Why is a reformed version of
Schweickart’s Economic
Democracy an ideal model for
a society?
University of Amsterdam Master’s Thesis in Political Science
Name: Ben Wright
Student Number: (12279064)
Thesis Topic: Alternatives to Capitalism
Supervisor: Paul Raekstad
Table of contents
Table of contents 2
Introduction 4
Themes
5
Main argument and methodology
6
Relevance
7
Outline
8
Chapter One – Defining principles for a political-economic model 10
Economic Growth
10
Equality
15
Education17
Occupation19
Capabilities20
Environmental Sustainability
22
Value prioritisation
25
Chapter Two – A reformed Economic Democracy 27
Worker self-management
27
The market
30
Social control of investment
31
The public sector
35
Chapter Three – The compatibility of the amended model with the 37
three principles
Environmental Sustainability and Economic Democracy
37
Education
40
Occupation
41
Capabilities
42
Economic Growth and Economic Democracy
43
Conclusion 49
Summary - part one
49
Summary - part two
50
Further implications and avenues for further research
51
Reference list
52
Introduction
With eleven years to save the world from perhaps the greatest ecological catastrophe in the history of mankind, clearly, something has to change. As the United Nations (UN) has
recently warned, ‘irreversible damage from climate change’ poses an unprecedented threat to humanity.1 Indeed, from rising temperatures and sea levels making swathes of the planet unproductive or uninhabitable; to increased natural disasters creating further economic pressures; to the probable ‘environmentally driven’ wars arising from the resulting scarcity; unaddressed climate change would certainly be a contender for the biggest global disaster in human history.2
Despite this, however, governments seem reluctant to take sufficient preventative measures and environmental concerns are often relegated below economic ones. Radical and urgent action is necessary. Yet, this is not forthcoming at present. I would argue that this is largely due to how politics and economics are generally perceived; because of the paradigms themselves. Indeed, if the protection of the environment must compete (and be relegated below) what is economically desirable, then does this not highlight a severe conceptual failing? Should sustainability not be a fundamental purpose of economic organisation?
Clearly, it is time to reconsider the principles which guide our economic thought, in an era where conventional wisdom is proving inadequate for the most pressing issue of our world. In doing so, we must reshape the purpose of our economies, not only to align with the needs of our planet, but with the needs of our people too. Undeniably, Capitalism has fuelled the creation of prosperity across much of the globe. Yet, it is apparent that this has been at the price of environmental degradation and widespread injustices. For example, take the cobalt mines in the Congo, in which ‘children as young as six are among those risking their lives amid toxic dust’ to support the electronics industry.3 Clearly, a new
political-economic model is required; a system which prioritises the environment and justice before wealth. In this dissertation, I shall seek to lay the foundations for a political-economic model which would achieve this objective.
1
United Nations 2019, ‘Only 11 Years To Prevent Irreversible Damage From Climate Change, Speakers Warn During General Assembly High-Level Meeting’, Meetings Coverage And Press Releases. Available from:
https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm [15 June 2019].
2
Welzer, H 2017, Climate Wars – Why People Will Be Killed In The 21st Century, Polity Press, Cambridge, p. 5.
3
Kara, S 2018, ‘Is Your Phone Tainted By The Misery Of The 35,000 Children In Congo’s Mines?’, The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct/12/phone-misery-children-congo-cobalt-mines-drc [17 June 2019].
Themes
There will be two distinct themes discussed in this thesis: a political-economic model, and principles which should guide economic organisation. Considering the former, the political-economic model is a reformed version of David Schweickart’s Economic Democracy. Schweickart’s model was an idea developed in the latter stages of the Twentieth Century and early years of the Twenty-First. It is a form of Market Socialism, the essential features of which include public ownership of the means of production, worker-controlled enterprises, and the prevalence of a market economy. Unlike Schweickart’s Economic Democracy, Market Socialism is a concept which dates back considerably further. Indeed, its roots can be traced to classical economics theories and figures such as Adam Smith, who
contemplated cooperatives existing in free market economies. However, the term did not actually become ‘commonplace’ until the 1920s, during what is known as the socialist calculation debate.4 Since then, Market Socialist theorising has developed significantly. This has often been in response to how the system has emerged in practice. Perhaps the main example of Market Socialism in action is the economy which existed in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In contrast, other instances reflect how Market Socialist ideas have been prevalent in some economic activities, rather than operating in a fully functioning Market Socialist economy. A key example of this is the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in the Basque Country, which consists of worker-controlled enterprises. Schweickart’s Economic Democracy is built from analysing examples of Market Socialism such as these, as well as other instances of ‘historical experiments’, such as ‘postwar Japan’.5 It also draws from theorising. Indeed, he calls his Economic Democracy a ‘synthesis of theory and practice’.6 My amended model builds on this version of Market Socialism.
The second key component of the thesis are the three principles I believe should define a political-economic model. These are environmental sustainability, equality, and economic growth. Considering environmental sustainability, this is a concept which has appeared in various forms and in different parts of the world throughout human history. Its origins can be traced back to the ancient religion of Jainism, which was prominent in what is India today. However, despite a long history, environmental sustainability has often been
considered as a minor concern by most. Indeed, if we reflect on relatively modern societies, it is only in recent times that it has entered mainstream public discourse. For example, the Brundtland Commission of the UN in 1987, perhaps demonstrates this recent shift in value prioritisation. It favoured sustainable development, indicating that human needs must be achieved ‘without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.7 In the present, undoubtedly, environmental sustainability has grown into a widely cared about value.
4
Steele, DR 1999, From Marx To Mises: Post Capitalist Society And The Challenge Of Economic Calculation, Open Court, United States, p. 177.
5
Schweickart, D 2002, After Capitalism, Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham; Boulder; New York; London, p. 46.
6
Ibid, p. 45.
7 UN Documents: Gathering A Body Of Global Agreements, Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards
Similarly, equality is an age-old concept. It is evident that it has been deemed important for centuries, if not millennia. Indeed, the roots of equality can be traced back to religious thought. For example, the Bible states ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’.8 The concept has also clearly guided much political thought, becoming particularly prevalent during the enlightenment era. This is apparent if we consider the American Revolution, which proclaimed that ‘all men are created equal’, or the French Revolution, in which it was declared as one of the three fundamental principles.9 Furthermore, as the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries
developed, concerns over equality evidently fuelled much of societal development, such as ideas like feminism, or the welfare state. With all this in mind, it is far from surprising that in the present, equality has many different forms and is a widely contested value. This shall be explored in the thesis.
