directions, as good social and human capital tends to lead to higher degrees of
reported well-being and experienced utility.
• So utility is seen to have many sources, flowing from the entire production
process as well as the quality of the consumption process of the product or
service I paid for. Do I sit down on a bench in the sun or do I slurp my ice cream
behind the steering wheel, rushing home to feed the kids? This process quality
of utility is highlighted by the introduction of four modes of engagement which
we will discuss in more detail below: The mode of being, e.g., the enjoyment of
a high quality environment or the discomfort due to a high level of waste or
pollution in the air. Also: does my job context make me feel challenged and
supported in a meaningful way to develop my skills? The mode of having
results primarily from consumption but also directly from the natural assets to
one’s availability. In the mode of doing it is important how the work process is
set up and if I, for example, feel safe and in control, whereas the mode of
relating or interacting captures all the social organizational structures, e.g., do
we have enough breaks and can we talk to each other, or is the work process
interactive (see Ekins 1992: 147–155).
• The last difference lies in the way in which cultural norms and policies impact
consumption and investment preferences. Here, choices have the potential to
evolve rather than be fixed. This quality of change goes beyond the changes in
preference ordering that mainstream economics includes to, for example, capture me being fed up with cars and now liking bicycles: it might mean instead
that individual choices and cultural norms shift toward not wanting to consume
more because people feel they have enough (Costanza et al. 1997: 273–275).
This comparison makes three points that are very important for the sustainability
agenda. First, how the mainstream economic view ignores any direct utility gains
from intact nature as well as the often damaging effects that waste, as a result of
production and consumption, has on the future quality of ecosystems. At some
point we might get to mimicking nature’s symbiotic relations, in which the waste of
one process serves as the input factor of the next. Yet, such cradle-to-cradle designs
remain the talk of the future, and in order to transform our production and consumption systems accordingly the models must provide the information we need.
Secondly, it highlights the fact that the mainstream cost-based input–output
models of production say nothing about the pleasure–pain impact of participating in
such guided production processes. Here we find the connection with the concept of
experienced utility and the limitation of accounting for utility or happiness only in
the role of consumers: most of us are also workers and spend much more time in
this role than in the one of shoppers.
Thirdly, and relatedly, it shows the massive blind spots that a
consumption-based model of utility generation brings to thinking about solutions
for less resource-intensive need-satisfaction strategies. It says that we only thrive
when we shop or eat or watch television, while working is an unfortunate necessity
to generate the money we need for that. We have to trade the production factor
labor for income so we can buy more happiness.
62
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …
reported well-being and experienced utility.
• So utility is seen to have many sources, flowing from the entire production
process as well as the quality of the consumption process of the product or
service I paid for. Do I sit down on a bench in the sun or do I slurp my ice cream
behind the steering wheel, rushing home to feed the kids? This process quality
of utility is highlighted by the introduction of four modes of engagement which
we will discuss in more detail below: The mode of being, e.g., the enjoyment of
a high quality environment or the discomfort due to a high level of waste or
pollution in the air. Also: does my job context make me feel challenged and
supported in a meaningful way to develop my skills? The mode of having
results primarily from consumption but also directly from the natural assets to
one’s availability. In the mode of doing it is important how the work process is
set up and if I, for example, feel safe and in control, whereas the mode of
relating or interacting captures all the social organizational structures, e.g., do
we have enough breaks and can we talk to each other, or is the work process
interactive (see Ekins 1992: 147–155).
• The last difference lies in the way in which cultural norms and policies impact
consumption and investment preferences. Here, choices have the potential to
evolve rather than be fixed. This quality of change goes beyond the changes in
preference ordering that mainstream economics includes to, for example, capture me being fed up with cars and now liking bicycles: it might mean instead
that individual choices and cultural norms shift toward not wanting to consume
more because people feel they have enough (Costanza et al. 1997: 273–275).
This comparison makes three points that are very important for the sustainability
agenda. First, how the mainstream economic view ignores any direct utility gains
from intact nature as well as the often damaging effects that waste, as a result of
production and consumption, has on the future quality of ecosystems. At some
point we might get to mimicking nature’s symbiotic relations, in which the waste of
one process serves as the input factor of the next. Yet, such cradle-to-cradle designs
remain the talk of the future, and in order to transform our production and consumption systems accordingly the models must provide the information we need.
Secondly, it highlights the fact that the mainstream cost-based input–output
models of production say nothing about the pleasure–pain impact of participating in
such guided production processes. Here we find the connection with the concept of
experienced utility and the limitation of accounting for utility or happiness only in
the role of consumers: most of us are also workers and spend much more time in
this role than in the one of shoppers.
Thirdly, and relatedly, it shows the massive blind spots that a
consumption-based model of utility generation brings to thinking about solutions
for less resource-intensive need-satisfaction strategies. It says that we only thrive
when we shop or eat or watch television, while working is an unfortunate necessity
to generate the money we need for that. We have to trade the production factor
labor for income so we can buy more happiness.
62
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …