In a 2010 paper, some of the report’s leading authors updated the framework by
reducing the number of scenarios to four—market forces, policy reform, fortress
world and a Great Transition—and fitting them with data from 2005 (Raskin et al.
2010). They also developed a Quality of Development Index (QDI) with updated
data from 2005. This combines sub-indices on human well-being, community
cohesion, and environmental protection to “consider the quality of development—
the degree of well-being in human lives, the strength of communities, and the
resilience of the biosphere—rather than gross domestic product, the misleading
conventional measure of ‘development’” (Raskin et al. 2010: 2631). The website
greattransition.org also has an animated short film highlighting the key messages.
In both report and paper, only the Great Transition or new paradigm scenario
leads to long-term prosperity within Planetary Boundaries. This scenario involves
“profound historical transformations in the fundamental values and organizing
principles of society. New values and development paradigms ascend that
emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency, human solidarity and global
equity, and affinity with nature and environmental sustainability” (Raskin et al.
2002: 15). Here we find a strong overlap with the WBGU report, including the urge
for a conscious repurposing of what development is about (like the social contract
on climate compliance). Yet, this report does not start the reflexive change process
with the spread of knowledge about planetary guardrails, but by asking what
purpose economies should have in the first place. This question precedes the
assessment of how this can be done sustainably and in this scope comes close to a
Second Enlightenment discourse.
In order to highlight the influence of basic paradigmatic questions concerning
‘being in the world’ on the more specific mind-sets that guide policy choices, the
Global Scenario Group combined each development scenario with one ‘archetypical worldview’ by referring to one well-known philosopher and his core ideas
about the world. Many of these ‘patrons’ are economists. The list of the key
attributes in their thinking of course emphasizes the fundamental differences, so the
nuances of each view get lost:
• Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are the main protagonists for the
evolutionist worldview but differ hugely on the question of how best to run
economies smoothly: The invisible hand of the market is the best allocation tool
for Smith (scenario market forces) whereas Keynes emphasizes the role of
government interventions to secure demand when capitalist relations lead to
crises (scenario policy reform).
• Among the catastrophists we find Thomas Robert Malthus and Thomas Hobbes,
neither of whom were very optimistic about the human capacity to become more
civilized. Malthus is connected with a breakdown scenario because of his claim
that limited resources will necessarily mean that people die if the population
becomes too big. Hobbes stands for an armed defense or fortress world scenario
because he depicted the natural state of the world as one of warfare between
humans resembling beasts.
2.1 Digging into Societal Transformation and System Innovation Research
35
reducing the number of scenarios to four—market forces, policy reform, fortress
world and a Great Transition—and fitting them with data from 2005 (Raskin et al.
2010). They also developed a Quality of Development Index (QDI) with updated
data from 2005. This combines sub-indices on human well-being, community
cohesion, and environmental protection to “consider the quality of development—
the degree of well-being in human lives, the strength of communities, and the
resilience of the biosphere—rather than gross domestic product, the misleading
conventional measure of ‘development’” (Raskin et al. 2010: 2631). The website
greattransition.org also has an animated short film highlighting the key messages.
In both report and paper, only the Great Transition or new paradigm scenario
leads to long-term prosperity within Planetary Boundaries. This scenario involves
“profound historical transformations in the fundamental values and organizing
principles of society. New values and development paradigms ascend that
emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency, human solidarity and global
equity, and affinity with nature and environmental sustainability” (Raskin et al.
2002: 15). Here we find a strong overlap with the WBGU report, including the urge
for a conscious repurposing of what development is about (like the social contract
on climate compliance). Yet, this report does not start the reflexive change process
with the spread of knowledge about planetary guardrails, but by asking what
purpose economies should have in the first place. This question precedes the
assessment of how this can be done sustainably and in this scope comes close to a
Second Enlightenment discourse.
In order to highlight the influence of basic paradigmatic questions concerning
‘being in the world’ on the more specific mind-sets that guide policy choices, the
Global Scenario Group combined each development scenario with one ‘archetypical worldview’ by referring to one well-known philosopher and his core ideas
about the world. Many of these ‘patrons’ are economists. The list of the key
attributes in their thinking of course emphasizes the fundamental differences, so the
nuances of each view get lost:
• Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are the main protagonists for the
evolutionist worldview but differ hugely on the question of how best to run
economies smoothly: The invisible hand of the market is the best allocation tool
for Smith (scenario market forces) whereas Keynes emphasizes the role of
government interventions to secure demand when capitalist relations lead to
crises (scenario policy reform).
• Among the catastrophists we find Thomas Robert Malthus and Thomas Hobbes,
neither of whom were very optimistic about the human capacity to become more
civilized. Malthus is connected with a breakdown scenario because of his claim
that limited resources will necessarily mean that people die if the population
becomes too big. Hobbes stands for an armed defense or fortress world scenario
because he depicted the natural state of the world as one of warfare between
humans resembling beasts.
2.1 Digging into Societal Transformation and System Innovation Research
35