Abstract
Current trade conflicts between the US and European
Union underlie a cultural cleft in the conceptualisation of the environment. A framework of four environmental paradigms
is presented: the ecological, conservationism, preservationism, and
libertarianism. European and US
conceptualisations of the environment are placed within this framework. The relevance for environmental marketing is
discussed.
Introduction
In June of 1999 Board of Monsanto invited Gordon
Conway of the Rockefeller Foundation[1]
to talk about the role of biotechnology and GMO’s for global food security
(Rockefeller, 1999). Professor Conway,
the author of a recent book about the possibilities of biotechnology to improve
world food security (Conway, 1997) is a noted authority in the field of
agriculture in the developing world.
The purpose of his talk was to provide Monsanto with an academic input
to its pursuit of biotechnology and to support Monsanto in its mission. The result however could hardly have been
farther from the expectations. Conway’s
lecture was a biting critique of Monsanto’s handling of biotechnology and the
way in which Monsanto promotes its technologies around the world. On July 13, the US Secretary of Agriculture
added to the debate by questioning the wisdom pursuing GMO technologies without
consideration of consumer perception of the risks of such technologies (USDA,
1999). As a result Monsanto made a
significant climb down from one of its core product strategies and vowed not to
proceed with the development of its so-called terminator technology, a
technology which prevents seeds from reproducing.
The sentiments expressed by the Secretary of
Agriculture are telling. Consumer
doubts in Europe have lead to a dramatic fall in the export of US grain to
Europe from 1998-99. Major food
retailers both in Europe and the US are seeking to eliminate GMO ingredients
from their products. The European Union has placed a de facto moratorium on the use and development of genetically
modified foodstuffs.
Whilst Monsanto now admit that they underestimated the
level of consumer mistrust with GMO technology, this case highlights an area
which may prove equally damaging for many other firms in other industries. What appears to be at the heart of this
issue is not simply consumer attitudes to GMO technology but more broadly a
fundamental, cultural cleft between the US and Europe on the relationship of
man to the environment. This case
raises some particular questions. What is it that went wrong for Monsanto? Why is it that European politicians and
consumers have reacted so vehemently against GMO’s? What can be learned from this case in terms of environmental
marketing generally? In order to answer
these questions we need to understand the underlying associations that
consumers and politicians in Europe have in relation to GMO’s and how this
might differ to those of US consumers and politicians. It is the thesis of this paper that
fundamental, cultural differences in the way in which the environment is
discussed in society (i.e. the predominant environmental discourse), become
apparent, and present cultural barriers, through increasing export activity,
particularly in relation to new technologies.
An understanding of these differences is a prerequisite for the
development of effective marketing communication and strategy across cultures.
More broadly, this paper uses these cases to suggest
that a cultural approach to the environment and to environmental marketing is
necessary in the intercultural situation.
For firms marketing across cultures, communication and marketing
strategies have to consider the cultural basis for the definition of the environment.
Environmental Marketing
Since the 1970's environmental marketing has become an
increasingly popular topic of specialisation within the marketing field. Emerging arguably with the work of Fisk (1974), there are now numerous works in the field of
marketing management (Coddington, 1993; Davis, 1994; Ottman
1993) and marketing communication (Bernstein, 1992) pointing the way to more
environmentally sustainable and profitable business. Indeed many consider “sustainable marketing” to be a new paradigm
of marketing thought (Fuller, 1999).
These works are typically aimed at: 1. Identifying the need for sustainable
approaches to marketing given current economic and environmental pressures,
and; 2. Giving guidelines for the
adoption of sustainable marketing systems in organisations. There has been, however very little
theoretical development from marketing scholars in this area (Kilbourne, 1995).
Further, there has been no consideration, as far as this author knows,
of the impact of cultural differences in the understanding of man’s
relationship to the environment, i.e. that the environment might be conceived
differently dependent on the cultural context.
The following case seeks to set the scene for a discussion of the
relevance of developing a cultural framework for the understanding of the
environment.
European versus US attitudes to foodstuffs
In Europe there is currently much consumer resistance
to the introduction of GM products, especially foodstuffs. Consumer mistrust has been branded as hysteria,
by amongst others the British Prime Minister, but fears for so-called
“Frankenfoods” (New Scientist, February, 1999), is real enough that major
supermarket chains across Europe (including Marks & Spenser, UK; Carrefour,
France; Esselunga, Italy; Delhaize, Belgium, and; Superquinn, Ireland) have
formed a consortium to force suppliers to sort GM foods and secure GM-free
sourcing. The current conflict about
the export of GM foods, at both the consumer level and at the international
level with the failure of the attempt to regulate international trade and
transport of genetically modified organisms in Columbia in the Spring of 1999
(as well as the impeding trade war surrounding hormone residues in beef),
highlight a cultural misalignment between US and European expectations in this
area. Fundamentally, this misalignment
can be traced to a divergence in conceptualisations of the environment and
man's relationship to it.
This is significant for two reasons. Firstly, these differences make it difficult
for cross cultural negotiations, be they inter-governmental bargaining on
import of GM foods, or consumers' attitudes and understanding towards these
issues. Secondly, such differences may
also affect the ways in which theses issues are debated academically; this
latter issue must be of acute concern for all scholars of the environment and
environmental marketing.
Defining the Environment
As noted at the beginning of this paper, the
theoretical foundation for the environmental branch of marketing is weak.
Current literature can be classified into three main groups: firstly, research within consumer behaviour seeking
to classify advertising claims (Carlson, Kangun &, Grove, 1995), secondly
within the field of management based on normative work on the benefits of
introducing environmental management systems (Bernstein, 1992; Coddington,
1993; Elkington, 1994), and thirdly on work looking at the integration of
sustainable / environmental management systems in firms (Davis, 1994; Fuller,
1999).
However, there has been little exploration of the
explicit relation between conceptualisations of the environment and cultural
systems. One of the notable exceptions
has been some preliminary work carried out in Denmark on the effect of the
cultural values of business students on their attitudes towards the environment
(Beckman & Kilbourne, 1997).
A broad range of literature exists from which to draw
in the search for culturally based definition of the environment. This paper looks at several
literatures. Firstly, historical
accounts of the development of environmental thought (Worster, 1985), secondly,
rhetorical studies in environmental communication (Herndl & Brown, 1996),
thirdly, political literature on the conceptualisation of the environment
(Eckersley, 1992), and lastly from within the field of marketing, at an attempt
to
develop a theoretical basis for environmental
marketing (Kilbourne, 1995).
Writing on the history of environmental though in
Western economies since the 18th Century, Worster (1985) identifies
five main stages within the modern era (dating from the period of
enlightenment). These are respectively:
The Arcadian movement, Romantic Ecology, Darwinian Ecology, conservationism,
and ecological or “organic” approaches.
Worster notes that these approaches, whilst essentially chronological in
terms of their emergence reflect fundamentally different moral positions in
term of their philosophy. One of the
consequences of this is that it leaves environmental thought with a paradox,
which he argues has been one of its main defining features. This paradox emerges due to conflicting
conceptualisations of the relationship between man and nature; one view looking
at the preservation of nature and its intrinsic value and the other looking at
the creation of an instrumentalised world and its exploitation. These are intrinsically related to the two
main moral movements in the modern period: the humanistic paradigm devoted to
the liberation of the individual, the search for the ends of life and intrinsic
value, and secondly, the drive for the domination of nature.
Worster’s second main argument is that current
preoccupations with the scientific definition of the environment and
environmental problems are no less value based than previous conceptualisations
in environmental thought. Science he argues “is a product of culture” with its
aims being defined through a complex web of metaphors aimed at rationalising
its existence. Whilst we will not dwell
on this matter here his argument in relation to ecological approaches is
interesting. He puts forward the point
of view that ecology based on moral philosophy; Amoral philosophies have their
origins in persuasive, non scientific shifts of consciousness and then seek
ways to make themselves credible and systematic, appealing in that prices, it
may be, to the authority of science.”
Thus, according to Worster defining the environment depends on the
prevailing moral philosophy.
Worster presents us with a view of environmental
thought which suggests that there are no intrinsic qualities to the various
stages to environmental thought. Indeed
it is quite possible that these stages can and do exist side by side in popular
discourse.
