialism has provoked popular reactions which have been partly nostalgic for the disappearing, pre-industrial world, partly 11

eschatalogical (fearing the outcome of the Faustian bargain of technological

society), and partly utopian in seeking to recreate community and human

solidarity out of the dislocation and fragmentation wrought by industrialism

(see Kumar 1978 for some suggestive insights).

In America, environmental history is a well developed field with its own

special journal, Environmental Review. A recent edited compilation also provides

a useful point of entry into the literature and some of its key themes (Bailes

1985). Thewritings of Samuel Hays have been particularly influential in relating

the development of environmental values and institutions to broad social and

economic changes (Hays 1958; and forthcoming).

In Europe, interest in the history of ecological ideas, though much less

developed, has been mounting. Thomas (1983) provides an exhaustive account of

changing attitudes to the natural world in England between 1500 and 1800.

Pepper (1984) concentrates on the historic-philosophical roots of the various

strands of modern environmentalism, a valuable contribution marred by a rather

simplistic and orthodox marxist interpretation. Wiener's (1981) celebrated

account of the roots of anti-industrialism in English culture also represents

a stimulating, if unintended, contribution to the history of environmentalism.

He fails, however, to reflect on his central assumption that British anti-industrialism is an essentially irrational and costly aberration: by comparison with the role of anti-industrialist ideology in Germany, the integration of these strands of thought within English society should be evaluated somewhat more favourably.

Rather than concentrating on literary or philosophical sources, it would be more fruitful to focus on the actual social and political manifestations of the precursors of environmentalism from the 19th century onwards. A modest start has already been made with some studies of this type on France (Vadrot 12

1978; Duclos & Smadja 1985), Germany (Wey 1982; Conti 1984; Rothschuh 1983),

Britain (Sheail 1976; Marsh 1982; Lowe 1983) and Japan (McKean 1983).

In contrast to studies which have values as both their central object of enquiry and the main concept in their explanatory scheme, other traditions of interpretative sociology have emphasised the ways in which people present their actions as being in conformity with norms which are, in turn, presented as embodying values. The concern, in short, is to demonstrate the processes by which the general is generated from the particular. It follows that it is inappropriate to see the beginnings of social action in values. Rather, as

Barnes (1982) has argued, ’’Any general sense of value must be maintained by the continuing, active, revisable clustering of particular instances. Values must be the products of communal activity, not part of the basis of community."

Such an orientation is at one with a concern to emphasise the mutually determining relationship between agency and structure whereby structure has both a constraining and an enabling role in relation to action and the exercise of power. In order to avoid the danger of lapsing into a tautology - where the evidence for a 'value* is simply a description of the behaviour it is then used to explain - it is always necessary to elucidate how values are created and sustained through actions and this means that though they may feature as intervening variables, it is seldom appropriate to regard them as independent variables. The focus should rather be upon the ways in which resources

(conceived in the broadest possible sense to include historical traditions, modes of political argument, the political skills of actors and so on) are mobilised in pursuit of particular interests generated by the structural con­ text; and the ways in which that context is maintained or transformed by the struggles which it facilitates. This directs attention specifically to rela­ tions of power - a concept conspicuously absent from environmental sociology 13 within the value change tradition.

In short, values abstracted from context are relatively meaningless. This is not to suggest, however, that people react mechanically to external problems.

On the contrary, environmental ideas and actions are responses on the part of people with particular aspirations and perceptions about their lives and surroundings. Analysis needs to understand how these aspirations and perceptions interact with changing environmental circumstances. At the heart of the matter are the critical choices people make in specific contexts and the way these choices are structured and constrained. 14

III. Environmental Action

Environmental attitudes' are not the only, and arguably not the most important,

environmental phenomena the social sciences are called upon to explain. More

or less powerful pressure groups, movements, and parties have emerged in this

field representing a variety of political action.

Four main methodologies have been used to approach environmental political

action:

(i) surveys of members of environmental groups;

(ii) action research/ sociological intervention;

(iii) group surveys; and

(iv) case studies.

These four approaches are not exclusive of each other. Often mixed

methodologies are used. Each approach has its methodological shortcomings

which in themselves are pertinent to a discussion of future research strategy,

but which in the case of the first and second approach, also implicate the

theoretical perspectives connected with them.

Research pursuing the first approach has predominantly been influenced by

the work on "value change" discussed above and has tended to focus on mass

publics and to lack reference to concrete political conflicts. It must be

accepted as a step forward therefore when researchers in West Germany, the

U.K. and the U.S. in a collaborative effort, turn their attention to the

characteristics of actual supporters of environmental groups and compare

their surveyed opinions with those of the general public and other groups which included samples of industrialists, politicians and trade unionists

(Fietkau et al. 1981a,b; 1982a,b; Kessel 1982, 1983a,b,c; Cotgrove 1982;

Milbrath 1981, 1984). However, with still no reference in this International

Environmental Survey to "situational” factors and concrete political conflicts, 15

and relatively scant attention paid to the particular development and characteristics

of environmental movements in the different countries, we feel that the move

to study concrete political action has not gone far enough. Indeed, one of the

researchers, Fietkau (1982b, p. 5) warns that due to different political systems

and the distinct organisation of environmental groups in the three countries,

the responses from politicians and environmentalists are not readily comparable.

Given this inherent shortcoming, one wonders why so much effort was spent on

gathering and interpreting data of doubtful value while no attempt was made to

reach a more substantive understanding of the political, cultural, and organisational background of environmental groups in the countries concerned.

To come to a more Immanent assessment of this work, the researchers confirmed the thesis that environmentalists are more inclined to

’post-materialist’ values than the general public, but demurred at Inglehart's explanation. Cotgrove and Duff found that it is not young middle-class people in general who are involved in environmental groups, as would be expected from

Inglehart’s socialisation hypothesis, but, more specifically, that activists are mainly employed in the personal service sector.

Cotgrove and Duff put forward two separate explanations (1980,1981); and they are unsure which is the more important and to what extent they are compatible. The first rested on the notion that early political socialisation might influence career choice; in particular, that environmental or anti-industrial values acquired at an early stage of socialisation would subsequently lead to occupational choices which avoided a clash between personal values and workplace values. Their alternative explanation was that environmentalism is "an expression of the interests of those whose class position in the non-productive (sic) sector locates them at the periphery of the institutions and processes of industrial capitalist societies”. 16

A number of writers have similarly located the shift in values represented

by environmentalism in the secular changes which are occurring to the structure

of advanced industrial societies. Explanations typically link environmentalism

with the rise of a 'new (middle) class' (see e.g. Berger 1979; Inglehart 1981;

Nelkin & Poliak 1981; Gouldner 1979). Bürklin (1983), for example, argues that

the voters for the German Greens predominantly represent a social group which has the educational prerequisites of a new political elite but which has not yet managed to establish itself (see also Marsh 1981). Drawing on Pareto's notion of elite circulation, Bürklin identifies the new elite's ecological inclinations with their objective self-interest in the maintenance and extension of the welfare and regulatory states. A similar argument is put forward by Ward (1983) who equates environmental regulation with an expansion of the state sector.

One difficulty with this approach is that there is much disagreement over who belongs to this new class, and whether they do constitute a class (see, e.g. Poulantzas 1975; Crompton & Gubbay 1977; Bruce-Briggs 1979; Walker 1979;

Parkin 1979). There are also problems in identifying the pro-environmental action of the new class with its own, well-understood interest. The demands of radical political ecology for fundamental change to industrial society do not accord with this model. The financing of the welfare state is dependent on continued economic growth - why should it be in the interests of those who work within it to demand the end of economic growth and a halt to major technological projects?

The political programme of the German Greens, which combines demands for curbs on industrial expansion with an extension of the welfare state, is thus highly contradictory. This being the case, there must be doubts about the adequacy of a 'class interest interpretation' both at the subjective level of political motivations as well as the objective level of political outcomes. 17

Of course, in some cases, environmental conflicts may reflect the special

interests of the middle classes to the detriment of the lower classes (see

Lowe 1977; Morrison & Dunlap 1985), but the larger ecological problematic is

not amenable to such an interpretation (provided one accepts that there are ecological problems and does not see environmentalism as an irrational aberration or a conspiracy of the ruling classes). As these problems potentially affect everybody, and as working class people are usually more exposed to environmental hazards than others, the fact that these issues are taken up by a particular social group cannot lead to the conclusion that they are doing so out of interests that are exclusively their own.

Theoreticians of the ’new social class' are not, however, alone in their emphasis on the self-interested nature of environmental activists. Olson's rational choice theory has recently been invoked to explain U.S. environmental lobbies and their pursuit of public goods. An empirical test by Tillock and

Morrison (1979), involving a survey of members of the group Zero Population

Growth, did not support the theory. Mitchell (1979b), however, attempted to reformulate it in a way which reconciles the social reality of major support for environmental associations with the view of individuals acting in an egoistic, rational, utility-maximising manner. He argues that in an individual's calculus of the personal costs and benefits of contributing or not-contributing to the efforts of public interest lobbies, the cost of supporting environmental organisations could well appear relatively trivial against the enormous potential benefits (the prevention or amelioration of pervasive environmental threats) to which these organisations allude. A further elaboration of the rational choice approach has been proposed by Smith (1985) in a study of U.S. environmental groups using complex economic models.

Rational choice models of human behaviour easily attract a charge of 18

tautology. The assumption of the ’rationality' of individual behaviour appears

to elude empirical testing, and a posteriori practically any action can be

characterised as ’rational’. Leaving such fundamental problems aside, are

rational choice models likely to add significantly to our understanding of

environmental action? Olson’s work remains an impressive source of ideas. It

may be particularly suited to the U. S. context where the environmental movement

consists mainly of institutionalised groups pursuing litigation or lobbying

with the role of individual members restricted largely to financial contributions

or, at most, participation in letter writing campaigns. In utilising it, however,

we would proceed somewhat differently from Mitchell.

Firstly, Olson’s analysis should direct our attention to the personal costs

of participation and their varying significance for different social groups.

For example, effective involvement in environmental politics usually demands a

large time commitment but this may not be a significant cost for those with

time on their hands. Secondly, the function of what Olson called "selective

incentives" should not be overlooked. In the case of certain established environmental organisations, it may well be that the reasons for joining are not to be found in their broader aims but in the essentially private benefits they offer to their members (Lowe & Goyder 1983, pp. 39-40). The British

National Trust is perhaps a prime example: its members enjoy the benefit of free access to the enormous range of country estates and historic buildings owned by the Trust.

In the case of the more activist groups, participation offers a range of non-material incentives such as social contacts and a sense of togetherness and purpose (Wilson 1973). Cohen (1981) found these motivations to be particularly pertinent in a study of the Clamshell Alliance, an anti-nuclear protest group which tried to stop construction of the Seabrook nuclear power 19

station in New Hampshire with various acts of civil disobedience. Those

participating in site occupations appeared particularly attracted by the

strong feeling of togetherness and common purpose experienced during these

actions.

Such findings might stimulate a reconsideration of the general theory

proposed by Komhauser (1960) that social movements are formed and run by

alienated individuals in search of social integration, and are therefore

pathological forms of human behaviour (this theme of the essential irrationality

of social movements has been a persistent strain in American sociology - see

Sammstedt 1978). Many studies have shown, on the contrary, that protest groups

emerge far easier if social cohesion in the relevant community is high (cp.

Isaacs et al., 1980; Useem 1980). Moreover, even if the attractions of

sociability and companionship play a part in recruitment, explanation is still

required of why people join environmental groups rather than sports or social

clubs.

We would thus agree with Mitchell's assertion that environmental activity must be explained as rational behaviour. At the same time, from an international perspective, it appears problematic to conceive this rationality narrowly in

terms of either individualistic, self-interested, utility-maximising individuals or the objective self-interest of a particular section of the population.

Far more convincing to us is an approach which focusses on the affinity with or distance from the industrial production process. Drawing on the finding that most radical environmentalists are either still in education or working in the personal service sector, Fietkau (1981, pp.7-8) interpreted environmental conflict as an antagonism not between generations nor between social classes, but between those inside and those outside the industrial process. We have already suggested a re-interpretation of these and other 20

results in terms of industrialism's political power forcing those groups most

immediately threatened by environmental hazards to 'adapt' and 'cope'.

The surveys of environmental activists reported so far suffer a common

drawback in their lack of reference to 'situational' factors and concrete

experiences of conflict. This, however, is not inherent in the method but

rather reflects the concentration on the value-change approach. A different

approach could well survey activists ' history of involvement and

self-understanding of their role, as in Parkin's (1968) and Taylor and

Pritchard's (1980) studies of the British peace movement. McKean (1981) adopted this approach in his 1972 survey of Japanese environmental activists. Other, similar studies have been conducted in the U.S., though on a smaller scale, including a survey in the late 1960s of members of the Sierra Club (Devall

1970); a national telephone poll of 1974-5 which relied on the respondent’s self-reported membership of an "environmental group” (cp. Mitchell & Davies

1978, pp. 31-2); interviews conducted in 1973 with some 30 leaders of anti-nuclear organisations (Mazur 1975); a series of interviews with participants at a national anti-nuclear demonstration in 1979 (Van Liere et al. 1979; Hood et al. 1982; Ladd et al. 1983); and a survey of members of the Clamshell Alliance

(Cohen 1981).

The question arises, though of how far should the researcher move away from classical survey analysis based on random samples and standardised interviews. At the furthest extreme stands the work of Alain Touraine and his colleagues presented in the book Anti-Nuclear Protest. Touraine's methodology was to instigate a process of discussion and reflection inside the French anti-nuclear movement. Selected anti-nuclear activists were first confronted with various opposing views (e.g. from nuclear managers and engineers, trade unionists, the military, and representatives of different factions within the 21

anti-nuclear movement). The ensuing discussions were followed by the

'intervention' when Touraine and his co-workers presented their own analysis

of the movement's social role. They seem, however, to have left too many

principles of empirical enquiry behind. Indeed, they do not appear to have

been genuinely interested in explaining why distinct factions in the movement

adopt different strategies and forms of protest. Instead, the purpose of the

exercise appears to have been in the dissemination of Professor Touraine's

ideas of the "true destiny" of the anti-nuclear movement — as, potentially,

the vanguard social movement in leading the way to the post-industrial society

-- and to "convert", to use his own vocabulary, as many of its activists to

that view (for a more detailed critique, see Rüdig and Lowe 1984).

Early work on the anti-nuclear movement in West Germany pursued a less

pretentious approach - that of ’action research' (Sternstein 1978; Ebert et

al. 1978; Schroeren 1977; and many contributions to the journal Gewaltfreie

Aktion). While Touraine's methodology maintains a definite distance between

the researcher and the research object, this is totally abandoned in action

research not only to achieve a more profound understanding of the phenomena but also to intervene in favour of underprivileged groups (Kramer et al. 1979),

Here the investigators are part of the movement, gather their data by participant observation and present their findings in a way the anti-nuclear movement can make practical use of. They have the opportunity to develop a deep understanding about the motivation, the outlook and experiences of the protest groups, gaining first-hand knowledge which is too often lacking in conventional case studies.

The closeness to the research object, however, has several disadvantages.

Action researchers may be unable to analyse the phenomena in a broader context, the identification with a protest group being so strong that they are unable 22

Co transcend or reflect upon the activists' point of view. Everything tends

to be judged on its merits for the political work of the group. It is this

lack of distance which characterises much of the German action research on

environmental conflicts. While it provides a wealth of interesting factual

information, it remains rather atheoretical and somewhat partisan.

Having found action research and membership surveys more or less flawed, what are the alternatives? One other approach is to survey environmental groups

rather than individual members. Organisation, size, membership, and patterns of political action of different environmental groups are scrutinised to establish their political role. In the U.K. there have been only two major surveys of this kind: one a large-scale survey of local amenity societies

(Civic Trust /Barker 1976; Barker & Keating 1977); the other a survey of national environmental groups carried out in 1979-80 (Lowe & Goyder 1983). For

France, there is nothing apart from Vadrot’s (1980) small and unsystematic survey. In Germany, plenty of survey material is available for the period between 1972 and 1977 (for an overview, see Rildig 1981), most of it not specifically on environmental groups but citizens action groups (Bürgerinitiativen) in general; and since 1977, the emphasis of empirical research has shifted away from the apparently declining Bürgerinitiativen to "self-help organisations"

(Beywl & Brombach 1984), other "new social movements" (Brand et al 1983) and the supporters of green parties. Von Moltke and Visser (1982) conducted a survey of

Dutch environmental groups, paying particular attention to the legal framework in which they operate; and Roddewig (1978) covered residents action groups and

"green bans" in Australia. We are not aware of any group surveys conducted in any other countries.

Finally, there is the traditional case study in which individual conflicts are investigated through various means including archival investigations, 23

scrutiny of published material such as newspaper and parliamentary reports,

participatory observation, and intensive interviews with participants. The

British and American literatures are perhaps richest in this regard (for

book-length studies, see Gregory 1971; Kimber & Richardson 1974; Hall 1976;

Smith 1975; Boyle 1978; Wynne 1982; Blowers 1984; Lowe et al 1985; Talbot

1972; Brodeur 1973; Egginton 1980; Casper & Wellstone 1981). Particularly

interesting as well are studies of the historical roots and genesis of

contemporary conflicts and issues (e.g. Rickwood 1973; Sheail 1976, 1981;

Ashby and Anderson 1981; Nash 1967; Schrepfer 1983; Dunlap 1981).

In an impressive study of opposition to the Narita Airport near Tokyo,

Apter and Sawa (1984) not only carried out intensive interviews but also sought

to comprehend environmental protest from first-hand experience, including

living with the protesters in their "fortresses". Their approach sprung from

disillusionment with the mainstream theories and methodologies used by social

scientists to study public protest:

One of the problems of contemporary social science is the over­ generalized nature of its theories and the overkill quality of its categories.... There is a need, then, to go back to the drawing boards, to cases, to field studies, to observation of multiple perspectives and contexts, (p.245)

Such an attitude could run the risk of an atheoretical empiricism, but Apter

and Sawa's book tells us far more about environmental protest in Japan than

surveys of value change or the "rational choice" motivations of protesters.

We do not want to suggest that group surveys and case studies provide all

the answers, though it does appear to us that these two methodologies are more

appropriate to an integrated environmental sociology. However, previous work employing these methodologies was significantly short of such an integrated perspective. Survey work on environmental groups, though able to extract much valuable information on the strategies, actions and resources of individual 24 groups, has a number of significant weaknesses. Surveys tend to rely on one or two informants within each group. This might introduce a bias as group spokesmen tend to present the group in the most favourable light, to gloss over any internal differences, and to express the official view from the centre or headquarters rather than grass-roots or branch opinion. Secondly, surveys tend to concentrate on formal well-established organisations rather than on temporary and spontaneous groupings or loosely-structured, informal groups and networks even though this may give a false picture of the coherence, formality and incorporation of the environmental movement. Thirdly and finally, group surveys are restricted in the extent to which they can cover the dynamics of a group’s involvement in conflicts and therefore can make only limited assessments of a group’s power and effectiveness.

Some of these shortcomings can be off-set by combining group surveys with other methodologies. As to the first, to establish an accurate picture of a group’s internal politics would require a detailed case study including interviews with a wider range of leading group members as well as a survey of the membership. Secondly, more ephemeral, collective responses to environmental problems have already been the subject of a few case studies (e.g. Hall 1976;

Mutch 1977). A comparative survey of such responses in different areas would be highly desirable though would require a major effort. The comparative case study approach would be more economic and might be preferable, provided it were guided by a sophisticated theoretical framework.

Thirdly, the conflict dynamics of environmental groups are mainly accessible through the case study approach. Comparative case studies over a range of issues would be desirable. Such studies have been rare. One possible approach is the quantitative analysis of a large number of cases using information collected from press reports. For example, from an analysis of 587 25

environmental conflicts between 1970 and 1978 implicating the chemical industry,

Gladwin and Walter (1980) identified a number of important trends: in the U.S.,

conflict areas broadened and conflict arenas moved more to the local level;

litigation played a very important role, but increasingly governmental

administrative action became more important; and potential environmental impacts

raised more concern than existing ones.

Another, even more interesting, example comes from a research group at

the University of Zurich who examined 6,211 "activation events"’ i.e. all the

events they could identify which led to sustained, collective political action

in Switzerland between 1945 and 1978 (Kriesi et al. 1981). The topics, forms,

participants and ’situational’ contexts of protest activities were

systematically compared. Levy’s (1981) analysis of the data provides a very

stimulating example for the study of environmental action. Traditional class

conflicts have gradually become less salient in Switzerland. The major new

source of political activity has been 'consequential problems’ (Folgeprobleme) of economic growth, with environmental problems the most significant: the number of such events rose steeply from the late 1960s to a peak in 1973, then temporarily fell behind ’class problems’ (which experienced a resurgence with the economic recession), until a revival in 1977/8. Most of those who participate in environmental conflicts (90Z) are directly affected by the problem at issue and ad-hoc groups play a very important role. Levy concludes that environmental problems are generally pursued by organisationally weak groups with established political organisations playing a relatively minor role compared with other problem areas. The survey also confirms that

’unconventional’ forms of articulation such as public protests, direct actions, and violence are on the increase historically, particularly where new and ad- hoc groups are concerned. Levy interprets this as a result of inadequate 26

responsiveness by the political system.

Such a survey of several thousand events over a long period of time

necessarily entails serious limitations on the detail and quality of information

available for analysis. Consequently, over-reliance on the quantitative analysis

of aggregate data sets - as, for example, in many U.S. studies of political

violence (Zimmerman 1979) - can be of rather doubtful value, unless supplemented

with case studies of particular conflicts. The Zurich group’s survey of

"activation events” was indeed followed by 10 detailed case studies; one of

them, for example, on the protest against the Swiss nuclear power power station

of Graben (Kriesi 1981). This type of approach, intelligently combining

quantitative and qualitative analysis, appears to offer great promise.

Certain institutionalised forms of conflict, such as public inquiries and

law suits, lend themselves more readily to' systematic comparative analysis than

do others. An interesting example is Wenner's study (1982,1983) of U.S.

environmental litigation in which she examined 2,178 cases filed in federal

courts between 1970 and 1980. The level of litigation increased significantly

over the decade and involved three major groups — business organisations,

environmental groups and federal agencies — though the first two rarely

confronted each other directly. Environmentalists initiated the largest number

of suits until 1975, but business legal activity increased dramatically through

the decade especially in the appeals court. Of the three groups, government

agencies had the highest success rates, and whereas environmental and business

success rates were almost balanced at the trial and appellate levels, business did substantially better in the Supreme Court. National environmental groups were more successful than local or ad-hoc groups. The early part of the decade was marked by a period of judicial activism favourable to environmental interests and values but this was subsequently attenuated. 27

Our argument that case studies of groups and conflicts should play a more

central role in environmental sociology should not be taken as an expression

of satisfaction with existing work in this field. At least in the U.K. and

the U.S. , case studies tend to be very descriptive. Where theoretical approaches have been used, they have not been specifically geared to reach a better understanding of environmental politics, but rather of other processes, such as the conduct of public inquiries, agency decision making, or the role of pressure groups. Environmental conflicts have not so far been regarded by researchers as expressions of a new political cleavage, nor has there been significant effort to elucidate the social interests they express.

The other major drawback of issue case studies as a genre is their tendency to focus only on matters of controversy and therefore on the influence of groups on overt decision making - what Lukes (1974) termed the first face of power. They usually overlook the other two faces of power: the control of political access and agendas, whereby certain groups are excluded from decision making and certain issues and policy options from consideration; and ideological control, whereby certain interests in society enjoy an overriding legitimacy.

Admittedly, it is usually easier to discover why something did happen than why something did not, though international comparative analysis should provide an ideal opportunity to test hypotheses concerning the occurrence of non-events and non-decisions.

There is also a need to move our attention from the single decision to the structure of the relationship between participants and the norms which serve to maintain or change the relationship through time: in other words, to shift our focus from decisions to systems of decision-making (and non-decision making) (Bachrach & Baratz 1970). What is so interesting about environmentalism in this respect is the challenge it has posed to existing political structures 28

oriented as they are to conventional conflicts between economic classes and

the functional accommodation of producer interests.

The systematic comparison of case studies of conflicts over power stations,

waste dumps, liquid natural gas installations, chemical and other polluting industries, coupled with survey research of the ’host' communities, including

cases where no protest has emerged (cf. Crenson 1971), would overcome the prevailing focus on one particular case or industry. One promising approach would be to begin classifying environmental problems to identify those dimensions which serve to facililate or retard the mobilisation of opposition: e.g. is the threat a future or existing one? is its impact site or non-site specific? is its incidence chronic or episodic? does it unify or divide the affected population in terms of its economic implications? is it a risk to health or to amenity? Such an analysis would also be a significant contribution to the literature on issue making and agenda building which so far has neglected the important role of protest movements in forcing ecological issues onto the political agenda and the conditions under which such movements arise (Downs

1972; Solesbury 1976).

Once environmental protest over particular issues has emerged, the way these demands are processed should be the focus of analysis. To varying degrees,

Western governments have responded to environmental pressures by adopting new procedures for consultation and the evaluation of policy options. Participation in government involves costs as well as benefits for environmental groups and these will vary according to the form and extent of participation (Olsen.1977;

Richardson & Jordan 1979; Lowe & Goyder 1983). Naturally, group leaders will seek to maximise the benefits and minimise the costs. However, as Marsh (1983, p.9) comments "while incorporation does not ensure influence, outsider status does not preclude influence". Elaborate and formal consultative procedures may 29

in fact be a sham, or be for symbolic rather than substantive purposes. On

the other hand, political behaviour outside the conventional channels of

participation can produce tangible, procedural and structural changes in the

policy process, as demonstrated by the anti-motorway protests in Britain and protests against nuclear power plants in various countries.

A critical decision facing pressure group leaders, therefore, is whether and on what terms to participate in government, if indeed this is an available option, as some political systems and certain policy communities within them have proved more open to external pressures than others. What seems to have emerged in Britain, at least, are two distinct 'policy styles' (see J. J. Richardson

1982) for different fields of environmental concern. Some fields conform to a model of corporatist interest accommodation in which peak environmental groups are incorporated into the policy process and integrate divergent environmental demands in a consensual manner, filtering out any considered 'extreme' or

'irresponsible'. This style has been dominant for many years in the areas of air pollution and nature conservation (Ashby & Anderson 1981; Sanderson 1974;

Rickwood 1973; Sheail 1976). More recently, an alternative policy style of a more adversarial nature has been developing focusing on the public enquiry.

The reasons and conditions for the historical development and political application of these two styles would be a stimulating research object, particularly if related to theories of corporatism which so far have only been employed with reference to economic interest groups.

Environmental groups might raise an issue, participate in decision making, and even influence the formulation of policy. Environmental action will only

'make a difference' if policies are actually implemented and if this implementation leads to a material change which removes the original grievance

(see Schumaker 1975). The growing international literature on the impact of 30

environmental controls and regulations identifies a considerable "implementation

deficit" between policy results and legislative intent (Downing 1982; Knoepfel

and Weidner 1980, 1982; Lundqvist 1980).

Analysis of the implementation of environmental policy should therefore

shed light on the "symbolic use of politics" (Edelman 1964, 1971, 1977; Dabelko

1981). Governmental action, for example, may only remove the most prominent

and controversial forms of pollution while leaving untouched other, perhaps

far more dangerous, hazards or the underlying causes of the problem. Moreover,

through their economic and political power and close contacts with regulatory

officials, industrial interests may be able to frustrate, delay or otherwise

contain the implementation process, whereas environmental interests often lack

effective leverage over the relevant administrative agencies (Sabatier 1975,

1977; G. Richardson 1982; Hawkins 1984).

From a comparative research project, Jänicke (1978) concluded that efforts

to remove the most immediately apparent pollutants, such as dust and sulphur

dioxide, had been relatively effective; but that the resulting 'blue skies' had defused much of the concern over air pollution which would have had to be mobilised to attain other than symbolic policy responses in controlling less visible pollutants. A critical question, therefore, is what effect different implementation styles and outcomes have on environmental protest and attitudes.

Dye's (1976, ppl9-20) comment may be pertinent here, to the effect that

"individual groups and whole societies frequently judge public policy in terms of its good intentions rather than its tangible accomplishments".

One cause and consequence of this state of affairs is that much of the activity of environmental movements has been reactive. Activity is often fitful, triggered by particular conflict situations or immediate crises but then subsiding or turning to other issues even if the underlying conditions 31

addressed by the original protest have not been alleviated. These remarks

apply with less force to institutionalised environmental groups but even they,

with worsening economic conditions, have had to devote more of their energies

to the defence of earlier legislative achievements and have found it increasingly

difficult to formulate and pursue a positive political vision transcending the

reactive politics of single issue campaigning.

Environmental policy making, in turn, has also failed to promote

comprehensive solutions, with governments preferring instead a muddling-through approach. Such an approach faces two potential pitfalls. Unco-ordinated reactions to different problems and political pressures could result in contradictory, costly and possibly dysfunctional policy outcomes. It is also a politically vulnerable course as environmental problems are left to evolve in an uncontrolled fashion with new issues and sources of public protest liable to emerge at any time and in an unpredictable manner. It remains an open question whether a piecemeal approach can successfully contain both the ecological and the political problems or whether a more comprehensive strategy, such as "a preventive environmental policy", is required (Küppers et al 1978;

Jänicke 1979; Simonis 1984).

The degree of political responsiveness to protest demands will affect the development of the environmental movement. A major issue for research is under what conditions do environmental groups begin to regard themselves as representative of a social movement aiming at broad structural change rather than merely a change of government policy on a particular issue. One way of making progress along such lines is through internationally comparative studies. 32

IV. Internationally Comparative Research

In Britain, the environmental movement has largely not proceeded to a radical

stance (Lowe and Rüdig 1985). Environmental groups here pursue reformist

strategies; and incidents of militancy have been few and mainly in keeping

with a British dissentient tradition of civil disobedience, of a non-violent

and often symbolic kind. This is not to argue that oppositional elements do

not exist in the British environmental movement, but that they have not emerged

as a significant political force. The British Ecology Party, for example,

which has formulated a fundamental critique of industrial society, has not

been able to attract much support in the environmental movement (or elsewhere),

and in its 12 year history has played a very marginal role in British politics

(Rüdig & Lowe 1985). The United States has also largely avoided such

developments, though for seemingly quite different reasons (Kitschelt 1985).

Most other advanced countries, however, have witnessed the emergence of radical ecological movements during the past decade.

International comparative analysis should first seek to reach a genuine understanding of national experiences with environmental problems and build a comparative environmental sociology on such a qualitative foundation. As yet, however, little work has been done comparing environmental movements beyond gathering together basic information on national organisations (Andersson &

Huveröd 1979; Tellegen 1983; Lemkov & Buttel 1983), though Lundqvist (1978) and O ’Riordan (1979) have identified certain structural and cultural factors affecting the organisation and strategies of environmental interest groups.

There have been a number of very broad comparisons of the political culture of environmental policy making but these have suffered an inevitable superficiality in seeking to account for the performance of different societies by reference to sweeping system-level characteristics, specifically whether the political 33

system is "open and conflict-oriented" or "closed and consensus-oriented"

(Kelley et al 1976; Lundqvist 1974, 1978). It seems more pertinent and fruitful

to attend to differences in political structure and the factors affecting

political mobilisation, as the work of Enloe (1975) and Reich (1984) demonstrates

More analytical effort has gone into comparing specific types of conflict.

There are now major, transnational studies of popular and political reactions:

to chemical disasters (Reich 1981); to the siting of new airports (Feldman &

Milch 1982); and to the siting of liquid natural gas facilities (Kunreuther

& Linnerooth 1983), all based on substantial empirical work. The latter

two, however, fail to address the conditions under which such local conflicts

could become an important factor in a wider ecological movement, as happened,

for instance, in the cases of the Frankfurt airport extension in Germany, and

the Narita airport construction in Japan.

Most comparative efforts have gone into the analysis of anti-nuclear

movements. Some of these studies are mainly compilations of country reports

providing basic factual information (Krümpelmann et al. 1978; Gyorgy et al.

1979; Mez 1979; Falk 1982). Other studies engage in more systematic comparisons,

but their data base is often too restricted and their conclusions are sometimes

debatable or rather limited in scope (Surrey & Huggett 1976; Stockton & Janke 1978

Camilleri 1978, 1984; Thom 1979; Pilat 1980; Marsh 1981; Nelkin & Poliak 1981;

Conrad & Krebsbach-Gnath 1981; Lemkov 1984). Relatively few authors base

their analysis on original research in several countries. The journalistic

account given by Sweet (1977) after a round trip of some European anti-nuclear movements provides more perceptive insights than many academic studies - an example of how important direct contact with a movement can be.

The available information on anti-nuclear movements is now strong enough, however, to support sophisticated theorising. Kiersch and von Oppeln (1983) 34

compared the nuclear conflict in France and Germany and skilfully identified

certain cultural patterns which determine different perceptions and political

actions in the two countries. Kitschelt (1983) also presents a sophisticated

theoretical framework in a study of the policy impacts of anti-nuclear movements

which takes into account the power resources of the movement and of the nuclear

complex.

On the whole, though, comparative work in this field suffers from a number

of shortcomings typical of either the case study approach or comparative analysis

in general. Attention is focussed mainly on cases where strong protest has

erupted, with reference omitted to cases (and countries) where protest has been muted or non-existent. There is an over-reliance on published sources which not only exacerbates the previous problem but is also indicative of the lack of first-hand experience of anti-nuclear action. This could be off-set if greater use were made of indigenous primary and secondary material rather than relying on third-hand, English-language sources (for an attempt in this vein, see Rudig forthcoming). The ideal study, however, would require closer direct contact with as many individual movements as possible, especially as country reports often take for granted the very national idiosyncracies which are of interest from a comparative perspective.

Webb et al's (1983) ongoing study of protest groups in European countries goes some way in this methodological direction, although with a relatively small number of groups selected for detailed study over many different conflict areas and cleavages, drawing comparisons may prove very difficult. A comparison of the different manifestations of the ecological cleavage in several countries would avoid this potential pitfall.

Finally, very little conceptual and theoretical effort has so far gone into the comparative study of green parties. Starting with the Values Party of 35

New Zealand in 1972, such parties have emerged in most industrialised countries

over the last 10 years. In Belgium, Finland, Switzerland, Luxemburg and West

Germany, they are represented in the national parliament. The German and Belgian

Greens and a Dutch green list formed by two existing radical parties and the

Dutch Communist Party won seats in the 1984 elections for the European Parliament.

Green parties have been established more recently in Japan and Canada too. The

U. S. Citizens Party formed in 1979 and the Australian Nuclear Disarment Party of 1984 are also associated with the green movement, although at least in the

U. S.A. efforts are under way to form a distinct green party.

Most attention has, perhaps not surprisingly, been given to the German party

"The Greens". While the German literature on this topic has proliferated (most informative are Brun 1978; Mez & Wolter 1980; Troitzsch 1980; Mettke 1982;

Bürklin 1981, 1983; Hallensleben 1984; Klotsch & Stöss 1984; Kluge 1984), a number of works in English have also appeared giving detailed accounts of

German developments (Pridham 1978; Bridgeford 1981; Burklin 1985; Frankland

1983a, 1983b; Mushaben 1983; Mewes 1983; Rüdig 1983b; Schoonmaker 1983; Pilat

1983; Ely 1983; Papadakis 1984; Capra & Spretnak 1984). In comparison, green parties in other countries have received scant attention, with national case studies for Belgium (Stouthuysen 1983), New Zealand (James 1980), the U.K.

(McCulloch 1983; Rüdig & Lowe 1985), France (Bridgeford 1978; Nullmeier et al 1983), the Netherlands (Rüdig 1985a), and Sweden (Nullmeier et al 1983; Vedung forthcoming)

Existing comparative efforts fall into two categories. Firstly, there are collections of national case studies and decriptive overviews (Pilat 1980;

Frankland 1981; Sicinski & Wemegah 1983; Nullmeier et al. .1983; Rüdig 1985b).

Secondly, at a more advanced level, typologies of green parties have been proposed and a number of factors suggested which might play a role in their development. 36

De Roose (1984) in his overview of the "national diversities" of the "green

wave" distinguished between the following types of green parties: anglo-saxon

(U.K., U. S.A. , Australia, New Zealand); mediterranean (France, Italy); and germanic

(West Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Belgium). Basically, however, his

is more a characterisation of the political systems of the countries concerned.

While the system variables mentioned by De Roose such as parliamentary tradition,

political stability, and the role of the central state, may well be relevant

to a comprehensive explanation of national differences in green party development,

no account is taken of the forms, ideologies and strategies of individual

parties and movements. The association between the characteristics of the

political system and green parties is not straightforward, and it is necessary

to analyse these parties in other terms as well, specifically with reference

to the circumstances of party formation.

Müller-Rommel (1982a,b) has put forward the most advanced explanatory

framework hitherto. His basic assumption is that green parties are a

sub-phenomenon of the emergence of "parties of a new type", a category which

also includes existing, small, left-socialist, pacifist and "radical" parties.

For the classification of these parties, he refers to a number of pertinent

variables which are much closer to the phenomenon than De Roose's. Three key

categories are employed: political origin (left/right); electoral performance

at local, regional and national level; and, finally, the political direction

of protest (environmental or broader social protest). These categories are

certainly not exhaustive, but they do provide a sensible basis from which more differentiated and complex typologies might be developed.

Müller-Rommel attempts to explain the development of this "new type” of party with reference to five factors:

i) the electoral system; ii) the party system and governmental stability; 37

iii) the number of nuclear power stations; iv) the policies of trade unions and established parties; v) popular inclination to "new" value (i.e. post-materialist) orientations

Some of these factors appear to have an undisputed, commonsensical relevance.

Take the first, for example: proportional representation might reasonably be

expected to favour a new party compared with the 'first-past-the-post' system.

However, things are not that simple. The world's first two green parties were

set up in countries with 'first-past-the-post' systems — New Zealand and the

U. K.

The influence of the second factor, party systems is even less

straightforward. Ecological issues, Müller-Rommel would suggest, are adopted

by the small left-socialist parties which can exist in countries where the

system of proportional representation is not limited by percentage hurdles, and

this pre-empts the formation of separate, green parties. Until recently, the

cases of the Netherlands, Denmark, and Italy appeared to confirm this thesis.

In the meantime, however, green parties have been set up in these countries too.

This would suggest that the assimilation of environmental issues by existing

small parties is not decisive and has only a delaying influence on green party

formation. On a more general level, these recent developments also cast doubts on the plausibility of Müller-Rommel's conception of essentially homologous

"parties of a new type", as does the assimilation of ecological concerns by non-socialist parties, such as the Centre Party (formerly the Farmers' Party) in Sweden.

Müller-Rommel draws on several other variables which refer at least

Indirectly to political conflicts instrumental in the formation of green parties.

However, there is only one variable representing the direct stimulus of an environmental problem, nuclear energy, and his measure of this, the number of nuclear power stations, is far too crude and bears no immediate relation to the 38

intensity of conflict over nuclear energy and its broader impact. The comparative

analysis of anti-nuclear movements would suggest, as more salient factors,

expert dissent, siting policy, police behaviour, licensing systems and so forth

(see Rudig forthcoming). Müller-Rommel recognises the relative superficiality of

the 'number of reactors' variable and tries to bridge the explanatory gap

between nuclear stimuli and green parties with reference to the two other

factors - value change and the policies of established parties and trade unions.

We regard this step as rather precipitate. Attention should be paid to

other stimuli and the political movements responding to them. We would agree

that the response of trade unions and political parties to key conflicts is

certainly a major factor, but so also are the responses of other parts of the political system, such as the courts, local, provincial and central government,

the civil service, the mass media and so on. Finally, the conceptual difficulties with the theory of "post-materialist” value change make it inadvisable to build any theory of green parties on this basis. Though it is undoubted that supporters of green parties have some distinctively different value priorities, it is spurious to link the emergence of green parties causally to this, for value change is a phenomenon to be explained rather than an explanatory variable.

Thus, while Müller-Rommel addresses a number of key questions, his attempt displays a general trait characteristic of other social scientists working in this area - an ignorance of or unwillingness to consider the role of environmental problems and the particular way they have been perceived and politicised in different countries.

Qualitative comparative analysis of green parties requires a convincing conceptual framework. Such a framework should be developed on the basis of a model of the political process incorporating the following factors. Firstly, the stimuli for environmental action and their causes should be analysed. 39

There would be no environmental problems and no green parties without the

existence of environmental problems. This rather trivial point appears to

to be easily forgotten in the literature. Certain environmental issues

(particularly the expansion of nuclear energy, but also the construction of

hydro-electric dams and new airports) seem to be of greater significance in

the emergence of movements and parties than others. Secondly, the conditions

under which specific protest movements emerged will have to be analysed,

drawing on theories of resource mobilisation and relative deprivation.

Thirdly, attention will have to be paid to national traditions in the

perception and patterns of issue making and the processing of environmental

questions. The way ecological interests are, or are not, integrated by the

poltical system could be expected to play an important role in the formation

and development of green parties. They will be more likely to develop the

less the political system is able to integrate environmental demands by other

means. In this respect, U.S. environmental law and the British public inquiry

system seem to have played a key role, amongst other factors, in helping these

two nations cope relatively effectively, at least on the political front, and

avoid the radicalisation of the ecological movement seen in other countries.

Fourthly, the relevance of other political cleavages at the time of the

politicisation of the environment has to be analysed. The chance of a green party will be diminished if ecological conflicts are successfully integrated into other political movements (such as regionalist movements, as in the case of Spain; or agrarian interests, as in the Swedish Centre Party). Fifthly, and conversely, green parties will thrive to the degree they can absorb other issues and cleavages (such as the peace movement, as in the case of West Germany)

Quantitative methods also have a role to play. Apart from a transnational study of green party members, one could also envisage a comparative survey 40

of the green voting process. Already the ’green vote’ has been comprehensively

examined for a number of countries (Kluge 1984; Boy 1981; Deschouwer &

Stouthuysen 1984). Müller-Rommel's more recent work (1984a, 1985) on the

voting behaviour of supporters of anti-nuclear, ecological and peace movements

is also a valuable development.

The so-called ’new social movements’, from which green parties variously

draw their support, include the ecological, youth, women’s, and peace

movements (Brand 1982; Brand et al. 1983, 1985; Kitschelt 1985). Notably,

however, only one of them — the ecological movement — has provided the

basis for the formation and ideological identity of the new parties, while the

others, all with a history at least as long as the environmental movement,

play a supporting role. One reason may be that the other new social movements are more easily integrated by existing political cleavages. Only the ecological movement represents a totally new political cleavage which in turn can integrate the others. This emphasises the necessity to analyse green parties in connection with the development of both new social movements in general and the ecological movement in particular. A key question for political scientists to address is the peculiarly exclusive and inclusive character of the ecological cleavage. 41

Conclusions

In this review of environmental sociology, we have taken issue with a

number of research approaches which, in our view, play a too dominant role

in the field. The first, and perhaps most important of them, is the "value

change" approach which has a number of crucial limitations.

It is always necessary to explain how values are created and sustained through actions and experience, and this means that, though they may feature as intervening variables, it is seldom appropriate to regard them as independent variables. The focus should rather be upon the ways in which resources

(conceived in the broadest possible sense) are mobilised in pursuit of particular interests generated by the structural context; and the ways in which that context is maintained or transformed by the struggles which it facilitates.

To attain such an aim, we have argued for a revived case' study approach supplemented by survey analysis of the general public and of environmental groups and their members. In the past, surveys have grossly neglected the situational context of environmental attitudes and action, and to redress this requires the revival of more qualitatively orientated research methodologies.

The case study approach, however, has also been beset by important shortcomings which will have to be overcome. Case studies will have to be guided by broader theoretical approaches which put the individual case into a broader perspective. One central requirement is for an interdisciplinary environmental sociology, centrally located within the social sciences, com­ bining approaches from social psychology, political sociology and political systems analysis.

We have also noted that the concept of political power is conspicuously absent from much current work in environmental sociology. A power oriented 42

analysis guided by a political process approach will find plenty of material

on ’non-decision making' at the front, and of 'symbolic use of politics' at the back-end of the political process. Our argument for a higher theoretical content in empirical environmental sociology should, however, not lead to the rigid imposition of particular theoretical conceptions onto social reality.

The second major new impetus to the case study approach should be a stronger emphasis on comparative work. Environmental conflicts in different areas, from air pollution to liquified natural gas and nuclear energy should be compared. Furthermore, international comparison should play a far bigger role than heretofore, and should be conducted in a way which emphasises the understanding of different cultural and political patterns. For this purpose, it is necessary to gain direct experience of environmental conflicts, and develop closer links with environmental groups to understand their particular situations. These standards have generally not been met by existing comparative research, and we believe that their shortcomings can to some degree be explained by a too distant relation of the researcher to the research object. 43

References

Andersson, B. G. and S. H. Huveröd. (eds) 1979. Kämpen for miljön: En lägesrapport om mlljoröelser, Göteborg, Sweden: Centrum forTvärvetenskap, Göteborgs Universitet.

Apter, D. E. and N. Sawa. 1984. Against the State: Politics and Social Protest in Japan, Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.

Ashby, E. and M. Anderson. 1981. The Politics of Clean Air, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bachrach, P. and M. Baratz. 1970. Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice, New York: Oxford University Press.

Bailes, K. E. (ed.) 1985. Environmental History: Critical Issues in Comparative Perspective, Lanham: University Press of America.

Barker, A. and M. Keating. 1977. "Public spirits: amenity societies and others", pp. 202-221 of C. Crouch (ed.) Participation in Politics (British Political Sociology Yearbook, Vol. 3), London: Croom Helm.

Barnes, B. 1982. T.S. Kuhn and Social Science, London: Macmillan.

Barnes, S. H. and M. Kaase, et. al. 1979. Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies, Beverley Hills, CA.: Sage.

Berger, S. 1979. "Politics and antipolitics in Western Europe in the seventies," Daedalus, 108 (Winter), 27-50.

Beywl, W. and H. Brombach. 1984. "Selbstorganisationen" Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, no. 11, 15-29.

Blowers, A. 1984. Something in the Air: Corporate Powers and the Environment, London: Harper and Row.

Böltken, F. and W. Jagodzinski, 1985. "In an environment of insecurity: post-materialism in the European Community 1970-1980", Comparative Political Studies, 17, 453-484.

Boy, D. 1981. "Le vote ecologiste en 1978" Revue Franqaise de Science Politique, 31,, 394-416. ' :

Boyle, G. 1978. Nuclear Power: The Windscale Controversy, (Control of Technology, Unit 5) Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Brand, K.-W. 1982. Neue soziale Bewegungen: Entstehung, Funktion und Perspektive neuer Protestpotentiale, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Brand, K.-W. (ed.) 1985. Neue soziale Bewegungen in Westeuropa und den USA, Frankfurt: Campus.

Brand, K.-W., D. Biisser, and D. Rucht, 1983. Aufbruch in eine andere Gesellschaft: Neue soziale Bewegungen,in der Bundesrepublik, Frankfurt: Campus 44

Bridgeford, J. 1978. "The ecologist movement and the French general election 1978", Parliamentary Affairs, 31, 314-323.

Bridgeford, J. 1981. "Die Grüne Partei and the West German federal elections", Quinquereme, _4, 181-195.

Brodeur, P. 1973. Expendable Americans, New York: Viking Press.

Bruce—Briggs, B. (ed.) 1979. The New Class? New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Brun, R. (ed.) 1978. Der grüne Protest: Herausforderung durch die Umweltparteien, Frankfurt: Fischer.

Bürklin, W. P. 1981. "Die Grünen and die 'Neue Politik': Abschied vom* Dreiparteiensystem?", Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 22, 359-382.

Bürklin, W. P. 1983. "Ansatzpunkte einer sozialstrukturellen Verankerung der neuen sozialen Bewegung", Paper presented at the Congress of the German Political Science Association, Mannheim.

Bürklin, W. P. 1985. "The Grünen: Ecology and the new left", in H. G. Wallach and G. K. Romoser (eds), West German Politics in the Mid-Eighties: Crisis and Continuity, New York: Praeger. Buttel, F. H. and W. L. Flinn. 1976. "Environmental politics: the structuring of partisan and ideological cleavages in mass environmental attitudes," Sociological Quarterly, 17, 477-490.

Buttel, F. H. and W. L. Flinn. 1978. "Social classes and mass environmental beliefs: A reconsideration" Environment and Behavior, 10, 433-450.

Camilleri, J. A. 1978. Ecological politics: the birth of a new movement," World Review, JJ, 45-59.

Camilleri, J. A., 1984. The State and Nuclear Power: Conflict and Control in the Western World, Brighton: Wheatsheaf. ~

Capra, F. and C. Spretnak. 1984. Green Politics. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Casper, B. M. and P. D. Wellstone. 1981. Powerline: The First Battle of Energy War, Amherst, Ma: University of Massachusetts Press.

Civic Trust and A. Barker. 1976. The Local Amenity Movement, London: Civic Trust

Cohen, E. M. 1981. Ideology, Interest Group Formation and Protest: The Case of the Anti-Nuclear Movement, the Clamshell Alliance and the New Left, Ph.D., Harvard University.

Conrad, J. and C. Krebsbach—Gnath. 1981. ’Die Kernenergiekontroverse im inter­ nationalen Vergleich", pp. 62-79 of C. Krebsbach-Gnath (ed.), Konfliktfeld Energie, Munich: Oldenbourg.

Conti, C. 1984. Abschied vom Bürgertum: Alternative Bewegungen in Deutschland von 1890 bis heute, Reinbek: Rowohlt.

Cotgrove, S. 1982. Catastrophe or Cornucopia: The Environment, Politics and the Future, Chichester: Wiley. ~ ------— -- 45

Cotgrove, S. and A. Duff. 1980. "Environmentalism, middle-class radicalism and politics", Sociological Review, 28, 333-351.

Cotgrove, S. and A. Duff, 1981. "Evironmentalism, values and social change", British Journal of Sociology, 32, 92-110.

Crenson, M. A. 1971. The Un-politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-decision- making in the Cities, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Crompton, R. and J. Gubbay. 1977. Economy and Class Structure, London: Macmillan.

Dabelko, D. D. 1981. "Political aspects of environmental quality," Environment and Behavior, 13, 225-238.

De Roose, F. 1984. "De Groene Golf: Over de nationale diversiteit van een internationaal fenomen" pp. 33-61 of W. De Backer, F. De Rose and P. Florizoone, De Groene Golf, Eeklo, Belgium: De Groenen.

Deschouwer, K. and P. E. Stouthuysen. 1984. "L’electorat d'AGALEV" Courrier Hebdomadalre du Centre de Recherche et d'Information Socio-politiques, no. 1061

Devall, W. B. 1970. The Governing of a Voluntary Organization: Oligarchy and Democracy in the Sierra Club, Ph. D., University of Oregon.

