sanctions (ibid.: 419). Processes of globalization, commodification, financialization
and also computation have led to the situation in which these settings have become
the default organizing structure of our economic systems.
But this cannot count as a criticism of the concept as such if one embraces the
idea that human-made productive institutions can and should change if they hamper
the alignment of human need satisfaction with respectful and successful resource
governance. Commoning is an ideal for processes of contextually fitted governing
solutions and thus cannot be benchmarked with reference to the standard organizational appearances of today that, one might want to remind the critics, are definitely not sustainable. Something different will emerge. Given the increasing
attention to the concept—as well as the abuse of it for solutions that do not adhere
to the principles outlined here—only history can reveal how much of this radical
imaginary will be embedded in the transformed systems.
4.5 Summary: System Innovations for Sustainability
by Double-Decoupling
The goal of this empirical assessment was to track which foundational ideas about
human needs and the quality of nature one can find among various initiatives that
explicitly reject the mainstream economic paradigm of ‘good development.’ I have
been surprised by the degree of similarity between the ideas, missions and principles as they emerged from different disciplines and cultures.
What we can see is a wave of ‘repurposing’ differently sized and shaped systems
and their institutional design with the radical imaginary that productive processes
can be ‘recoupled’ with human needs and nature’s laws. The Economy for the
Common Good starts by turning the purpose of business outputs from private profit
accumulation toward serving the socio-ecological and economic systems around
them. Transition Towns originally started with the redefinition of the purpose of
energy systems—from providing cheap and limitless amounts of energy to generating long-term resilient and sustainable systems. GNH is couched in long-standing
cultural and religious traditions whose basic idea of what human happiness is marks
a paradigm shift not so much for Bhutan but for the Western world and the
dominant development paradigm with respect to the purpose of government—
turning away from ensuring private property and limitless consumption possibilities
toward building circumstances in which all members of the community feel confident of leading their lives successfully. The Commoning movement, on the other
hand, starts by turning the purpose of institutional design away from controlling
selfish, unchanging competitors into one that seeks to enable people and communities to bring out the best in themselves.
None of these initiatives claim that they already represent sustainable development in practice. But all of them have a clearly defined beyond-growth purpose that
properly integrates rather than subjugates social and ecological dimensions of
144
4 Mapping an Emerging New Economic Paradigm in Practice
and also computation have led to the situation in which these settings have become
the default organizing structure of our economic systems.
But this cannot count as a criticism of the concept as such if one embraces the
idea that human-made productive institutions can and should change if they hamper
the alignment of human need satisfaction with respectful and successful resource
governance. Commoning is an ideal for processes of contextually fitted governing
solutions and thus cannot be benchmarked with reference to the standard organizational appearances of today that, one might want to remind the critics, are definitely not sustainable. Something different will emerge. Given the increasing
attention to the concept—as well as the abuse of it for solutions that do not adhere
to the principles outlined here—only history can reveal how much of this radical
imaginary will be embedded in the transformed systems.
4.5 Summary: System Innovations for Sustainability
by Double-Decoupling
The goal of this empirical assessment was to track which foundational ideas about
human needs and the quality of nature one can find among various initiatives that
explicitly reject the mainstream economic paradigm of ‘good development.’ I have
been surprised by the degree of similarity between the ideas, missions and principles as they emerged from different disciplines and cultures.
What we can see is a wave of ‘repurposing’ differently sized and shaped systems
and their institutional design with the radical imaginary that productive processes
can be ‘recoupled’ with human needs and nature’s laws. The Economy for the
Common Good starts by turning the purpose of business outputs from private profit
accumulation toward serving the socio-ecological and economic systems around
them. Transition Towns originally started with the redefinition of the purpose of
energy systems—from providing cheap and limitless amounts of energy to generating long-term resilient and sustainable systems. GNH is couched in long-standing
cultural and religious traditions whose basic idea of what human happiness is marks
a paradigm shift not so much for Bhutan but for the Western world and the
dominant development paradigm with respect to the purpose of government—
turning away from ensuring private property and limitless consumption possibilities
toward building circumstances in which all members of the community feel confident of leading their lives successfully. The Commoning movement, on the other
hand, starts by turning the purpose of institutional design away from controlling
selfish, unchanging competitors into one that seeks to enable people and communities to bring out the best in themselves.
None of these initiatives claim that they already represent sustainable development in practice. But all of them have a clearly defined beyond-growth purpose that
properly integrates rather than subjugates social and ecological dimensions of
144
4 Mapping an Emerging New Economic Paradigm in Practice