Advertisement

Making ‘Soft’ Economics a ‘Hard Science’: Planning Governance for Sustainable Development Through a Sustainability Compass

Chapter
  • 302 Downloads
Part of the Cooperative Management book series (COMA)

Abstract

Earlier research presented the need for a critical re-evaluation of economics in reference to its original definition of οἰκονομία (oikonomia) or ‘household management’, referring to the effective management and allocation of resources for meeting human needs. This is an attempt to reframe the concept of ‘hard economics’, into one which is holonic and rejects closed, oversimplified and anthropocentric valuation of goods and services according to individual utility and preference. Economics cannot be isolated from other natural systems but must incorporate hard evidence about them, integrating human and natural systems into a unique understanding. The approach aims at addressing the on-going conflict between human development and sustainability, and strives to develop social learning processes about systems’ sustainability and to generate criteria to support evidence-based decision-making. The emergence of empirical evidence is facilitated by multi-disciplinary social learning that integrates qualitative and quantitative information and knowledge from different fields of science.

This paper explores how this argument has been used to support the development of the Governance Assessment Matrix Exercise (GAME) matrix and tool-kit, from social learning about qualitative criteria of sustainability (based on the Five Capitals Model of Sustainability), to a Sustainability Compass that defines quantitative metrics for monitoring advancements towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The paper describes the background conceptual framework, as a harder vision of economics: this holonic vision of household management pursues an efficient and effective allocation of resources for addressing human needs, which is supported by cross-disciplinary knowledge integration and social learning rather than non-supported and non-informed expression of preference. The paper concludes by summarising this process and exploring how it might be developed further through the prototype Sustainability Compass and associated metrics that might be employed in the social learning that underpins policy-relevant and evidence-based decisions directed at the realisation of the SDGs. Possible further developments are being planned for complementing the Sustainability Compass with a meta-evaluation framework that assesses the qualitative level of the metrics for this purpose.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashby. (2014). Requisite variety, autopoiesis, and self-organization. Carlos Gershenson Instituto de Investigaciones en Matemáticas Aplicadas y en Sistemas & Centro de Ciencias de la Complejidad Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, P. M., & Hoerber, T. C. (2013). Sustainable development and governance in Europe. The evolution of the discourse on sustainability. New York: Routlegde.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barzel, Y. (1997). Economic analysis of property rights (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biermann, F. (2007). ‘Earth system governance’ as a cross cutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change, 17, 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bromley, D. W. (1990). Essays on the commons. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, P. G., Garver, G., Helmuth, K., Howell, R., & Szeghi, S. (2008). Right relationship: Building a whole Earth economy. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, S. (2006). Risk and the subjectivity of preference. Journal of Risk Research, 9(3), 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capra, F. (2007). In A. E. J. Wals (Ed.), Social learning towards a sustainable world. Principles, perspectives and praxis. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Chambers, N., Simmons, C., & Wackernagel, M. (2000). Sharing Nature’s interest: Ecological footprints as an indicator of sustainability. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  11. Conant, R. C., & Ashby, W. R. (1970). Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system. International Journal of System Science, 1(2), 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daly, H. E. (1991). Steady-state economics (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  13. Daly, H. E. (2005). Economics in a full world. Scientific American, 293(3), 100–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. American Economic Review, 57(2), 347–359.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, J. P. (2012). Environmental governance. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farmer, P. (2005). Pathologies of power (p. 40). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Forum for the Future. (2019). The five capitals model – A framework for sustainability. Accessed Mar 03, 2019, from https://www.forumforthefuture.org/the-five-capitals
  18. Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graves, P. E. (2002). Valuing public goods. University of Colorado, Department of Economics. http://spot.colorado.edu/~gravesp/GravesRevtext.htm
  22. Green, S., & Lemon, M. (1996). Perceptual landscapes in Agrarian systems: Degradation processes in North-western Epirus and the Argolid Valley, Greece. Ecumene, 3(2), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Griffin, L. (2013). Governance for sustainability in the European Union: A post-political project. In P. M. Barnes & T. C. Hoerber (Eds.), Sustainable development and governance in Europe, the evolution of the discourse on sustainability (p. 8). New York: Routlegde.Google Scholar
  24. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ho, K. (2007). Structural violence as a human rights violation. Essex Human Rights Review, 4(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  27. Holling, C. S. (Ed.). (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth? The transition to a sustainable economy. Sustainable Development Commission.Google Scholar
  29. Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, neo-liberalism and urban governance: A state theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34(3), 454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, K. A., Dana, G., Jordan, N. R., Draeger, K. J., Kapuscinski, A., Schmitt Olabisi, L. K., & Reich, P. B. (2012). Using participatory scenarios to stimulate social learning for collaborative sustainable development. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 9.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04780-170209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93, 1449–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaul, I., & Mendoza, R. U. (2002). Advancing the concept of public goods. In I. Kaul, P. Conceincao, K. Le Goulven, & R. U. Mendoza (Eds.), Providing global public goods–Managing globalisation. UNDP. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kemp, R., S. Parto and R.B. Gibson (2005). Governance for sustainable development: Moving from theory to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(½), 12–30.Google Scholar
  35. Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine (1990 repr). London: Hutchinson (Penguin Group).Google Scholar
  36. Landman, T. (2006). Studying human rights (p. 45). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Lemon, M., Jeffrey, P., McIntosh, B. S., & Oxley, T. (2004). Understanding the perceptions of change: A pathways contribution to community consultation and environmental decision-making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 6(2), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McFadden, D. (2014). The new science of pleasure: Consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being. Chapters 7–48.Google Scholar
  39. McLeod, S. (2014). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Simply psychology. Consulted 05.02.2015 and 8.10.2018, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
  40. Meadowcroft, J. (2013). Reaching the limits? Developed country engagement with sustainable development in a challenging conjuncture. Environment and Planning: Government and Policy, 13, 988–1002.Google Scholar
  41. Mostert, E., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rees, Y., Searle, B., Tábara, D., & Tippet, J. (2007). Social learning in European river basin management: Barriers and fostering mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art19/
  42. Oskamp, S., & Schultz, P. W. (2005). Attitudes and opinions. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ostrom, E. (2009). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 493–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3), 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Porritt, J. (2007). Capitalism as if the world matters. Abingdon. Oxon: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  47. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. London: Random House Business Books.Google Scholar
  48. Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C., & Stringer, L. C. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4), r1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Röckstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.  https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Röling, N. G. (2002). Beyond the aggregation of individual preferences. In C. Leeuwis & R. Pyburn (Eds.), Wheel barrows full of frogs: Social learning in rural resource management (pp. 25–48). Assen, Drenthe: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  51. Rumsfeld, D. H., & Mayer, R. (2002, Feb 12). US Department of Defense News and Briefing. Accessed Mar 30, 2019, from https://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636
  52. Sachs, S. E. (2003). The changing definition of security. International relations. Merton College, Oxford. Consulted 6.11.2014, from http://www.stevesachs.com/papers/paper_security.html
  53. Sagebiel, J., Schwartz, C., Rhozyel, M., Rajmis, S., Hirschfeld, J. (2016, March/April). Economic valuation of Baltic marine ecosystem services: Blind spots and limited consistency. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(4), 991–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv264
  54. Sajeva, M. (2016). Governance for sustainable systems: The development of a participatory framework. De Montfort University, Leicester. https://www.dora.dmu.ac.uk/handle/2086/13125
  55. Sajeva, M., & Masera, M. (2006). A strategic approach to risk governance of critical infrastructures. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 2(4), 379–395.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCIS.2006.011346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sajeva, M., Singh Sahota, P., & Lemon, M. (2015). Giving sustainability a chance: A participatory framework for choosing between alternative futures. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change (JOTSC), 12(1), 57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sajeva, M., Mitchell, A., & Lemon, M. (2019a). Reconfiguring household management in times of discontinuity as an open system: The case of agro-food chains. International Journal of Food and Beverage Manufacturing and Business Models, 4(1), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJFBMBM.2019010101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sajeva, M., Valonen, M., Maidell, M., Lemon, M., & Mitchell, A. (2019b). Are we lost in the ocean of human development? Finding our way through a SUSTAINABILITY COMPASS. In Article accepted for publication in the proceedings at energising the sustainable development goals through appropriate technology and governance international conference. Leicester: De Montfort University.Google Scholar
  59. Schuller, D., Brunken-Winkler, H., Busch, P., Förster, M., Janiesch, P., Lemm, R. V., Niedringhaus, R., & Strasser, H. (2000). Sustainable land-use in an agriculturally misused landscape in northwest Germany through ecotechnical restoration by a “Patch-Network-Concept”. Ecological Engineering, 16, 99–117. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-12754-0_2
  60. Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. P., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429–434.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
  62. Sen, A. (1997). Development thinking at the beginning of the 21st century. Harvard University and London School of Economics and Political Sciences.Google Scholar
  63. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom (p. 74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Slim, A. (2013). The impact of de-growth (la décroissance) on the discourse of sustainability. In P. M. Barnes & T. C. Hoerber (Eds.), Sustainable development and governance in Europe, The evolution of the discourse on sustainability (pp. 48–60). New York: Routlegde.Google Scholar
  65. Sorrell, S. (2007). The rebound effect: An assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency. Project Report. UK Energy Research Centre.Google Scholar
  66. Stern, D. I. (2014). Economic growth and energy. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, United States, web source, retrieved on 18.3.2014.Google Scholar
  67. Steyaert, P., & Jiggins, J. (2007). Governance of complex environmental situations through social learning: A synthesis of SLIM’s lessons for research, policy and practice. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stiglitz, J. (2014). Intervention at the Italian Parliament on 24 September 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXbW4TT7fCY
  69. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Dispossessing H20: The contested terrain of water privatisation. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 16(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  71. The Natural Step (consulted on 9.12.2019). https://thenaturalstep.org/approach/
  72. Türke, R. E. (2008). Governance: Systemic foundation and framework. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Consulted 11.3.2019, from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E
  74. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the Earth. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  75. Wals, A. E. J., & van der Leij, T. (2007). Social learning towards a sustainable world. Principles, perspectives and praxis. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Webler, T., Kastenholz, H., & Renn, O. (1995). Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 1, 443–463.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-9255(95)00043-E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pellervo Economic Research PTTHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Institute of Energy and Sustainable DevelopmentDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations