This is why I reject the juxtaposition of radical versus incremental change and
propose the conceptual framework of ‘radical incremental transformation.’ The
radically new purpose informs which multiple and diversified incremental interventions are necessary to unlock the path dependencies that keep the system in the
old dynamic. Often it is easier to focus energy on discontinuing a few strong drivers
or root causes and observing how this creates new dynamics that allow parts of the
system to start reorganizing. Yet, some agreement about the direction of purposeful
reorganization has to prevail for collective strategic action to take place.
The third chapter, which deals with the mainstream economic paradigm,
therefore launches straight into discussing both the root causes and the direction of
purposeful action for sustainable development. It highlights why it is important to
check for the worldviews and paradigms on which key actors and coalitions base
the narratives surrounding their collective action. While the former capture how a
person or a scientific discipline views the world, the latter captures the rationale or
stories that actors share to argue their choices and activities. The crux of the matter
is that one and the same narrative for collective action, e.g., ‘we want to achieve
sustainable development,’ can host very different ideas about how it could best be
done. These differences may emerge from interests and power games but even those
are embedded in and influenced by differences in worldviews and paradigms. These
soft factors are the source of how sense-making people believe the world works,
how it could or should therefore be governed and which role they should play in it.
From this perspective, Chap. 3 puts the second question center stage and
explains why the mainstream economic paradigm might well be the most important
lever for unlocking unsustainable path dependencies. Its main argument runs as
follows: The world started engaging with environmental problems in the 1960s.
The first big report to make global waves was the 1972 Limits to Growth issued by
the Club of Rome think-tank. The international community reacted and in 1987 the
UN-appointed World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)
published its ground-breaking Our Common Future. The commission and the report
also carry the name of Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former prime minister of
Norway who led the work.
The report exposed many of the degrading effects that the twentieth century’s
economic development path had inflicted on the environment, while failing to
eradicate poverty. It therefore called for the replacement of this path with “sustainable development,” which was defined as development which meets “the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” (WCED 1987: 16). To that end emerged what became the infamous
“integrated perspective,” namely that “the common theme throughout this strategy
for sustainable development is the need to integrate economic and ecological
considerations in decision making. They are, after all, integrated in the workings of
the real world. This will require a change in attitudes and objectives and in institutional arrangements at every level” (WCED 1987: 55). Any negative social
consequences of the twentieth century development ideal were not really
acknowledged. The problem was put down to insufficient economic output to lift
everyone above poverty lines.
8
1 Introduction
propose the conceptual framework of ‘radical incremental transformation.’ The
radically new purpose informs which multiple and diversified incremental interventions are necessary to unlock the path dependencies that keep the system in the
old dynamic. Often it is easier to focus energy on discontinuing a few strong drivers
or root causes and observing how this creates new dynamics that allow parts of the
system to start reorganizing. Yet, some agreement about the direction of purposeful
reorganization has to prevail for collective strategic action to take place.
The third chapter, which deals with the mainstream economic paradigm,
therefore launches straight into discussing both the root causes and the direction of
purposeful action for sustainable development. It highlights why it is important to
check for the worldviews and paradigms on which key actors and coalitions base
the narratives surrounding their collective action. While the former capture how a
person or a scientific discipline views the world, the latter captures the rationale or
stories that actors share to argue their choices and activities. The crux of the matter
is that one and the same narrative for collective action, e.g., ‘we want to achieve
sustainable development,’ can host very different ideas about how it could best be
done. These differences may emerge from interests and power games but even those
are embedded in and influenced by differences in worldviews and paradigms. These
soft factors are the source of how sense-making people believe the world works,
how it could or should therefore be governed and which role they should play in it.
From this perspective, Chap. 3 puts the second question center stage and
explains why the mainstream economic paradigm might well be the most important
lever for unlocking unsustainable path dependencies. Its main argument runs as
follows: The world started engaging with environmental problems in the 1960s.
The first big report to make global waves was the 1972 Limits to Growth issued by
the Club of Rome think-tank. The international community reacted and in 1987 the
UN-appointed World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)
published its ground-breaking Our Common Future. The commission and the report
also carry the name of Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former prime minister of
Norway who led the work.
The report exposed many of the degrading effects that the twentieth century’s
economic development path had inflicted on the environment, while failing to
eradicate poverty. It therefore called for the replacement of this path with “sustainable development,” which was defined as development which meets “the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs” (WCED 1987: 16). To that end emerged what became the infamous
“integrated perspective,” namely that “the common theme throughout this strategy
for sustainable development is the need to integrate economic and ecological
considerations in decision making. They are, after all, integrated in the workings of
the real world. This will require a change in attitudes and objectives and in institutional arrangements at every level” (WCED 1987: 55). Any negative social
consequences of the twentieth century development ideal were not really
acknowledged. The problem was put down to insufficient economic output to lift
everyone above poverty lines.
8
1 Introduction