Herndl & Brown (1996), present a series of papers
investigating the rhetorical status of environmental thought in the US. Like
Worster they emphasise that the environment “is a concept and an associated set
of cultural values.” Here stages or
levels of environmental discourse are considered in terms of their rhetorical
significance. In this way Herndl &
Brown and other scholars of the rhetoric of environmental discourse focus on
the formation to construction of the environment through
communication.
They argue that in the socio-political arena the environment exists as a social construction, the arena in
which firms such as Monsanto are becoming increasingly aware. That the firm is
being pulled into this arena is ver much the focus of the newly emerging field
of issue management (Chase, 1984). What
is particularly interesting is the way in which the rhetorical construction of
the environment is related to historical movements in environmental
thought. An example of this is the
conflict between the Conservationist and Preservationist movements in the US
(Oravec, 1984).
Through an analysis of modern ecopolitical though,
Eckersley (1992) develops a framework for understanding competing
conceptualisations of the environment.
She takes a political perspective in seeing dominant environmental
discourses as a result of political discourses (that is political in the broad
sense of the term). The overlying
humanist approach to man, his relationship to the non-human world and the
belief in the rights of the individual is questioned by the onslaught of the environmental
crisis. Here she puts forward a model
suggesting that the environment is presented in a continuum from ecocentrism
(i.e. where the environment is conceptualised on its own terms) and
anthropocentrism (i.e. where the environment is conceptualised on man’s
premises). The significance of
Eckersley’s work in relation to this paper is, firstly, that conceptualisations
of the environment are the result of the dominant social political discourse in
society. Secondly, that
conceptualisations of the environment vary from the anthropocentric to the
ecocentric. I will return to this
aspect later on in the paper.
One of the few attempts within the marketing
literature to develop a theoretical framework to conceptualisations of the
environment is that presented by Kilbourne (1995). In this paper he builds up a multi dimensional framework based on
Eckersley’s ecocentric-anthropocentric dimension and supplemented by a second,
political dimension: radical-reformism.
On the basis of this framework Kilbourne suggests five positions (see
Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
Levels of Ecological Concern
Kilbourne, 1995
On the basis of Eckersley, Kilbourne differentiates between levels of environmental concern on the basis of a positional dimension as represented by the dichotomy anthropocentric-ecocentric. Additionally however, he suggests that environmental concern is linked to the expectation of the individual as to the nature of change that may will achieve environmental improvement; this he calls the political dimension as represented by the dichotomy reformism-radicalism. Thus, Kilbourne aims to build into his model an implicit assumption of change towards a goal of betterment of the environment. The weakness of this assumption is that it does not question the inherent motivation of the communicator in environmental communication - in his case the advertiser. In this way the possibility that environmental advertising is rhetorical, and perhaps more focused on the maintains of status quo and the establishment of organisational stability is not built into the model. Kilbourne’s model is of course aimed at classifying the “greenness” of advertising claims, and not, as is the case in this paper of outlining the possible cultural biases in environmental focus. Kilbourne does, however, offer a greatly needed window of opportunity for developing more nuanced approaches to understanding the meaning of the term environment.
Towards a conceptualisation of the cultural
specificity of the environment
Building from the theories presented above, it is clear that the term environment is no fixed notion but has both historical and rhetorical elements. From the historical perspective which suggests that conceptualisations of the environment have followed successive paradigm shifts from Arcadian to organic, to rhetorical approaches which suggest that the term environment is the product of public discourses and defined within public arenas, the above approaches suggest ample room for the acceptance that the environment may have quite distinct meaning in different cultures. Indeed, as Herndl & Brown suggest, the environment “is a concept and an associated set of cultural values.” For the purposes of developing a framework for the understanding of the cultural basis of the environment, this paper suggest two dimensions built from the approaches above. The first, follows Eckersley and Kilbourne in defining a spectrum from anthropocentric to ecocentric, Kilbourne’s positional dimension. The second, is a rhetorical dimension, based on the spectrum from the romantic to the utilitarian. These are described in more detail below. The resulting framework allows for the placing of four main categories of conceptualisations of the environment: Ecology, Conservationism, Preservationism, and Libertarianism as shown in Figure 2 below.
Ecology: The ecology perspective to the environment
seeks to define the environment as a system, for example through the concept of
the “food chain.” Based on a utilitarian approach and built from a biological
understanding of the relationship between biological systems. The ecological approach focuses on the
inherent characteristics of the environment.
