IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/sustdv/v18y2010i6p398-412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecological modernization versus sustainable development: the case of genetic modification regulation in New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Jeanette Wright
  • Priya Kurian

Abstract

Ecological modernization and sustainable development are the two dominant paradigms in environmental policy. This paper assesses the implications of competing understandings of ecological modernization and sustainable development using the case of genetic modification regulation in New Zealand. Although the New Zealand regulatory framework embraces the symbolic language of sustainability, it ultimately adheres to a narrow notion of ecological modernization. By adopting a technically driven risk management process and a diluted precautionary approach, alongside limiting public input into decision-making on genetic modification, it undercuts its commitment to sustainable development definitionally and procedurally. Analysis of the New Zealand biotechnology policy regulatory framework, which consists of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act and the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), shows how institutionalization of a narrow conception of ecological modernization can preempt real commitment to sustainable development. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeanette Wright & Priya Kurian, 2010. "Ecological modernization versus sustainable development: the case of genetic modification regulation in New Zealand," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(6), pages 398-412, November/.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:18:y:2010:i:6:p:398-412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/sd.430
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lisa Biber‐Freudenberger & Candan Ergeneman & Jan Janosch Förster & Thomas Dietz & Jan Börner, 2020. "Bioeconomy futures: Expectation patterns of scientists and practitioners on the sustainability of bio‐based transformation," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 1220-1235, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:sustdv:v:18:y:2010:i:6:p:398-412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1719 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.