interested in the top three points. The reasons are illustrated by the United Nations
Environment Program GEO-5 report for the UN Conference on Sustainable
Development in 2012 (Fig. 2.4).
Here we see that the outer layer (or low-ranking adjustments in Meadows’ list),
will change little in the overall dynamic of development: Putting different people in
charge of making political or managerial adjustments is not going to bring about a
system innovation as long as the levers they pull are the same as before. They can
only use them with the same information and the same rules as before and thus keep
on pursuing the same old goal. Thus, while the exchange of CEOs or political
leaders is often sold as a radical measure, it may not turn out to be radical in effect
unless the new leaders start repurposing the system by tackling the high leverage
points.
Unfortunately, most of the attention in sustainable development thinking has
focused on adjusting to system feedbacks or tackling the symptoms of environmental degradation and of extreme poverty. Most of the resource efficiency agenda
remained within this remit, as did a poverty alleviation agenda that declares yet
more growth for the richest to be a precondition for redistribution measures. This is
understandable given that these changes are easily visible and can be measured in
quantitative numbers, both of which are important standards in project planning and
evaluation under the current short-term, cost–benefit paradigm. This is also not very
surprising in political and economic systems in which having more than others is
seen as an indicator of merit and superiority and where the avoidance of short-term
costs for voters and stakeholders is what counts most for election purposes or
investment decisions. It is also very understandable in situations in which the bare
necessities for life must be met and path-dependent solutions are the easiest, fastest
or economically cheapest remedy for disaster prevention.
Fig. 2.4 Layers of leverage in system innovations. Source Based on Meadows (1999), illustration
from UNEP (2012: 422)
42
2 What Political Economy Adds to Transformation Research
Environment Program GEO-5 report for the UN Conference on Sustainable
Development in 2012 (Fig. 2.4).
Here we see that the outer layer (or low-ranking adjustments in Meadows’ list),
will change little in the overall dynamic of development: Putting different people in
charge of making political or managerial adjustments is not going to bring about a
system innovation as long as the levers they pull are the same as before. They can
only use them with the same information and the same rules as before and thus keep
on pursuing the same old goal. Thus, while the exchange of CEOs or political
leaders is often sold as a radical measure, it may not turn out to be radical in effect
unless the new leaders start repurposing the system by tackling the high leverage
points.
Unfortunately, most of the attention in sustainable development thinking has
focused on adjusting to system feedbacks or tackling the symptoms of environmental degradation and of extreme poverty. Most of the resource efficiency agenda
remained within this remit, as did a poverty alleviation agenda that declares yet
more growth for the richest to be a precondition for redistribution measures. This is
understandable given that these changes are easily visible and can be measured in
quantitative numbers, both of which are important standards in project planning and
evaluation under the current short-term, cost–benefit paradigm. This is also not very
surprising in political and economic systems in which having more than others is
seen as an indicator of merit and superiority and where the avoidance of short-term
costs for voters and stakeholders is what counts most for election purposes or
investment decisions. It is also very understandable in situations in which the bare
necessities for life must be met and path-dependent solutions are the easiest, fastest
or economically cheapest remedy for disaster prevention.
Fig. 2.4 Layers of leverage in system innovations. Source Based on Meadows (1999), illustration
from UNEP (2012: 422)
42
2 What Political Economy Adds to Transformation Research