The final principle is economic growth. This is an idea which revolves around the notion of the economic prospects of a society and relative to equality, is a modern concept. Indeed, the notion of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), which is the traditional measurement of economic growth, was first introduced by Simon Kuznets for a U.S. (United States) congress report in 1934. However, in recent decades, many have argued that GDP is flawed as ‘an indicator of economic performance and social progress’, wishing to expand upon it due to perceived ‘limits’.10 Indeed, in isolation, GDP is an ’inadequate metric to gauge well-being over time’.11 A vital reason for this is because it does not take into account crucial
components that must be reflected on if a society is to be ideal, such as ’environmental’ and ’social dimensions’.12 However, in the context of this paper, I believe that GDP serves as a sufficient tool for indicating the progress of a society. This is because, as will be explored in the thesis, a political-economic model should only be considered desirable if the values of equality and environmental sustainability are also adhered to.
Main argument and methodology
In this thesis, I will argue that an amended version of Schweickart’s Economic Democracy is an ideal model for a society as it would be compatible with all three principles -
environmental sustainability, equality, and economic growth. In producing this conclusion, I have analysed Schweickart’s Economic Democracy and recognised that it lays the
foundations for a model which might successfully adhere to all three principles.
Consequently, I have built on Schweickart’s idea, reforming it so that complete alignment is possible.
8
The United Bible Societies 1976, Good News Bible, Harper Collins, Glasgow, p. 234.
9
United States National Archives 2018, Declaration Of Independence: A Transcription. Available from:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript [13 June 2019].
10 Fitoussi, JP., Sen, A., and Stiglitz, JE 2008, Report By The Commission On The Measurement Of Economic
Performance And Social Progress, p. 7.
11 Ibid, p. 8. 12 Ibid.
In the thesis, it will also be outlined why these three principles are imperative if a political-economic model is to be desirable. There is a clear methodological purpose here. Indeed, this study will make clear that it is these values which should be considered when we judge political-economic models. Therefore, I will indicate why adopting this version of Market Socialism would be beneficial for societies, as it would allow these principles to be upheld. Throughout the thesis, my argument will be based largely on a philosophical perspective, rather than an empirical one. A crucial reason for this methodological decision is that the model I propose is untested. Although I shall be using the theoretical framework of Market Socialism, of which there are (and have been) real-world examples (in terms of both fully functioning economies and elements within an economy), as a whole, the model I propose is fundamentally theoretical. However, regarding the essential values for a political-economic model, it is not as clear cut. Consequently, my methodological approach will vary. As shall be explored, my discussion concerning equality will indeed purely revolve around
philosophical conceptions. This is because it will almost entirely be a product of my
perceptions of justice. Yet, in contrast, I will use considerable empirical evidence to support the notion that economic growth is a pivotal tool in enabling societal affluence and
advancement. Similarly, although a general theoretical approach will be taken with regards to environmental sustainability, evidence will be utilised to demonstrate why the value is a necessity for a political-economic model.
Relevance
My argument is vital because it provides a solution to the serious problems posed by Capitalism. Indeed, it suggests an alternative political-economic model, which both eliminates the issues of Capitalism, whilst also maintaining the benefits.
However, despite this contribution, it is important to note that this thesis will not offer a comprehensive solution. There are two reasons for this. Primarily, it is because I shall be considering the model in a domestic context, largely ignoring international factors. Indeed, I will not be reflecting on how a society which adopted the political-economic model I
advocate would interact with other societies (which may have similar or contrasting systems). Furthermore, this thesis will purely regard a political-economic model in the abstract. I shall not be considering particular contexts. Both of these factors would be important in terms of how to implement the model I propose, as well as the degree to which it might be successful. However, the scope of this thesis does not allow for such vast debates to occur.
Outline
Before beginning my argument, I shall present the outline of the thesis. This will involve briefly discussing each chapter, their structures, and key arguments. In the first chapter, I will explore the three principles - environmental sustainability, equality, and economic growth. I shall explain what they are and why they matter. The chapter will begin by identifying what is meant by economic growth. I will then explore a key debate revolving around whether the market or the state is the better tool for achieving growth, being led by what the evidence suggests. I shall conclude that the role of the market is imperative in terms of long-term economic growth, but that the state can also act as a useful tool in the short-term. In this section, it will also be identified how evidence shows economic growth to be essential for producing prosperity, as well as enabling societal development.
Following this analysis, equality shall be discussed. I will engage in fundamental debates about which type of equality is preferable, dismissing relational equality, as proposed by Anderson and equality of outcome, as an overarching concept. Indeed, I will justify why instead, my understanding of equality of opportunity equates to justice. I shall also highlight the value of this concept in terms of wider benefits for a society, illustrating how it would encourage the best suited to perform different societal functions.
The final principle to be deliberated on will be environmental sustainability. I shall make clear what this term entails, drawing heavily from Daley’s widely accepted interpretation of the concept. The vital importance of the principle will also be underlined. Indeed, I will highlight how humanity is completely dependent on the natural world, yet also severely damages it. Magdoff and Williams illustrate this well in their work Creating an Ecological
Society: toward a revolutionary transformation. This is a key source with regards to
environmental sustainability and one which I will reference often. The chapter will conclude with an explanation of the principles’ importance, relative to each other. Indeed, I shall show why environmental sustainability should be treated as the most significant value and why equality should be deemed more essential than economic growth.
The purpose of the second chapter will be to outline the reformed version of Schweickart’s Economic Democracy. His work, After Capitalism, will be the most important source in this chapter, as well as in the entire paper. I will discuss each of the three main features of his model separately, being worker self-management, the market, and a social control of
investment.13 I will include any amendments of my own within this analysis. The final part of the chapter will consider the role of the public sector in the reformed system. This does not act as a main aspect of Schweickart’s model, instead being a key addition, almost entirely comprising my own amendments.
Finally, the last chapter in this thesis will indicate how the model described in the second chapter is compatible with the principles explored in the first, as well as their order of prioritisation. I shall begin by considering how environmental sustainability would be achieved under the model, chiefly due to reforms to Schweickart’s model which I propose. I will also consider an important debate about the positive correlation between a global elite
and environmental damage. This is something evidence overwhelmingly validates. It will be indicated how the abolition of private ownership of the means of production in this model would therefore enable greater environmental protection. Following this, the chapter shall outline how the value of equality would be adhered to under the model, largely due to the role of the public sector. Moreover, I will demonstrate that worker self-management, as well as anti-discrimination laws, and a high minimum wage, would be crucial in enabling equal opportunities across the board. The concluding section of the chapter will
demonstrate how economic growth would be achievable due to both the presence of a market and state intervention. Furthermore, I will identify how worker-controlled enterprises would likely result in greater productivity, drawing substantially from
Schweickart’s own justifications. I shall indicate that this would subsequently enable greater rates of GDP in a society. The section will conclude with the justification of how an economy relying on a social control of investment, rather than private investment, would be perfectly capable of producing economic growth.
