Sustainable Development Survey on Definitions 1. When you hear or

Sustainable DevelopmentSurvey on Definitions

1. When you hear or see the word “sustainability” what comes tomind? How do you define it? What feelings or questions or beliefsdoes it elicit from you?

MOST COMMONFuture generationsUsing resources wiselyDegrading of the environmentEquilibriumPermanentLong-termPhysical/economic/social

OTHERSCompensatingIndefinableSteady stateTargetsExternalitiesCustodianship/stewardshipEconomic growthJusticeWeak vs. strong sustainabilityAnger about apathySadness at extinction of speciesReproducibleSolidity

2. The most widely used definition of Sustainable Development (SD) is theone developed in the Brundtland report Our Common Future:

SD is ‘development that meets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds’ (Our Common Future, 1987, 43).

a. What is your general reaction to this definition?

MOST COMMONGood but vagueWhat does ‘needs’ mean?Impractical

OTHERSNice, but difficult to measure successDoesn’t mention environmental damageNeeds further explanationGood starting pointVery goodReasonableToo generalToo narrowExcellent for showing the political point of viewNeeds inter/intra generationalNorth-south debateSustainable consumption

b. How useful would it be in the context of economics education?Please explain.

MOST COMMONNot veryUsefulStarting pointNot specific enough

OTHERS“Development”?Trade offs?Intergenerational issues not black and whiteDiscounting problemUtility measurement problemNon-use values?In context of political economy

c. “This definition stresses the concept of intergenerationaljustice. We have no right to degrade our planet to preventfuture generations from living as well as we do.” Is this whatyou get from the definition? Why or why not?

MOST COMMONThis is just one aspectDon’t like the idea

OTHERSWhat are the preferences of future generations?“Degrade”?Economic growth?Why not just say: we don’t have the right to degrade?

Not necessarily including the impact of resource usageDoesn’t help with fundamental problem of trade off between technology and

institutional progressShould be about social responsibility and future generationsNeed to distinguish between renewable and non-renewable resourcesOnly in terms of basic needsPrefer equity over justice

d. How useful is the concept of intergenerationality to economicseducation? Please explain.

MOST COMMONImportant

OTHERSCan be ignored in some economics educationNeeds additional workUsed theoretically, it’s useful but it’s more difficult to applyIntragenerational also importantKey issue in developmentGood for debate

3. The UK government’s SD definition is as follows: Social profess which recognizes the needs of everyone. Effective protection of the environment. Prudent use of natural resources. Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and

employment.


Better than BrundtlandVagueFairly standard set of multi-objectives of government policyGoodNo reference to inter/intra generationalUseless“Everyone”?“Effective”?“Prudent”?Clarifies link to environment but could man if some areas are protected, that’s

okayFirst bullet good, others defined too narrowlyClunky, some bits redundant when you understand BrundtlandIgnores relationships

b. How useful would it be in the context of economics? Pleaseexplain.

NoOnly to contrast different approachesMuch betterUseful starting pointNeed fuller explaination of what aims are and howMulti-objective goodTrade offsNot clear“Prudent” is relativeMight help but might constrain discussionDifficult to operationalizeToo static but okUseful if given empirical evidence

This definition has been criticised widely because it is ultimately notpossible to reconcile high levels of economic growth with the scientificfact that we are living in a materially non-growing, closed system ofwhich the economy is just a subsystem.

c. Do you agree with this criticism? Why or why not?

Want evidence of this factIt’s been proven wrongNo, abstracts from technological progress“Closed system”?No, more complex than this: technical trade offs differ between countriesHgh level of growth not neededNo, growth can be quality not quantityMore important is the relative weightsCBA has drawbacks: subjectiveNo, needs to be about human survival and bettermentYes, looks difficult to combine, shouldn’t be part of sustainabilityYes, but find bullet point is out of laceToo vagueImplications of both definitions: state support for certain types of technological

innovation (i.e., those protective of the environment)

4. In the last few years, another definition has gained currency, especially inthe business world. It is usually called the three-legged stool definition:

It stresses the interdependence of the three elements. If you take one legaway, the stool collapses.


SensibleNonsenseNot a definitionVery generalAwful: suggests the three are separateIf included other aspects, it’d be many-leggedGood because it shows other elementsGood but lacks inter/intra generationalGlad economics is given equal status/weightNeed to analyze and define relationships between the threeBetter integration of the environmentNot better than other twoPandering to businessDon’t like picturesDoesn’t show how linkedImplies need each otherImplies all equal and at same levelGood that there is no presumption of future valuesEmphasizing social is potentially useful

b. How useful would it be in the context of economics? Pleaseexplain.

VeryNot veryGood for generating debateComplements other definitionsConstrains thinking

Not sure what ultimate objectives are“Social”?Okay but who is the stool for?Useful because widely accepted

The problem with this reductionist definition (which is often present asseen below), is that it, factually wrongly, assumes that all three elementsare equally important and interact on the same level.

Environment

Social Economic

c. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

YesLacks definitionDepends how they are drawnBeside the point: they just need to be presentHard to believe they’re equalShows complementariness and trade offsNo, nonsense diagramsHelps but still assumes economics is separate to the environmentAnthropocentric?Yes, debases the original definition of SD from Stockholm to RioMust be judged in contextUnnecessary diagram

5. An interesting further development of the three-legged stool definition isrepresented by the following figure. Even though it still doesn’t give anynotion of the relative dependence of different spheres from each other, itat least re-introduces the dimension of intergenerational equity from theBrundtland definition:

It also includes specific environmental concerns relating to variousinternational conventions.


Too vagueSame old conceptBetter than 3-leggedMore difficult to get acrossMore elements are needed in environmentDon’t understandBetter than last 2Like inclusion of inter/intra generationalWorse than 3-legged: more complicatedReasonable but could replace a & b with something elseFictional concept of intergenerational equityUse all diagrams to helpIndifferentLeaves out intragenerationalRegards economic development as good in its own rightToo elaborate: key issues don’t stand out sufficiently clearly — they should hit

one in the eye


NoConfusingNot sureAs starting pointNot very preciseBrings future into equationUseful to see different approach but not an improvement

Too simplisticNeed to lay out underlying argumentUseful but not practical (time)Prefer to start with Brundtland then develop idea with examplesWould make econ. Dev. More grounded in contemporary resource ec.Good summary of various views and provides organic approach to analysisLike the depth: present/future generationsUseful for people not aware of environmental problemsRestricts economic concepts to climate change and biodiversity

6. The so-called ‘Russian doll’ definition address this problem by showing thehierarchical relations between the three elements. There is simply no lifeat all without the environment (planet earth), and the economy is also asubsystem of the social sphere.

environmental limits

social limits

economiclimits


Nothing newGood: links between them“Limits”?Don’t likeNot a definition: just descriptionTypical ecologist visionAs bad as firstToo reductionistNo information on impact of changesHierarchical relationship appealingEconomics underlies everything and so is most important factorToo deterministic

More of a ‘strong’ sustainability argument


MOST COMMONNot usefulAs a starting point

OTHERSToo confusingToo extreme ecologistEasier to explain as it’s similar to other modelsHow is the economics a subsystem of the social sphere?Doesn’t show interactions wellTilted too heavily towards resourcesGood to offer different diagramsNeed ‘neutral’ point of view: we are just here to give tools for thinkingEconomics education should:

i. Teach economists that economic science is a branch ofsocial science

ii. Teach economists that economic policy is a branch of socialpolicy

iii. Teach economists that the free market is sorely constrainedin the extent to which it can cope with environmental limits,with or without market imperfections

Broadens itPrefer stool

7. The following model again stresses the fact that all other elements aresub-systems of the ecosphere, but it tries to emphasise theinterdependence of the subsystems. It also attempts to make more visibletwo other important subsystems (empowerment: the political system; andequipment: science and technology), which are crucial drivers for(un)sustainability:

(The words inside say: Equipment, Economy, Equity, Empowerment.)


Not usefulBetter than previousComplicatedMore confusing than illuminatingInteresting, newSystem-focused view of problemIn conjunction with other diagramsSkepticalIt shows all elements as subsystem and also interdependence, but doesn’t

explain SDNeeds to be a bit more rigourousLooks like someone’s opinion: what do we do with this?Idea of drivers fits with business students but ones included don’t seem relevantNeed political economy foundationStresses important things


MOST COMMONNot useful

OTHERSNew element of empowermentGood to introduce to students for debateLacks intergenerationalityGood to show interconnections but is not SD

Limited to intro material for course on economic analysisDifficult to operationalizeUseful if different driversMarginalUseful for emphasis on technology and poli/soci awarenessEspecially suitable for joint honoursUseful if linked to sound political economyNot very useful: implies equity and technology are separate from economics: no

allowance for endogenity; there should also be much more overlapbetween empowerment and equipment if we are considering interactionbetween areas of concern

8. The following figure illustrates very sharply the fact that we are livingwithin a materially non-growing, closed system which is only open toenergy inflow from the sun. The tap on the left-hand side symbolisestechnology, which is accelerating overuse of resources beyondsustainable limits.

This figure is a visualisation of the scientific laws underlying the so-called foursystem conditions developed by The Natural Step:

• System Condition 1: Substances extracted from the Earth's crust mustnot systematically increase in nature. This means that, in a sustainablesociety, fossil fuels, metals and other materials are not extracted at afaster pace than their slow redeposit into the Earth's crust or theirabsorption by nature.

• System Condition 2: Substances produced by society must notsystematically increase in nature. This means that, in a sustainablesociety, substances are not produced at a faster pace than they can bebroken down and reintegrated by nature or re-deposited into theEarth's crust.

• System Condition 3: The physical basis for the productivity and thediversity of nature must not be systematically diminished. This meansthat, in a sustainable society, the productive surfaces of nature are notdiminished in quality or quantity, and we must not harvest more fromnature than can be recreated.

• System Condition 4: We must be fair and efficient in meeting basichuman needs. This means that, in a sustainable society, basic humanneeds must be met with the most resource-efficient methods possible,including a just resource distribution. (The Natural Step 1999).


More sensible than previous oneMore detailGoodUnderstates scope for substitutability of resourcesPictures don’t demonstrate principlesDoesn’t stress economics too muchToo longConfuses justice with efficiencyUseful in explaining SD but not a definitionHighly confusing: fallacy to assert that technology uses more resourcesSome physicsWould emphasize final pointIgnores technological developmentNoToo scientificLogical stagesMisses pointMaybe if teaching environmental economicsToo difficult for studentsInnovative but still deterministicDeep green perspective (strong sustainability)Ignores substitutabilityOkay but neoclassical economic theory says a market with no market

imperfections will do all that automatically1-3 too strong?


UsefulNot usefulNeed to examine underlying argumentUseful to explain governmentDoesn’t explain importance of social systems and technologyMight be good framework for a broadly focused course

Doesn’t address important issuesWhat is “just resource distribution”?Why isn’t the market a form of “just distribution”?ShallowLike picture but not messageGood that raises issue of equity and fair distribution, but more appropriate for

exact sciencesUseful for focusing on limits but understates scope for substitutability of

resourcesMore of an ecologist’s definitionShould ‘ecological economics’ be actual part of syllabus now?HarmfulGood for students to debateWould not use this detail in development economicsToo difficult for studentsMarginalQuite: could lead to discussion of externalities, of market and shadow valuations,

of resources and of cost effectiveness and distributional issues

9. The last model, increasingly used in the UK, is the Five Capital Model. Italso implies a hierarchy, because a capital which is lower down the list isdependent on the capitals listed previously:

• Natural capital is any stock or flow of energy and material thatproduces goods and services. It includes:i resources – renewable and non-renewable materialsii sinks – that absorb, neutralize or recycle wastesiii processes – climate regulation.Natural capital is the basis not only of production but of life itself.

• Human capital consists of people’s health, knowledge, skills andmotivation. All these things are needed for productive work. Enhancinghuman capital through education and training is central to a flourishingeconomy.

• Social capital consists of the institutions that help us maintain anddevelop human capital in partnership with others, for example families,communities, businesses, trade unions, schools and voluntaryorganizations.

• Manufactured capital consists of material goods or fixed assets whichcontribute to the production process rather than being the output itself,for example tools, machines and buildings.

• Financial capital plays an important role in our economy, enabling theother types of capital to be owned and traded. But unlike the othertypes, it has no real value itself but is representative of natural, human,social or manufactured capital, for example shares, bonds orbanknotes.

Sustainable development is the best way to manage these capital assets inthe long term. (developed by the Forum for the Future[www.forumforthefuture.org.uk]).


Much more usefulReasonableMore model than definitionNot clearOnly useful for SD courseGood reviewDisagree with some of the definitionsToo long windedNoGood and clear but staticIndicates importance of environmentInteresting but understates feedbackReally useful but only if first built on a firm understanding of SDGood for debating amongst economistsMisses out on technological progressGenerally agree but before previousMore refined definitionIndifferenceExtremely misleading: only need total and natural capitalPotentially interesting but calling everything capital…?Don’t like first sentence


Useful starting point for discussing different types of capitalMore useful than previousNot veryWould use in combo with previousDoesn’t convey interdependence but good definition of componentsHolistic, greater awareness of links between capitalsMisleadingNo reference to intergenerationalUseful if we show how each can be achieved: best sustainable solutionFinancial capital has value: this is gross misconception: must be definedFairly usefulVery good: conveys what others didn’tNot for students, but good (orgs: gov’t/commercial)Misses the point

More refined

10. Do you know of any definitions of sustainability that you prefer overthe ones you've seen here? If so, you can write them here, or give us ageneral reference to them, or say that you'll get back to us via e-mail withthe information.

Don’t like definitionsPrinciple 3 of the Rio Declaration: The right to development must be fulfilled so

as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of presentand future generations

Pursuing development strategies that foster good governance and secureeconomic growth while protecting the environment and promoting socialequity (Euro Comm?)

Trade offs in general definitionSustainable consumption must be stressedStrong versus weak sustainability

Sustainable Development Survey on Definitions 1. When you hear or

Documents