De-institutionalising Environmentalism The Shift from Civil Institutions to a Fake State Institutionalisation Jean-Paul Bozonnet Contact : [email protected] CIDSP-PACTE, Institute of Political Studies of Grenoble (France) International Conference

Local Institution Building for the Environment: Perspectives from East and West Gorizia (Italy), 9-10 September 2004 The institutionalisation of environmentalist movements is nowadays a commonplace, if not an established fact. Some activists, having become professional teachers or experts, find their place in public management, and tone down their anti-establishment discourse (Ollitrault, 1996 ; Ollitrault, 2001); others have developed green parties and are well integrated into the political machinery, (Vaillancourt, 2000 ; Bozonnet, 2002); they have won parliamentary seats, and even occupied ministerial chairs (Fréchet, 1995). Environmental organisations are subsidized, and work as lobbies rather than as social movements. All these changes have been thoroughly surveyed in sociological literature, but mainly from the point of view of activists or leaders of organisations (Perron, 1999), or from that of public policy-making, which is itself an institutional matter. However, little has been said about ordinary members, mere sympathizers who make up the majority of this population of environmentalists (Kempton, 1995). How do these people perceive and make up their own minds about this process of institutionalisation ? How do they place themselves within the new context? In this paper, we will study the opinions, attitudes and practices of common citizens in Europe and the world, thanks to far-reaching international surveys. We have found that the move towards institutionalisation is not as inexorable as is sometimes described or feared.

I.

Definitions, concepts, hypotheses

First, we need to define our terms, and particularly the concept of institution, it not being employed here in its common meaning.

1. Definition of environmentalism We will consider environmentalism or ecology in their very broad sense, defined by the following survey indicators: - Concerns about the future of the environment, - Putting the protection of the environment or of nature, as a priority ahead of other social or economic problems,

- Accepting the sacrifice of something in the form of a donation, higher taxes, reduction in standard of living, to contribute to the protection of the environment, - Participating in activities or voluntary work in ecological associations.

2. What institution is not The everyday meaning of the word “institution” signifies "integration into the established political system". When applied to ecology, it implies that the movement becomes moderated, that some activists are involved in public policy-making while others become elected representatives. But our definition is very different in that it is broader, based on the teachings of the founders of sociological or anthropological theory. So, first of all, we have to rule out some meanings. An institution is not necessarily part of the State. State certainly belongs to institutions, and most of the time, when authorities take over some new field of activity, it is an institutionalised process: for instance, air pollution measures by public services. Nevertheless, many institutions are removed from the State, like environmental groups such as Greenpeace or CRII-RAD in France which is specialized in the measurement of radioactivity. An institution is not necessarily an organisation either, though certainly many of them are. But nowadays some organisations, among them the anti-globalisation groups for instance, emphasize the use of protest, and reject any established practice, claiming continuous innovation as their motto. Conversely, some widespread and repetitive individual practices, for instance not littering public areas, are common habits in many countries, without any special organisation, and may be considered as institutions. Institutionalisation is different from rationalisation. Traditional societies are highly institutionalised, and much less rationalized; in the same way primary institutions like the family are founded on affects rather than rationality. On the other hand, rational activities or organisations may be not institutionalised: for instance green parties fight off institutionalisation to maintain direct democracy. And finally, institutions may be immaterial: for instance, languages or ideologies are institutions, i.e. codes or institutionalised representations, without a material dimension.

3. The concept of institution in classic sociology and anthropology The ancient meaning of the word "institution", common in the XIXth century, is given by the Littré dictionary: "all that is invented and established by men in opposition to that coming from nature" (Littré, 1987). This usual definition is close to anthropology: at the time of birth, the human being appears incomplete and disarmed for life (Leroi-Gourhan, 1964; Leroi-Gourhan, 1965); moreover, he becomes aware of his loneliness in space, of his finitude in time, and of his dereliction (Gehlen, 1990). Therefore, he must provide himself with mediation, technique with tools, and society with institutions, which can be considered as the principles of culture. In sociology, Durkheim has considered the institution as the essence of his scientific object; he relates it to all social, repetitive, long-lasting facts, the only thing that is usable by method (Durkheim, 1967), unlike singular facts given up to historiography. An institution has two paradoxical features: it compels individuals and at the same time, it integrates them (Durkheim, 1973). In this view, an institution has a wide-reaching signification, and includes both family and the State, or associations and most social facts. Applied to the environment, institutionalisation will show its dark side, with repression, prohibition and punishment, and its bright side with

integration, social capital and environmental citizenship (Putnam, 2000; Bozonnet, 2004). Malinovski has systematized this theory by explaining that culture is equivalent to institutions, attaching to each kind of institution a function (Malinovski, 1968). He links these to needs inherent to every society: subsistence, reproduction, security, education, communication, integration… and points to related institutions: the family, language, technique, companies, and the State with its regal attributes, the army, police, justice system and administration. Malinovski finds several functions pertaining to institutions in general: they reassure individuals and make cooperation possible, integrating them through collective rules. Functions and institutions are not strictly limited, but grow in number and complexity, as derivative needs expand. Thus, in our case, environmentalism may be considered as a new need that emerged from growing industrial complexity, institutionalizing it and simply setting up social machinery to fit this new function. Talcott Parsons has tried to synthesize these holistic and deterministic conceptions with the sociology of action. First he reminds us that homo oeconomicus’ rational interests do not exist per se, but are always embedded in institutions that orient choices by constraints and collective values (Parsons, 1973). Then, he conceptualises the articulation between the systemic and functional requirements of institutions and the free working of individual actors. For this purpose, he borrows from culturalism the concepts of status and role (Linton, 1968; Kardiner, 1969), which provide a set of stable personal norms and allow for the analysis of interaction: on the one hand, the actor, by knowing the status of his partner, can anticipate the result of his interactions, and fit his behaviour accordingly; on the other hand, the partner, informed by the status of the actor can do the same. Creating a stable anticipation, status and role carries an economic function: the actor, inserted into a network of habits, can spend his energy and his cleverness on new and creative situations. Finally, status and role can complement one another, for instance the doctor and his patient: by multiplying, they can build an institution at the macro-social level. In our paper, this theory explains the mechanism of the loss of status, with its norms and values, when an activist for instance leaves an environmental organisation to become an ordinary citizen again.

4. Individualism and contesting institutions At the end of the 20th century, most sociologists understood Parson’s theory as a great synthesis, but felt it froze the social action into a static frame and expelled any movement and history. Contrarily, they constantly emphasize the fact that institutions are ever on the move, precarious, instable, dysfunctional, and even alienating: in sum, institutions are considered as construct which amounts to rehabilitating the individuals. That is one of Max Weber’s crucial ideas, the reference in the analysis of perverse effects and historical paradoxes, with the metaphor of capitalism’s iron cage, which traps inflamed Protestants (Weber, 1999). Relegating consciousness to the background, the institution can forget its original finalities, carry on automatisms, routines or unjustified traditions in new contexts, and as a result, generate dysfunctions. Moreover, institutions as means can contradict finalities and alienate themselves; ending up becoming detached from individuals, which backfires on them (Schaff, 1974). This is the reason why some sociologists, in the protesting sixties, challenged the principle of the institution: Lourau and Lapassade distinguish two major moments, the "instituted", founded by individuals when they come into the social world, and the "instituting", a favoured moment when individuals analyse, contest, modify, even destroy the "instituted", for the purpose

of creating "anti-institutions" (Lourau, 1974). In the same view, but less radically, Giddens, underlining the reflexivity of the actor, develops the theory of the construction of instituted social relations, which he gives the name of "social structures" when they are stabilized, and which are both conditions and results of individual action (Giddens, 1987). Other sociologists analyse more rigorously and precisely the dysfunction of institutions. Merton in particular proceeds to a wellbalanced critique of the absolute functionalism of Malinovski, and shows that institutions may be strained by perverse effects (Merton, 1965). From now on, this type of analysis is systematically undertaken in public policy sociology, especially when these policies apply to the environment (Salles, 2004). Above all, some sociologists of individualism and constructivism have contested holistic theories, and especially Erwin Goffman. His major survey, related in Asylums, shows that individuals can never be totally chained to the prison of institutions, even in the harshest conditions. There are always interstices through which they set aside space and time, and prepare circumventing strategies (Goffman, 1968). From this extreme model, Goffman proves that institutions are constantly challenged, bent, and modified by individuals gradually gnawing away at them, and, on the whole, they exist only as far as they are supported and continuously reconstructed by those individuals.

5. De-institutionalisation The giving up of the concept of institution by sociologists had to be analysed deeper. Anthropologists describe traditional societies with legitimate institutions, which seem eternal to their members and command absolute respect. They show that institutions are relatively functional in a durable socio-technical system, which seems an immobile and ahistorical society (Leroi-Gourhan, 1964). Now, modernity has changed socio-technical systems drastically, needing continuous adaptation from institutions (Ellul, 1977). Therefore, unsurprisingly, the latter are questioned by reflexivity, their natural appearance is demystified (Giddens, 1987), they are criticized, reorganized, even abrogated, replaced and undergo a perpetual cycle of transformation. It is also functional that socialisation which formerly meant unilateral and intangible rules, is nowadays replaced by negotiation and explanation, involving individuals in temporary rules and behaviour. The deconstruction of institutions by sociologists takes part in this reflexivity and echoes widespread protest. On the whole, these two phenomena are wholly adapted to advanced modernity. Nevertheless, some sociologists do not agree with this happy vision of permanent institutional adaptation, and worry about the chaotic future of institutions, as well as their loss of legitimacy and the withdrawal of citizens who challenge the rules. In short, the sociologists fear the spectre of anonymity. So, some of them are re-discovering the nostalgic tone of the XIXth century complaining about family de-institutionalisation (Roussel, 1989); others wonder about public institutions weakening, mainly through the end of the ideologies which have held big state machineries like education, health and social systems firmly together up to now (Dubet, 2002); moreover, others are concerned by relativism about social values and the lack of altruism at the core of institutions (Galland, 2003). From these interpretations, we are reminded of the withdrawal of people involved especially in the environmental field, which emphasizes the desertion of associative activists who thus make way for public structures, as well as a rise in illegitimacy of public policies concerned with the environment.

6. Hypothesis Our hypothesis is based on the idea that environmental institutionalisation is not a univocal process, but that it evolves in a different and sometimes contradictory manner. The first kind of often suggested evolution, is the fact that the original effervescence of ecology has been integrated into political systems in two ways: firstly as an input inside the system, transformation of organisations into parties, and their involvement in local and national decisional organs, and secondly as an output outside the system, with activists getting involved in local authorities and state-managed bodies. This is State institutionalisation. This first evolution implies a parallel and complementary second: the breaking down of the environmental associations created during the sixties. Consequently, the latter are on the decline and have given way to activist disengagement of the end of the XXth century. Here is environmental de-institutionalisation in civil society. Our hypothesis suggests an interpretation on the nature of this double movement: that it is not a simple transfer from civil society authorities but rather that activists' disengagement is a result of a growing rejection of the constraints imposed by the State, including its crucial functions of enforcing taxes and laws. Despite institutional appearances, it might be another form of de-institutionalisation, similar to the case of family or education system, and which is consistent with a general moving back, which can be found in every institutional commitment.

7. Method Our demonstration relies on wide-reaching European and international surveys, the EVS, the ISSP and the ESS. The European Values Survey (EVS) has been carried out in most European countries in 1990 and 1999, using the same questionnaire, and samples of about a thousand individuals for each country (Bréchon, 2002). The survey is not specifically aimed at the environment, but some questions deal with this issue, in particular membership of environmental protection groups or the acceptance of the idea of donations or tax breaks to fight against environmental pollution. The International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) is carried out in many countries in the world, particularly in the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, at regular intervals, either through face to face interviews or by mail questionnaires, with samples of about one thousand individuals for each country. There have been two surveys dealing with environmental issues so far, in 1993 and 2000. Many questions are asked about ecology and among them we will pick indicators such as organisation membership and attitudes towards State intervention. Finally, the European Social Survey, (ESS), has been carried out in several European countries with much more rigorous methodological standards than the two aforementioned surveys. The 2003 survey, dealt with in this paper, does not specifically concern environmental issues, but associative topics, and, among them membership of environmental groups. These different surveys are stored in the Social Science Data Archive (BDSP), which is part of CIDSP-PACTE, at the Grenoble Institute of Political Studies (IEP). For more information on the technical characteristics used in the creation and carrying out of these international surveys, the reader should refer to the BDSP website, http://www.cidsp.com. The interpretation of the surveys and the consequent calculations have been made possible thanks to the SPSS Software.

