TY - JOUR

T1 - Symbolic Environmental Legislation and Societal Self-Deception

AU - Newig, Jens

N1 - Funding Information: Correspondence Address: Jens Newig, Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, Barbara Str.12, D-49069, Osnabrück, Germany. Email: jens.newig@usf.uni-osnabrueck.de This contribution draws in large parts on the doctoral thesis of the author (Newig, 2003), a project funded by the Volkswagen Foundation, Hannover, Germany. The author thanks the editors of this volume and an anonymous reviewer for valuable comments on an earlier version of this contribution.

PY - 2007/4/1

Y1 - 2007/4/1

N2 - The primarily symbolic quality of many environmental laws is widely held responsible for the fact that despite all eco-political achievements many major environmental problems still remain unresolved. This contribution works towards a clear conceptual distinction between symbolic and non-symbolic environmental legislation; it investigates different levels of effectiveness of symbolic legislation, tries to establish a series of external factors which are conducive to the production of primarily symbolic laws, and argues that such legislation must not simply be understood as wilfully deceiving the citizenry, but can also be read as reflecting a certain readiness of citizens to let them be deceived. Thus, the incidence of symbolic legislation may point towards practices of societal self-deception. The German Summer Smog Act 1995 and the Ordinance on Large Combustion Plants 1983 are analysed and compared as paradigmatic examples of symbolic and non-symbolic environmental legislation and as empirical cases for the study of the questions that have just been outlined.

AB - The primarily symbolic quality of many environmental laws is widely held responsible for the fact that despite all eco-political achievements many major environmental problems still remain unresolved. This contribution works towards a clear conceptual distinction between symbolic and non-symbolic environmental legislation; it investigates different levels of effectiveness of symbolic legislation, tries to establish a series of external factors which are conducive to the production of primarily symbolic laws, and argues that such legislation must not simply be understood as wilfully deceiving the citizenry, but can also be read as reflecting a certain readiness of citizens to let them be deceived. Thus, the incidence of symbolic legislation may point towards practices of societal self-deception. The German Summer Smog Act 1995 and the Ordinance on Large Combustion Plants 1983 are analysed and compared as paradigmatic examples of symbolic and non-symbolic environmental legislation and as empirical cases for the study of the questions that have just been outlined.

KW - Sustainability sciences, Communication

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34147145443&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09644010701211783

DO - 10.1080/09644010701211783

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 16

SP - 276

EP - 296

JO - Environmental Politics

JF - Environmental Politics

SN - 0964-4016

IS - 2

ER -