The problem is that staying on lower leverage point levels rarely translates into
transformational change of the overall system dynamics. One metaphor for this has
been “arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” (Meadows 1999: 6). Only if
changing these lower parameters results in ramifications higher up the leverage
point list can they lead to successive, wider-reaching changes. If a government
increases the minimum wage by 10 %, for example, is this because people need
social security payments on top of what jobs pay and this risks ruining the state
budget? Or does it advance the goal of limiting the maximum differential in income
between different people working the same hours? Is it simply a measure to keep
the low paid out of poverty statistics, or is it a move to lower inequality as a
benchmark for sustainable societies? The first means no more than dealing with the
symptoms of a remuneration pattern in which people are unable to pay their rent,
even if they work full-time. The latter examples, however, stand for a qualitatively
new goal according to which barriers are removed.
Thus, changing the third highest leverage point in Meadows’ list—the system
goal—usually means that many of the lower leverage points will have to be acted
upon to adjust the system’s development paths accordingly. Yet, support for a
deeper paradigm shift (the top two of the leverage point list) is still not readily
visible in the SDG agenda. The prime benchmark for reducing inequalities, for
example, still excludes any limits to the gains of the already very rich, but instead
aims to produce a comparatively faster gain for those with less. Gross Domestic
Product should continue to grow everywhere, including in rich countries with
stagnant population levels.
Yet, the goal of sustainable development was defined as meeting the needs of the
people today and in the future, not as meeting rising per capita GDP. Repurposing a
system accordingly raises the questions of what human needs are, how they are best
understood and served, and not simply extrapolating the old unstated idea that more
economic gain means more need satisfaction. If this paradigm goes unaltered, the
imaginaries, narratives, models and proposals based on it simply do not capture the
idea that much damage is caused only because of the type and speed of growth to
which we aspire.
Meadows herself also makes reference to the growth example when she points
out that this phenomenon is typical. People sense where leverage points are but
often tend to push them into the wrong direction. Everyone sees that growth is
critical, but most people push for more of it instead of thinking about the damage
which would be spared if we had slower, selective, differently defined growth, or
even a steady-state economy (Meadows 1999: 8).
Polanyi included this future-forward effect of a hegemonic paradigm in his
analysis of the effects of the stark utopia of a capitalist market system:
The usual ‘long-run’ considerations of economic theory are inadmissible; they would
prejudge the issue by assuming that the event took place in a market economy. However
natural it may appear to us to make that assumption, it is unjustified: market economy is an
institutional structure which, as we all too easily forget, has been present at no time except
our own (Polanyi 1957: 37).
2.2 Summary: Paradigm Shifts and Large System Change …
43
transformational change of the overall system dynamics. One metaphor for this has
been “arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” (Meadows 1999: 6). Only if
changing these lower parameters results in ramifications higher up the leverage
point list can they lead to successive, wider-reaching changes. If a government
increases the minimum wage by 10 %, for example, is this because people need
social security payments on top of what jobs pay and this risks ruining the state
budget? Or does it advance the goal of limiting the maximum differential in income
between different people working the same hours? Is it simply a measure to keep
the low paid out of poverty statistics, or is it a move to lower inequality as a
benchmark for sustainable societies? The first means no more than dealing with the
symptoms of a remuneration pattern in which people are unable to pay their rent,
even if they work full-time. The latter examples, however, stand for a qualitatively
new goal according to which barriers are removed.
Thus, changing the third highest leverage point in Meadows’ list—the system
goal—usually means that many of the lower leverage points will have to be acted
upon to adjust the system’s development paths accordingly. Yet, support for a
deeper paradigm shift (the top two of the leverage point list) is still not readily
visible in the SDG agenda. The prime benchmark for reducing inequalities, for
example, still excludes any limits to the gains of the already very rich, but instead
aims to produce a comparatively faster gain for those with less. Gross Domestic
Product should continue to grow everywhere, including in rich countries with
stagnant population levels.
Yet, the goal of sustainable development was defined as meeting the needs of the
people today and in the future, not as meeting rising per capita GDP. Repurposing a
system accordingly raises the questions of what human needs are, how they are best
understood and served, and not simply extrapolating the old unstated idea that more
economic gain means more need satisfaction. If this paradigm goes unaltered, the
imaginaries, narratives, models and proposals based on it simply do not capture the
idea that much damage is caused only because of the type and speed of growth to
which we aspire.
Meadows herself also makes reference to the growth example when she points
out that this phenomenon is typical. People sense where leverage points are but
often tend to push them into the wrong direction. Everyone sees that growth is
critical, but most people push for more of it instead of thinking about the damage
which would be spared if we had slower, selective, differently defined growth, or
even a steady-state economy (Meadows 1999: 8).
Polanyi included this future-forward effect of a hegemonic paradigm in his
analysis of the effects of the stark utopia of a capitalist market system:
The usual ‘long-run’ considerations of economic theory are inadmissible; they would
prejudge the issue by assuming that the event took place in a market economy. However
natural it may appear to us to make that assumption, it is unjustified: market economy is an
institutional structure which, as we all too easily forget, has been present at no time except
our own (Polanyi 1957: 37).
2.2 Summary: Paradigm Shifts and Large System Change …
43