II. De-institutionalisation in civil society: environmental disengagement Environmental disengagement in civil society appears through two indicators, available in our surveys: members’ discontent within ecological organisations, and the growing rejection of the idea of sacrificing oneself to defend the environment

1. Associative commitment on the wane In the West, there was a widespread decline in new membership of ecological associations in the nineties (Bozonnet, 2003). This trend is underlined in the three international surveys, EVS, ISSP and ESS. Question wording: EVS Surveys of 1990 and 1999: "Please look carefully at the following list of voluntary organisations and activities and say… a) which, if any, do you belong to ? b) which, if any, are you currently doing unpaid voluntary work for ? … - Conservation, the environment, ecology, animal rights". … ISSP Surveys of 1993 and 2000: - "Are you a member of any group whose main aim is to preserve or protect the environment?" ESS Survey of 2003 "For each of the voluntary organizations I will now mention, please use this card to tell me whether any of the following apply to you now or have applied in the last 12 months, and, if so, which.?....member of an organisation for environmental protection, the promotion of peace or animal rights?" A universal decrease in associative membership. Measuring associative membership is not simple, and results differ according to the questions' wording, the type of contact with interviewees, and the meaning of the term "membership" according to the countries. But, on the whole, despite some exceptions that will be explained later, our results are relatively coherent, and show a significant regression of associative membership throughout the nineties.

TABLE 1 – ENVIRONMENTAL MEMBERSHIP IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES ACCORDING TO SURVEY DATES Environmental/animal rights group membership* Australia Austria Belarus Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany (ExRFA) Germany (ExRDA) Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israël Italy Japan Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Norway Netherlands New-Zealand Poland Portugal Romania Sweden Russia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Turquie Ukraine United Kingdom USA**

EVS-1990 6.6% 11.9% 14.4% 5.9% 4.1%

EVS-1999 9.1% 0.9% 11.4% 1.3% 2.1% 6.6% 13.1% 1.7% 4.4% 2.2%

ISSP1993 9.6% 1.9% 6.6% 3.2% -

ISSP2000 7.8% 7.3% 2.9% 10.7% 5.3% -

8.6%

2.8%

5.5%

5.2%

6.6% 3.2% 4.1% 28.3% 1.6% 14.8% 1.9% 6.1% -

11.0% 1.9% 4.6% 2.8% 3.8% 0.7% 0.7% 10.6% 43.5% 1.3% 0.5% 1.0% 11.3% 0.7% 2.6% 3.3% 2.5% 0.2% 0.6% 1.5% -

2.9% 3.0 4.0% 4.7% 2.1% 5.0% 16.7% 17.3% 3.5% 2.4% 3.7% 2.4% 5.2% 10.0%

2.7% 3.7% 1.5% 16.2% 11.1% 3.0 5.8% 0.9% 3.7% 1.9% 5.8% 8.2%

ESS-2003 13.1% 7.8% 12.4% 2.1% 5.0%

1.4% 0.4% 4.2% 3.5% 2.8% 13.9% 5.2% 20.1% 1.0% 1.1% 6.9% 1.2% 1.8% 5.9% -

* All the percentages are calculated on the basis of the whole sample, including the item "no answer". ** No answer percentage (refusal to choose, can't choose,…) is significantly higher in the USA, about 5%.

CHART 1 – ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP MEMBERSHIP IN 1990 AND 1999 (EVS) 50% 44%

45% 40%

% of environmental membership in European countries

35% 30% 25%

EVS-1999

20% 15% 10% 5%

28%

EVS-1990

2% 1%

9% 9% 6% 6% 7% 7% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 2%3% 3%3% 2% 2%

15% 14% 13% 12% 11% 11%

ly Fi ted nlan d Ki ng do m Au str ia Ge Ic rm ela an n y (E d xRF A) Be lg iu De m nm ar k Sw e de Ne n th er la nd s Un i

Ita

Po rtu ga l Sp ain Ir e la nd Fr an ce

0%

The chart above depicts EVS survey results and clearly shows a sizeable decrease in the membership of environmental groups between 1990 and 1999, in each European country, except in the Netherlands and Austria. The chart below shows a similar trend for ISSP surveys, throughout the world. However, the differences are less significant than those from the EVS survey: this is possibly because the survey is rather old, and because the survey dates differ. The United Kingdom and Canada are the only countries not to experience this fall.

CHART 2 – ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP MEMBERSHIP IN 1993 AND 2000 (ISSP) 20% 17% 17% 16%

18% 16%

% of environmental membership in world countries

14% 12%

ISSP-1993

10% 8%

ISSP-2000 6% 6% 5% 5%

6% 4% 2%

3% 2% 2%2% 3% 2% 1% 2%

3%3%

10% 7% 8% 7%

11%

4%4% 4%4%

U SA N et he rla nd N s ew -Z ea la nd

Sp ai n (E xC RD ze A ch ) Re pu bl ic Sl ov en ia Ir U el ni an te d d K G in er g m do an m y (E xRF A ) C an ad a

G er m

an y

R us si a

Ja pa n

0%

These results thus demonstrate a clear and significant decline in the membership of environmental groups in the nineties. This fall was witnessed throughout the different continents, America, Europe and Japan. It hit countries with a strong associative tradition like Sweden, as well as others with weak organisations like Russia. The fall is exceptionally severe in the USA, from 10.3% to 8.7% in 2000 (about 16%), and much more in New-Zealand, from 17.1% to 11.1% in 2000, a considerable withdrawal of 36% of membership. Explaining some inconsistencies. When the surveyed people are asked whether they are members of environmental groups, their answers are often ambiguous. Some of them consider themselves as members because of their financial contribution, even if they are not official members; in fact it is often enough to make a donation to be officially registered. On the other hand, other people think they must actively participate to be declared a real member. And these differing evaluations vary according to the habits and designations in each country. The ESS survey, considering its strict methodological requirements, gives more reliable results. They are also more detailed, specifying precise connections between members and their organisation, and distinguishing subscription, donations, active participation, voluntary work, and having friends within the staff of the group. The table below shows the main figures for the surveyed countries.

TABLE 2 – TYPE OF CONNECTIONS OF MEMBERS OF ORGANISATIONAL GROUPS IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (ESS 2003) Country Austria Belgium Germany Denmark Spain Finland France United Kingdom Greece Hungary Ireland Israel Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Sweden Slovenia

Subscription

Donation

13.1% 7.8% 6.2% 12.4% 1.8% 2.1% 5.0% 5.9% 1.4% 0.4% 4.2% 3.5% 2.8% 13.9% 20.1% 5.2% 1.0% 1.1% 6.9% 1.2%

16.6% 8.6% 10.0% 6.4% 1.9% 3.6% 3.4% 12.4% 0.8% 0.4% 7.5% 2.8% 2.7% 5.6% 22.4% 4.9% 1.3% 1.4% 8.6% 1.2%

Active participation 5.5% 4.5% 3.5% 1.8% 2.1% 2.1% 2.8% 3.1% 0.8% 1.1% 3.3% 2.2% 1.8% 2.8% 1.9% 1.1% 0.7% 1.4% 1.7% 0.6%

Voluntary work 1.0% 2.0% 1.6% 0.9% 0.3% 0.7% 1.0% 1.4% 0.3% 0.5% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.0% 1.1% 0.6% 0.4% 0.7% 1.1% 0.6%

Friends in the staff * 45.2% 40.6% 31.3% 13.6% 69.5% 42.4% 59.7% 31.3% 78.6% 64.3% 80.8% 60.0% 47.2% 60.0% 16.2% 35.5% 67.5% 50.0% 49.5% 75.0%

* Percentage of members having friends in organisation's staff.

These results allow us to understand – and moderate - some high rates of membership in EVS and ISSP surveys, above all in the Netherlands, whose membership percentage skyrockets from 28.2% in the 1990 EVS to an unbelievable 43.5% in the 1999 EVS. The truth is far less miraculous: in the 2003 ESS, donations effectively amounted to a considerable 22.4% in the Netherlands, but active participation is mediocre (1.9%), far behind Austria or Belgium, which respectively display 5.5% and 4.5%. In the same way, the voluntary work rate in the Netherlands is a poor 1.1%. These figures prove that group membership signifies making a donation in this case, and connection to associations is limited to an anonymous financial transaction. Besides, the percentage of members who know someone on the staff of an environmental group is very low in Netherlands, compared with other countries: 16.2% rather than a striking 75% in Slovenia for instance. In fact, the Netherlands are not very different from neighbouring countries and these revelations bring into question the considerable increase in membership from the 1990 EVS to the 1999 EVS: maybe the doubling of member figures is only due to the Greenpeace or WWF aggressive fund raising and recruitment campaigns. The same argument can be put forward for the high rates in countries like Germany or Denmark, the United Kingdom, Norway or Sweden. This detailed analysis questions to a certain extent the important role played by environmental organisations in Nordic countries, and suggests that it is participation more than membership, which is on the decline.

2. Ageing membership The EVS and ISSP are not panel surveys; therefore it is not easy to measure the change in

the characteristics of group members from one survey to the next. Nevertheless, comparing the age brackets as shown in the following table, can provide some indicators. TABLE 3 - EVOLUTION OF THE 18-29 AGE GROUP AMONG ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS' MEMBERS (%)

Austria Belgium Canada Denmark Germany (Ex-RFA) Finland France Ireland Italy Netherlands New-Zealand Portugal Spain Sweden United-Kingdom USA

Evolution EVS 1990-1999 17% -14% -38% -61% 146% -70% 7% -42% -36% -58% -5% -17% 29% -

Evolution ISSP 1993-2000* -69% -31% 30% -22% -33% -71% -33%

* Numbers for Ex-RDA, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Russia, Japan and Spain are too insignificant to allow comparison.

In most surveyed countries, the percentage of young members in environmental organisations is considerably decreasing, including in countries where associations are reputed as strong, as in the Netherlands and Denmark. Nevertheless, percentages have soared in the United Kingdom: this exception can be explained by particular traditions in this country where animal rights activists are commonplace. It is important to note that the EVS surveys included these organisations, contrary to the ISSP. Consequently, the ISSP decrease is particularly significant. Other countries showing an increase in the membership of young people are Austria, Finland and Ireland: the latter’s rise probably being due to its huge economic growth during the nineties. Generally speaking, the substantial and widespread decline in the membership of young people confirms the decline of environmental groups: while ageing people continue being faithful, recent generations are turning their backs on environmental associations, which are thus suffering from the lack of new entrants (Bozonnet, 2003).

3. The increasing rejection of individual sacrifice… Another question repeated in the two successive EVS 1990 and EVS 1999 surveys, asked interviewees if they would accept to make a donation to prevent pollution. Question wording : "I'm now going to read out a statement about the environment. Can you tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? "I would give part of my income if I were certain that the money would be used to prevent

environmental pollution" TABLE 4 – AGREEMENT TO GIVE A PART OF ONE'S INCOME TO PREVENT ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

Agree or strongly agree

France United-Kingdom Germany (RFA) Austria Italy Spain Portugal Netherlands Belgium Denmark Sweden Finland Ireland

EVS 1990*

EVS 1999*

61%

46%

Disagree or strongly disagree EVS 1990* 39%

EVS 1999* 54%

% GDP evolution 1990-99** 15.0%

67% 49% 33% 51% 20.2% 53% 34% 47% 66% 21.8% 60% 49% 40% 51% 24.3% 69% 65% 31% 35% 14.0% 68% 58% 32% 42% 24.3% 83% 57% 17% 43% 27.6% 82% 75% 18% 25% 29.0% 55% 58% 45% 42% 18.4% 84% 79% 16% 21% 20.4% 82% 79% 18% 21% 11.3% 67% 53% 33% 47% 12.6% 69% 55% 31% 46% 77.0% * Percentage of the whole sample without the item "no answer". ** Evolution of "real GDP" extracted from Eurostat data.

The table above clearly shows that in most of the 13 European countries, citizens are now much less inclined to make donations in favour of environmental protection than at the beginning of the nineties. Belgium is the only country to have a higher rate in 1999: 58% instead of 55% of approval. The rise in refusal to donate could be attributed to the economic situation, and to the recession in the mid-nineties, acutely felt in Europe, and notably in France and Germany; this depression could have discouraged people from parting with their money. However, a cursory glance at the table above allows us to dismiss this explanation: despite the recession, GDP has been on the rise throughout Europe. Moreover, it is not in countries where growth is weak that refusal is higher, since Sweden's rate remained at a low stable level of 21% in spite of its poor GDP percentage change of 11.3%; conversely, refusal rises significantly in Portugal from 17% to 43%, i.e. an increase of 26 points, though GDP was on the up So, we can support the idea that increasing rejection of personal financial commitment can be likened to the withdrawal from associations: in fact, making a donation generally goes hand to hand with mediating institution, which is going to carry out the environment protection. Furthermore, it illustrates a general refusal of personal sacrifice. That is confirmed by the evolution of a close question, asked in the 1993 and 2000 ISSP surveys.

Question wording And how willing would you be to accept a reduction in your standard of living in order to protect the environment? Very willing, Fairly willing, Neither willing nor unwilling, Fairly unwilling, Very unwilling. Can't choose…." TABLE 5 – AGREEMENT TO REDUCE ONE'S STANDARD OF LIVING TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

Fairly or very willing** ISSP 1993* ISSP 2000*

Fairly or very unwilling** ISSP 1993* ISSP 2000*

Germany-West Germany-East Great Britain United States Ireland Netherlands Czech Republic Slovenia Russia New Zealand Canada Japan Spain

55% 27% 24% 47% 40% 26% 35% 50% 30% 29% 45% 44% 34% 35% 42% 48% 29% 40% 60% 35% 48% 21% 27% 61% 20% 34% 57% 30% 32% 37% 29% 45% 37% 33% 41% 43% 36% 32% 36% 40% 44% 41% 29% 37% 44% 31% 39% 45% 45% 33% 27% 42% * Percentage of the whole sample without the item "no answer". ** The item "Neither willing nor unwilling" has not been taken into account; that is the reason why the total of each survey does not reach 100%.

The table above shows that in most surveyed countries, fewer and fewer citizens would agree to a reduction in their standard of life to protect the environment. There are between a quarter and a third nowadays who would accept this decrease. Conversely, whereas less than a third of the population would not accept a reduction in their standard of living in 1993, that proportion has now reached a half. Ireland and the Czech Republic are the only countries where refusal diminishes: this fact is quite likely due to their significant economic growth during the nineties.

4. …And yet persistent concern about environment The EVS questionnaire took the precaution of specifying one point on its last question: "if I were certain that the money would be used to prevent environmental pollution"; i.e., that the money would be used for the environment itself, in order to abate the fear of misuse or of a disagreement within the organisations or with the State. Hence, it is possible to think this refusal to make a sacrifice to fight against pollution, is due to an increasing indifference to the environment. An ISSP question allows us to respond to this hypothesis.

Question wording: "And please tick one box for each of these statements to show how much you agree or disagree with it." "We worry too much about the future of the environment and not enough about prices and jobs today (ISSP 2000), and not enough about the recession (ISSP 1993). Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree, Can’t choose, Don’t know. Methodological note: though the ISSP 2000 question is slightly different to that of 1993, comparison is nevertheless possible. This question is an indicator which establishes a hierarchy of preferences, or rather a hierarchy of fears, and allows us to measure people’s concerns about the environment, not absolutely, but on a scale of priority. Consequently this indicator also measures people’s faith in environmental values, and then a form of environmentalism. The table below shows that environmental concerns have not significantly changed from 1993 to 2000. Canadians are the only population to be less worried about the environment: 33% of Canadians were less concerned about the environment in 2000, compared to only 25% in 1993, but their degree of worry was very high in 1993, and the decrease brings them closer to other countries. On the other hand, the Irish and Spanish were clearly more worried about the environment in 2000 than in 1993: no doubt, the reason is their strong economic growth during the nineties. In conclusion, the membership of environmental protection groups and the propensity to give money or sacrifice one's standard of living to fight against pollution has taken a serious step backwards throughout the nineties in Europe and worldwide. This regression is not directly caused by economic recession, which would put pressure on possible donators’ budgets. It is not due to the feeling of an improvement in the environment either. This strengthens the hypothesis of the withdrawal of citizens from the community, at least in relation to ecology; this phenomenon corroborates the decline in social capital (Putnam, 2000). It can also be analysed as a move towards an individual framework, and a de-institutionalisation, within civil society, as far as the environment is concerned.

TABLE 6 – PERCENTAGE OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FACT THAT WE WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND NOT ENOUGH ABOUT PRICES AND JOBS TODAY

Agree or strongly agree** ISSP 1993* ISSP 2000*

Disagree or strongly disagree ** ISSP 1993* ISSP 2000*

Germany-West Germany-East Great Britain United States Ireland Netherlands Czech Republic Slovenia Russia New Zealand Canada Japan Spain

33% 31% 53% 44% 45% 39% 39% 37% 47% 41% 38% 44% 55% 28% 38% 29% 30% 52% 40% 41% 44% 54% 50% 31% 24% 29% 51% 30% 32% 58% 25% 33% 61% 27% 21% 47% 39% 36% 44% * Percentage of the whole sample without the item "no answer". ** The item "Neither willing nor unwilling" has not been taken into account; that is the reason of each survey does not reach 100%.

52% 41% 49% 44% 57% 49% 42% 36% 51% 54% 55% 47% 49% why the total

III. State de-institutionalisation: desire for welfare and refusal of constraint Another argument can be put forward to explain the drop in membership and increasing rejection of environmental sacrifice today: maybe activists' action has given way to public powers. In other words, de-institutionalisation within civil society has been compensated for by State institutionalisation.

1. Desire to transfer the burden to the State Several well known facts support this explanation. Green parties have been founded and have grown, developed alliances, and established within governments in several countries of the EU, in France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Latvia, and even in the European Commission; no doubt, this integration into national political systems has contributed to the defusing protest, as is regularly the case in history (Sainteny, 2000). Moreover, environmental problems often made the headlines in the nineties: the Rio and Kyoto summits, the mad cow disease scandal, GMOs, climatic change, have all yielded a substantial legislative response (Fréchet, 1995). Maybe public opinion believes that these problems have at last been taken into account and even resolved, and that activists have been demobilized (Dunlap, 1992). Generally speaking, many authors acknowledge that the integration of environmental organisations into established political systems is unavoidable: some activists are involved in parties, and take up a political career, while others find their place in public policy-making as experts or teachers. If these hypotheses are verified, the decrease of ecologists’ commitment in civil society would only be the consequence of the State picking up the burden of environmental policy to

some extent. So far, the take over by public powers has become commonplace; in this view, it would be understandable that citizens consider it to be the duty of the State to deal with environmental problems, and no longer up to them to individually act. That leads on to the following EVS question. Question wording: "I'm now going to read out a statement about the environment. Can you tell me whether you agree strongly, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? The government has to reduce environmental pollution but it should not cost me any money." TABLE 7 – GOVERNMENT SHOULD REDUCE POLLUTION WITH NO COST FOR INTERVIEWEES Country France United-Kingdom Germany (Ex-RFA) Austria Italy Spain Portugal Netherlands Belgium Denmark Sweden Finland Ireland

Agree or strongly agree EVS 1990* 74% 58% 57% 61% 78% 76% 91% 19% 63% 29% 36% 51% 60%

EVS 1999* 84% 77% 67% 63% 81% 85% 75% 23% 63% 30% 43% 64% 70%

Disagree or strongly disagree EVS 1990* 26% 42% 43% 39% 22% 24% 9% 81% 37% 71% 64% 49% 40%

EVS 1999* 16% 23% 33% 37% 19% 15% 25% 77% 37% 70% 57% 36% 31%

* Percentage of the whole sample without the item "no answer".

When they are asked, most Europeans declared in 1999 that government should reduce the environment pollution with no cost for them. The percentages of these wishes are particularly high in France (84%), the United Kingdom (77%), Italy (81%), and Spain (75%). Some Nordic countries distinguished themselves by massive acceptance of personal sacrifice: 57% of Swedes, 70% of Danes and 77% of the Dutch refuse to abandon financing to the State! All the other European countries would willingly hand the burden of environmental policy over to the State. When comparing the 1999 to the 1990 data on this question, it clearly appears that citizens are tempted to delegate the task of environmental protection to the State, which is true in most European countries, except for Portugal. So far, in most of Europe, the desire to relinquish the environmental burden is high for European citizens, as high as the desire to entrust the mission of financing to the State, and in the nineties, this trend increased. Therefore, Europeans want environmental protection to become an integral part of public policy-making, in the same time they leave associations and reject individual financing. Nevertheless, organisations' members are less willing to shift the financial burden to the State, than Europe-wide public opinion, as the table below shows.

Activists probably have stronger values, which make personal sacrifice more common, and a clearer awareness of the inevitable cost of public policies on the environment. Nevertheless, this result leads to an odd paradox: activists fight for the development of environmental protection as a public domain, and therefore a takeover by the State; yet at the same time, they are driven to strongly moderate this desire because of their ecological and civic awareness, but also probably on account of their organisation’s status and their high degree of involvement in the latter. TABLE 8 – DISAGREEMENT WITH THE IDEA THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD REDUCE POLLUTION WITH NO COST FOR INTERVIEWEES, ACCORDING TO ASSOCIATIVE MEMBERSHIP Country France United-Kingdom Germany (Ex-RFA) Austria Italy Spain Portugal Netherlands Belgium Denmark Sweden Finland Ireland

Disagree or strongly disagree that government reduce pollution with no cost for interviewee (EVS 1999) Member Non-member 18% 16% 40% 23% 62% 32% 56% 35% 42% 18% 41% 14% 33% 25% 81% 73% 57% 35% 85% 68% 68% 56% 62% 35% 50% 30%

2. Increasing rejection of costs and constraints There is effectively significant pressure from ordinary citizens to transfer the burden of environmental policy to the State. Nevertheless, can this result be considered as real State institutionalisation? Some opinion poll data insinuates otherwise. First of all, more and more citizens refuse an increase in taxes, even to fight against pollution, as the answers to the 1990 and 1999 EVS questions show. Question wording: "I'm now going to read out a statement about the environment. Can you tell me whether you agree strongly, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree? "I would agree to an increase in taxes if the extra money is used to prevent environmental pollution"

TABLE 9 – AGREEMENT OR NOT WITH AN INCREASE IN TAXES TO PREVENT ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

Country France United-Kingdom Germany (Ex-RFA) Austria Italy Spain Portugal Netherlands Belgium Denmark Sweden Finland Ireland

Agree or strongly agree EVS 1990* EVS 1999*

54% 37% 68% 50% 49% 30% 52% 39% 55% 44% 57% 48% 65% 43% 68% 55% 40% 44% 69% 65% 77% 77% 56% 50% 51% 39% ** Percentage of the whole sample without the item "no answer".

