So what happened? Instead of a proper interdisciplinary endeavor to define a
new paradigm that captures the purpose of sustainable development holistically, the
already dominant economic paradigm became paramount. Social and ecological
dimensions were inserted into its monetary quantification frameworks. This could
not change attitudes, objectives and institutional arrangement toward sustainable
development simply because the basic ideas of that paradigm do not say much
about either human needs or the environment’s ability to replenish resources. The
chapter zooms in on a few key concepts underlying this, for example, the pursuit of
endless economic ‘growth’ to achieve development, maximizing ‘utility’ to meet
human needs and substituting ‘natural capital’ so that everything can continue to
grow in the future.
Some of the detrimental effects these concepts have on understanding how to
reach the goals of sustainable development are discussed by bringing in insights
from twenty-first century social and natural sciences as well as alternative economic
thought. Earth system sciences, ecological economics, sociology, well-being
studies, psychology and neurosciences have much to say about human needs,
nature’s laws and the impact on both of these of economic growth-driven societies.
Adding these findings to the picture shows that the paradigm and ideas that
informed the creation of unsustainable system dynamics cannot guide their
removal.
So which paradigm can achieve this? This is the key question that spans Chap. 4
and the case studies on pioneers working with different imaginaries of what the
purpose of sustainable development could mean in practice. With the intention of
investigating which key ideas or concepts a new and transformational development
paradigm could build on, I took a closer look at the following initiatives: the
Economy for the Common Good (a prominent business initiative in Germany and
Austria), Transition Towns (an urban community initiative born in the United
Kingdom), the Commoning Movement (civil society initiative spanning the Atlantic
between the United States and Europe) as well as the Bhutanese Gross National
Happiness (GNH) Framework (government initiatives that want to supplement
GDP with other performance indicators).
Although I would not venture to state that one can define a clear-cut new
paradigm or streamlining development purpose like, for example, ‘economic
growth,’ I was surprised by the common ground between theory and practice as
well as across practice examples. The worldviews of how to understand human
needs and nature’s laws and the narratives about what development should therefore aim to achieve are very similar. All of these movements adopt the view that
ecological systems host sociocultural systems and that economic systems are
subordinate means in successfully structuring nature–human relations. This is
radically different to the view of the mainstream paradigm that pursues the ongoing
integration of social and environmental concerns into economic governance logics
by pricing them. So I would go as far as to set one common heuristic that expresses
the radical purpose and another to capture the strategic directions that the incremental steps of these pioneers are taking.
1.2 Structure of the Book
9
new paradigm that captures the purpose of sustainable development holistically, the
already dominant economic paradigm became paramount. Social and ecological
dimensions were inserted into its monetary quantification frameworks. This could
not change attitudes, objectives and institutional arrangement toward sustainable
development simply because the basic ideas of that paradigm do not say much
about either human needs or the environment’s ability to replenish resources. The
chapter zooms in on a few key concepts underlying this, for example, the pursuit of
endless economic ‘growth’ to achieve development, maximizing ‘utility’ to meet
human needs and substituting ‘natural capital’ so that everything can continue to
grow in the future.
Some of the detrimental effects these concepts have on understanding how to
reach the goals of sustainable development are discussed by bringing in insights
from twenty-first century social and natural sciences as well as alternative economic
thought. Earth system sciences, ecological economics, sociology, well-being
studies, psychology and neurosciences have much to say about human needs,
nature’s laws and the impact on both of these of economic growth-driven societies.
Adding these findings to the picture shows that the paradigm and ideas that
informed the creation of unsustainable system dynamics cannot guide their
removal.
So which paradigm can achieve this? This is the key question that spans Chap. 4
and the case studies on pioneers working with different imaginaries of what the
purpose of sustainable development could mean in practice. With the intention of
investigating which key ideas or concepts a new and transformational development
paradigm could build on, I took a closer look at the following initiatives: the
Economy for the Common Good (a prominent business initiative in Germany and
Austria), Transition Towns (an urban community initiative born in the United
Kingdom), the Commoning Movement (civil society initiative spanning the Atlantic
between the United States and Europe) as well as the Bhutanese Gross National
Happiness (GNH) Framework (government initiatives that want to supplement
GDP with other performance indicators).
Although I would not venture to state that one can define a clear-cut new
paradigm or streamlining development purpose like, for example, ‘economic
growth,’ I was surprised by the common ground between theory and practice as
well as across practice examples. The worldviews of how to understand human
needs and nature’s laws and the narratives about what development should therefore aim to achieve are very similar. All of these movements adopt the view that
ecological systems host sociocultural systems and that economic systems are
subordinate means in successfully structuring nature–human relations. This is
radically different to the view of the mainstream paradigm that pursues the ongoing
integration of social and environmental concerns into economic governance logics
by pricing them. So I would go as far as to set one common heuristic that expresses
the radical purpose and another to capture the strategic directions that the incremental steps of these pioneers are taking.
1.2 Structure of the Book
9