least will not seem inevitable. The term ‘mind’ captures all of those less intellectual
aspects of human existence, too: sense, meaning, soul, intention, or spirit. The seeds
of imagination, belief, and argumentative ammunition for becoming a change agent
have been planted.
The emphasis in this book lies on exploring the transformational potentials of a
Great Mindshift in mainstream economics for the agenda of sustainable development. Of course one could also open up the blind spots and contingencies in other
dominant paradigms of the development agenda, like nationalism and sovereignty
or human rights and individualistic justice systems. But none of these are built on
ideas or ‘scientific concepts’ that involve such a degree of flawed assumptions about
the things to which they are applied: human-need satisfaction and natural resource
governance.
Sustainable development is about integrating social, environmental, and economic goals in the short and long term. So while the monetized numbers and
mathematical equations appear to provide a high degree of scientific certainty and
predictability, they do not say much about the trade-offs behind the cost–benefit
weighting that happened in the quantification process. The models running predictions of growth, employment, productivity, and competitiveness are equally
intransparent and based on the assumptions that nature and humans can be freely
substituted and should move around in the correct amounts needed for efficient
markets. This is very unhelpful for informed decision-making. For democratic
decision-making, it is a real problem. It means one can present computational
graphs and numbers instead of having to make serious ethical and moral judgments
explicit because they might be politically risky or detrimental for the justification of
one’s privileges.
Concepts such as utility, capital, market price, and growth are, as discussed,
laden terms. Whether we like it or not they include many value judgments. Also,
according to the mainstream economic theory, only more is better. Any idea of
enough or sufficiency necessarily translates into limiting and unsatisfying results.
Any vision of arriving at steady-state equitable prosperity is ex ante excluded from
the imaginary. This is at least ideological. When looking at the triple crisis in
environment, social equity, and economic stability today it seems
future-foreclosing. History is an open-ended process and the security-, justice-, and
well-being-providing potentials of sufficiency strategies become imperative for a
world of nine billion, in particular with regard to future generations. They should
not be qua theory excluded from the choice set of rational actors.
Interestingly, some important economic thinkers like Mill (1806–1873) and
Keynes (1883–1946) also had sufficiency ideas for the scenario in which economic
output growth led to a certain degree of material saturation. At levels of sufficient
supply, they reasoned, humans would work and produce at a constant level and
efficiency or technology improvements would lead to more time with family and
friends, cultural events, education, recreation, and so on. These thinkers also always
limited the realm of an economy, and therefore economics. Neither the governance
framework nor the paradigm were foreseen to impact all of human existence and
natural life.
5.3 Summarizing Outlook
163
aspects of human existence, too: sense, meaning, soul, intention, or spirit. The seeds
of imagination, belief, and argumentative ammunition for becoming a change agent
have been planted.
The emphasis in this book lies on exploring the transformational potentials of a
Great Mindshift in mainstream economics for the agenda of sustainable development. Of course one could also open up the blind spots and contingencies in other
dominant paradigms of the development agenda, like nationalism and sovereignty
or human rights and individualistic justice systems. But none of these are built on
ideas or ‘scientific concepts’ that involve such a degree of flawed assumptions about
the things to which they are applied: human-need satisfaction and natural resource
governance.
Sustainable development is about integrating social, environmental, and economic goals in the short and long term. So while the monetized numbers and
mathematical equations appear to provide a high degree of scientific certainty and
predictability, they do not say much about the trade-offs behind the cost–benefit
weighting that happened in the quantification process. The models running predictions of growth, employment, productivity, and competitiveness are equally
intransparent and based on the assumptions that nature and humans can be freely
substituted and should move around in the correct amounts needed for efficient
markets. This is very unhelpful for informed decision-making. For democratic
decision-making, it is a real problem. It means one can present computational
graphs and numbers instead of having to make serious ethical and moral judgments
explicit because they might be politically risky or detrimental for the justification of
one’s privileges.
Concepts such as utility, capital, market price, and growth are, as discussed,
laden terms. Whether we like it or not they include many value judgments. Also,
according to the mainstream economic theory, only more is better. Any idea of
enough or sufficiency necessarily translates into limiting and unsatisfying results.
Any vision of arriving at steady-state equitable prosperity is ex ante excluded from
the imaginary. This is at least ideological. When looking at the triple crisis in
environment, social equity, and economic stability today it seems
future-foreclosing. History is an open-ended process and the security-, justice-, and
well-being-providing potentials of sufficiency strategies become imperative for a
world of nine billion, in particular with regard to future generations. They should
not be qua theory excluded from the choice set of rational actors.
Interestingly, some important economic thinkers like Mill (1806–1873) and
Keynes (1883–1946) also had sufficiency ideas for the scenario in which economic
output growth led to a certain degree of material saturation. At levels of sufficient
supply, they reasoned, humans would work and produce at a constant level and
efficiency or technology improvements would lead to more time with family and
friends, cultural events, education, recreation, and so on. These thinkers also always
limited the realm of an economy, and therefore economics. Neither the governance
framework nor the paradigm were foreseen to impact all of human existence and
natural life.
5.3 Summarizing Outlook
163