This approach has variously been called “Deep Ecology” (Worster, 1985)
and “Green” (Dobson, 1990). One of the
main protagonists of the ecological or “Organic” approach was Alfred North
Whitehead who stressed the organic nature of the environment and argued for
holistic approaches to the study of the processes in nature. Whitehead’s approach, whilst distancing
itself from “mechanistic” approaches to the study of the environment,
nevertheless is based on the intrinsic qualities of the environment and the
“scientific” study of processes which interlock ecosystems. More recently current environmental writings
from Rachel Carlson’s “Silent Spring” to Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb”
have stressed the systems nature of the environmental problem and assessed the
threat to the environment in utilitarian terms.
FIGURE 2
Paradigms of Environmental Thought
Conservationism: The conservationist approach to the
environment is built upon an essentially anthropocentric view of the
environment, i.e. that the environment is essentially a resource that is to the
exploited by man. Emerging in the first
half of the century, conservationism emerged as a reaction to a series of
natural disasters in a socio-political period of depression. Most notably associated with President
Roosevelt in the US the conservationist approach owes its development to
Frederic Clements who examined the causes of the dust bowl in the 1930’s and
overcultivation. The conservationist
approach endorses utilitarian principles of maximising benefits. Thus conservationists argue that the
environment must be conserved for future generations solely on the basis that
its resources are necessary for man’s welfare.
Thus the conservationist approach is essentially uninterested in the
intrinsic qualities of the environment but rather in the potential of the
environment to serve human purposes.
Preservationism: The preservationist approach in
contrast to the conservationist approach takes its point of departure as the
inherent value of the environment. The
preservationist movement has its roots in the writings of Henry David Thoreau
and the poetry of William Wordsworth.
This approach sees the environment as something sublime, and is
typically described as a creation of God and as a gift to man. The aim of preservationists is to maintain
the landscape for the benefit of man and to provide spiritual sanctuary for
individuals. The source of value lies
in the environment’s intrinsic beauty.
In the US the preservationist movement is epitomised through the work of
John Muir and in the US National Park movement.
Libertarianism: The libertarian approach is based on
the humanist tradition towards the environment as epitomised by Gilbert
White. Here the environment is a place
of restoration for the individual.
Rather than emphasising the sacred elements of the environment, the libertarian
approach focuses on the individual and the right of the individual to freedom
to roam for their own purposes. The
libertarian approach was highlighted by the famous right to roam actions in
Northern England in the last century.
Whilst in defining four distinct paradigms of
environmental thought, it is not the intention to suggest that these categories
are in any way mutually exclusive in terms of the formation of public
discourses about the environment in a given cultural context. In most contexts discourse around the
environment exists at several levels as suggested by Kilbourne. Additionally, these levels compete against
each other for primacy in the public discourse (Oravec, 1984). The next part of this paper sets up a series
of hypotheses about cultural predominance within these paradigms.
Ecology
Current debate around the nature of the environmental
problem has been highlighted through the publication of a number of reports
about the environmental status of world climate (Bruntland, 1987) and through
international fora for the discussion of these issues, i.e. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Discussion of
such macro issues as global warming and ozone depletion are developed in an
ecology perspective, looking at complex impacts on ecosystems and developed in
utilitarian, scientific discourse.
These macro debates influence those ways in which firms have to
communicate on the environmental issue.
Thus, we witness the growth in environmental monitoring system, such as
environmental management systems and environmental audit. Additionally, we witness the growth in the
“environmental movement” represented by organisations such as Greenpeace and
Earth First which reflect Kilbourne’s radical approach to environmental reform
(Kilbourne, 1995). Such groups
significantly also use scientific discourse to promote their causes (Jones,
1998). Thus, contemporary environmental
discourse, as it is constructed in the above fora is highlly reliant on the
scientific discourse (Worster, 1985).
In this way, the first hypothesis is presented.
H1: As the newest development in environmental thought
and with its roots in a utilitarian, ecocentric approach, the ecology approach
can be expected to be present throughout all western cultures.