Douglas, M. and A. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers, Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press.

Downing, P. B. 1982. "Cross-national comparisons in environmental protection: introduction to the issues," Policy Studies Journal, 11, 39-43.

Downs, A. 1972. "Up and down with ecology — the issue-attention cycle", The Public Interest, no. 28, 38-50.

Duclos, D. H. and J. J. Smadja. 1985. "Culture and the environment in France" Environmental Management, 9_> 135-140.

Dunlap, R.E. 1975. "The impact of political orientation on environmental attitudes and actions", Environment and Behavior, _7. 384-397.

Dunlap, R. E. and W. R. Catton, 1980. "A new ecological paradigm for post- exuberant sociology," American Behavioral Scientist, 24, 5-14.

Dunlap, R. E. and K. D. Van Liere. 1978a. Environmental Concern: A Biblio­ graphy and Brief Appraisal of the Literature (Public Administration Series P-44), Monticello, 111.: Vance Bibliographies.

Dunlap, R. E. and K. D. Van Liere. 1978b. "The 'new environmental paradigm': A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results", Journal of Environmental Education, _9> 10 - 19.

Dunlap, T. R. 1981. DDT: Scientists, Citizens, and Public Policy, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 46

Dye, T. R. 1976. Policy Analysis: What Governments Do, Why They Do It, and What Difference It Makes, University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

Ebert, T., W. Sternstein and R. Vogt. 1978. Okologiebewegung und ziviler Widerstand: Wyhler Erfahrungen, Aktionsforscher berichten, Stuttgart: Umweltwissenschaftliches Institut.

Edelman, M. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics, Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois Press.

Edelman, M. 1971. Politics as Symbolic Action, New York: Academic Press.

Edelman, M. 1977. Political Language: Words that Succeed and Politics that Fail New York: Academic Press.

Egginton, J. 1980. The Poisoning of Michigan, New York: Norton.

Ely, J. 1983. "The Greens: ecology and the promise of radical democracy", Radical America, 17, 23-34.

Enloe, C. E. 1975. The Politics of Pollution in a Comparative Perspective: Ecology and Power in Four Nations^ New York: Longman. ’

Evans, G. W. and S. V. Jacobs. 1981. "Air pollution and human behavior", Journal of Social Issues, 37, 95-125.

Falk, J. 1982. Global Fission: The Battle over Nuclear Power, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Feldman, E. J. and J. Milch. 1982. Technocracy versus Democracy: The Comparative Politics of International Airports, Boston, MA.: Auburn House.

Fietkau, H.-J. 1981. Umweltbewusstsein: Stand, Artikulationsformen und Veränderungsmöglichkeiten. Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin.

Fietkau, H.-J. 1982a. Neue Werte aus handlungstheoretischer Sicht, Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin.

Fietkau, H.-J. 1982b. ökologisches Denken in westlichen Industrienationen: Eine 1980 durchgeführte Studie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, England und USA. Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin.

Fietkau, H.-J., M. Hassebrauck, and N. Watts. 1981a. Der internationale Umweltfragebogen (IUF): Ein Instrumentarium zur Erfassung umeltbezogener Werte, Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin.

Fietkau, H.-J., N. Watts, M. Hassebrauck, M. Voigt, and W. Tischler. 1981b. Umweltbewusstsein im internationalen Vergleich: Das "International Environ­ ment Survey", Methodische Entwicklung und Ergebnisse, Berlin, Bath und Buffalo 1979, Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin. 47

Fietkau, H.-J., H. Kessel, and W. Tischler, 1982a. Umwelt im Spiegel der öffentlichen Meinung, Frankfurt: Campus.

Fietkau, H.-J., H. Kessel, J. Coopersmith and L. W. Milbrath, 1982b Restructur­ ing cognitions and values in revolutionary social change, Berlin: Inter­ national Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin.

Flanagan, S. C. 1982. "Changing values in advanced industrial societies: Inglehart’s Silent Revolution from the perspective of Japanese findings", Comparative Political Studies, 14, 403 - 444.

Francis, R. S. 1983. "Attitudes towards industrial pollution, strategies for protecting the environment, and environmental-economic trade-offs", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 310 - 327.

Frankland, E. G. 1981. "Ecology, ideology and party politics: A comparative perspective", Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, Newark, N. Y., November.

Frankland, E. G. 1983a. "The dynamics of the West German party system: A study of the Greens", Paper presented at the 4lst Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 111., April.

Frankland, E. G. 1983b. "Interpreting the ’green’ phenomenon in West German politics, 1977-1983", Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 111., September.

Gladwin, T. N. 1980. "Patterns of environmental conflict over industrial facilities in the United States", Natural Resources Journal, 20 , 243-274.

Gladwin, T. N. and I. Walter. 1980. Multinationals under Fire: Lessons in the Management of Conflict, New York: Wiley

Gouldner, A. W. 1979, The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class, London: Macmillan^

Gregory, R. 1971. The Price of Amenity, London: Macmillan.

Gyorgy, A. et. al. 1979. No Nukes: Everyone's Guide to Nuclear Power, Boston, Ma: South End Press.

Hall, I. M. 1976. Community Action versus Pollution: A Study of a Residents' Group in a Welsh Urban Area, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Hallensleben, A. 1984. Von der Grünen Liste zur Grünen Partei? Die Entwicklung der Grünen Liste bis zur Gründung der Partei DIE GRÜNEN 1980, Göttingen: Muster-Schmidt Verlag.

Handley, D. and N. Watts, 1981. "Political psychology and environmentalist politics", Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik, _4, 295-320.

Hawkins, K. 1984. Environment and Enforcement: Regulation and the Social Definition of Pollution, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 48

Hays, S. P. 1958. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890-1920, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hays, S. P. forthcoming Environmental Politics in the United States 1955-1985 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heberlein, T. A. 1981. "Environmental attitudes", Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik, 4_, 241-270.

Herz, T. 1979. "Der Wandel von Wertvorstellungen in westlichen Industriegesellschaften”, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozial­ psychologie, 31, 282-302.

Hildebrandt, K. and R. J. Dalton. 1977. "Die neue Politik: Politischer Wandel oder Schönwetterpolitik?", Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 18, 230-256. (English translation: "The new politics: political change or sunshine politics?" pp. 69-96 of M. Kaase and K. von Beyme (eds.), Elections and Parties (German Political Studies, Vol. 3), London and Beverly Hills: Sage, 1978).

Holdren, J. P. 1983. "The risk assessors", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 39 (6), 33-38.

Hood, T. C. A. E. Ladd and K. D. Van Liere 1982. "Newcomers, short-termers, and old-timers: Ideology and participation in the anti-nuclear rally", Paper presented at the Society for the Study of Social Problems Meeting, San Francisco, September.

Hornback, K. E. 1974. Orbits of Opinion: The Role of Age in the Environmental Movement’s Attentive Public Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University.

Inglehart, R. 1971. "The silent revolution in Europe: intergenerational change in post-industrial societies", American Political Science Review, 65, 991-1017

Inglehart, R. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics. Princeton. N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R. 1979. "Wertwandel in den westlichen Industriegesellschaften: Politische Konsequenzen von materialistischen und post-materialistischen Prioritäten", pp. 279-316 of H. Klages and P. Kmieciak (eds), op. cit.

Inglehart, R. 1981. "Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity", American Political Science Review, 75, 279-316.

Inglehart, R. 1982. Changing values and the rise of environmentalism in Western Societies (IIES/pre 82-14) Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin.

Inglehart, R. 1983a. "Traditionelle politische Trennungslinien und die Entwicklung der neuen Politik in westlichen Gesellschaften", Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 24, 139-165.

Inglehart, R. 1983b. "The persistence of materialist and post-materialist value orientations: comments on Van Deth's analysis", European Journal of Political Research, 11, 81-91. 49

Inglehart, R. 1985a. "New perspectives on value change: response to Lafferty and Knutsen, Savage, and Böltken and Jagodzinski", Comparative Political Studies, _17, 485-532. “

Inglehart, R. 1985b. "Aggregate stability and individual-level flux in mass belief systems: the level of analysis paradox", American Political Science Review, 79, 97-116.

Issacs, L., E. Mutras, and S. Stryker. 1980. "Political protest orientations among black and white adults", American Sociological Review, 45, 191-213.

Jagodzinski, W. 1983. "Materialism in Japan reconsidered: toward a synthesis of generational and Life-cycle explanations", American Political Science Review , 77, 887-894.

James, C. J. 1980. "Social Credit and the Values Party", pp. 148-167 of H. R. Penniman (ed.), New Zealand at the Polls: The General Election of 1978, Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Jänicke, M. 1978. "Blauer Himmel über den Industriestädten - eine optische Täuschung", pp. 150-165 of M. Jänicke (ed.), Umweltpolitik: Beiträge zur Politologie des Umweltschutzes, Opladen: Leske Verlag + Budrich GmbH.

Jänicke, M. 1979. Wie das Industriesystem von seinen Mipständen profitiert, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Kazis, R. and R. L. Grossman. 1982. Fear at Work: Job Blackmail, Labor, and the Environment, New York: Pilgrim Press.

Kelley, D. R., K. R. Stunkei and R. R. Wescott. 1976. The Economic Superpowers and the Environment: The United States, the Soviet Union and Japan, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Kessel, H. 1982. Comparing Ecological Awareness in Developed Countries, Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin.

Kessel, H. 1983a. Aspekte des ökologischen Bewusstseins, Ein Vergleich von: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, USA und England, Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin.

Kessel, H. 1983b. Unweltprobleme; Wahrgenommene Zukunftschancen Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin.

Kessel, H. 1983c. Stand und Veränderung des Umwelt-Bewusstseins in der Bundes­ republik Deutschland, England und den Vereinigten Staaten: Bericht aus einem laufenden Forschungsprojekt, Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin.

Kiersch, G. and S. von Oppeln. 1983. Kernenergiekonflikt ln Frankreich und Deutschland, Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Autoren-Verlag.

Kimber, R. and J. J. Richardson (eds) 1974. Campaigning for the Environment London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 50

Kitschelt, H. 1983. "Policy impacts of anti-nuclear movements: comparative perspectives , Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of Europeanists, Washington, D.C., October.

Kitschelt, H. 1985. "New social movements in West Germany and the United States", Political Power and Social Theory, 5 (in press).

Klages, H. and P. Kmieciak (eds). 1979. Wertwandel und gesellschaftlicher Wandel, Frankfurt: Campus.

