50
3 Governance: Solving or Reproducing Inequalities
related to direct access to material resources such as land and water (Rueschemeyer
2004; Earth System Governance Project 2018).
However, inequality should not be mistaken with diversity, which refers to
plurality. Inequality, instead, suggests the (due or undue) predominance of some
in the face of others, a skewed distribution of advantages and disadvantages (Faist
2010). Such inequalities arise out of unfair procedures in society and biased governance—or, in other words, inequality broadly results from inequity (Charlton 1997).
Equity and equality are at times used interchangeably, but they are not identical in
meaning. While (in)equality refers to a status, a situation, (in)equity refers to the
structural processes through which things happen. These processes include political
as well as economic and social mechanisms.
When are such differences justified, if ever? Without venturing too far into what
can otherwise be a prolonged and possibly inconclusive philosophical debate, it is
useful to resort to Rawls’ (1971) principles of difference and redress. The “difference
principle” contends that uneven treatment is acceptable only when it is to benefit the
least advantaged in society, while the “principle of redress” posits that undeserved
inequalities call for redress, that is, for efforts to correct them (Rawls 1971, 2001).
Core to both principles is an understanding of society’s responsibility to acknowledge
its often unjust structures and improve them. Thus, equality can be improved through
equity. Generally, inequality is not addressed in discrete episodes of reallocation, but
rather through solutions “built into the system”. Such solutions can first eliminate
structural features that sustain and augment inequalities, and then build in structures
that create unequal outcomes that benefit the least fortunate (as in various “pro-poor”
policies, when they are so more than just in name).
None is more key to equity than sustainable development governance, because
it has a double effect on social affairs. On the one hand, as reminded in Chapter 1,
sustainability includes a social pillar that requires it to address poverty and environmental inequalities, such as in access to resources or vulnerability to impacts.
On the other hand, purported solutions to environmental problems often carry social
consequences not to be overlooked, for they otherwise can lead to cures that may be
worse than the disease. The bioeconomy is a recent case in point, as its very raison
d’ être involves the duty to address socio-environmental issues. At the same time, it
can easily become a driver of further inequality and exclusion if equity is not at its
core (Bastos Lima 2018).
Therefore, it is crucial to understand how governance takes place, its workings,
and eventually how to best adjust it to meet ecological, economic, and social needs
(Biermann 2007; UNEP 2012). This imperative has become even more pressing—if
more complex—in an increasingly politically, economically and socially interconnected world, when the impacts of human activities often reach a planetary scale.
The COVID-19 pandemic has offered an acute and somber realization of that, but
processes of environmental change, as well as policies adopted to address them,
routinely have long-distance impacts that remain overlooked (Meyfroidt et al. 2018;
Bastos Lima et al. 2019). Some have argued that we have entered a new geological epoch defined by the magnitude of anthropogenic environmental impacts: the
Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000; Zalasiewicz et al. 2010; Dryzek and
3 Governance: Solving or Reproducing Inequalities
related to direct access to material resources such as land and water (Rueschemeyer
2004; Earth System Governance Project 2018).
However, inequality should not be mistaken with diversity, which refers to
plurality. Inequality, instead, suggests the (due or undue) predominance of some
in the face of others, a skewed distribution of advantages and disadvantages (Faist
2010). Such inequalities arise out of unfair procedures in society and biased governance—or, in other words, inequality broadly results from inequity (Charlton 1997).
Equity and equality are at times used interchangeably, but they are not identical in
meaning. While (in)equality refers to a status, a situation, (in)equity refers to the
structural processes through which things happen. These processes include political
as well as economic and social mechanisms.
When are such differences justified, if ever? Without venturing too far into what
can otherwise be a prolonged and possibly inconclusive philosophical debate, it is
useful to resort to Rawls’ (1971) principles of difference and redress. The “difference
principle” contends that uneven treatment is acceptable only when it is to benefit the
least advantaged in society, while the “principle of redress” posits that undeserved
inequalities call for redress, that is, for efforts to correct them (Rawls 1971, 2001).
Core to both principles is an understanding of society’s responsibility to acknowledge
its often unjust structures and improve them. Thus, equality can be improved through
equity. Generally, inequality is not addressed in discrete episodes of reallocation, but
rather through solutions “built into the system”. Such solutions can first eliminate
structural features that sustain and augment inequalities, and then build in structures
that create unequal outcomes that benefit the least fortunate (as in various “pro-poor”
policies, when they are so more than just in name).
None is more key to equity than sustainable development governance, because
it has a double effect on social affairs. On the one hand, as reminded in Chapter 1,
sustainability includes a social pillar that requires it to address poverty and environmental inequalities, such as in access to resources or vulnerability to impacts.
On the other hand, purported solutions to environmental problems often carry social
consequences not to be overlooked, for they otherwise can lead to cures that may be
worse than the disease. The bioeconomy is a recent case in point, as its very raison
d’ être involves the duty to address socio-environmental issues. At the same time, it
can easily become a driver of further inequality and exclusion if equity is not at its
core (Bastos Lima 2018).
Therefore, it is crucial to understand how governance takes place, its workings,
and eventually how to best adjust it to meet ecological, economic, and social needs
(Biermann 2007; UNEP 2012). This imperative has become even more pressing—if
more complex—in an increasingly politically, economically and socially interconnected world, when the impacts of human activities often reach a planetary scale.
The COVID-19 pandemic has offered an acute and somber realization of that, but
processes of environmental change, as well as policies adopted to address them,
routinely have long-distance impacts that remain overlooked (Meyfroidt et al. 2018;
Bastos Lima et al. 2019). Some have argued that we have entered a new geological epoch defined by the magnitude of anthropogenic environmental impacts: the
Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000; Zalasiewicz et al. 2010; Dryzek and