Kilbourne (1995) raises the point that ecology
approaches to the environment tends to radically question the dominant
political discourses of society. Whilst
the scientific definition of the environment might be considered value free, as
Worster (1985) and Jones (1998) argue, it is subject to both moral and
rhetorical forces which make it as much value laden as other paradigms. He one has to just witness the, often
vociferous debates over the extent of “scientifically proven” environmental
problems. Thus, ecology approaches may
still be regarded as an as yet unproven discourse in the environmental debate.
H2: Ecology approaches in as far as they may be
regarded as radially questioning established political discourses may be
marginal in the overall public discourse on the environment limited mainly to
the efforts of radical environmental groups and their discourses.
Conservationism
Given the largely US roots of the conservation
movement, one might expect conservationism to be a dominant discourse in US
environmental thought. A reason for this may be lie in the fragile qualities of
the environment in the US and the more extreme climate than in Europe. The focus on conservation, as exhibited
through the exemplary work of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), is thus not
surprising. Current debates in the
timber industry on the conservation of timber resources in the North West
Pacific area may also be partly seen as an example of the conservationist
discourse in action (although also incorporating elements of preservationist
discourse, see below).
H3: With its roots in the US environmental movement,
conservationism would be expected to be a dominant paradigm in US environmental
thought.
Preservationism
The Preservationist movement, whilst having roots in
both Europe and the US has had most success in the US, most explicitly though
the establishment of the National Park system. Largely through the work of John
Muir in the designation of Yosemite National Park, the establishment of
pristine areas of natural beauty are unique in the world. In contrast to the European adoption of the
concept of National Park’s, human habitation is forbidden within National Park
boundaries in the US. This is not
coincidental and must be attributed to the possibility in the US of designating
areas of natural beauty in areas of extreme low population. In contrast to the US the preservationist
movement in Europe has had much more limited aims, being not least constrained
by population pressures. The essence of
this contrast lies in the concept of the sacred and profane. The designation of National Parks, National
Monuments, and to a lesser extent of State Parks, tends to create distance
between people and nature. This
distance is epitomised in the language that surrounds descriptions of the
National Parks, terms such as sublime are commonly used to describe their
natural beauty. Distance is also
created in a physical sense by the physical distance between most National
Parks and areas of significant population.
The significance of the environment for national identity must not be
overlooked. Yosemite National Park was
described as a symbolic representation of the nation itself (Oravec, 1984).
H4: Preservationist and sacred approaches to the
environment and their link to nationalism and US identity result in
preservationism being the most dominant paradigm in the US.
Libertarianism
The final paradigm, the libertarian paradigm has its
base in Western philosophical thought.
As described above, it seeks the liberation of the individual and the
possibility for the individual to realise their full potential as
individuals. In the context of
environmental thought, this paradigm has been most clearly expressed in the
“right to roam” movement in the UK in the last century and the succession of
mass trespasses. This movement was
explicitly linked to efforts to improve living condition in the main population
areas and the standard of living for the individual worker. The link between the environment and the
individual’s welfare differentiate this paradigm from the preservationist in
that the motivation of the environmental movement is focused on the individual
and not nature itself. The securing of
free access, a right not extant in the US on private land, was less focused on
the intrinsic value of the environment and more on the emancipation of the
population.
H5: Libertarian approaches to the environment are most
commonly found in Europe where the natural environment and the man made
environment cannot be differentiated and where welfare issues form the focus of
conceptualisation of the environment.
Conclusion and Future Research
This paper has presented a framework for understanding
conceptualisations of the environment based on sources in a number of academic disciplines. The framework developed suggests that four
environmental paradigms may be used to characterise environmental thought:
ecology, conservationism, preservationism, and libertarianism. This framework has then been used as a base for
offering explanation for cultural difference in the conceptualisation of the
environment. Given the lack of a
theoretical base for understanding environmental marketing, this paper has
attemtped to develop such a framework for use in the intercultural situation,
vis a vis Europe and the US. It is
explicitly understood that this framework has been built up within the
philosophy of Western thought. However,
it is hoped that the relevance of this paper will not be restricted to the
geographical area of around the North Atlantic. One of the main aims in the initial stages of theory building is
to break extant approaches to the research subject and to question the bases on
which they are built up. In this case
the aim of this paper has been to highlight the possibility of developing a
cultural understanding of the environment.
