Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive
employment and decent work for all
8.1 Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in
particular, at least 7 % gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed
countries (UN 2015: 16)
This time, the explicit connection with upping the chance for redistribution
policies is not even made. To be fair, there is SDG 10, “Reduce inequality within
and among countries”—but its target 10.1 makes very clear that this can only
happen with yet more growth: “By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income
growth of the bottom 40 % of the population at a rate higher than the national
average” (ibid.: 17).
3.3.1 Which Real Qualities of Development Lie Behind
Monetarized Predictions?
The group hit hardest by the assumption that everything always keeps on growing is
the one for which the sustainable development agenda was originally created: future
generations. If we apply the no-net-loss justice definitions to our children and
grandchildren, we need to ensure that they do not pay too little for the outcomes of
investments that are paid for by generations today. The cost–benefit analyses of
political decision-making on public or social investments should therefore include
future costs and benefits. Who is paying and how much are they benefiting from
building roads or alternative transport systems, schools or parks, renewable or fossil
energy infrastructures, and so on?
For the mainstream economics mind-set the answer is as easy as it is convenient:
since economic growth and per capita incomes will continue to rise exponentially,
cost–benefit analyses almost always employ a social discount rate, meaning that the
costs for current and future generations are not weighted equally but are comparatively higher for those living and paying today.
So, instead of being worried about how future generations will be able to satisfy
their needs, weak sustainability economists worry that the current generation will
take on the cost of investing, while most of the benefits are reaped by future
generations. Adding the extrapolations of decreasing technology prices and
increasing efficiency gains renders ‘uneconomic’ many of the projects that others
would declare urgently necessary to keep within safe natural operating spaces.
Criticism of these assumptions therefore comes from economists who bring some
physical data into their equations. The seminal reports of Nicholas Stern, the 2006
The Economics of Climate Change, and the multi-scientist study The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), coordinated by Pavan Sukhdev from 2008
onward, both explicitly call for zero or even negative discount rates.
100
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …
employment and decent work for all
8.1 Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in
particular, at least 7 % gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed
countries (UN 2015: 16)
This time, the explicit connection with upping the chance for redistribution
policies is not even made. To be fair, there is SDG 10, “Reduce inequality within
and among countries”—but its target 10.1 makes very clear that this can only
happen with yet more growth: “By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income
growth of the bottom 40 % of the population at a rate higher than the national
average” (ibid.: 17).
3.3.1 Which Real Qualities of Development Lie Behind
Monetarized Predictions?
The group hit hardest by the assumption that everything always keeps on growing is
the one for which the sustainable development agenda was originally created: future
generations. If we apply the no-net-loss justice definitions to our children and
grandchildren, we need to ensure that they do not pay too little for the outcomes of
investments that are paid for by generations today. The cost–benefit analyses of
political decision-making on public or social investments should therefore include
future costs and benefits. Who is paying and how much are they benefiting from
building roads or alternative transport systems, schools or parks, renewable or fossil
energy infrastructures, and so on?
For the mainstream economics mind-set the answer is as easy as it is convenient:
since economic growth and per capita incomes will continue to rise exponentially,
cost–benefit analyses almost always employ a social discount rate, meaning that the
costs for current and future generations are not weighted equally but are comparatively higher for those living and paying today.
So, instead of being worried about how future generations will be able to satisfy
their needs, weak sustainability economists worry that the current generation will
take on the cost of investing, while most of the benefits are reaped by future
generations. Adding the extrapolations of decreasing technology prices and
increasing efficiency gains renders ‘uneconomic’ many of the projects that others
would declare urgently necessary to keep within safe natural operating spaces.
Criticism of these assumptions therefore comes from economists who bring some
physical data into their equations. The seminal reports of Nicholas Stern, the 2006
The Economics of Climate Change, and the multi-scientist study The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), coordinated by Pavan Sukhdev from 2008
onward, both explicitly call for zero or even negative discount rates.
100
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …