emerge in the short- and medium-term but the less policy interfered, the faster the
adjustments would be (Polanyi 1957: 135–150). Seeking an explanation for this
interpretation he describes a “blind faith in spontaneous progress” that would be
brought about by the freeing of the market system from the constraints of treating
everything as a commodity (Polanyi 1957: 76).
Most of today’s discourse around progress, successful development and
individual-cultural aspirations still holds ‘gain’ as the overarching goal, and fictitious commodification is still expanding, even though voices are increasingly raised
over its negative impacts. The imaginary of fictitious commodities is also very
much alive and kicking when political decisions around environmental protection
or social welfare are judged by how much ‘the (financial) markets’ will accept and
when a society’s or businesses ‘productivity’ or ‘competitiveness’ is hampered.
Under current political and economic structures—i.e., the manifestation of the
market system utopia—this is of course a rational way of looking at what is likely
to happen. This is why former chief economist of the UK Sustainable Development
Commission Tim Jackson and other scholars speak of the “Growth Dilemma,” in
which the current type and rate of economic growth threatens ecosystems and social
well-being alike, although the current system dynamics also mean that discontinuing it will lead to unemployment, drying up of investments and broken social
protection systems (Jackson 2009: 46).
2.2 Summary: Paradigm Shifts and Large System
Change: Humanity’s Structured Freedom
To summarize the findings of this chapter, I will introduce a few concepts I find key
to understanding how to work toward system innovation without risking system
collapse or intensified rejection of change attempts. These concepts place humans
as sense-making actors at the locus of intentional change. After all it is people who
argue, evaluate and struggle over which purpose any SETS should fulfill, how this
could best be done and whether any updates are necessary or desirable.
At its outset, the sustainable development agenda called for a repurposing of the
overarching development goal, away from economic gain as an end in itself. Yet,
the agenda primarily ended up positioning it as the crucial means to the higher ends
of poverty alleviation and the ability to afford environmental protection. In effect,
this meant that most of the sustainable development strategies actually kept it as an
end in itself and tried to provide it more efficiently or in a ‘dematerialized’ manner.
The prime agenda became that of decoupling economic growth from environmental
destruction, or doing more with less. Doing less was and is simply not in the cards,
anywhere or for anybody. Implementation thus sought to improve an otherwise
mainly uncontested way of thinking, planning and conceptualizing development.
The mental model continued to be blind to any possible solutions that would imply
‘sufficiency’ or ‘enough’ as possible goals. Poverty remained defined solely by
40
2 What Political Economy Adds to Transformation Research
adjustments would be (Polanyi 1957: 135–150). Seeking an explanation for this
interpretation he describes a “blind faith in spontaneous progress” that would be
brought about by the freeing of the market system from the constraints of treating
everything as a commodity (Polanyi 1957: 76).
Most of today’s discourse around progress, successful development and
individual-cultural aspirations still holds ‘gain’ as the overarching goal, and fictitious commodification is still expanding, even though voices are increasingly raised
over its negative impacts. The imaginary of fictitious commodities is also very
much alive and kicking when political decisions around environmental protection
or social welfare are judged by how much ‘the (financial) markets’ will accept and
when a society’s or businesses ‘productivity’ or ‘competitiveness’ is hampered.
Under current political and economic structures—i.e., the manifestation of the
market system utopia—this is of course a rational way of looking at what is likely
to happen. This is why former chief economist of the UK Sustainable Development
Commission Tim Jackson and other scholars speak of the “Growth Dilemma,” in
which the current type and rate of economic growth threatens ecosystems and social
well-being alike, although the current system dynamics also mean that discontinuing it will lead to unemployment, drying up of investments and broken social
protection systems (Jackson 2009: 46).
2.2 Summary: Paradigm Shifts and Large System
Change: Humanity’s Structured Freedom
To summarize the findings of this chapter, I will introduce a few concepts I find key
to understanding how to work toward system innovation without risking system
collapse or intensified rejection of change attempts. These concepts place humans
as sense-making actors at the locus of intentional change. After all it is people who
argue, evaluate and struggle over which purpose any SETS should fulfill, how this
could best be done and whether any updates are necessary or desirable.
At its outset, the sustainable development agenda called for a repurposing of the
overarching development goal, away from economic gain as an end in itself. Yet,
the agenda primarily ended up positioning it as the crucial means to the higher ends
of poverty alleviation and the ability to afford environmental protection. In effect,
this meant that most of the sustainable development strategies actually kept it as an
end in itself and tried to provide it more efficiently or in a ‘dematerialized’ manner.
The prime agenda became that of decoupling economic growth from environmental
destruction, or doing more with less. Doing less was and is simply not in the cards,
anywhere or for anybody. Implementation thus sought to improve an otherwise
mainly uncontested way of thinking, planning and conceptualizing development.
The mental model continued to be blind to any possible solutions that would imply
‘sufficiency’ or ‘enough’ as possible goals. Poverty remained defined solely by
40
2 What Political Economy Adds to Transformation Research