Chapter One - Defining principles for a political-economic model
When reflecting on political-economic models, it is imperative to consider which principles should be at their core. The purpose of this chapter is to outline the values I purport should define a political-economic structure and to demonstrate each principle’s importance, relative to each other. However, before embarking on this endeavour, it is necessary to highlight two key points. Firstly, it is important to note that I will be working on the assumption that the principles chosen would be applied to democratic systems, which adhere to basic conditions of political and social liberty. The reasoning for this is because I believe there is an overwhelming consensus in academia that values such as the right to vote, freedom of speech, and non-discrimination are desirable for all societies, their
exclusion equating to injustice. Therefore, whether these ideas are preferable inclusions in a political-economic structure is not a contention I regard as requiring the time to defend here. Indeed, whether these principles are present acts as the initial criterion for whether a model should even be considered. Secondly, with this in mind, it is perhaps not surprising that the focus of my argument is largely economic. The reasoning for this is that when deliberating on a political-economic model, I believe how it economically operates and how it should do, is the most urgent matter to consider. This is because the scope for reasonable disagreement about the fundamental guiding principles of economic organisation (relative to those of the political and social spheres) is vast. Primarily, the chapter shall outline the justification of economic growth as a defining value for a political-economic model.
Secondly, I will demonstrate the same, yet with regards to equality. Following this analysis, I shall determine why environmental sustainability should be at the core of any proposed structure. Finally, it will be highlighted that environmental sustainability should be regarded as the chief principle of a desirable political-economic model and that equality should be prioritised over economic growth.
Economic Growth
To begin, it is vital to define economic growth. This term can be understood as ‘increases in the total quantity of goods and services that are produced in the economy’.14 To explore what this means in further detail, it would be useful to consider how economic growth is conventionally measured. An initial point to make is that due to quantities of various goods and services being determined differently (i.e. potatoes in terms of tonnes, cotton in terms of metres of cotton fibre), it is the total monetary value which is calculated.15 Secondly, when considering the production of goods and services, the household sector of the economy (being where someone lives) is excluded.16 This is because it would be ‘very difficult’ to work out, as it would encompass tasks such as providing ‘yourself with cleaning services, washing services, cooking services, and some entertainment’.1718 Instead, GDP,
14 King, D 2012, Economics, Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York, p. 362. 15 Ibid, p. 363.
16
Ibid.
17 Ibid. 18 Ibid, p. 8.
which is the usual measurement of economic growth (and the metric I shall use), ‘attempts to cover all the other goods and services that are produced’.19 Finally, the ‘increases’ are measured by considering the total monetary value of goods and services in an economy over a period of time and the rate of change is made apparent by comparing the figures of GDP for different time periods.20
Now I have explained what I mean by economic growth, it is imperative to demonstrate why it occurs. This revolves around improvements in the factors of production, being ‘the things that are used to produce goods and services’.21 To explain this process, it is first important to explore further what these ‘things’ are.22 The factors of production include three components. They are land, labour, and capital. Considering land, this entails natural resources, ranging from places where things can be grown or built, to elements such as crude oil, or even including aspects of production like the weather.23 With regards to labour, this means the ‘time, effort, and skills that people use in production’, whereas capital refers to the ‘equipment that has been made to be used’ in the process, such as machines or transport.24 As stated, economic growth occurs when these factors are enhanced. For example, an economy could have better or additional capital if a country uses ‘new technologies to invest in new types of capital’ or if it invests in extra ‘plant, buildings, vehicles, and machinery’.25 Correspondingly, to improve the labour mode of production, a rise in immigration would likely increase the quantity and quality of the labour force in a society, whereas refined education should similarly result in more highly skilled workers, who require less time and effort in production processes.26 Finally, if we consider land, a society may ‘make better use of its natural resources’, or engage in utilising previously little used resources.27 What all of these examples highlight is how improvements in the factors of production result in greater efficiency in economic activity, enabling the ‘total quantity of goods and services’ to be increased.28
There are substantial positives of economic growth for a society. Primarily, it eases the economic problem, being unlimited wants yet scarce resources.29 This is because if an economy is able to produce a greater amount of goods and services, then there is an increased chance that the unlimited wants of people can be addressed. Furthermore, it is clear that economic growth fuels increases in living standards, life opportunities and technological advancement. For instance, if we consider historical trends in the United Kingdom (UK), total economic output in England grew from just over £21 billion in 1800 to
19 Ibid, p. 363. 20 Ibid, pp. 362-363. 21 Ibid, p. 4. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid, pp. 4-5. 24 Ibid, p. 4. 25 Ibid, pp. 362-362. 26 Ibid, p. 363. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid, p. 362. 29 Ibid, p. 5.
£1.28 trillion in the year 2000.30 The effects of this have been remarkable. During the same period, the average British yearly income has risen from under £2500 to over £25,000 (adjusted for inflation).31 As a result, this growth in citizens’ wealth has enabled greater opportunities in life, as they have gained a substantial increase in their economic
capabilities to do whatever it is they wish to do. Similarly, if we reflect on the technological developments made in countries with high rates of GDP, the progress is also remarkable. The explosion in beneficial inventions in recent centuries, including household appliances, cars, and the Internet demonstrates this. Clearly, economic growth can be massively advantageous for a society.
Considering the importance of economic growth for societal development, it is necessary to recognise what conditions make it possible. Perhaps the main way in which these changes have materialised is through economic activity in the free market, being a ‘market in which there is no government intervention’.32 However, ‘in practice’, this actually means a market in which there is little interference, as a totally free market would be incredibly extreme.33 This is irrefutably foundational to the majority of capitalist frameworks, certainly if we consider modern Capitalism. This is because, as Fulcher states, ‘the essential feature’ of Capitalism is the ‘investment of money in order to make a profit’.34 The system also entails the production of goods and services being ‘based on wage labour’, as well as the presence of a market, and ‘a significant number of firms’ being privately owned or operated.3536 Therefore, the intrinsic link between the “free” market and Capitalism is clear. If there is a lack of government intervention in the market, then a substantial amount of businesses would be owned and managed privately, by people who would pay workers wages for a service, enabling the production of profit. To explore this final point further, it is worth explaining the ‘theory of the firm’.37 This idea is at the root of how capitalist business operates, the theory resting on the ‘profit-maximizing assumption’, which is that firms will ‘make choices that give them the largest possible gap between revenue and cost’.38 These ‘profit-maximising’ firms compete against each other in the “free” market and in order to make a greater profit, attempt to improve the factors of production they use. For example, a business might invest in training to increase worker productivity; or in research and
development to create new technologies enabling a more efficient use of capital; or in a plot of land with more favourable conditions for the growth of a particular product. Through this
30
Our World In Data, Total Economic Output In England Since 1270. Available from:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-gdp-in-the-uk-since-1270?time=1270..2016 [28 April 2019].
