During the last years we have witnessed more and more fears that the nation state and its ability to set demanding standards in fields like environmental policy has diminished in the context of globalisation. There is, on the other hand, the hopeful prognosis of neo-classical economists that the same globalisation would be connected with deregulation and fundamental reduction of the role of government. Neither the fear nor the hope of a withering away of the nation state in times of globalisation are supported by empirical research. States in concert have expanded and co-ordinated their regulatory powers. And it is only the nation state, the guarantor of diverse societal interests, that has the competence, the resources, the power and legitimacy to regulate the actions of disparate actors who might otherwise destroy shared environmental resources. There is a remarkable potential at least in the advanced OECD countries to promote change by the adoption of a pioneering policy, the stimulation of international competition and the diffusion of best practice. This potential of the highly advanced countries may be seen as a moral obligation to assume a higher responsibility for the global environmental development. The advanced nations cannot hide behind the fictive monster of globalisation, seemingly legitimising any kind of inactivity. On the contrary, it is their obligation to provide the world with better “demonstration effects”, with a better model of production and consumption overcoming the resource and environment intensive model of the past.

New Environmental Policy Instruments (NEPIs) are increasingly discussed and adopted across countries. From a global perspective a rapid diffusion of these market based, voluntary or informational instruments can be observed. In our article – which is mainly explor-ative in nature – we argue that the adoption of NEPIs by national policy makers should not merely be interpreted as a reaction to newly emerging environmental problems or to real or per-ceived deficits of traditional (command and control) regulation in coping with those problems. To an important degree the use of NEPIs can be ascribed to the inner dynamics of international processes of policy transfer or policy diffusion, which make it increasingly difficult for national policy-makers to ignore new approaches in environmental policy that have already been put into practice in forerunner countries. In a first step, the article outlines the concept of policy diffusion. In a second step, we will de-scribe the trans-national spread of four different NEPIs (Eco-labels, Energy/Carbon Taxes, Na-tional Environmental Policy Plans/Strategies for Sustainable Development and Free- Access-of-Information (FAI) provisions) by showing the respective pattern of spread in empirically based curves. In a third step, the article analyses the underlying mechanisms of policy diffusion. We will argue that in addition to the national demand for adequate environmental policy instruments the spread of policy innovations is influenced by the presence or absence of international plat-forms or promoting agencies, which have placed the advancement of certain NEPIs on their agenda; and by the specific characteristics of the policy innovation itself. Finally, we will draw some preliminary conclusions about the motivations of policy makers to adopt or to reject new environmental policy instruments. We argue that the utilization of a softer and more flexible approach cannot exclusively be explained by the decision makers’ considera-tions of improving the efficiency of environmental policy making. Additionally, considerations of generating legitimacy affect the policy makers’ decisions.

In diesem Bericht werden Ergebnisse einer vergleichenden Analyse zur Ausbreitung ausgewählter Umweltpolitikinnovationen unter den Industrienationen vorgestellt. Zum Teil bestätigen die Ergebnisse die Erwartungen: So erfolgte die Verabschiedung grundlegender ordnungsrechtlicher Maßnahmen in aller Regel früher als die Gründung neuartiger Organisationen und Gremien (z.B. Umweltministerien und -ämter); typischerweise noch später wurden die meisten informationellen und die wenigen ökonomischen Instrumente eingeführt; wohlhabende Industrieländer erwiesen sich als innovativer im Vergleich zu eher ärmeren Staaten, zu denen in diesem Vergleich sämtliche ehemals sozialistischen gehören. Andere Resultate der Untersuchung sind weniger trivial: Die 1990er Jahre waren eine ausgesprochen innovative Phase der Umweltpolitik, vor allem – aber keineswegs ausschließlich – wegen Innovationen in den vormals sozialistischen Staaten und der massiven Verbreitung weicher Instrumente. Gegen Ende der 90er verebbte diese Innovationswelle aber drastisch. Darüber hinaus finden sich bislang überraschend wenige Indizien für das Vorhandensein von Diffusionsprozessen, insbesondere für die beschleunigte Verbreitung bestimmter Innovationen unter Staaten, die besonders intensiv miteinander kommunizieren (z.B. aufgrund regionaler Nähe, gemeinsamer Mitgliedschaft in internationalen Organisationen oder sprachlichen, kulturellen und historischen Gemeinsamkeiten). Da die besonders stark miteinander kommunizierenden Staaten auch hinsichtlich vieler struktureller Erfolgsbedingungen von Umweltpolitik besonders ähnlich sein dürften, scheinen bei der Einführung der hier untersuchten Innovationen situative Faktoren eine deutlich größere Rolle gespielt zu haben als zumeist vermutet.

The paper will discuss the potential role of lead markets in the global process of ecological modernisation, here conceived as innovation and diffusion of environmental friendly technologies, including the innovation and diffusion of supporting national policies. This includes the question whether and how national pioneer roles in environmental policy can be played in times of economic globalisation. Global Environmental Change in the direction of sustainability strongly depends on international markets for environmental friendly technologies. Such markets need national "lead markets" as a starting point. A lead market is the country that adopts an innovation that subsequently adopted worldwide (Beise 2001). Lead markets are empirically characterised by high per-capita income, demanding and innovative buyers, high quality standards, political pressure for change and flexible, innovation- friendly framework conditions for producers and users. Unlike lead markets for normal technical innovations, environment-friendly technologies are specific insofar as they are problem-oriented and depend strongly on political influences. The problem dimension constitutes a potential global demand in terms of global environmental needs. It is mainly the role of pioneer countries to stimulate both, environmental innovation and their global diffusion, often in cooperation with international institutions and organisations. The interplay of innovation and diffusion of technology and policy takes place in different forms (from technology forcing to technology- based policies). It is the high income countries which are able to afford the necessary investments in R&D; for the development of new technologies. Many of them have also the demand conditions that enable environmental lead markets. These markets have to deal with the teething troubles of innovations, and they have to provide the pay back of R&D; investments. They demonstrate the feasibility of technologies on a large scale application. Lead markets are not only related to potential first mover advantages, they also can attract foreign investors for environmental friendly technologies. The paper is explorative in nature, as there is a lack of research on the mechanism and conditions for the successful making of global markets for environmental innovations. It should be understood as an overview and systematisation of aspects of global ecological modernisation with special regard to lead markets for environmental innovations.