Disagree or strongly disagree EVS 1990* EVS 1999* 46% 32% 51% 48% 45% 43% 35% 32% 60% 31% 23% 44% 49%

63% 50% 70% 61% 56% 52% 57% 45% 56% 35% 23% 50% 61%

The table above shows that in almost all the 13 compared European countries, refusal to increase taxes is much stronger in 1999 than in 1990. Belgium is the only country to better accept environmental taxes at the end of XXth century. This rise in refusal to increase taxation, combined with the rejection to donate, cannot be directly imputed to economic recession: for instance, we find an extraordinary growth rate throughout the nineties in Ireland, alongside a significant increase in the refusal of a rise in taxation. This refusal does not represent a mistrust in bureaucracy, nor a judgment on the political stance of a government. In fact, as far as the rejection to donate is concerned, the questionnaire took great care to specify: "If the extra money is used to prevent environmental pollution". So it is really a refusal of taxation specifically for environment. Not only do citizens increasingly refuse to pay taxes in favour of the environment, but they deny the State the right to pass laws which would infringe upon individual choice. So far, another question, extracted from the 1993 and 2000 ISSP, allows us an insight into public opinion towards state regulation on the environment. Question wording: "If you had to choose, which one of the following would be closest to your views? 1. The government should let ordinary people decide for themselves on how to protect the environment, even if it means they don’t always do the right thing. 2. The government should pass laws to make ordinary people protect the environment, even if it interferes with people’s right to make their own decisions 8. Can’t choose, don’t know.

TABLE 10 – INDIVIDUAL CHOICE OR PUBLIC LAWS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT Ordinary people should decide for themselves ISSP 1993* ISSP 2000* Germany (Ex-RFA) Germany (Ex-RDA) United-Kingdom USA Ireland Netherlands Czech Republic Slovenia Russia New-Zealand Canada Japan Spain

15% 16% 11% 12% 30% 35% 21% 34% 25% 18% 19% 31% 16% 23% 14% 21% 11% 12% 20% 30% 17% 20% 17% 15% 10% 13% * Percentage of the whole samples without the item "no answer".

Government should pass laws ISSP 1993* 85% 89% 70% 79% 75% 81% 84% 86% 89% 80% 83% 83% 90%

ISSP 2000* 84% 88% 65% 66% 82% 69% 77% 79% 88% 70% 80% 85% 87%

The table above shows that, whatever the country, generally-speaking, public opinion thinks it necessary that the State pass laws to protect the environment, even if it interferes with people’s right to make their own decisions: this choice amounted to about 80% of population in 1993. There is a clear background of opinion in favour of State legislation in the field of the environment, and thus considerable approval of environmental institutionalisation. This globally positive attitude has a classic and well-anchored explanation: personal environmental practices work towards the benefit of the community, and the protagonists involved have to be sure there will be no free-riders. Only State laws provide this guarantee (Uusitalo, 1990). On the other hand, since 1993, this significant trend of resorting to the State has significantly decreased in almost every surveyed country in the world, paving the way for individual choice. Henceforth, a noteworthy percentage of interviewees think ordinary people should decide for themselves how to protect the environment, even if they do not the right thing. From 1993 to 2000, this percentage has moved up from 19% to 30% in the Netherlands, and from 21% to 34% in the USA. This evolution first of all means a decline in State legitimacy when it acts against citizens' liberties, even for the common good; and secondly, it means a rise in individualism, i.e. a demand for individual freedom, even if people do not criticize the beneficial action undertaken. Nevertheless, we must point out the specific case of the environmental groups’ members, who seem less willing than other people to leave environmental protection to the realm of individual freedom. The table below shows this distinctive feature.

TABLE 11 – INDIVIDUAL CHOICE OR STATE LEGISLATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACCORDING TO MEMBERSHIP (ISSP 2000) Ordinary people should decide for themselves Members Non-members Germany (Ex-RFA) Germany (Ex-RDA) United-Kingdom USA Ireland Netherlands Czech Republic Slovenia Russia New-Zealand Canada Japan Spain

6% 14% 20% 27% 12% 18% 26% 12% 19% 23% 21% 14% 25%

17% 12% 36% 35% 19% 34% 23% 21% 12% 31% 20% 15% 13%

Government should pass laws Members 94% 86% 80% 73% 88% 82% 74% 88% 81% 77% 79% 86% 75%

Non-members 83% 88% 64% 65% 81% 66% 77% 79% 88% 69% 80% 85% 87%

Thus, we can see that environmental groups’ members are clearly keener than average in demanding laws rather than individual choice. Two reasons can explain this difference: first, members take environmental aims more seriously than ordinary people, and cannot run the risk of seeing ecological problems turned away by individual interests; secondly they have higher trust in State legitimacy. All these facts lead to several conclusions. First, a classic paradox, specific to protesting political movements. Activists want their aspirations to be taken in account by public powers, their principles to be turned into laws, and the preservation and protection of the environment to be respected by everyone. In so doing, they thus relinquish environmental matters to an independent field, enrol in official political bodies, in short they dig the grave of associationism for the benefit of public policy-making. This movement is the inside mechanism of the transition from civil society institutionalisation to State institutionalisation. Besides, a there is a second deep-rooted movement in public opinion, not yet prevailing but already substantially present in post-industrial countries, regarding State action: the distrust about taxes and of law enforcement. This is a challenge of the essential regal role of public powers, for the benefit of individual liberties. Ordinary citizens wish to decide by themselves, even if their action is environmentally non-friendly. There is an increase in individualism and a delegitimisation of the State. Even if opinion leaders and associative activists still believe much more than others in public action, we have shown that there are fewer and fewer of them, and their advice does not affect the increasing trend of contesting the State.

Conclusions: "Big mother" Environmental concerns remain ever-present; defending the environment and fighting against pollution preoccupy European and world opinion. Despite these concerns, social forms of environmentalism have undergone a drastic transformation since the nineties: international surveys shows that environmentalism is being de-institutionalised.