31 Roser, M., ‘Economic Growth’, Our World In Data. Available from:
https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth#from-poverty-to-prosperity-the-uk-over-the-long-run [23 April 2019].
32
King, Economics, pp. 25-26.
33 Ibid. 34
Fulcher, J 2015, Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 12.
35
Ibid, p. 13.
36
Graeber, D 2006, ‘Turning Modes Of Production Inside Out: Or, Why Capitalism Is A Transformation Of Slavery’, Critique Of Anthropology, vol. 26, no. 1, p. 77.
37 King, Economics, p. 126. 38 Ibid.
process of ‘profit-maximising', firms fuel economic growth in society at large, as it causes the ‘total quantity of goods and services that are produced in the economy’ to increase.3940 However, despite a relatively free market enabling economic growth, there can be some undeniable negative aspects too. Because of this, government intervention in a market should not simply be disregarded. A major example of such issues arising from a “free” market is substantial wealth inequality. Under a capitalist system, where a business is incentivised to make as great a profit as possible, a high level of disparity is a structural result. For example, if a firm is to make a greater amount of monetary gains, it is logical for employers to pay workers as little as possible, causing the wealth of a minority to greatly exceed the wealth of the majority. Although factors such as inheritance and private property impact on this reality too, it is clear that the pursuit of profit, considered as the imperative aim for a capitalist business is a highly significant contributing factor. The effects of this are telling if we consider current wealth inequality in the UK for example, where the top 10% of households hold 44% of the nation’s wealth and the poorest 50% own just 9%.41 Because of this, it is key to recognise how despite the value free enterprise offers in terms of economic growth, through the profit-maximising principle, its management must still be valued. Indeed, government intervention, which in the case in question could take the form of wealth redistribution policies, could certainly be considered as desirable. What this demonstrates is that where perceived market failures arise, government interference in the market can be positive.
Furthermore, not only can a government negate problems arising from growth in a “free” market, it can also actively fuel economic growth too. At this point, it is worth defining the state. This is an institution claiming a ‘monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in enforcing its order within a given territorial area’.42 The process of state intervention fuelling economic growth can and has occurred within capitalist models, as the system allows for various degrees of state intervention and ownership. Indeed, it would be incorrect to claim that dramatic rises in economic growth in capitalist economies can be attributed entirely to the “free” market. Moreover, it is apparent that economic growth is possible outside of a capitalist framework too, independent of the market. Take the Soviet Union for example. This had a planned economy, being ‘an economy in which the
government determines how, for what, for whom, and how many resources are used’.43 Yet, under central planning, the country grew from a backward, mostly agricultural society into an industrialised superpower. In addition, this transformation was far more rapid than experienced in many capitalist economies, as it occurred over a mere few decades. This indicates the potential economic planning has in directing substantial growth. Clearly, economic growth is compatible with a rejection of the profit-maximising principle.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid, p. 362.
41 The Equality Trust 2017, The Scale Of Economic Inequality In The UK. Available from:
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk [10 May 2019].
42
Weber, MKE., cited in Ferdinand, P., Garner, R., and Lawson, S (eds) 2012, Introduction To Politics, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 27.
However, I claim that although short-term growth can be achieved within a planned
economy, the long-term durability of an economy which rejects the market is questionable. Therefore, the prevalence of both planning and the market is desirable. Indeed, futile attempts by Soviet leaders to liberalise the economy whilst appearing not to betray the ideologically dominant economics of centralised planning demonstrated an awareness of this structural long-term issue. Examples of this include Khrushchev's Sovnarkhoz reforms in the late 1950s and the economic elements of Gorbachev’s Perestroika in the 1980s, Sixsmith correctly referring to the latter as an attempt to rejuvenate ‘the sluggish command
economy through discretely capitalist methods’.44 Seemingly, the long-term Soviet
economic failings (and attempts to remedy them) highlight the importance of the market in enabling continued economic growth. Indeed, it signifies that the incentivisation provided by the desire for profit is a highly effective (if not critical) way of motivating individuals to fuel economic advancement. With this in mind, I propose that the presence of a market that adheres to the profit-maximising principle is imperative in enabling long-term economic growth. However, a degree of intervention can certainly be effective too and should operate in conjunction with a market to produce growth, as well as preventing any potential
negatives which would arise if a market were allowed to function as it does in most capitalist frameworks.
A clear objection to this contention is that the market is inherently opposed to an
environmentally-friendly society and is therefore not preferable. There is certainly evidence demonstrating the negative relationship between the market and the environment. Indeed, in a world which is almost entirely market-orientated, where businesses are able to thrive, in 2011, the world’s biggest 3000 corporations were responsible for a third of global environmental damage.45 However, I would argue that such realities do not need to be prevalent, even if a market is. Rather than the market itself breeding unsustainable economic activity, it is the lack of management encouraged in Capitalism that creates environmental damage. If a market-based model can incorporate a degree of planning, as well as prioritising environmental protection, then there is no reason why this needs to be the case.
44
Sixsmith, M 2012, Russia – A 1000-Year Chronicle Of The Wild East, BBC Books, London, p. 451.
45
Smith, D 2011, ‘Green Growth Or De-Growth: What Is The Best Way To Stop Businesses Destroying The Biosphere?’, Economy Watch. Available from: http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and- finance-news/green-growth-or-degrowth-what-is-the-best-way-to-stop-businesses-destroying-the-biosphere.23-1 [24 April 2019].
Equality
Equality is a highly contested concept. There are 3 main types. There is relational equality, meaning that ‘people should relate to one another as equals or should enjoy the same fundamental status (and also perhaps the same rank and power)’.46 There is also equality of outcome, which refers to ‘giving each person the same’.47 Finally, there is equality of
opportunity, which I define as the equal distribution of educational opportunities and the fairness of processes through which individuals reach occupational goals, as well as the maintenance of sufficient capabilities for all. This is the definition I shall use.
To explore why I favour equality of opportunity, it is important to primarily identify why I do not perceive relational equality as suitable in the context of this paper. In doing so, it is vital to determine a preliminary distinction when considering equality, being whether one is referring to the conditions of an individual, or the relations between individuals. Both equality of opportunity and outcome refer to the former, whereas relational equality comes from the latter. The reasoning for this divergence is a slight, yet crucial difference in how egalitarianism is perceived. Arneson highlights this difference, noting that ‘an egalitarian favours equality of some sort: people should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. An alternative view expands on this last-mentioned option: people should be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, should relate as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort’.48 Elizabeth Anderson, a key advocate of relational equality, would purport this ‘alternative view’, because if
members of society are to be treated equally, they must first treat each other equally.49 Indeed, Anderson argues that the conditions of an individual are a secondary concern, instead conceiving equality ‘as a relationship among people rather than merely as a pattern in the distribution of divisible goods’.50 However, although I do not oppose the claim that equality must ultimately entail individuals in a society treating each other equally, I contend that without some consideration of condition, this is a reality unlikely to materialise. If the conditions of some individuals are vastly different from the conditions of others, then it is probable that correspondingly, the way most individuals will relate to one another will be starkly disparate. The idea of a class structure, prevalent in most societies, surely
demonstrates this. Moreover, it is difficult to envisage how a society might progress to a situation in which comprehensively, people do ‘relate to one another as equals’ and have the same status, if vast material inequality is still prevalent.51 This is because fundamentally, individuals would not have an equal standing in that society. Therefore, I would propose that an egalitarian approach to the distribution of goods is an imperative prerequisite if
46
Arneson, R 2013, ’Egalitarianism’, Stanford Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy. Available from:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/ [7 April 2019]. [3 May 2019].
47
Stanford University, Equality Of Outcome. Available from: https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/equality-outcome [25 April 2019].
48 Arneson, Stanford Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy. 49 Ibid.
50
Anderson, E 1999, ‘What Is The Point Of Equality’, Ethics, vol. 109, no. 2, p. 366.
there is to be a widespread adoption of equality in relations. Furthermore, as this paper has a specific focus on economic organisation; relational equality has far less relevance in this context than either equality of opportunity or equality of outcome, as it does not prioritise economics. Consequently, it is not an understanding of equality I have espoused here. Now it has been established that my focus regards the conditions of members in a society, rather than the relations between them, it is critical to outline the concept of egalitarian distributive justice. As already specified, an egalitarian is someone ‘who favours equality of some sort’.52 To determine what ‘sort’ of equality an egalitarian supports, the distributive justice element of the concept is vital.53 This refers to the ‘moral guidance for the political processes and structures that affect the distribution of benefits and burdens in societies’.54 As distributive justice concerns the ‘distribution of benefits and burdens’, it is clear that this concept refers to the context of a person’s condition rather than the relations between individuals.55 Also, it is apparent that when considering the ‘moral guidance’ aspect, being a reference to what an individual would regard as justice, this can be equated to perceptions of fairness.56 The reason for this is that as is widely accepted, ‘justice has to be seen in terms of the demands of fairness’.57 Therefore, in deliberating on how ‘processes and structures’ can ‘affect the distribution of benefits and burdens’ in a just manner, it is fairness which guides that reflection.58 With this in mind, it is clear that egalitarian distributive justice entails the favouring of equality when reflecting on the allocation of goods in a society, the sort of processes determining this distribution emerging from a perception of what is fair. However, what is deemed as a fair distribution of goods, even amongst egalitarians, is highly debatable. Indeed, the substantial disagreement surrounding egalitarian distributive justice is due to the differing perceptions of fairness. This is in terms of both judging whether the distribution of something is fair in itself, as well as through considering the effects the distribution might have on other rival principles. For example, regarding the latter, greater degrees of distributive equality in certain respects might be considered as unfair due to infringing upon ‘values which compete’ against it.59 In contrast, it may be considered fair because of a perceived complementing of different principles. Ultimately, it is these differing judgements regarding fairness that produce various conceptions of what egalitarian distributive justice should entail. Consequently, perceptions of equality in the context of individuals’ conditions vary dramatically. Indeed, my own advocacy of equality of opportunity as I define it, is a product of this process and therefore differs from what other proponents of equality argue for. This is why understanding egalitarian distributive justice is imperative for this discussion.
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid.
54 Favor, C., and Lamont, J 2017, ’Distributive Justice’, Stanford Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy, Available from:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/ [7 May 2019].
55
Ibid.
56 Ibid.
57 Rawls, J., referenced in Sen, A 2009, The Idea Of Justice, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts;
Cambridge, p. 53.
58 Favor and Lamont, Stanford Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy.
To explain equality of opportunity in greater detail and defend my support of it, I shall discuss the dimensions of egalitarian distributive justice. These are the currency, shape, scope, and grounds. However, it is worth noting that I will not be considering the scope in any depth, as this refers to where something is being distributed. As this paper concerns political-economic models in the abstract, rather than a specific region, nation, or even the entire world, it is not particularly necessary here. The scope would depend on the reach of the political-economic model in question, as well as the nature of other models it may have relationships with. In the context of this debate, these factors are undefined. Yet, the relationship the other three dimensions of egalitarian justice have with the equality I
propose are incredibly relevant for this analysis and will be reflected on in detail. To do this, I shall consider the currency, shape, and grounds of each component of equality (as
highlighted in my definition of equality of opportunity) separately. Primarily, I will reflect on the equal distribution of educational opportunities. Secondly, I shall focus on the fairness of processes through which individuals reach occupational goals. Finally, the currency, scope, and grounds for the maintenance of sufficient capabilities will be explored.
Education
To begin, the currency, scope, and grounds for the equal distribution of educational opportunities will be deliberated on. I will firstly reflect on the currency of egalitarian distributive justice, meaning what is being distributed. It refers to the ‘metric egalitarians should use’.60 With regards to educational opportunities, this means the quality of teaching being provided, the depth and breadth of subjects being taught, and the availability of access for members of society. In a practical sense, the key to this revolves around the resources or funding provided for educational institutions, as well as regulation with regards to teaching standards.
Having outlined the currency, I shall now consider the shape of egalitarian distributive justice in relation to the equal distribution of educational opportunities. The shape refers to the patterns of distribution. For example, this could mean that everybody in a society receives the same of something, being equality of outcome. As an overarching concept, this is one I reject, as will be explored further later. However, I believe that in the case of
educational opportunities, equality of outcome should apply. This would entail all members of a society having the chance to study the same breadth of topics and do so in the same depth, as well as having access to the same standard of teaching. Of course, in practical terms it would be unrealistic for ‘each person’ to be able to receive exactly ‘the same’ education.61 Therefore, equal educational opportunities would be enabled by equal funding or resource provisions for all pupils attending academic institutions, as well as the same requirements applied for teaching standards. However, it is imperative to note that
exceptions to this rule should be made, if for example, an individual has mental or physical disabilities. This is because a person in such circumstances will likely require greater funding
60
Ibid.
61
or resources to enable the “same” education than someone who is in perfect health. Therefore, they should receive the extra support needed to enable equal educational opportunities.
The final dimension of egalitarian distributive justice that needs to be considered is the grounds. This refers to the reasoning behind the distribution in question. In understanding the promotion of an equal distribution of educational opportunities, I shall discuss why I perceive it as reflecting justice and identify how this would benefit a society at large (I will do the same with regards to the other components of equality too). Unlike the other aspects of equality, an equal distribution of educational chances would mean an adherence to equality of outcome. This is in the sense that all members of society would receive the same educational opportunities. Yet, as a result, equality of opportunity would be advanced, as people would have the same chance of enhanced life prospects, rather than ‘people’s fates’ being ‘determined’ by their ‘social backgrounds’.62 This is because every individual would receive the same basic education and have access to the same further education. Consequently, everyone would have as close as possible to an identical opportunity to pursue whatever it is they wished to in life.
An objection to this might be that educational opportunities could be equalised further. This could be achieved by entirely offsetting ‘all efforts by parents to give their children a
comparative advantage in competitions for desirable positions and posts’, as proposed under fair equality of opportunity.63 However, such measures would almost certainly mean dramatically curtailing ‘parental freedom to help their children’, an infringement I contend would not be desirable.64 With this in mind, it is apparent that equal educational
opportunities as I have described would be both preferable and entail fairness.
Furthermore, it is clear that this would most likely have a positive effect on a society too. Before delving into this idea, it is important to firstly note that in all probability, education would need to be provided by the state free of charge for equal educational opportunities to be possible. This is because it would allow for an equal allocation of funding or resources, as well as access for all. In contrast, if education was provided by profit-maximising firms for example, individuals might not be able to afford to attend academic institutions and equal funding would become highly difficult to enforce. Considering the reality of likely state provision of education, it is probable (though not certain) that a state would place as much funding or as many resources as deemed available into education. With this in mind, the result of equal educational opportunities should be that without damaging the prospects of others, each individual would receive the best education they possibly could, given
perceived resource availability. Furthermore, individuals would have the greatest possible chance to pursue their talents and passions. Consequently, the various sectors of an economy would be more likely to attract the most gifted and dedicated for the relevant area, the result of which being a greater chance of human advancement. Evidently, the equal distribution of educational opportunities is desirable for a political-economic model.
62
Cohen, GA 2009, Why Not Socialism?, Princeton University Press, Princeton; Oxford, p. 17.
63 Arneson, Stanford Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy. 64 Ibid.
Occupation
The currency, shape, and grounds for the fairness of processes through which individuals reach occupational goals shall now be outlined. Considering the currency, this refers to the occupational goals individuals might attempt to reach. For example, this would entail attaining a particular job, or a different position within a profession, or other objectives, such as gaining the means to start a business.
Moving on to the shape, if we consider the pattern in which occupational goals would be distributed, there is a notable difference to that of educational opportunities. Rather than equality of outcome applying, I propose that the distribution of occupational prospects should not be totally equal. Instead, all individuals should have a fair chance to attain them. As a result, when trying to enter a career, gain a different position within a profession, or pursue a particular objective within an occupational framework, the principle of desert should apply. This is the idea that ‘each person should gain good fortune corresponding to her virtue (deservingness)’.65 If this is the case, fairness of processes would exist when considering occupational aims, as success would be responsive to whether an individual deserved it, being based on the ‘relevant criteria of merit’.66
Now I have indicated the currency and shape of egalitarian distributive justice in the context of reaching occupational goals, I shall outline the grounds. Essentially, this means the
reasoning why distributing occupational aims in a desert manner would entail fair
processes. This is based on the premise that if all individuals have the opportunity to pursue a career, job role, or occupational objective and if their achievements in such terms are the product of merit, this would equate to justice. In such circumstances, ‘native talent’ and the ‘choices’ of individuals would determine whether a person is successful in their pursuit of occupational goals.67 This can be considered as fair. An objection to this might be that even if all individuals have the chance to reach occupational goals, many might not have the natural capabilities to do so and would therefore be excluded through no fault of their own. Furthermore, if occupational opportunities were reflective of equality of outcome, this would not be the case. However, adhering to equality of outcome in this respect would be to encourage unproductive economics and to allocate resources inefficiently. For example, this could take the form of creating extra and unneeded jobs to allow for everyone to perform the function they wish, or through giving investment loans or grants to individuals judged to be high risk. Moreover, subsequent effects of such action might be a shortage of labour or resources in other areas of the economy in question. Certainly, economic
mismanagement of this nature cannot be considered desirable, as it would most likely cause severe damage to the prosperity of a society. With this in mind, allowing all to have the opportunity to pursue occupational goals, yet basing their success on merit, would comply with the notion of fairness as much as possible, whilst also recognising unavoidable
economic realities. Correspondingly, this should also entail an increased likelihood of
65
Arneson, Stanford Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy.
66 Ibid.
societal progress, as the best at performing certain roles would likely complete those functions.
Capabilities
Finally, the currency, shape, and grounds for maintaining sufficient capabilities for all will be considered. With regards to the currency, this refers to what would be distributed in order to enable the capabilities of individuals to be sufficiently maintained. In considering this, it is clear that it is a reflection on both what I perceive as individual needs, as well as what needs should be provided for through economic organisation. I have drawn from Lawrence’s understanding of the nature of needs in coming to the conclusions that shall be outlined. This is in the sense that I support the claim that what can be deemed as vital for humans does not need to be ‘determined by biological necessity’.68 However, this does not mean that ‘conditions for minimal human functioning’ would be excluded either.69 Indeed, vital needs can be social as well as physical. Furthermore, as Lawrence argues, there are difficulties in making ‘any categorical distinction between social and physical needs’.70 Whether something has an impact on just our physical or social well-being is far from clear cut. Therefore, when deliberating on the currency of maintaining sufficient capabilities for all, I do not make a distinction between physical and social needs and I consider adhering to both as imperative. With this in mind, let us consider the currency. There are two parts that the currency can be split into, being financial means and physical support. Considering the former, financial means would entail wages, welfare, and pensions. If we reflect on the latter, it is a reference to health care, as well as social care, which would include support for children, parents, the disabled, the mentally ill, and the elderly.
It will now be demonstrated what distribution shape would be necessary in ensuring the maintenance of sufficient capabilities for all. Perhaps not surprisingly, the principle of
sufficiency would apply. This refers to individuals enjoying ‘conditions of life that place them above the threshold that marks the minimum required for a decent (good enough) quality of life’.71 Therefore, in a society which adhered to the notion of maintaining sufficient
capabilities, the distribution of both financial means and physical support would be based on ensuring all individuals would have the ’minimum required’ capabilities to allow for a ‘decent quality of life’.72
However, what this would actually mean in practice is far from clear. A key reason for this is that ‘the threshold that marks the minimum required’ is debatable, as it is uncertain what individuals should have enough for.73 Indeed, Cohen correctly notes that there is some
68
Hamilton, LA 2003, The Political Philosophy Of Needs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 29.
69 Ibid, p. 23. 70 Ibid, p. 30. 71
Arneson, Stanford Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy.
72 Ibid. 73 Ibid.
‘obscurity’ when considering the sufficiency desideratum.74 To clarify, it is important to identify which aspects of existence can be considered as both constituting a ‘decent quality of life’, as well as being able to be and desirable to be provided for through economic organisation. 75 However, it is worth noting that educational and occupational opportunities will not be considered here, as the other elements of the equality I proscribe discuss and deal with these features of life. Regarding what would be included, I categorise these as “vital goods”. This is in the sense that they would be vital for enabling a high standard of living and also, that they would be goods, delivered through economic organisation. It is important to note that these “vital goods” would encompass both physical and social needs, as well as being attainable through both financial and physical support. For example, they would include basic provisions like adequate shelter, a good diet, clean water, clothing, electricity, mobility, and good health (or as good as can be provided given an individual‘s inherent prospects and life choices). Yet, “vital goods” would also incorporate more complex needs, such as entertainment, leisure time, knowledge (e.g. parents receiving lessons about child rearing), social mobility, and supervision (e.g. for a child or someone with a mental illness). If the distribution of financial and physical support could be enough to enable all individuals to attain “vital goods”, such as those listed, then sufficient
capabilities would be maintained.
Finally, the grounds for maintaining sufficient capabilities for all must be considered. Primarily, the crucial reason is because I perceive it as being fair, as individuals should be entitled to having a ‘decent quality of life’.76 Sufficient capabilities would enable that.
Furthermore, if sufficient capabilities can be maintained, then there can be an advancement of equal opportunities. This is in the sense that everyone would have an equal chance of achieving positive freedom, meaning ‘the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental purposes’ (this does not include natural restraints on an individual’s action, such as adverse weather
conditions).77 If all people in a society have the capabilities to acquire “vital goods”, such as those listed above, the possibility to control their own lives and realise their true purposes would likely be evident. This is because the factors essential to enabling this would be catered for. However, whether individuals would actually act in such a way as to realise their purposes would not be certain, yet the opportunity to do so would be equalised, as everyone would have access to those “vital goods”. Furthermore, this would probably be highly beneficial for a society, as if the likelihood of individuals pursuing their fundamental purposes can increase, so can the chance of societal development, as the most passionate and talented in various areas of life will most likely participate in those spheres.
74 Cohen, GA 2011, On The Currency Of Egalitarian Justice And Other Essays In Political Philosophy, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, p. 228.
75
Arneson, Stanford Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy.
76 Ibid.
77
Carter, I 2016, ’Positive And Negative Liberty’, Stanford Encyclopaedia Of Philosophy. Available from:
Environmental Sustainability
The final principle to consider as imperative for a political-economic model is environmental sustainability. This refers to the rates of renewable resource use, non-renewable resource depletion, and pollution creation, being at a level which does not compromise the standard of living of present and future generations. There are three clear factors when considering this definition, being renewable resources, non-renewable resources, and pollution. To explore the principle of environmental sustainability further, I shall outline each aspect, explaining what is meant by it and why it is important to consider when reflecting on what is desirable for a political-economic model.
Primarily, I shall discuss renewable resources. These are resources which have the potential to be used indefinitely (at least in the context of the Earth remaining in a similar natural state to as it is at present). Therefore, considering future generations, there is no reason why these cannot be utilised without damaging their prospects, as they do not need to run out. Furthermore, even the rate of use for some renewable resources is not of particular importance, as they might be infinitely available (at least in the context of the Earth’s lifespan). For example, types of energy, such as solar, wind, and tidal, can be accessible for humans in the future despite the extent to which people use them in the present. This means that their employment would be sustainable as it would not damage the way in which succeeding generations might live. However, Magdoff and Williams are correct to note that the use of renewable energy requires ‘other resources, many non-renewable, in order to construct facilities’, which may also cause pollution.78 An example of this is the mining of rare earth materials and resulting radioactive sludge and toxic waste water, key to enabling the running of wind turbines.79 Consequently, although the rate of use may not be imperative in terms of the resource itself (like with wind), how to utilise it in an
environmentally friendly way can be; ‘less damaging ways’ needing to be found.80 In
contrast, the rate of harvest is fundamentally vital for other renewable resources. For some, such as animals, trees and other plants, the rate of their use will determine whether people in the future will have the same access to the resource in question. For instance, if fishing occurs at a rate which exceeds the number which are being reproduced, then later
generations will have access to less, or even no fish. Therefore, environmental sustainability entails the rate of depletion of renewable resources being at least equal to ‘the rate of regeneration’.81
The reasoning for using renewable resources in such a way and in general is clear. This is because of the fundamental relationship between resources and human activity. Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that they are the cornerstone of any society. If a country has a lot of resources, it is likely to be rich, if it does not, it is likely to be poor. This reality
completely shapes the livelihoods of the inhabitants of those countries and would do
78
Magdoff, F., and Williams, C 2017, Creating An Ecological Society: Toward A Revolutionary Transformation, Monthly Review Press, New York.
79 Ibid. 80
Ibid.
81 Daley, HE 1990, ’Toward Some Operational Principles Of Sustainable Development’, Ecological Economics,
despite the political-economic model employed. Consequently, using resources which can be renewed and at a rate which does not harm the living standards of future generations is imperative, as it helps enable a country to be resource rich, contributing to the long-term affluence of a society. Moreover, harvesting renewable resources at unsustainable levels may have adverse effects on the environment, which in turn, could impact negatively on humans in the present. For instance, let us consider the example of deforestation. If more trees are cut down than are planted in an area, then the region may experience increased flooding, which might result in the destruction of homes, food, and even loss of life. Indeed, ‘reforestation may help to reduce the frequency and severity of flood‐related
catastrophes’.82 Evidently, considering the rates of renewable resource harvest is vital and consequently, should be a central aspect of a political-economic model.
