Environmental Movements in East Central Europe: Between Technocracy and the “Third Way”

  • Lars K. Hallström

Abstract

The “widening” and “deepening” of a pan-European political entity, which proceeded at a startling pace during the 1990s and began the twenty-first century with a common currency (the Euro) and a membership of 27 member-states, has raised a series of both practical and theoretical questions. Initially a response to the tragedies of World War II and a way to limit any possible military aspirations in post-Fascist Germany, the European Union (EU) has become a case study in globalization. Characterized by multiple, often intersecting and overlapping levels of decision-making (see for example Hooghe and Marks 2001), transnational policy networking, and a reconfiguration of Westphalian sovereignty, the EU has been referred to, perhaps erroneously, as the first postmodern state. This “regulation of deregulation” above the nation-state in the EU has not only weakened or modified traditional locations of political authority, it has also coincided with processes of fragmentation, subnational and regional empowerment, and the decline of state-based authority.

Keywords

Europe Transportation Sewage Social Stratification Expense 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Agh, Attila. 1999. “Processes of Democratization in the East Central European and Balkan States: Sovereignty-Related Conflicts in the Context of Europeanization.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 32: 263–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, Svein. S. and Kjell Eliassen. A. 1996. The European Union: How Democratic Is It? London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry, Norman. “Germany and the Third Way.” Accessed January 20, 2003 <http://www.libertyhaven.com/countriesandregions/germany/thirdway.shtml>.Google Scholar
  4. Baubock, Ranier. 2000. Public lecture at the Austrian Permanent Representation at the European Union.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, Ulrich. 2002. Macht und Gegenmacht in globalen Zeitalter. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Bulmer, Simon. 1997. “New Institutionalism, The Single Market and EU Governance.” Accessed January 18, 2002 <http://www.arena.uio.no/pulications/wp97_25.htm>.Google Scholar
  7. Chryssochoou, Dimitris. N. 1998. Democracy in the European Union. London: Tauris Academic Studies.Google Scholar
  8. Coleman, William. 2003. Globality and Transnational Policy-making in Agriculture: Complexity, Contradictions, and Conflict. Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition Working Papers. No. 6.Google Scholar
  9. Czech Ministry of Environment. 1999. Report on the Environment in Czech Republic in 1998. Prague: MoE.Google Scholar
  10. —. 1999. State Environmental Policy. Prague: MoE.Google Scholar
  11. Dalton, Russel J. and Robert Rohrschneider. 1999. “Transnational Environmentalism: Do Environmental Groups Cooperate Globally?” Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine. Research Papers.Google Scholar
  12. Delamaide, Darrell. 1994. The New Superregions of Europe. New York: Pengu in Books.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. 2002. “The Enlargement of the European Union on May 1, 2004.” EU Info, 6, 1.Google Scholar
  14. Fagin, Andrew and Petr Jehlicka. 1998. “Sustainable Development in the Czech Republic: A Doomed Process?” Pp. 113–28 in Dilemmas of Transition: The Environment, Democracy and Economic Reform in East Central Europe, ed. S. Baker and Petr Jehlicka. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  15. Fric, Pavel. 1999. Activities and Needs of the Non-Profit Organizations in the Czech Republic. Prague: ICN—Information Center for Foundations and Other Not-For-Profit Organizations.Google Scholar
  16. Glinski, Piotr. 1998. “Polish Greens and Politics: A Social Movement in a Time of Transformation” Pp. 129–53 in Environmental Protection in Transition: Economic, Legal and Socio-political Perspectives on Transition, ed. Daniel H. Cole and John Clark. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  17. Hallström, Lars. K. 2004. “Eurocratizing Enlargement? EU Elites and NGO Participation in European Environmental Policy” Pp. 175–93 in EU Enlargement and the Environment: Institutional Change and Environmental Policy in Central and Eastern Europe, ed. J. Carmin and Stacy Vandeveer. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Hicks, Barbara, E. 1996. Environmental Politics in Poland: A Social Movement Between Regime and Opposition. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hooghe, Liesbet and Gary Marks. 2001. “Types of Multi-level Governance.” European Integration Online Papers, 5, no.11.Google Scholar
  20. Institute for Social Studies, University of Warsaw. 1999. Polish General Social Surveys. Warsaw, Poland.Google Scholar
  21. Jancar-Webster, Barbara. 1998. “Environmental Movement and Social Change in the Transition Countries.” Environmental Politics 7, no.1: 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaldor, Mary. 2003. Global Civil Society: An Answer to War. London: Polity.Google Scholar
  23. Kolarska-Bobinska, Lena. 1994. “Social Interests and Their Political Representation: Poland in Transition.” British Journal of Sociology 45, no.1: 109–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuehls, Tom. 1996. Beyond Sovereign Territory. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. March, James G. and Johan P. Olson. 1984. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life.” American Political Science Review 78: 734–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mazey, Sonya and Jeremy Richardson. 1993. Lobbying in the European Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Millard, Frances. 1998. “Environmental Policy in Poland.” Environmental Politics, 7, no.1 (Spring): 145–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ÖGUT (Austrian Society for Environment and Technology) 2002. Environmental Policies, Strategies and Programmes of the EU Accession Countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Austria: ÖGUT.Google Scholar
  29. Orenstein, Mitchell and Raj M. Desai. 1997. “State Power and Interest Group Formation.” Problems of Post-Communism 44, no. 6: 43–53.Google Scholar
  30. Pehe, Jiri. 1993. “Waning Popularity of the Czech Parliament.” RFE/RL Research Reports 2/45.Google Scholar
  31. Potucek, Martin. 1999. Not Only the Market: The Role of the Market, Government and Civic Sector in the Development of Postcommunist Societies. Budapest: CEU Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rosenberg, Tina. 1995. The Haunted Land: Facing Europe’s Ghost After Communism. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  33. Sofres-Factum, s. r. o. 2000. Prague: Sofres-Factum.Google Scholar
  34. Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. “Fishnets, Internets and Catnets: Globalization and Transnational Collective Action.” Pp. 228–44 in Challenging Authority, ed. Hanagan, M. Leslie Page Mooch and Wayne Brake Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  35. Telò, Mario. 2001. European Union and New Regionalism: Regional Actors and Global Governance in a Post-Hegemonic Era. Aldershot: Ashgare.Google Scholar
  36. Tucker, Aviiezer, Karel Jakes, Marian Kiss, Ivana Kupcova, Ivo Losman, David Ondracka, Jan Outly, and Vera Styskalikova. 2000. “From Republican Virtue to Technology of Power: Three Episodes of Czech Nonpolitical Politics.” Political Science Quarterly 115, no. 4: 421–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vecernik, Jiri. 1999. “The Middle Class in the Czech Reforms: the Interplay between Policies and Social Stratification.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 32: 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weber, Cynthia. 1995. Simulating Sovereignty—Intervention, the State and Symbolic Exchange. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Weiler, Joseph. 1995. “European Democracy and its Critique: Five Uneasy Pieces.” EUI Working Papers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Janie Leatherman and Julie Webber 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars K. Hallström

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations