绿色经济概念解读外文文献翻译中英文2020

1、外文文献翻译原文及译文标题：绿色经济概念解读外文翻译中英文 2020文献出处：Albert Merino-Saum, Jessica Clement, Romano Wyss, Marta Giulia Baldi. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 24, 21 January , 2020译文字数：5600 多字英文Unpacking the Green Economy concept: A quantitative analysis of 140 definitions Albert Merino-Saum，Jessica Clement，Rom

2、ano Wyss，Marta GiuliaBaldiAbstractOver the past ten years, the Green Economy (GE) concept has gained momentum in both academia and policy-making arenas, leading to international programs in diverse sectors and driving national agendas all over the world. The concept is however highly controversial,

3、partly due to its theoretical blurriness. The aims of this article are to shed light on the conceptual ambiguities surrounding the GE and to clarify its distinctive components. More concretely, the paper aims at understanding what GE definitions have in common as a conceptual whole (that is, which k

4、ey features do they share?), and what makes them different to each other. For these purposes, the present study relies on an extensive review of both academic and grey literatures. Such a review yielded 95GE definitions, as well as 45 definitions of Green Growth (GG), which is often interchangeably

5、used with the former. All the definitions were methodically translated into a coded format thanks to a conceptual framework inductively developed by the research team. They were subsequently analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics, as well as network analysis. Results provide the bas

6、is for a common meta-understanding of the GE concept. Like Sustainable Development (SD), the GE is a multidimensional notion, whose focus is on the potential trade-offs and synergies between economic and environmental dimensions (without ignoring social issues). The results uncover several discourse

7、s underlying the GE narrative, such as “econocentric incrementalism”, “unlimited eco- efficiency” and “transformative GE”. The analysis outlines several key cleaving elements discriminating GE definitions, like the focus on either well-being or economic growth, or the consideration or not of environ

8、mental limits. Finally, GE definitions are put into a broader perspective according to their potential as theoretical backgrounds for handling the social-ecological challenges posed by the Anthropocene. Keywords: Green economy, Green growth, Sustainability, Content analysis,Network analysis Introduc

9、tionOver the past ten years, both Green Economy (GE) and Green Growth (GG) concepts have gained momentum in political agendas at the national and global scales. Decision-makers all over the world have developed GE/GG action plans and implemented GE/GG policies in sectors such as energy, transport or

10、 agriculture. Such a diffusion has been fostered, at least partly, by new international organizations and initiatives such as the Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP), the United Nations (UN) multi-agency Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE), the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) and

11、the Green Economy Coalition (GEC). Both concepts have also progressively gathered scientific attention, leading to an increasing amount of scientific publications about their theoretical foundations, potential implementations and intrinsic limitations.In parallel to this expanding evolution, the GE/

12、GG concepts have also become increasingly ambiguous. Indeed, while some GE/GG definitions are more frequently quoted than others, both GE and GG encompass a plethora of (most often) contradictory interpretations (Borel-Saladin and Turok, 2013; Georgeson et al., 2017, etc.). Such a conceptual blurrin

13、ess stems from several factors, among which are: the propagation of the GE/GG concepts across academic fields (e.g. environmental economics, engineering, geography, political ecology); their usage by wide-ranging policy-making institutions (e.g. UN, World Bank, Organization for Economic Co- operatio

14、n and Development (OECD); their implementation in different areas and at dissimilar scales (urban, national, international, etc.); or still, their adoption in varied sectors and strategic contexts (public decision-making; corporate planning, etc.).Given this context, the paper aims to address the fo

15、llowing research questions: (i) What are the key features portraying the GE/GG concepts? How are such features interrelated? (ii) Are GE and GG two analogous concepts? Should they be used as synonyms? (iii) Are there different Green Economies? What makes them distinct? (iv)Is GE conceptualized diffe

16、rently across institutional contexts (policy- making/academia) and geographical regions?Genesis and development of the GE/GG conceptsThe GE concept was first coined in the late 1980s by Pearce et al. (1989) in their widely known report Blueprint for a Green Economy. That is at least what the literat

17、ure most often states about the emergence of the GE concept (see: Boehnert, 2016; Faccer et al., 2014; Georgeson et al., 2014; Loiseau et al., 2016). The fact is that apart from in its title, the report (usually presented as the conceptual “landmark” in the field), does not refer to the term GE. Act

18、ually, the first attempt to conceptualize the GE was achieved two years later by Jacobs (1991) in his book The Green Economy, in which the term obtained its own identity through a clear theoretical demarcation from both: (i) the political ideology usually carried by green parties; and(ii) the academ

19、ic discipline of environmental economics.Throughout the 1990s and early this century, the GE concept almost “disappeared from common usage in international development circles” (Brown et al., 2014: 246) and was only rarely addressed in scientific literature. Such a conceptual atrophy was in part due

20、 to the advent of Sustainable Development (SD), which captured political attention, in particular after the Rio Summit in 1992.In 2008, almost twenty years after the Blueprint for a Green Economy was published, key international organizations saw in the GE concept a possible policy response to both:

21、 (i) the global financial crisis; and (ii) the environmental problems that current socio-economic systems were (and still are) encompassing (Bina and La Camera, 2011; Death, 2015). In this particular context, the concept was recycled and depicted as operational strategy enabling both economic recove

22、ry and a more sustainable growth in the future (Barbier, 2012; Bowen et al., 2009; Georgeson et al., 2017). GE discourses were also seen as a way to cope with the decreasing traction of the SD concept on economic policymaking (Jacobs, 2013).The GE concept was institutionally boosted at the internati

23、onal level notably by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), who launched the Green Economy Initiative in 2008 and called for a Global Green New Deal one year later (Barbier, 2009). In 2009, the UN General Assembly also convened the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) an

24、d designated the GE as one of itstwo main focal areas. UNEP defined the GE as “one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities” (UNEP, 2010: 5). The very popular Green Economy Report published one year later

25、(UNEP, 2011) spread this definition all over the world and brought the GE concept to the forefront of the international policy agenda.Regarding the GG concept, Colby (1989) defined it in the late 1980s as one that “would be based more on increasing the information intensiveness, community consciousn

26、ess, and experiential quality of economic activity, rather than the material- energy intensiveness” (ibidem: 22). The term however was merely used as an illustration and its conceptualization was not soundly developed. Like the GE, the GG concept did not draw considerable attention before the 2000,

27、when both World Bank and OCDE intensively fostered it at the international scale. The latter adopted the Green Growth Declaration no later than 2009 (OECD, 2009) and published its Green Growth Strategy Package in 2011. Such a package included among other reports the widely cited Towards Green Growth

28、, where GG is defined as a strategy “fostering economic growth and development while ensuring that natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well-being relies” (OECD, 2011: 9).Hence, in the years following the 2008 crisis, both GE and GG concepts gained

29、considerable momentum. GE/GG discourses progressively moved up national policy- makers agendas, notably thanks to the support of regional development banks such as the African Development Bank (AfDB) or the Asian Development Bank (ADB) (Benson et al., 2014).Ambiguities surrounding the GE conceptBoth

30、 GE and GG concepts are commonly portrayed as being “broad” (Bigg, 2011), “umbrella” notions, (Loiseau et al., 2016), “vague” (Jnicke, 2012), “disputed” (Faccer et al., 2014), “context-dependent” (Richardson, 2013; Death, 2015), or more generally, as encompassing concomitant definitions (Buseth, 201

31、7; Jakob and Edenhofer, 2014; PEP 2012; Speck and Zoboli, 2017). For some authors, such a lack of interpretative agreement derives from the inherent complexity of GE/GG concepts(both are multi-dimensional notions by definition). For others, such a conceptual ambiguity is rather a consequence of exis

32、ting political controversies on green transitions (see previous section) and illustrates disagreements in international governance (Brown et al., 2014). Some even state that GE and GG “were left deliberately imprecise” as a way to accelerate their acceptance all over the world (Georgeson et al., 201

33、7: 7). Whatever the cause, the ambiguity surrounding both concepts remains considerable.A logical corollary of such an ambiguity is that the boundaries existing between GE/GG concepts and other related terms are fuzzy and contested. This is particularly the case regarding the SD concept. Indeed, alt

34、hough international organizations insist that GE/GG are not a mere substitute of SD (OECD, 2011; UNEP, 2011) certain observers wonder whether there is any difference between these concepts (Tienhaara, 2014). The GE/GG is alternatively presented as a “child of” (Jacobs, 2013), “the intellectual cousi

35、n of” (Fiorino, 2014), “a key vehicle for” (ten Brink et al., 2012), “a way to operationalize” (Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP), 2016), “a pathway to” (UNEP, 2011), “a support of” (UNDESA, 2012), or still “an enabler of” SD (Georgeson et al., 2017; UNCTAD, 2010). As these examples illustrate,

36、 the literature most often articulates GE/GG and SD through a teleological reasoning where the former is a means to achieve the latter. The GE/GG is also usually presented as “narrower in scope” (OECD, 2011); that is, as a “more focused” (Bowen and Hepburn, 2014; Ferguson, 2015) “practical” (Choi, 2

37、015) or “operational” (Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP), 2016) concept than SD.In the same way, given the amount of contradictory understandings associated toboth GE and GG, the boundaries between these two notions are also ill-defined and controversial. Although GE and GG emerged from differe

38、nt organizations and targeted different audiences, they have become hardly discernible and are used nowadays almost interchangeably in both science and policy-making (Brown et al., 2014; Fatheuer et al., 2016; UNDESA, 2012). Some scholars conceive them however as two different concepts: whilst GG wo

39、uld particularly focus on economic growth, GE would rather conceive it as a means (not an end); GE would also involve a morebalanced treatment of socio-economic and environmental stakes (Bina and La Camera, 2011; Death, 2014; Urhammer and Rpke, 2013).Different Green Economies/GrowthsA consequence of

40、 the conceptual dissonance characterizing GE/GG terms is the plurality of typologies that scholars have suggested to differentiate the coexisting views on them. Such categorizations most often extricate contrasting Green Economies/Growths according to the importance associated to conventional econom

41、ic growth, mainstream economic theory, technological improvements and social issues. For instance, Jacobs (2013) distinguishes standard GG, which asserts the long-run compatibility between continued economic growth and environmental protection, and strong GG, which rather conceives environmental pol

42、icy as a driver for economic growth (promoting economic benefits even in the short-term). Relatedly, Faccer et al. (2014) differentiate three divergent interpretations of the GE concept: (i) the incrementalist perspective, which relies on a pro-growth paradigm, pays particular attention to technolog

43、ical improvements, puts strong emphasis on market-based tools and does not consider environmental limits; (ii) the reformistperspective, which also sees economic growth as non-negotiable and assigns a key role to technology, but considers (relative) decoupling and pays attention to social issues; an

44、d (iii) the transformative perspective, which puts emphasis on absolute decoupling, relies on a strong critique of pro-growth paradigm and does not see technology as a panacea. Additional typologies are suggested by Death (2015), Tienhaara (2014), Vazquez- Brust et al. (2014), or Ferguson (2015), am

45、ong others.Existing reviews and research gapsVarious attempts to review GE/GG concepts exist in the scientific literature. Recently, both Loiseau et al. (2016) and DAmato et al. (2017) investigated scientific publications on GE through a systematic review from 1990 to 2016. In both cases however, th

46、e analysis consisted on a bibliometric analysis focusing on metadata (e.g. keywords, topics), not on the definitions themselves, which were neither identified nor scrutinized. Hence, although providing noteworthy results, both studies rely on a limited unit of analysis for a conceptual investigation

47、 such as the one presented in thispaper.Georgeson et al. (2017) compiled and subsequently compared 10GE definitions, all of them published from 2010 to 2013. The study provides a helpful theoretical mapping. However, it does not rely on a systematic and broad compilation and compares the definitions

48、 exclusively on a qualitative basis.Previously, Ferguson (2015) investigated GE discourses and compared the GE and GG concepts to each other. Nevertheless, as noted by the author himself, the aim of the paper was “not to provide a comprehensive review of the literature, but to develop a general sens

49、e of how influential actors understand the GE agenda” (ibidem: 18). Similarly, Death (2015) studied the GE concept and identified four contrasting GE discourses in global environmental governance arena. Before him, Borel-Saladin and Turok (2013) examined and compared the GE concept as defined by OEC

50、D, UNEP and World Bank. Although all these papers contribute to a better understanding of the GE/GG concepts, none of them provides a clear list of GE/GG definitions or applies a methodical comparative process.In brief, existing reviews on GE/GG concepts have prioritized so far qualitative research

51、methods and have largely focused on definitions coming from the non- academic literature. Recent studies have shifted the scope to scientific publications; they rely however on meta-data (not the definitions themselves).The present paper constitutes an original contribution to the field for several

52、reasons. It bases its analysis on an extensive sample of GE/GG definitions (140) collected from both academic publications and documents published by international organizations. It also compares existing definitions on a quantitative basis (definitions are deconstructed in sequences of conceptual t

53、erms). Finally, results are studied through two parallel complementary methods: statistical analysis and network analysis.Discussion and concluding remarksThis study provides several key lessons. First, like SD, the GE concept is inherently multidimensional. One of its specificities is that it pays

54、particular attention to the interface between economy and environment (i.e. are these dimensionscompatible with each other? To what extent? How?). The GE is not however a mere two-dimensional cross-section of the broader concept of sustainability. Still, two- thirds of the GE definitions consider so

55、cial issues, either broadly or specifically, and some specific social issues such as “equity” receive as much consideration as other elements often intuitively associated to the GE, such as resource efficiency. Another particularity of GE definitions is that most of them refer to concrete topics and

56、 goals (see the conceptual framework in section 3.3), thus downscaling theoretical debates around the SD concept to a more operational level.This study also elucidates the blurry boundaries between GE and GG. As noted in previous sections, the former is generally less pro-growth and supply-side orie

57、nted. It also gives more importance to social issues, and addresses more frequently environmental finitude. While GG is generally “incrementalist”, GE has more “transformative” potentials, even if this significantly varies from one definition to another. Based on these results, it is suggested that

58、practitioners do not use them as synonyms. The use of one or the other should thus be carefully decided ex ante. Whatever concept is preferred, users should clearly either define it or quote previous definitions as a way to prevent potential misinterpretations.The way the GE is understood generally

59、varies between academia to the policy- making arena: in the latter the attention paid to social and economic issues is stronger, but the emphasis on environmental stakes is weaker. The GE concept is thus partially conditioned by the institutional context in which it is used.The key terms on which the GE concept relies are not conceptually equidistant, meaning that some combinations are clearly more freque