I will now outline what non-renewable resources are, how their depletion can take place in a manner which does not compromise the standard of living of present and future
generations, and why this is important. Unlike renewable resources, these have a finite amount and ultimately, their utilisation will entail their eradication (at least within human time-frames, rather than in geological terms). Examples of such resources include materials like rare earth minerals or metal ores. Seemingly, the idea of using non-renewable resources sustainably may appear a contradiction in terms. However, this is not the case. The use of non-renewable resources can be considered sustainable if renewable substitutes are
available or in the process of becoming so.83 Indeed, the rate of depletion of non-renewable resources must not exceed the rate of creation of renewable substitutes.84 In such
circumstances, the use of these resources would not damage living standards, as there would be ‘no need to maintain them’.85 However, if renewable alternatives are not produced before the complete consumption of the non-renewable resource in question occurs, then this will result in people lacking the ability to access whatever it is the resource previously provided. Clearly, the rate of non-renewable resource depletion, particularly in relation to the development of renewable alternatives, is crucial if a society is to manage its resources effectively. As discussed in the previous paragraph, doing this is incredibly
important, as resource availability is so fundamental to human prosperity.
The final aspect of environmental sustainability revolves around pollution and how at certain rates, it can damage the living standards of people in the present and future. The rate of pollution can be considered as sustainable if it does not exceed the ‘natural assimilative capacities’ of the environment to compensate for it.86 If this is not the case, then pollution would (and does) cause environmental harm, creating negative
consequences for people. When considering creating pollution, this could be in the sense of polluting the air, water, or soil. However, it is certainly true that pollution in one of these spheres might cause subsequent damage to another area, or indeed to animals, the climate, and us. This is because the various elements of the environment are interlinked through an
82
Bradshaw, CJA., Brook, BW., Peh, KSH., and Sodhi NS 2007, ’Global Evidence That Deforestation Amplifies Flood Risk And Severity In The Developing World’, Global Change Biology, vol. 13, no. 11, p. 2379.
83 Daley, Ecological Economics, p. 4. 84
Ibid.
85 Ibid. 86 Ibid, p. 2.
ecosystem, being a natural system, which entails ‘assemblages of living organisms, including those living within and on the surfaces of other organisms, all interacting among themselves as well as with their habitat’.87 Furthermore, ecosystems are also interlinked with each other, rather than being ‘isolated islands’.88 Therefore, managing the rate of all pollution is imperative, as there can be profound and intertwined consequences of it throughout the natural world, on which humans are completely dependent. With this in mind, let us explore some instances of how pollution can harm society, both in the immediate and long-term. For example, if we reflect on how pollution affects air quality, it is evident that the consequences are severe, 4.2 million people dying every year ‘as a result of exposure to ambient air pollution’.89 Similarly, polluting water can have devastating effects on the environment and subsequently, on humans as well. Take the use of plastics for example. The infamous ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’, an immense island of plastic in the Pacific Ocean, over twice the size of Texas, has been heavily linked to health issues, due to chemicals from plastic entering the food chain.90 Indeed, this development may have long-lasting consequences, as it threatens to alter the ’entire food web’ on which people rely, due to the threat posed to marine life.91 Correspondingly, ‘contaminating’ soil, as humans are increasingly doing, creates greater risks to our well-being and that of ecosystems, such as through an increased inability for soil to support plant life.92 Evidently, the effects of pollution can be exceedingly harmful for humanity, in both the short and long term, meaning that managing it is highly significant.
Thus far, I have outlined what is meant by environmental sustainability and how not adhering to the principle causes significant problems for humanity. However, there is one issue yet to be discussed which stands out. Of course, I am referring to climate change. This means ‘changes in the earth’s climate, especially the gradual rise in temperature caused by high levels of carbon dioxide and other gases’.93 The reason for climate change, or rather, the dramatic acceleration of it in the modern world, is environmentally unsustainable
economic activity, causing the increased emissions of ‘carbon dioxide and other gases‘.94 For example, deforestation is a major contributor, due to the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning trees, as well as the fact that forests store more carbon dioxide globally than the entire atmosphere.95Similarly, pollution, such as the ’pumping’ of carbon
dioxide ’into the atmosphere’ from burning fossil fuels adds greatly to the process of global
87 Magdoff and Williams, Ecological Society. 88
Ibid.
89
World Health Organisation 2019, Air Pollution. Available from: https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/ [10 May 2019].
90
National Geographic 2019, Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Available from:
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/ [13 May 2019].
91
Ibid.
92
Magdoff and Williams, Ecological Society.
93 Collins Dictionary 2019, Climate Change. Available from:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/climate-change [13 May 2019].
94
Ibid.
95 Bennet, L 2017, ’Deforestation And Climate Change’, Climate Institute. Available from:
warming.96 As identified previously, the effects of these proceedings could be catastrophic for humanity and would certainly compromise the living standards of present and future generations. Indeed, the UN correctly highlights that climate change is ‘the defining issue of our time’.97 This is because if not addressed, a warming climate threatens the very
existence of societies across the globe. As discussed, resources dominate human activity. Furthermore, if we consider the first rule of economics, being the economic problem
(unlimited wants yet scarce resources), the extent to which climate change could pressurise this already immensely difficult problem cannot be overstated.98
Evidently, it is imperative that environmental sustainability should be considered as a core principle of a political-economic model.
Value prioritisation
Previously in this chapter, it has been made evident why the principles of environmental sustainability, equality, and economic growth should define a political-economic model. The final section of this chapter will demonstrate their importance relative to each other.
Primarily, it will be outlined why environmental sustainability is the most important value. This is because, as mentioned, humanity is completely dependent on the natural world. Despite the political-economic model employed in a society, an inherent truth of economic organisation is that it will revolve around and be responsive to the environment. This is in the sense of resource availability which enables economic activity and in terms of threats to societies posed by such activity. Although it is true that high rates of inequality or low rates of economic growth (or recession) may lead to societal upheaval or collapse, these threats are limited to particular contexts. If a political-economic model was to fail due to these reasons, a new one would emerge and would have the potential to deal with these concerns. In contrast, because of the fundamental link between the environment and economic organisation, issues arising from environmentally unsustainable economic action are not limited to the context of the model employed or regime in power. Problems
produced by the unsustainable depletion of renewable and non-renewable resources, and pollution creation could exist long after the model which created them does not (or has been reformed). These issues would have the potential to threaten the health or even existence of a society regardless of how its economy is arranged. The example of climate change illustrates this point.
However, an objection to this analysis might be that a society could adhere to the value of environmental sustainability, yet simply not have the resources available to enable desirable levels of equality and economic growth. This would mean that even if economic
organisation is altered to attempt to combat this, societal threats from inequality and low growth could remain. Although true, this reality is far from being universally applicable to all
96
Magdoff and Williams, Ecological Society.
97
United Nations 2019, Climate Change. Available from:
https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/climate-change/index.html [13 May 2019].
