DOCSLIB.ORG

'Green Growth State'

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'Green Growth State' BAM 2014 This paper is from the BAM 2014 Conference Proceedings About BAM The British Academy of Management (BAM) is the leading authority on the academic field of management in the UK, supporting and representing the community of scholars and engaging with international peers. http://www.bam.ac.uk/ The ‘Green Growth State’: an aspirational perspective ABSTRACT Following the failure to establish multilateral carbon emission reductions under the Kyoto protocol, political will is coalescing at the national and multilateral scale around the emerging discourse of Green Growth. The narratives and practices of Green Growth have already been rejected by many stakeholders as a reformulation of business as usual discourse. However, this article argues that this critique is grounded in a false conflation of distinct interpretations of the concept. In place of homogenising all associated narratives, we argue for an aspirational Critical Green Growth perspective incipiently identified - but not fully and unequivocally formed- in some Asian national policies (i.e. Korea, and Japan) and the United Nations Environment Programme. Drawing on this background, and other development insights, we then argue for the importance of the Green Growth State (GGS) in introducing fundamental change in this critical window of opportunity. Track: Sustainable and Responsible Business Word Count: 6986 1 INTRODUCTION There are clear indicators that the current trajectory of global society is not environmentally, socially or, arguably, even economically sustainable. Recent projections by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2012) show that if global production and consumption fail to adopt a more sustainable path in the next decade, irreversible ecological changes will jeopardise two centuries of rising living standards. Such recognition adds considerable weight to the existing cacophony of analysis critical of the current global trajectory. The power of this argument is evident in the recognition by key global actors that tweaking current trends will be insufficient to remedy growing global problems (Lane 2010; Meadowcroft 2012). Evidence of this need for radical rethought on global problems is the issue of anthropogenic influence on climate change. For example, there was lack of political appetite for the multilateral capping of carbon emissions discussed during the United Nation’s Kyoto process. In response to this more traditional cap-and-trade focus, there are increasing signs that the most likely avenue for a broad based radical rethought of political commitment is through the emerging concept of ‘Green Growth’ (Hamdouch and Depret 2010, p. 5; Huberty et al. 2011) – which has also been referred to as the Green Economy (in Germany, Norway and France ) or the Green New Deal (in the United States of America, USA). Green Growth transcends curbing of economic growth as a means for responding to environmental limits. It instead interprets climate change not as a cost, but as an opportunity (Kastrinos 1995; Mathews 2012, p. 762). Green Growth, as defined here, is about going beyond the decoupling of environmental deterioration from economic growth or trying to achieve a balance in economic, social and environmental concerns. We posit that Green Growth advocates 2 for investment in the environment as a driver for socially inclusive economic growth (Vazquez- Brust and Sarkis 2012a). Initially introduced in 2005, the green growth discourse gained momentum in supranational organizations such as the World Bank and OECD after 2008 (Meadowcroft 2012; Messner et al. 2010). By 2012, significant policy euphoria on Green Growth and Green Economy ideas had seen increased momentum. It has been considered a smart solution not only for climate change, via investment in low-carbon economic productivity, but also to crises in finance, energy and food. (UNEP 2012a). Yet, strong civil society opposition to Green Growth discourse emerged during RIO+20. As an example, one of the RIO+20 newspapers, Terraviva, boldly stated in a headline “Green Economy, The New Enemy” (Terraviva Rio+20 2012). While Rio+20 commenced with strong UN support for the Green Growth agenda , the final conference report, The Future We Want (2013), provide a slightly more cautious perspective. This report described the Green Economy as one of a set of important tools available for achieving sustainable development, downplaying its role by cautioning that although it could provide policy maker options, the Green Economy is not a rigid set of rules. The arguments against Green Growth emerging post Rio+20 clustered into two distinct categories: one of them political, the second more fundamental. In the first case, developing countries worry about the potential of Green Growth to became the Green Washington Consensus1, a new set of structural conditionalities allowing the North to constrain growth in the 1 The term ―Washington Consensus‖ refers to the agenda of neo-liberal policy reforms promoted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the last three decades. Such policies were first imposed on debtor countries in Latin-America in the 80s and later pressed on globally by the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization. ―Washington‖ refers to an informal policy agreement between the political Washington of the US congress and the technocratic Washington of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, US Treasury and 3 South while reinvigorating the ailing market-liberal political and economic agenda aimed to preserve the increasingly fragile supremacy of the Northern triad -US, EU, Japan (Terraviva 2012). In turn, Non-Government-Organisations (NGOs) and grassroots movements reacted against the basic assumptions about nature and human relations underpinning the Green Growth discourse and its potentially negative effects on social and environmental justice. As an example, the commoditisation of nature, privatization of the commons and control of the Green Economy by corporate interests was a fundamental scepticism (Utting 2012). In this view, Green Economy policies will postpone much needed structural transformation of the global system (Mowery et al. 2010). Green Growth criticism arises because some interpret the term to evoke neo-liberalism, westernization and corporatism, this interpretation will be part of the analysis in the paper. This critique treats the three overlapping public policy narratives of Green Growth, the Green Economy and also Green New Deal as interchangeable within a neoliberal discourse. Where the anti-Green-Growth discourse constructs them as non-radical, market liberal, corporate-led pathways to a new economy, perhaps greener, but not substantially fairer from social and environmental justice perspectives (Vazquez-Brust and Sarkis 2012b). In contrast to the above conflation of concepts and their accompanying discourses, we argue for the importance and validity of providing distinct narratives for an aspirational, radically transformative Green Growth Economy. Therefore, although disparities in the definition and scope of Green Growth exist (see for instance Meadowcroft (Meadowcroft 2012) and Messner et economic think-thanks. Underpinned by strong antipathy for state regulation and state enterprise, Washington Consensus policies include trade liberalization, fiscal discipline, privatization openness to foreign investment and financial deregulation. Critics of the Washington Consensus argue that its agenda has only served the interests of western countries and held the policies responsible for increased inequality, pauperization of middle classes in developing countries and the recession starting in 2008 [35] 4 al (Messner et al. 2010)), this paper advocates a radical and aspirational construction – significantly distinct from European (Green Economy) and North American (Green New Deal) approaches to the concept. We acknowledge that Green Growth has contested meanings and indeed there are discursive processes at work to impose a watered down, mildly reformist market liberal definition at the expense of stronger discourses. However, we argue that by coalescing support around a more critical interpretation of Green Growth, there remains the potential to influence the empirical outcomes from discourse formation. This new discourse formation will draw on the power of significant political will for advocacy and participation of vulnerable groups in knowledge creation to building broad-based coalitions for change. A key issue is the framing of economic progress. To this end, there should be strong support for a shift away from quantity to quality, the consumption of physical to non-physical outputs, and the production of environmentally harmful to environmentally enhancing goods and services. Moreover, the Critical Green Growth perspective advocated in this paper should be concerned with significantly redefining the legitimacy of growth by promoting all economic activity that is not harmful to and that can support natural capital. In turn, the quality of Green Growth can be identified by the extent to which ‘green’ economic activity contributes to enhance and preserve natural capital. Critical Green Growth goes beyond the ‘business as usual’ perspective that economic expansion should be balanced with proactive efforts to maintain and develop environmental systems. The emerging discourse incorporates quality-oriented, low-carbon, energy efficient growth, with a strong focus on creating value through new clean technology, as well as natural infrastructure and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Régulationist Approach 
    Determining the economic-environment relation: A régulationist approach Lynne Chester The John Curtin Institute of Public Policy, Curtin University Email: [email protected] Abstract: Régulation theory offers a cogent analytical framework to explain the character of the contemporary environmental challenge, the responses of capitalism to environmental issues and the challenge to accumulation posed by sustainable development. Yet sustainable development and the environment more generally have not strongly infiltrated the wide range of topics addressed by régulationists. In seeking to explain the insights provided by this analytical framework to the environment-economic relation compared to mainstream neoclassical economics, this paper also seeks to develop a régulationist approach to the ecological by addressing the criticisms levelled against régulationists for their ‘environment- deficit-syndrome’ and, in building on two particular