Module: 7SSG5106 Development and Environmentalism in the South
Essay title: “Proponents and analysts of SD [sustainable development] need to clearly reject the attempts to focus on economic growth as a means to poverty removal and/or environmental sustainability” (Lele 1991: 618). Do you agree with this statement? Explain your position. Due date: 9 May 2014 Student number: 1355795 Word count: 2017 / 2,500
Since the 1990s, mainstream sustainable development discourses have focused on
sustaining economic growth (Adams, 2009; Banarjee, 2003; Bina, 2013). In the first part of this essay, I will briefly outline the historical context that brought the concept of sustainable development into prominence and its contested definitions. I will then scrutinise the relationship between economic growth, inequality and environmental quality based on existing studies. Finally, I will reflect on alternative development paradigms and discuss the reasons I agree with Lele (1991)’s statement that sustainable development advocates should not focus on economic growth as a means to poverty alleviation or environmental conservation.
The rise of sustainable development
Discussion about sustainable development first emerged at the UN Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm, Sweden in 1972 (Adams, 2009). Subsequently, the publication of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development’s 1987 report titled Our Common Future made the concept of sustainable development mainstream (Redclift, 2005). Its definition is one of the most frequently cited: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, un-paginated). The report recognised the link between poverty and environmental degradation. However, it was taken for granted that poverty, which exacerbates environmental degradation and vice versa, could only be eliminated through economic growth (Adams, 2009). The report failed to highlight the global environmental and social consequences
1 Student number: 1355795
of Northern consumption demand (Banarjee, 2003). How would the affluent sustain their ever-growing consumption rate without crossing environmental thresholds was a question left unanswered. In 1992, governments worldwide would declare their support for sustainable development at the UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The Rio Declaration laid out 27 principles for sustainable development. The 600- page Agenda 21 was supposed to be the action plan. One of Agenda 21’s key themes was growth with sustainability. I cannot articulate the central underlying assumption any better than Adams (2009): “Sustainable development was about tuning the economic machine, not redesigning it”. Critical discussion on the relationships between economic growth, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability was limited. Furthermore, Agenda 21 was techno-centric. The efficient use of natural resources via rational, scientific environmental management and eco-friendly technology was seen as essential to achieving green growth. Despite that, developing countries never received adequate financial and technical support from high-income nations to implement this technocratic vision of sustainable development (Adams, 2009). Similar focus on economic growth would continue to dominate the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg, South Africa.
Contested meaning of sustainable development
Sustainable development remains a contested concept. Connelly (2007) suggested four different approaches toward understanding it. Governments tend to favour the first approach, which is to present sustainable development as a straightforward concept. The three circles (Figure 1) is one of the most common visual representations of sustainable development (Connelly, 2007).
2 Student number: 1355795
Academics adopting the second approach would recognise the concept’s
ambiguity and then proceed to advocate for one interpretation of sustainable development they favour the most (Elliot, 1994; Carley and Christie, 2000). Analysts from the third approach would go further in examining the “strength” of different sustainable development’s interpretations (see Figure 2) (Pearce, 1993; Baker et al, 1997). Figure 2 (Source: Myerson and Rydin, 1996)
However, both the second and third approaches often end up conflating opposing ideologies masked in the rhetoric of sustainable development (Connelly, 2007). The fourth approach would scrutinise the ambiguity and disputes over the concept with an underlying assumption that such contestation is inevitable (Haughton and Counsell, 2004). Academics from the fourth approach believe “sustainable development” is a political concept like “democracy”. It has a commonly accepted vague core meaning but how its ideals should be put into practice in different cultural, political, economic and environmental contexts will always be contested (Redclift, 2005). I will now move on to discuss a few ideologies that have been prevalent in debates over sustainable development in brief to illustrate the deeper political struggles over the concept.
Ideologies in sustainable development
Adams (2009) observed that ideas from market environmentalism and ecological modernisation have dominated mainstream sustainable development thinking. Free market thinkers and neoliberal economists believe the market is more efficient than the state at mediating the relationship between nature and societies. They believe societies
3 Student number: 1355795
can put a price on environmental ‘goods and services’ to be included in cost-benefit
analyses of economic development. This has led to the emergence of ecological or environmental economics in the 1980s. However, ecological economics have been influenced by different school of economic thoughts including Keynesian, Marxist, Develepmentalist, Institutionalist and more. Consequently, which environmental ‘goods and services’ can be priced, how this can be done, preferably by the market or the state remain matters of hot debate (Neumayer, 2010). Ecological modernisation can be understood as an extension of market environmentalism (Adams, 2009). It favours technological development, economic and managerial reforms over a major restructuring of the global and national capitalist economies. It depoliticises environmental and development issues. The belief that scientific or economic rationality is sufficient to solve global environmental woes caused by political and corporate power abuses is naive. Critics have highlighted that the quest for environmental sustainability through ecological modernisation has merely seen industrialised countries dumping their polluting industries, externalising the environmental cost to the Global South (Banarjee, 2003; Redclift, 2005). On the other hand, radical environmentalists have drawn on socialism, feminism, anarchism and deep ecology to challenge mainstream capitalist vision of sustainable development (Adams, 2009). Eco-socialism offers powerful critiques against capitalist societies’ relationship with nature. It points out that capitalism views human labour and natural resources as mere commodities to be exploited for profit. Löwy (2005) believed capitalists’ insatiable demand for profit exacerbates social inequalities and would result in ecological catastrophes. Bahro (1984 as cited in Adams, 2009) commented that European capitalists from the 18th and 19th century had externalised the environmental and social costs of industrialisation to their colonies. Developing countries today do not have that option. Eco-feminism exposed the patriarchal roots of capitalism and mainstream development thinking that marginalised both nature and women (Sargisson, 2001). Meanwhile, eco-anarchists have enriched sustainable development debates by popularising ideas about decentralisation, participatory democracy, humanistic technology and the possible creation of self-sufficient, egalitarian economies (Bookchin, 1979). At the same time, deep ecologists rejected mainstream anthropocentric vision of sustainable development and the separation of humans from nature. They believe all
4 Student number: 1355795
species on Earth are created equal. Nature is not just a ‘capital’ to pursuit human economic development. It has intrinsic values that humanity must learn to appreciate and respect (Naess, 1973).
Economic growth, inequality and the environment
What is the relationship between economic growth, inequality and the environment? Russian-American economist Simon Kuznets once posited that economic inequality tends to widen as a country industrialises but would decrease again as the country becomes fully industrialised (Chang, 2014). His theory is famously known as the Kuznets curve (Figure 3). Is it true that the poor must become poorer and the rich even richer before economic development through industrialisation reaches a tipping point where wealth would finally trickle down to the masses? Figure 3 (Source: Chang, 2014)
Kuznets’ theory has since been refuted with East Asian countries’ actual economic development experiences (Stiglitz, 1996). Economic inequality and poverty actually decreased as countries like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan began to industrialise. Stiglitz (1996) believed this was because the governments had reinvested the wealth from economic growth to provide affordable education, better healthcare and improve other public services. Chang (2014) added that the states had also implemented land reforms that protected small farmers and economic policies that shielded small- medium enterprises from competition with large, multinational corporations. Meanwhile, Grossman and Krueger (1995) had also attempted to apply the Kuznets’ curve to explain the relationship between economic growth and
5 Student number: 1355795
environmental quality. They found that levels of air and water pollution would rise during industrialisation but eventually decline. Grossman and Krueger (1996) believed cleaner technologies and environmental policy reforms are key to the improvements. However, subsequent numerical studies had found that the environmental Kuznets curve is only applicable to some environmental indicators such as air quality and the rate of deforestation (Neumayer, 2010). It cannot be used to generalise the relationship between economic growth and environmental quality (Stern, 2004). Access to clean water and sanitation generally improves and rarely decline as per capita income increases (Neumayer, 2010). On the other hand, municipal waste and greenhouse gas emission tend to grow and rarely fall as per capita income rises. Ultimately, whether economic growth increases or decreases economic inequality and environmental quality depends on politics. Examples from East Asia have shown that economic growth can reduce poverty provided that the state implement welfare or protectionist policies that safeguard interests of the poor and powerless (Chang ad Grabel, 2014). The same applies to environmental sustainability. Studies have found that countries with more political freedom or stronger environmental advocacy groups tend to have better environmental governance and performance (Neumayer, 2010).
Alternative development paradigms
Neoliberalism has established itself as the dominant paradigm of development since the 1980s (Hague, 1999). Neoliberal regimes tend to favour privatisation, deregulation, trade liberations and welfare cuts. Hague (1999) warned that the rolling back of the state threatened to further exacerbate poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Yet, mainstream sustainable development thinking backed by UN agencies and the World Bank do not challenge the neoliberal development paradigm (Adams, 2009). Consequently, their pursuit of sustainable development remains narrowly focused on economic growth while paying lip service to environmental sustainability and reducing global inequality. Morse (2008) proposed that sustainable development thinkers should engage with post-development theories that surfaced in the mid-1990s. “Development” as a concept itself needs to be critically unpacked. How do we conceptualise human progress? Does modernisation equate industrialisation and Westernisation? How do
6 Student number: 1355795
these processes actually contribute to sustainable development’s normative goals of
achieving social justice and environmental sustainability (Banarjee, 2003)? Bina (2013) observed that there are currently three parallel discourses in sustainable development: business-as-usual, ‘greening’ or ‘all change’ (Figure 4). I think this competition of ideas is actually healthy. The paths toward sustainable development would involve substantial reforms, potentially radical changes to our current global and national political economies. Therefore, it is unsurprising that political and economic elites from both the Global North and South would favour maintaining the status quo. After all, they have benefit from the neoliberal development paradigm. Despite the inertia, sustainable development proponents can draw inspirations from countless social, environmental and indigenous movements worldwide to enrich their advocacy. Figure 4 Categorisation of policy responses to the financial and climate crises (Bina, 2013)
The world has agreed broadly at Rio about what sustainable development should aim for: economic growth with environmental sustainability and social justice. However, I believe the aims should be even broader to include a society’s cultural and spiritual development. As Jasanoff (2002) suggested, we have to reconnect development goals to our social and cultural worlds. How a society can put these ideals of sustainable
7 Student number: 1355795
development into practice will vary depending on its political, social, cultural and environmental history. Those who search for a ‘one-size-fit-all’ development model from neoliberalism or socialism will never find one. There is no magic solution to poverty, climate change or industrial pollution. Government and citizens could and should always look to other societies and countries for inspirations yet remain mindful that what work for others may not work for them. In addition, there is a wealth of existing ideologies and philosophies across different academic disciplines on the meaning of human existence and the ways societies should interact with each other and nature. Be it sustainable development or participatory democracy, these concepts have emerged from diverse peoples’ aspiration for emancipation and equality. Before some of us in the academia decide to reject these concepts because they have been “hijacked” by vested interests, we should bear in mind that displaced indigenous people, the urban poor and marginalised social groups worldwide are hanging on to them in search of justice. The least we can do for them, and ourselves, is to continue challenging mainstream growth-centric, neoliberal development paradigm with reformist or radical interpretations of sustainable development.
- ends -
References:
Adams, W.M. (2009) Green Development: Environment and sustainability in a developing
world (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Bahro, R. (1984) From Red to Green: interviews with ‘New Left Review’. London: Verso.
Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D. and Young, S. (1997) Introduction: the theory and practice of sustainable development in EU perspective. In: S. Baker, M. Kousis, D. Richardson and S. Young (eds) The Politics of Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
8 Student number: 1355795
Banarjee, S.B. (2003) Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24(1), 143-180.
Bina, O. (2013) The green economy and sustainable development: an uneasy balance? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31, 1023-1047.
Bookchin, M. (1979) Ecology and revolutionary thought. Antipode, 10(3)/11(1), 21-32.
Brundtland, H. (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: OUP, for the World Commission on Environment and Development.
Carley, M. and Christie, I. (2000) Managing Sustainable Development (2nd ed.) London: Earthscan.
Chang, H. (2004) Economics: A User’s Guide. London: Pelican.
Chang, H. and Grabel, I. (2014) Reclaiming development: An alternative economic policy
manual. (2nd ed.) London: Zedbooks.
Connelly, S. (2007) Mapping sustainable development as a contested concept. Local
Environment, 12(3), 259-278.
Elliott, J. A. (1999) An Introduction to Sustainable Development (2nd ed.) London:
Routledge.
Grossman, G.M. and Krueger, A.B. (1995) Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
Grossman, G.M. and Krueger, A.B. (1996) The inverted-U: what does it mean? Environment and Development Economics, 1(1), 119-122.
Haque, M.S. (1999) The fate of sustainable development under neo-liberal regimes in developing countries. International Political Science Review, 20(2), 197-218.
9 Student number: 1355795
Haughton, G. and Counsell, D. (2004) Regions, Spatial Strategies and Sustainable
Development. London: Routledge.
Jasonoff, S. (2002) New modernities: Reimaging science, technology and development.
Environmental Values, 11(3), 253-276.
Lele, S.M. (1991) Sustainable development: a critical review. World Development, 19(6), 607-621.
Löwy, M. (2005) What is ecosocialism? Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 16(2), 15-24.
Morse, S. (2008) Post-sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 16, 341-352.
Myerson, G. and Rydin, Y. (1996) The Language of Environment: A New Rhetoric.
London: UCL Press.
Naess, A. (1973) The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: a summary. Inquiry, 16, 95-100.
Neumayar, E. (2010) Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms (3rd eds.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Pearce, D. (1993) Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan.
Redclift, M. (2005) Sustainable development (1987-2005): An oxymoron comes of age.
Sustainable development, 13, 212-227.
Sargisson, L. (2001) What’s wrong with ecofeminism. Environmental Politics, 10, 52-64.
Stiglitz, J.E. (1996) Some lessons from the East Asian Miracle. The World Bank Research Observer, 11(2), 151-177.