Klotsch, L. and R. Stöss. 1984. "Die Grünen" pp. 1509-1598 of R. Stöss (ed.), Parteien-Handbuch: Die Parteien der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945-1980 Vol. 2, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Kluge, T. (ed.) 1984. Grüne Politik: Eine Standortbestimmung, Frankfurt: Fischer.

Knoepfel, P. and H. Weidner. 1980. Handbuch der S07~Luftreinhaltepolitik (2 Vols), Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. —

Knoepfel, P. and H. Weidner. 1982. "Formulation and implementation of air quality control programmes: Interest recognition patterns", Policy and Politics, 10, 85-109.

Kornhauser, W. 1960. The Politics of Mass Society, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Kramer, D. et. al. 1979. "Aktionsforschung: Sozialforschung und gesellschaft­ liche Wirklichkeit", pp. 21-40 of K. Horn (ed.), Aktionsforschung: Balanceakt ohne Netz?, Frankfurt: Syndikat.

Kriesi, H. 1981. AKW—Gegner in der Schweiz: Eine Fallstudie zum Aufbau des Widerstands gegen das geplante AKW in Graben, Diessenhofen, Switzerland: Verlag Rüegger.

Kriesi, H., R. Levy, G. Gauguillet, and H. Zwicky (eds) 1981. Politische Aktivierung in der Schweiz, 1945-1978 Diessenhofen, Switzerland: Verlag Rüegger.

Krümpelmann, B. et al. 1978. Atomenergie International: Atomprogramme und Widerstand in 28 Ländern, Bochum: Projektbereich Ökologie der Vereinigten Deutschen Studentenschaften.

Kumar, K. 1978. Prophecy and Progress; The Sociology of Industrial and Post- Industrial Society, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Kunreuther, H. C. and J. Linnerooth et. al. 1983. Risk Analysis and Decision Processes: The Siting of Liquefied Energy Gas Facilities in Four Countries, Berlin: Springer.

Küppers, G., P. Lundgreen and P. Weingart. 1978. Umweltforschung - die gesteuerte Wissenschaft? , Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Ladd, A. E., T. C. Hood and K. D. Van Liere. 1983. "Ideological themes in the anti-nuclear movement: consensus and diversity", Sociological Inquiry, 53, 252-272. 51

Lafferty, W. M. 1976. "Basic needs and political values: some perspectives from Norway on Europe's 'Silent Revolution'", Acta Sociologica, 19, 117-136.

Lake, L. M. 1983. "The environmental mandate: activists and the electorate", Political Science Quarterly, 98, 215-233.

Lehner, F. 1979. “Die 'Stille Revolution': Zur Theorie und Realität des Wertewandels in hochindustrialisierten Gesellschaften", pp. 317-327 of H. Klages and P. Kmieciak (eds), op. cit.

Lemkov, L. 1984. La Protesta Antinuclear, Madrid: Editorial Mezquita.

Lemkov, L. and F. Buttel. 1983. Los Movimlentos Ecologistas, Madrid: Editorial Mezquita.

Levy, R. 1981. "Politische Basisaktivität im Bereich der Umweltproblematic", Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für Politische Wissenschaft, 21, 9-37.

Lowe, G. D., T. K. Pinhey, and M. D. Grimes. 1980. "Public support for environmental protection: new evidence from national surveys", Pacific Sociological Review, 23, 423-445.

Lowe, P. D. 1977. "Amenity and equity: a review of local environmental pressure groups in Britain", Environment and Planning A , 9_, 39-58.

Lowe, P. D. 1983. "Values and institutions in the history of British nature conservation" pp. 329-352 of A. Warren and F. B. Goldsmith (eds), Conservation in Perspective, Chichester: Wiley.

Lowe, P. D., G. Cox, M. MacEwen, T. O'Riordan and M. Winter. 1985. Cultivating Conflict: The Politics of Farming, Forestry and Conservation, London: Gower.

Lowe, P. D. and J. M. Goyder. 1983. Environmental Groups in Politics, London: George Allen and Unwin.

Lowe, P. D. and D. Morrison. 1984. "Bad news or good news: environmental politics and the mass media", Sociological Review, 32, 75-90.

Lowe, P. D. and W. Riidig. 1985. "Environmental interest groups and government in Britain" in p. Knoepfel and N. Watts (eds) Environmental Politics and Policies, London: Harper and Row. ’

Lukes, S. 1974. Power; A Radical View. London: Macmillan.

Lundqvist, L. J. 1974. Environmental Policies in Canada, Sweden and the United States: A Comparative Overview, Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.

Lundqvist, L. J. 1978. "The comparative study of environmental politics: from garbage to gold?" International Journal of Environmental Studies, 12, 89-97.

Lundqvist, L. J. 1980. The Hare and the Tortoise: Clean Air Policies in the U.S. and Sweden, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

McCulloch, A. 1983. "The Ecology Party and constituency politics: the anatomy of a grassroots party", Paper presented at the Political Studies Association conference, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, April. 52

McKean, M. A. 1981. Environmental Protest and Citizen Politics in Japan, Berkeley: University of California Press.

McKean, M. A. 1985. "The evolution of Japanese images of the environment", Internationales Asienforum. International Quarterly for Asian Studies, 1/2, pp. 2 5 - 4 3 .

Malkis, A. and H. G. Grasmick. 1977. “Support for the ideology of the environmental movement: tests of alternative hypotheses", Western Socio- logical Review, 8_, 25-47.

Mann, D. E. (ed.) 1981. Environmental Policy Formation, Lexington, MA.: Lexington Books.

Marsh, A. 1981. "Environmental issues in contemporary European politics”, pp. 121-154 of G. T. Goodman et al., The European Transition from Oil: Societal Impacts and Constraints on Energy Policy, London: Academic Press

Marsh, D. (ed.) 1983. Pressure Politics, London: Junction Books

Marsh, J. 1982. Back to the Land: The Pastoral Impulse in Victorian England from 1880 to 1940, London: Quartet Books.

Mazur, A. 1975. "Opposition to technological innovation", Minerva, 13, 58-81.

Mettke, J. R. (ed.) 1982. Die Grünen; Regierungspartner von morgen? Reinbek: Rowohlt.

Mewes, H. 1983. "The West German Green Party", New German Critique, 28, 51-85.

Mez, L. (ed.) 1979. Der Atomkonflikt: Atomindustrie, Atompolitik und Antl-Atom- Bewegung im internationalen Vergleich, Berlin: Olle & Wolter. “

Mez, L. and U. Wolter (eds.). 1980. Die Qual der Wahl: Ein Wegweiser durch die Parteienlandschaft zur Bundestagswahl 1980, Berlin: Olle & Wolter.

Milbrath, L. W. 1981. "Environmental values and beliefs of the general public and leaders in the United States, England and Germany”, pp. 43-61 of D. E. Mann (ed.) op. eit«

Milbrath, L. W. 1984. Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society, Albany, N. Y: State University of New York Press.

Mitchell, R. C. 1979a. "Silent Spring/solid majorities", Public Opinion, (August/ September), 16-20, 55.

Mitchell, R. C. 1979b. "National environmental lobbies and the apparent illogic of collective action", pp. 87-136 of C. S. Russell (ed.), Collective Decision Making:Applications from Public Choice Theory, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Mitchell, R. C. 1984 "Public opinion and environmental politics in the 1970s and 1980s" in N. J. Vig and M. E. Kraft (eds), Environmental Policy in the 1980s, Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press. 53

Mitchell, R. C. and J. C. Davies III. 1978. The United States Environmental Movement and its Historical Context (Discussion Paper D-32), Washington, D.C. Resources for the Future.

Morrison, D. E., K. E. Hornback and W. K. Warner. 1972. "The environmental move­ ment some preliminary observations and predictions," pp. 259-279 of W. R. Burch, N. H. Cheek, and L. Taylor (eds), Social Behavior, Natural Resources and the Environment, New York: Harper and Row.

Morrison, D. E. and R. E. Dunlap. 1985. "Is environmentalism elitist?" in F. H. Buttel and C. R. Humphrey (eds), Environment and Society, University Park Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Muller-Rommel, F. 1982a. "Ecology parties in Western Europe", West European Politics, 5, 68-74.

Muller—Rommel, F. 1982b. "'Parteien neuen Typs’ in Westeuropa: Eine vergleichende Analyse", Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, 13, 369-390.

Muller—Rommel, F. 1983a. "Die Postmaterialismusdiskussion in der empirischen Sozialforschung: Politisch und wissenschaftlich überlebt oder noch immer zukunftsweisend?", politische Vierteljahresschrift, 24, 218-228.

Muller—Rommel, F. 1983b. "Zur elektoralen Verankerung der neuen sozialen Bewegungen", Paper presented at the congress of the German Political Science Association, Mannheim, October.

Müller-Rommel, F. 1984a. "Zum Verhältnis von neuen sozialen Bewegungen und neuen Konfliktdimensionen in den politischen Systemen Westeuropas: Eine empirische Analyse”, Journal für Sozialforschung

Müller-Rommel, F. 1984b. "DIE GRÜNEN im Lichte von neuesten Ergebnissen der Wahlforschung", in T. Kluge (ed.), op.clt.

Müller-Rommel, F. 1985. "New social movements and smaller parties: a comparative analysis", West European Politics, _8, 41-54.

Muller—Rommel, F. and H. Wilke, 1981. "Sozialstruktur und 'postmaterialistische' Wertorientierungen von Ökologisten: Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel Frankreichs", Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 22, 383-397.

Mushaben, J. M. 1983. "Innocence lost: environmental Images and political experiences among West German 'Greens'", paper presented at the Sixth Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Oxford, July.

Mutch, W.E.S. 1977. "The expansion of Tumhouse, Edinburgh airport", pp. 44-58 of W.R.D. Sewell and J. T. Coppock (eds.), Public Participation in Planning, Chichester: Wiley.

Nash, R. 1967. Wilderness and the American Mind, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Nelkin, D. 1977. Technological Decisions and Democracy: European Experiments in Public Participation, Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage. 54

Nelkin, D. and M. Brown. 1984. Workers at Risk: Vocies from the Workplace, Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press.

Nelkin, D. and M. Poliak. 1981. The Atom Besieged: Extra-parliamentary Dissent in France and Germany, Cambridge, MA. : MIT Press.