contributions directed at breaking this impasse, I contend that the economic-environment relation is not a social relation peculiar to capitalism but is given definition and form by the mode of régulation which secures accumulation. A 4-point method for empirical investigation of the economic-environment relation is proposed and it is concluded that the prospects for sustainable development are constrained to that which do not challenge accumulation and thus only requires adjustment, not transformation, of existing structures and institutions. Key words: capitalism, economic-environment relation, neoclassical economics, régulation theory, sustainability, sustainable development 1 Introduction Environmental degradation has escalated with the evolution of capitalism. Climate change has become the hallmark of contemporary environmental concern. The concept of sustainability has been re-configured to validate the green credentials of an economic growth agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a More Inclusive Capitalism by the Henry Jackson Initiative for Inclusive Capitalism Towards a More Inclusive Capitalism
    Towards a More InclusIve capITalIsM By The henry Jackson InITIaTIve for InclusIve capITalIsm Towards a More InclusIve capITalIsM First published in 2012 on behalf of The Henry Jackson Initiative www.henryjacksoninitiative.org By: The Henry Jackson Society 8th Floor – Parker Tower, 43-49 Parker Street, London, WC2B 5PS Tel: 020 7340 4520 © The Henry Jackson Society, 2012 All rights reserved The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and are not necessarily indicative of those of The Henry Jackson Society or its directors Designed by Genium, www.geniumcreative.com ISBN 978-1-909035-03-4 2 Towards a More InclusIve capITalIsM CONTenTs execuTIve suMMary 4 The case for capITalIsm 4 Three paThways 5 ConclusIon 5 InTroducTIon 6 adaM sMITh and The case for InclusIve capITalIsM 8 paThway 1: 13 fosTerIng educaTIon for employmenT paThway 2: 18 nurTurIng sTarT-ups and smes paThway 3: 22 reformIng managemenT and governance pracTIces To counTer shorT-TermIsm The quesTIon of eThIcs 26 conclusIon 28 Task force bIographIes 29 3 Towards a More InclusIve capITalIsM execuTIve summary At a time when capitalism is very much under siege, this paper makes the case that it remains the most powerful economic system we have for raising people out of poverty and building cohesive societies. At the same time, we, the members of the Henry Jackson Initiative for Inclusive Capitalism task force—a trans-Atlantic and non-partisan private-sector group of business, policy and academic practitioners—recognize that the recent crisis has highlighted a number of weaknesses in the system. Accordingly, we set out the case for capitalism, identify three areas in which progress needs to be made to improve it, and identify a number of companies already working in these areas to improve the functioning of our system.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Growth, Capitalism and Unknown Economic Paradoxes
    Sustainability 2012, 4, 2818-2837; doi:10.3390/su4112818 OPEN ACCESS sustainability ISSN 2071-1050 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Article Economic Growth, Capitalism and Unknown Economic Paradoxes Stasys Girdzijauskas *, Dalia Streimikiene and Andzela Mialik Vilnius University, Kaunas Faculty of Humanities, Muitines g. 8, LT-44280, Kaunas, Lithuania; E-Mails: [email protected] (D.S.); [email protected] (A.M.) * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +370-37-422-566; Fax: +370-37-423-222. Received: 28 August 2012; in revised form: 9 October 2012 / Accepted: 16 October 2012 / Published: 24 October 2012 Abstract: The paper deals with failures of capitalism or free market and presents the results of economic analysis by applying a logistic capital growth model. The application of a logistic growth model for analysis of economic bubbles reveals the fundamental causes of bubble formation—economic paradoxes related with phenomena of saturated markets: the paradox of growing returnability and the paradoxes of debt and leverage trap. These paradoxes occur exclusively in the saturated markets and cause the majority of economic problems of recent days including overproduction, economic bubbles and cyclic economic development. Unfortunately, these paradoxes have not been taken into account when dealing with the current failures of capitalism. The aim of the paper is to apply logistic capital growth models for the analysis of economic paradoxes having direct impact on the capitalism failures such as economic bubbles, economic crisis and unstable economic growth. The analysis of economic paradoxes and their implication son failures of capitalism provided in the paper presents the new approach in developing policies aimed at increasing economic growth stability and overcoming failures of capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Greening Capitalism, Quietly: Seven Types of Organizations Driving the “Necessary Revolution”
    CADMUS, Volume 3, No.2, May 2017, 150-166 Greening Capitalism, Quietly: Seven Types of Organizations Driving the “Necessary Revolution” Michael Marien Senior Principal, Security & Sustainability Guide; Fellow, World Academy of Art & Science Michael Sales Principal, Security & Sustainability Guide; Former Co-Chair, Society for Organizational Learning, North America Executive Summary In 2008, MIT’s Peter Senge et al. wrote that the Industrial Age bubble was ending and that, especially due to climate change, a “Necessary Revolution” was needed to create a sustainable flourishing world in the decades ahead. Since then, many business organizations have moved toward sustainability to some degree, and many other organizations have emerged, mostly non-profits, to help business and/or prod them to pursue ethical strategies. This report explains how the revolution is unfolding, by briefly mapping some 150 organizations that are driving the greening of capitalism, and grouping them in several meaningful categories: Business-Led Groups, Ethical Groups, Broadened Accounting Groups, Certifying Organizations, Green Investing Groups, Sustainability Consultants, and Green Business Publishing. Each of these groups is important in facilitating the revolution, especially those promoting corporate social responsibility, broader accounting practices, certification, and green investing. Among groups that list their beginning, the median start-up date was 2003—thus a doubling in 13 years. This revolution certainly appears to be well underway, leading to a contest between 21st Century Green (or Sustainable) Capitalism, valuing the triple bottom line of People/ Planet/Profit to some degree vs. 20th Century Industrial Era Capitalism that adheres to a single bottom line and narrow accounting measures. But the revolution is a quiet one that is underappreciated, due to fragmentation and lack of leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Capitalism Through the Benefit Corporation: Enforcing the Procedural Duty of Consideration to Protect Non-Shareholder Interests Ian Kanig
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 64 | Issue 3 Article 6 4-2013 Note – Sustainable Capitalism Through the Benefit Corporation: Enforcing the Procedural Duty of Consideration to Protect Non-Shareholder Interests Ian Kanig Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ian Kanig, Note – Sustainable Capitalism Through the Benefit Corporation: Enforcing the Procedural Duty of Consideration to Protect Non- Shareholder Interests, 64 Hastings L.J. 863 (2013). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol64/iss3/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Notes Sustainable Capitalism Through the Benefit Corporation: Enforcing the Procedural Duty of Consideration to Protect Non-Shareholder Interests Ian Kanig* Corporations are beholden to a deeply flawed system of corporate governance known as shareholder wealth maximization. This norm dictates that corporations optimize profits at all costs to compensate equity investors for their continued exposure to risk. Other stakeholders in the corporate enterprise, like employees and consumers, are owed nothing outside of the contractual relationships they might possess, while the public at large is owed nothing at all. Because courts continue to vigorously enforce this norm, corporations are largely excluded from providing public goods and services, while simultaneously incentivized to push harmful production costs onto communities and the environment. To cope with this outcome, disparate actors like non-profit organizations, the state, and consumers have intervened in the marketplace, with questionable effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Sustainable Capitalism Possiblei
    Is Sustainable Capitalism Possiblei John Ikerdii With the fall of the former Soviet Union, capitalism became the dominant global economic system. Even those nations that have retained socialistic or communistic political systems, with few exceptions, have moved toward capitalistic market economies. The popularity of capitalism is supported by a record of more than two centuries of unparalleled economic productivity in industrial economies around the world. Socialist and communist nations also have relied on industrial strategies of development, thus the success of capitalism was not due solely to industrialization. Capitalism was uniquely complementary to the industrial strategies of specialization, standardization, and consolidation of control because of its emphasis on narrow individual self-interests. The combination of capitalism and industrialism has resulted in the most productive economies ever witnessed in human history, at least in terms of material wealth. As we enter the 21st century, however, capitalism's negative ecological and social impacts are raising serious questions of sustainability. In spite of impressive records of productivity, people around the world are beginning to question whether capitalistic economies are sustainable over time, ecologically, socially, or even economically. The negative environmental impacts of industrialization came to widespread public attention in the 1960s, resulting in a worldwide movement to protect the environment. In 1972, a Club of Rome report, Limits to Growth, focused attention on the broader issues of long run ecological sustainability.1 A 1987 report of the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development, more commonly referred to as the Bruntland report, later defined sustainable development in social and ethical, and well as ecological, terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Nature and the Myth of a Sustainable Capitalism
