The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ecological Modernisation and the Governance of Carbon: A Critical Analysis
Abstract
Abstract: In this paper, we use insights derived from a critical evaluation of ecological modernisation theories to examine the origins and influence of new, market-based, forms of carbon governance. Focusing on two key examples—emissions trading in Europe and the global market in offsets—we argue that ecological modernisation theories can help us understand the processes through which the seemingly intractable problem of climate change has been reframed as an opportunity to construct a new carbon economy and anticipate some of the tensions, contradictions and limits of such an approach. We then explore the governance dimensions of these novel market mechanisms, look at how they work, and then discuss whether, to what extent and for whom they work. We highlight a series of (un)-intended consequences that flow from these practices and modes of governing. We conclude by discussing the significance of these observations both for debates on climate change and the governance of carbon and for theories of ecological modernisation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338
Metadata
- Authors
- Bailey, I., Gouldson, A., & Newell, P.
- Venue
- Antipode
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-04-21
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 682-703
- ISSN
- 0066-4812 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1964721307
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 28.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ecological Modernisation and the Governance of Carbon: A Critical Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00880.x
- The paper
- Bailey, I., Gouldson, A., & Newell, P. (2011). Ecological Modernisation and the Governance of Carbon: A Critical Analysis. Antipode. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00880.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