Citizens' environmental commitment is markedly lessening: fewer and fewer people join ecological organisations, and many give up active participation; they are more and more reluctant to donate to these groups or to lower their standard of living to fight environmental deterioration. These trends do not necessarily lead to the fading of non-conventional political participation: petitions, boycotts or demonstrations, which can always be considered as individual practices, remain stable or superior in number. Yet, this evolution means that the specific social links created by the ecological movement during the sixties and seventies is crumbling. These movements have given birth to organisations with new values and norms, original action repertoire within post-industrial societies. It can be said that this de-institutionalisation in civil society has occurred because of the fading of these intermediary structures. The natural reflex is to think that this withdrawal of ecologists from the public stage is counterbalanced by a larger involvement of public powers, thus State institutionalisation. Indeed, citizens increasingly appeal to the State to finance and carry out environmental protection, hence handing over the chore. However, the State concerned here is a maternal State, a "Big mother", (Schneider, 2002), who helps individuals, but spares them the personal responsibility and the stringency of laws. At the same time, citizens are increasingly reluctant to pay environmental taxes, and more and more refuse the passing of restrictive laws by the government to the detriment of their individual liberties. In other terms, they challenge the State‘s legitimacy to take action, even rejecting its fundamental regal attributes like the collection of taxes and the passing of laws. Thus, by and large, contrary to all appearances, the shift of environmental protection to the public realm is not a simple transfer of the burden from civil society to the State. The legitimacy of norms and constraint is contested for the benefit of individuals. There is here a hidden form of public policy de-institutionalisation.

Bibliography Bozonnet Jean-Paul (2002), "Les Verts : échec et résistance", in Revue Politique et Parlementaire, Vol., n° 1020-1021, pp. 150-161. Bozonnet Jean-Paul (2003), "(Up and) Down with Environmentalist Action, Ageing Ecology in Europe", 6th Conference Of The European Sociological Association, Murcia. Bozonnet Jean-Paul (2004), "Environnementalisme européen et capitaux sociaux, Quel lien social exactement tricotent les écolos ?" XVIIème Congrès de l'AISLF, "L'individu social" : autre réalité ? Tours (France). Bréchon Pierre et Tchernia Jean-François (2002), "Les enquêtes sur les valeurs des Européens", in Futuribles, Vol., n° 277. Dubet François (2002), Le déclin de l'institution, Paris, Seuil, 421 p. Dunlap Riley E. (1992), "Trends in Public Opinion Toward Environmental Issues : 1965-1990", in American Environmentalism, the U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970-1990, (dir Dunlap Riley E. and Mertig Angela G.), Washington, Taylor & Francis, pp. 89-116. Durkheim Émile (1967), Les règles de la méthode sociologique. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 149 p. Durkheim Émile (1973), De la division du travail social. Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 416 p. Ellul Jacques (1977), Le système technicien. Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 361 p.

Fréchet Guy et Wörndl Barbara (1995), "L'institutionnalisation des mouvements écologiques", in Tendances comparées des sociétés industrielles, (dir Michel Forsé et Simon Langlois), Paris, PUF, pp. 191-212. Galland Olivier (2003), "Les jeunes Européens sont-ils individualistes ?" 1ères rencontres Jeunes et sociétés en Europe et autour de la Méditerranée, Marseille (France). Gehlen Arnold (1990), Anthropologie et psychologie sociale. Paris, PUF, 335 p. Giddens Anthony (1987), La constitution de la société, Éléments de la théorie de la structuration. Paris, PUF, 474 p. Goffman Erwin (1968), Asiles. Paris, Ed. de Minuit, 447 p. Kardiner Abram (1969), L'individu dans sa société, Essai d'anthropologie analytique. Paris, Gallimard, 531 p. Kempton Willett, Boster James S. et Hartley, Jennifer A. (1995), Environmental values in American Culture, Cambridge. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 336 p. Leroi-Gourhan André (1964), Le Geste et la Parole, Technique et Langage. Paris, Albin Michel, 323 p. Leroi-Gourhan André (1965), La mémoire et les rythmes. Paris, Albin Michel, 285 p. Linton Ralph (1968), Le fondement culturel de la personnalité. Paris, Dunod, 139 p. Littré Émile (1987), Dictionnaire de la langue française. Chicago, Encyclopedia Britannica. Lourau René et Lapassade, Georges (1974), Clefs pour la sociologie. Paris, Seghers, 238 p. Malinovski Bronislaw (1968), Une théorie scientifique de la culture. Paris, Maspéro, 183 p. Merton Robert K. (1965), Éléments et théorie de méthode sociologique. Paris, Plon, 514 p. Ollitrault Sylvie (1996), "Science et militantisme : les transformations d'un échange circulaire. Le cas de l'écologie française." in Politix, Vol., n° 36, pp. 141-162. Ollitrault Sylvie (2001), "Les écologistes français, des experts en action", in Revue française de science politique, Vol. 51, n° 1-2. Parsons Talcott (1973), Le système des sociétés modernes, Dunod, 170 p. Perron Bertrand, Vaillancourt, Jean-Guy et Durand, Claire (1999), "Les leaders de groupes verts et leur rapport aux institutions", in Recherches Sociographiques, Vol. XL, n° 3, pp. 521-549. Putnam Robert (2000), Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. NewYork, Simon & Schuster, 541 p. Roussel Louis (1989), La famille incertaine. Paris, Odile Jacob, 334 p. Sainteny Guillaume (2000), L'introuvable écologisme français. Paris, PUF, 537 p. Salles Denis (2004), "Les procédures collaboratives : démocratie et performance environnementale", XVIIe Congrès de l’AISLF, Tours. Schaff Adam (1974), "L'aliénation en tant que problème social et philosophique", in L'homme et la société, Vol., n° 31-32, pp. 33-45. Schneider Michel (2002), Big Mother, Pyschopathologie de la vie politique, Paris, Odile Jacob, 335 p. Uusitalo Liisa (1990), "Are Environmental Attitudes and Behaviour Inconsistent? Findings from a Finnish Study", in Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 13, n° 2, pp. 211-225. Vaillancourt Jean-Guy (2000), "Les Verts du Québec : un mouvement qui se diffuse dans les divers secteurs de la société", in L'écologisme à l'aube du XXIème siècle, De la rupture à la banalisation ? (direction Jean-Paul & Joel Jakubec Bozonnet), Genève, Georg, pp. 99-115. Weber Max (1999), L'éthique protestante et l'esprit du capitalisme. Paris, Flammarion, 286 p.