    NATURE AND THE MYTH OF A SUSTAINABLE CAPITALISM A MASTER THESIS On the environmentalist transformation of capitalism and its potential in overcoming the environmental crisis . Wim Carton Aalborg University stud.nr. 20070707 spring 2009 Development and International Relations (DIR) supervisor: Li Xing ABSTRACT THIS THESIS criticises the predominant conviction in contemporary environmentalism that ecological sustainability can be achieved within the framework of the capitalist order. Our argument is that the fundamental causes of the contemporary environmental crisis, of which climate change is the most serious, but certainly not the only manifestation, lie not in an ineffective management of the earth’s resources, but in the logic of capitalism itself. Any successful attempt at overcoming this crisis must therefore depart from a critical reading of the contemporary socio-economic order and the way its basic functioning affects the natural and the human environment. This thesis is meant to contribute to this debate by historicising the issue, and by demonstrating that the environmental crisis is, essentially, a cultural and political problem, and not a technical one. Our argument adopts a social-science oriented, mainly Marxist approach to illustrate the fundamental dilemma between production-for-profit (and the concomitant drive for economic growth) and the popular objective of sustainability. The main conclusion arrived at is that an environmentalist reconfiguration of the socio- economic system is incapable of resulting in an ecologically sustainable society as long as the basic contradiction between nature and capital is not addressed. Common environmental practices of governments and businesses, it is maintained, are therefore flawed as long as they fail to connect the manifestations of the environmental crisis to the unsustainable dynamics driving the growth of the global economy itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Capitalism: Our Best Hope for the Futurei
    Sustainable Capitalism: Our Best Hope for the Futurei John Ikerdii We are in the midst of a great transition. Our economy, our society, and our natural environment are going through a period of fundamental change. This transition is at least as great as the industrial revolution and possibly as important as “the enlightenment” – the beginning of science. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a technological revolution, although new electronic and biological technologies are certainly relevant to the transition. It is a philosophical revolution, a revolution in thinking about the nature of reality, about how the world works and our place within it. Ways of thinking that seemed adequate in the past are incapable of meeting the challenges of today and of the future. To complete the transition, we must rethink virtually every aspect of our lives. The industrial era brought many material benefits to humanity, and none of us would choose to return to a pre-industrial agrarian society. Capitalism has proven to be the most efficient economic system and no alternative system has proven capable of meeting the material needs and wants of society. However, the industrial era of development is inherently dependent on natural and human resources that are rapidly being depleted. And today's capitalist economies, being inherently dependent on those resources, quite simply are not sustainable. The mechanistic worldview that dominates scientific thinking today is incapable of resolving the most pressing ecological and social challenges of tomorrow. New electronic and biological technologies will simply create more problems that we cannot solve and deplete more resources that we cannot replace, unless we use them in ways that reflect a new understanding of the world and our place within it.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustaining Capitalism
    SUSTAINING CAPITALISM Bipartisan Solutions to Restore Trust and Prosperity Steve Odland Joseph J. Minarik Committee for Economic Development a division of The Conference Board, Inc. 1530 Wilson Blvd, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22209 © 2017 by The Conference Board, Inc. 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 All rights reserved First printing 2017 This book is printed on acid-free paper. Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data <to be provided> ISBN 978-0-692-76970-6 CONTENTS Acknowledgments xi Introduction 1 The Challenge and Opportunity of Sustaining Capitalism 1 The Structural Threats to Capitalism— And the Structure of a Solution 15 2 Crony Capitalism 29 3 Focusing on Long-Term Value: Reversing Business Short-Termism 43 4 Reform Education 61 5 Making Washington Work 75 6 A Prescription for Fiscal Health 87 7 Regulation to Build Trust in Capitalism 119 8 Sustainable Capitalism and the Global Economy 139 Conclusion 151 The Path Forward to Renewed Prosperity Notes 165 Detailed CED Policy Statements 187 Index 189 About CED right ABOUT CED THE COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT of The Conference Board (CED) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, business-led public policy organization that delivers well-researched analysis and reasoned solutions to our nation’s most critical issues. Since its inception in 1942, CED has addressed national priorities to promote sustained economic growth and development to benefit all Americans. CED’s work in those first few years led to great policy accomplishments, including the Marshall Plan, the economic develop- ment program that helped rebuild Europe and maintain the peace; and the Bretton Woods Agreement that established the new global financial system, and both the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Sustainable Development and Equity