The cases presented highlight the reliance of building up a cultural
perspective to environmental marketing.
This cultural perspective is totally lacking in existing literature and
may provide a rich area of research in intercultural marketing studies and help
firms such as Monsanto to understand the basis for consumer resistance to new
products and technologies.
The work behind this paper is by no means
finished. The next stage of this
project is to test the hypotheses.
Further work needs to focus on individual’s attitudes, perceptions and
associations with the term environment in order to construct an understanding
of the conceptualisation of the environment.
Such work needs to concentrate on identifying the
interplay between the paradigms presented in this paper with the popular
discourses around the environment. It
is suggested that due to the exploratory nature of this work and the issue of
intercultural adaptation of research questions that qualitative techniques be
employed.
Techniques could include a series of in-depth
interviews undertaken with consumers in the US and Europe, building on well
tested in-depth interview techniques (McCracken, 1988),
and projective techniques to draw out the associations that individuals have in
their relationship to the environment.
Also, an analysis of popular discourse on the environment, as
represented in popular media such as newspapers, television, and magazines. Such an analysis could continue to focus on
a specific issue such as genetically modified foods. It will need to focus on the rhetorical terms used to defined the
individual’s relationship to the environment and compares these to terms used
in prevailing discourses in the public debate on the issue of GM foods.
References
Beckmann,
Suzanne C., and William E. Kilbourne, (1997)
The Interplay between the Dominant Social Paradigm and Value Systems:
Influences on Danish Business Students' Environmental Concern, C.E.C.Working Paper, Copenhagen Business
School.
Bernstein
David, (1992) In the Company of
Green. Corporate Communications for the
New Environment, London: ISBA Publications.
Bruntland
Commission, (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carlson
Les, Norman Kangun, and Stephen J. Grove, (1995) “A Classification Schema for Environmental Advertising Claims:
Implications for Marketers and Policy Makers,” in Environmental Marketing:
Strategies, Practice, Theory and Research,
New York: Haworth Press.
Chase,
W.Howard, (1984) Issue Management: Origins of the Future, Stamford,
Conn.: Issue Action Publications.
Coddington
Walter, (1993) “Environmental Marketing's New Relationship with Corporate
Environmental Management,” Total
Quality Environmental Management, 297-302.
Conway
Gordon, (1997) The Doubly Green
Revolution: Food for All in the Twenty-First Century, London :
Penguin Books.
Davis
John, (1994) Greening Business:
Managing for Sustainable Development, Oxford: Blackwell.
Dobson
Andrew, (1990) Green Political
Thought, London: Harper Collins.
Eckersley
Robyn, (1992) Environmentalism and
Political Theory: Towards an Ecocentric Approach, New York: State
University of New York Press.
Elkington
John, (1994) “Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win Business
Strategies for Sustainable Development,”
California Management Review
2, 90-100.
Fisk
George, (1974) Marketing and the
Ecological Crisis, New York: Harper & Row.
Fuller
Donald A., (1999) Sustainable
Marketing: Managerial-Ecological Issues,
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Herndl
Carl G. and Stuart C. Brown, (1996) Green
Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Jones
Richard Ian, (1998) “What's the Problem?: The Rhetorical Definition of
Environmental Issues,” proceedings of 4th Biennial Conference on
Communication and Environment,
Syracuse, New York: ESF, 145-58.
Kilbourne
William E, (1995) “Green Advertising: Salvation or Oxymoron?” Journal of Advertising, 2, 7-19.
McCracken
Grant, (1988) The Long Interview, Newbury Park: Sage.
Oravec
Christine, (1984) “Conservationism vs. Preservationism: The "Public
Interest" in the Hetch Hetchy Controversy,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 444-58.
Ottman
Jacquelyn O., (1993) Green
Marketing: Challenges and Opportunities for the New Marketing Age, Lincolnwood: NTC Business Books.
Rockefeller
Foundation, (1999) The Rockefeller Foundation and Plant Technology,
speech delivered to Monsanto Board, 6/24/99
USDA, (1999) New Crops, New Century, New
Challenges: How will scientists, farmers, and consumers learn to love
biotechnology and what happens if they don't? Press Release, 7/13/99.
Worster
Donald, (1985) Nature's Economy: A
history of ecological ideas, 2
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.