Nullmeier, F., F. Rubart and H. Schultz. 1983. Umweltbewegungen und Partelensystem Umweltgruppen und Umweltparteien in Frankreich und Schweden, Berlin: Quorum.

Olsen, J. P. 1977. Organisational Participation in Government, Bergen: University of Bergen.

Olson, M. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (rev. ed), New York: Schocken.

O ’Riordan, T. 1979. "Public interest environmental groups in the United States and Britain", Journal of American Studies, 13, 409-438.

0 ’Riordan, T. 1981. Environmentalism 2nd ed. London: Pion.

Papadakis, E. 1984. The Green Movement in West Germany, London: Croom Helm.

Parkin, F. 1968. Middle Class Radicalism: The Social Bases of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Parkin, F. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique, London: Tavistock Publications.

Pepper, D. 1984. The Roots of Modern Environmentalism, London: Croom Helm.

Pilat, J. F. 1980. Ecological Politics: The Rise of the Green Movement, Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.

Pilat, J. F. 1983. "Whither the West German Greens?" Contemporary Review, 242, 292-297.

Poulantzas, N. 1975. Classes in Contemporary Capitalism, London: New Left Books.

Prescott-Clarke, P. 1982. Public Attitudes towards Industrial, Work-related and Other Risks, London: Social and Community Planning Research.

Pridham, G. 1978. "Ecologists in politics: the West German case", Parliamentary Affairs, 31,, 436-444.

Rammstedt, 0. 1978. Soziale Bewegung, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen. 1978. Umweltgutachten 1978, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Reich, M. R. 1981. Toxic Politics: A Comparative Study of Public and Private Responses to Chemical Disasters in the United States, Italy, and Japan, Ph.D. thesis, Yale University.

Reich, M. R. 1984. "Mobilizing for environmental policy in Italy and Japan" Comparative Politics, 16, 379-402. 55

Richardson, G. 1982. Policing Pollution: A Study of Regulation and Enforcement Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Richardson, J. J. (ed.) 1982. Policy styles in Western Europe, London: George Allen & Unwin.

Richardson, J. J. and A. G. Jordan, 1979. Governing under Pressure: The Policy Process in a Post-Parliamentary Democracy, Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Rickwood, P. W. 1973. Public Enjoyment of the Open Countryside in England and Wales, 1919-1939, Ph.D. thesis, University of Leicester.

Roddewig, R. J. 1978. Green Bans, Montclair, N. J. Allenheld Osmun/Universe <♦ Rothschuh, K.E. 1983. Naturheilbewegung, Reformbewegung, Alternativbewegung, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Rüdig, W. 1981."Public participation and nuclear power politics", Politics,1,35-42.

Rüdig, W. 1983a. “Clustered nuclear siting and anti-nuclear opposition", Paper presented to the Sixth Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Oxford, July.

Rüdig, W. 1983b."The greening of Germany," The Ecologist, 13, No. 1, 35-39.

Rüdig, W. 1985a. "The Dutch and French Greens in the'European elections 1984: case Studies in experimental politics", paper presented at the United Kingdom Political Studies Association Conference, Manchester, April.

Rüdig, W. 1985b. "The Greens in Europe: ecological parties and the European elections of 1984", Parliamentary Affairs, 38, 56-72.

Rüdig, W. forthcoming. Anti-nuclear Movements: A World Survey London: Longman.

Rüdig, W. and P. D. Lowe. 1984. "The unfulfilled prophecy: Touraine and the anti-nuclear movement,” Modern and Contemporary France, no 20 (December), 19-23.

Rüdig, W. and P.D. Lowe. 1985. "The withered ’greening' of British politics: a study of the Ecology Party", Political Studies (forthcoming).

Sabatier, P. 1975. "Social movements and regulatory agencies: toward a more adequate — and less pessimistic — theory of 'clientele capture'", Policy Sciences, _6, 301-342.

Sabatier, P. 1977. "Regulatory policy-making: toward a framework of analysis", Natural Resources Journal, 17, 415-460.

Sanderson, J. B. 1974. "The National Smoke Abatement Society and theClean Air Act (1956)", pp. 27-44 of R. Kimber and J.J. Richardson (eds) op. cit.

Schmidt, M. G. 1984. "Demokratie, Wohlfahrtsstaat und neue soziale Bewegungen”, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, no. 11, 3-14. 56

Schoonmaker, D. 1983. "The 'Greens' in West Germany: between movement and party", Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September.

Schrepfer, S. R. 1983. The Fight to Save the Redwoods: A History of Environmental Reform 1917-1978, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Schroeren, M. 1977. Z. B. Kaiseraugst: Der gewaltfreie Widerstand gegen das Atomkraftwerk, Zürich: Schweizerischer Friedensrat.

Schumaker, P. D. 1975. "Policy responsiveness to protest group demands", Journal of Politics, 37, 488-521.

Sheail, J. 1976. Nature in Trust, Glasgow: Blackie.

Sheail, J. 1981. Rural Conservation in Inter-war Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sicinski, A. and M. Wemagah (eds) 1983. Alternative Ways of Life in Contemporary Europe, Tokyo: United Nations University.

Simonis, U. E. 1984. Preventive Environmental Policy — Concept and Data Requirements, Berlin: International Institute for Environment and Society, Science Centre Berlin.

Smith, P. J. (ed.) 1975. The Politics of Physical Resources, Harmandsworth: Penguin

Smith, V. K. 1985. "A theoretical analysis of the green lobby", American Political Science Review, 79, 132-147.

Solesbury, W. 1976. "The environmental agenda", Public Administration, 54, 379-397.

Sternstein, W. 1978. Überall ist Wyhl: Bürgerinitiativen gegen Atomanlagen, Frankfurt: Haag + Herchen.

Stockton, B. and P. Janke. 1978. Nuclear Power: Protest and Violence, London: Institute for the Study of Conflict.

Stouthuysen, P. 1983. "De politieke identiteit van de Vlaamse Groene Partij AGALEV", Res Publica, 25, 349-375.

Surrey, J. and C. Huggett. 1976. "Opposition to nuclear power: a review of the international experience", Energy Policy, _4, 286-307.

Sweet, W. 1977. "The opposition to nuclear power in Europe", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 33 (10), 40-47.

Talbot, A. R. 1972. Power along the Hudson: The Storm King Case and the Birth of Environmentalism, New York: Dutton.

Taylor, R. and C. Pritchard, 1980. The Protest Makers: The British Nuclear Disarmament Movement of 1958-1965, Twenty Years on, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Tellegen, E. 1981. "The environmental movement in the Netherlands", Progress in Resource Management and Environmental Planning, 2» 1-32. 57

Tellegen, E. 1983. Milieubeweging, Utrecht: Aula/Het Spectrum.

Thom, E. 1979. “The emergence, development and effectiveness of the nuclear protest movement", pp. 21-82 of G. Küppers and H. Nowotny (eds), The Impact of the Nuclear Controversy on Decision-making Structures, Bielefeld: Forschungsschwerpunkt Wissenschaftsforschung, Universität Bielefeld.

Thomas, K. 1983. Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800, London: Allen Lane.

Tillock, H. and D. E. Morrison, 1979. "Group size and contributions to collective action: an examination of Olson’s theory using data from Zero Population Growth, Inc.", in L. Kreisberg (ed) Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, New York: JAI Press.

Touraine, ^A., Z. Hegedus, F. Dubet, and M. Wieviorka. 1980. La prophetie anti- nucleaire Paris. Seuil. (English translation. Anti-nuclear Protest: The Opposition to Nuclear Energy in France, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

Troitzsch, K. G. 1980. "Die Herausforderung der ’etablierten* Parteien durch die ’Grünen’”, pp. 260-294 of H. Kaack and R. Roth (eds), Handbuch des deutschen Parteiensystems, Vol. 1, Opladen: Lese Verlag + Budrich GmbH.

Useem, B. 1980. "Solidarity model, breakdown model and the Boston anti-busing movement", American Sociological Review, 45, 357-369.

Vadrot, C. M. 1978. L ’ecologie, histoire d ’une subversion, Paris: Syros.

Vadrot, C. M. 1980. "Historique des mouvements ecologistes", Paper presented to the symposium Ecologisme et Politique, Association franqaise des sciences politiques, Paris, September.

Van Deth, J. 1983. "The persistence of materialist and post-materialist value orientations", European Journal of Political Research, 11, 63-79.

Van Liere, K. D., A. E. Ladd and T. C. Hood. 1979. "Anti-nuclear demonstrators: a study of participants in the May 6 anti-nuclear demonstration", Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Sociological Association, Memphis, TN., October/November.

Van Liere, K. D. and R. E. Dunlap 1980. "The social bases of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence," Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 181-197.

Vedung, E. forthcoming."The Environmentalist Party.and the Swedish, five-party syndrome" in K. Lawson and P. Merkl (eds), When Parties Fail: Emerging Alternative Organizations, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.

Von Moltke, K. and N. Visser. 1982. Die Rolle der Umweltschutzverbände im politischen Entscheidungsprozess der Niederlande, Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.

Walker, P. (ed.) 1979. Between Capital and Labour, London: Harvester Press. 58

Ward, H. 1983. "The anti-nuclear lobby: an unequal struggle?" pp. 182-211 of D. Marsh (ed.) op. cit.

Watts, N. 1979. "Gesellschaftspolitische Bedingungen der Umweltbewegung im internationalen Vergleich", Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, IQ, 170-177.

Watts, N. and G. Wandesforde-Smith, 1981. "Post-material values and environmental policy change,” pp. 29-42 of D. E. Mann (ed.) op, cit.

Webb, K. et. al. 1983. "Etiology and outcomes of protest: new European perspectives", American Behavioral Scientist, 26, 311—331.

Wenner, L. M. 1982. The Environmental Decade in Court, Bloomington: Indiana University press.

Wenner, L. M. 1983. "Interest group litigation and environmental policy”, Policy Studies Journal, 11, 671-683.

Wey, K.-G. 1982. Umweltpolitik in Deutschland: Kurze Geschichte des Umweltschutzes in Deutschland seit 1900, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Wiener, M. J. 1981. English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit, 1850-1980, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Wilson, J. Q. 1973. Political Organisations, New York: Basic Books.

Wynne, B. 1982. Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain, Chalfont St. Giles, Bucks.: The British Society for the History of Science.

Zimmerman, E. 1983. Political Violence, Crises, and Revolutions: Theories and Research, Boston/Cambridge, MA.: G. K. Hall/Schenkman.