    Sustainable Development 4 and Equity Coordinating Lead Authors: Marc Fleurbaey (France / USA), Sivan Kartha (USA) Lead Authors: Simon Bolwig (Denmark), Yoke Ling Chee (Malaysia), Ying Chen (China), Esteve Corbera (Spain), Franck Lecocq (France), Wolfgang Lutz (IIASA / Austria), Maria Silvia Muylaert (Brazil), Richard B. Norgaard (USA), Chukwumerije Okereke (Nigeria / UK), Ambuj Sagar (USA / India) Contributing Authors: Paul Baer (USA), Donald A. Brown (USA), Josefa Francisco (Philippines), Michael Zwicky Hauschild (Denmark), Michael Jakob (Germany), Heike Schroeder (Germany / UK), John Thøgersen (Denmark), Kevin Urama (Nigeria / UK / Kenya) Review Editors: Luiz Pinguelli Rosa (Brazil), Matthias Ruth (Germany / USA), Jayant Sathaye (USA) This chapter should be cited as: Fleurbaey M., S. Kartha, S. Bolwig, Y. L. Chee, Y. Chen, E. Corbera, F. Lecocq, W. Lutz, M. S. Muylaert, R. B. Norgaard, C. Oker- eke, and A. D. Sagar, 2014: Sustainable Development and Equity. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 283 Sustainable Development and Equity Chapter 4 Contents Executive Summary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    th th The Hague International Model United Nations 2021 | 25 ​ January 2021 – 29 ​ January 2021 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Forum: The Economic Committee Issue: Measures to Promote Sustainable Capitalism Student Officer: Arav Dalwani Position: Head Chair Introduction Be it the diminishing oil reserves or the deforestation of thousands of acres of forested land every passing minute, most of us today live in an economic system that is increasingly proving itself to be unsustainable. Sustainability as a concept, defined as the long-term maintenance of the well-being of society across generations, is one that has eluded humanity throughout its history. Human society will always have to consume resources and energy for its development and functioning, as they are essential for even the most basic activities. Under capitalism, humanity has sought to maximise resource allocation and energy extraction. However, we must take a step back and ask: If resources continue to be depleted at the current rate under our modern capitalist system, will future generations of humanity be able to survive and sustain themselves at all? If we continue consuming these resources in the same manner, how can we justify the unsustainable and relentless pollution and damage to our environment? And further, in light of the various socio-economic disparities present today, how sustainable is capitalism itself as a system of human development? It is the existence of these very questions and problems that have brought forth the urgent need for Measures to Promote Sustainable Capitalism worldwide. Capitalism has always been based on the tenet that private actors who own the means of production will act out of their self-interests to maximise profit and satisfaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Steady-State Capitalism Viable? a Review of the Issues and an Answer in the Affirmative
    Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. ISSN 0077-8923 ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Issue: Ecological Economics Reviews Is steady-state capitalism viable? A review of the issues and an answer in the affirmative Philip Lawn Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia Address for correspondence: Philip Lawn, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, 5001, Australia. phil.lawn@flinders.edu.au Most ecological economists believe that the transition to a steady-state economy is necessary to ensure ecological sustainability and to maximize a nation’s economic welfare. While some observers agree with the necessity of the steady-state economy, they are nonetheless critical of the suggestion made by ecological economists—in particular, Herman Daly—that a steady-state economy is compatible with a capitalist system. First, they believe that steady-state capitalism is based on the untenable assumption that growth is an optional rather than in-built element of capitalism. Second, they argue that capitalist notions of efficient resource allocation are too restrictive to facilitate the transition to an “ecological” or steady-state economy. I believe these observers are outright wrong with their first criticism and, because they misunderstand Daly’s vision of a steady-state economy, are misplaced with their second criticism. The nature of a capitalist system depends upon the institutional framework that supports and shapes it. Hence, a capitalist system can exist in a wide variety of forms. Unfortunately, many observers fail to recognize that the current “growth imperative” is the result of capitalist systems everywhere being institutionally designed to grow. They need not be designed this way to survive and thrive.
    [Show full text]