Search results

Soil is a non-renewable and increasingly deteriorating resource, yet it is barely protected by European Union (EU) legislation. This constitutes a puzzling gap within the otherwise encompassing and progressive environmental policy of the EU. To explain the integration resistance of soil protection, I draw on insights from rationalist and sociological institutionalist theory. The institutional rigidity of the community method of environmental decision-making limits policy change to favorable interest constellations, but this constraint is usually compensated by agenda competition among the national environmental pioneers. However, successful agenda-setting depends on the skillful combination of political venues and issue frames. Matters of land politics, such as soil protection, are difficult to frame in terms that make them suitable for European policy venues. The theoretical argument is illustrated using an in-depth case study of the agenda-setting, negotiation, and eventual withdrawal of the ill-fated proposal for an EU soil framework directive, with a focus on the changing role of Germany. Reframing of soil politics as locally bound and as essentially national affair, subnational actors extended the conflict to include the German federal chamber as policy venue. As a result, Germany turned from “pusher by example” and first mover to “defensive front-runner,” successfully pursuing a blocking strategy.

During the past 30 years environmental policy was never between the top priority areas of public intervention in Greece. Legislative measures related to the protection of human health and nuisance from private economic activities were introduced as early as in the beginning of last century. The post dictatorial constitution of 1975 provided, for the first time, specific provision for the protection of natural environment. However, a comprehensive framework legislation regulating all facets of environmental degradation was adopted only in 1986 but remained, for a long period, practically inactive since the necessary implementing decisions were issued with considerable delay. The country's accession into the EU, in 1981, provided a cognitive and material basis for the modernisation of environmental policy through the incorporation of the environmental acquis into domestic law and building up of domestic administrative capacities through the use of the structural funds. However, low prioritisation of environmental protection in the domestic policy agendas of successive Greek governments continued to affect domestic administrative structures and policy traditions.

We aim to comb the current policies that have been developed to promote the environmental industries in China and analyze them in a comparative manner.

We mainly use the method of text study to study the existing policies that Chinese central government published to promote the development of environmental industry. We built a database of policies and regulations from 1979 to 2015 by searching the official website of the Ministry of Environmental Protection of China.

We find that the existing policies focus on command and control approaches. Policies are more oriented to the stage of production instead of stages of investment and consumption. They rely more on negative incentive when stimulating supply and positive incentive when encouraging demand. Based on existing academic wisdom, we suggest that Chinese government should pay more attention to environmental economic policy and to stimulating demand for environmental products.

Few studies provide a systematic overview of the policy systems that have been developed to promote environmental industry in China in a systematic manner.

Institutional actors are critical allies for grassroots movements, but few studies have examined their effects and variations within the non-democratic context. This chapter argues that while institutional allies are heavily constrained and unlikely to give open endorsement to grassroot activists, some institutional activists indirectly facilitate movement mobilization and favorable outcomes in the process of advancing their own political agendas. Drawing upon in-depth interviews conducted in 2008 and 2012, I illustrate this argument by examining the Anti-PX Movement – a landmark grassroots environmental movement against a chemical plant – in Xiamen, China. I find that the environmental institutional actors were constrained and divided, yet some still fostered opportunities for movement mobilization and in turn exploited the opportunity created by the protesters to pursue their policy interests, thus facilitating positive movement outcomes. As long as the claims are not politically subversive to the authoritarian rule, this type of tacit and tactical interaction between institutional activists within the state and grassroot activists on the street is conducive to promoting progressive policy changes.

The objective of this chapter is to analyze China’s outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) to the European Union in environmental industries.

We combine a narrative approach with statistical analysis. We first review the policy background concerning China’s OFDI and environmental protection. Then, we provide statistics on China’s OFDI to the EU in environmental industries, using firm-level data from one of China’s major provinces: Jiangsu.

We find that the OFDI to the EU in environmental industries experienced a considerable growth in terms of number of investing firms and investment value. The OFDI in environmental industries to the EU was highly concentrated in a few countries, particularly Germany and Luxemburg, and a few industries, particularly new energy.

Using firm-level data from only one province may limit the generalizability of our findings. However, we believe the case of Jiangsu province sheds much light on the situation of entire China because Jiangsu is one of the most important Chinese provinces in terms of OFDI.

The detailed analysis of our Jiangsu’s OFDI in EU’s environmental industries in this chapter can help to inform the investment cooperation in environmental industries between China and EU in terms of both scope of investment partners and target industries.

This study is one of the first to provide a detailed summary statistics on China’s OFDI to the EU in environmental industries. Given China’s growing concerns regarding environmental protection and OFDI, we believe the question merits further analysis.

The issue of environmental regulation and productivity has received increasing attention among academics, but little research has focused on Chinese firms despite the serious state of pollution in China. This study aimed to fill that gap. Analyzing a sample of firms from 12 Chinese cities, we found that environmental regulation could improve firm productivity, but the responses to environmental regulation differed across industry sectors, firm sizes, and locations. In this paper, we discuss the implications of these responses toward the environmental policy in China.