The emergence of a new developmental model

Question 1

What is development?

Answer 1

conventional model sees development as modernisation of globe along western lines;
Econ. growth = development, ultimate state = mass consumption;
growth is limited because of biosphere limits;
assumes linear progression
-> exceptional & contingent, not universally applicable, intrinsic value of nature is ignored

Question 2

strong vs weak sustainability

Answer 2

strong: cannot be substituted, natural capital is essential for well-being, no capital must decline over time

weak: natural capital is not important but substitutable

Question 3

Is sustainable development dynamic?

Answer 3

term evolves over time to encompass broader understanding of the connection of the 3 pillars;
global goals are regularly renewed;
innovation and technology;
policy and regulation updates

Question 4

What is the Brundtland report?

Answer 4

“Sustainable development is development that meets needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations o meet their own needs”;

Gro Harlem Brundtland, -> commission independent of UN to focus on environment and sustainable development 83,
Our Common FUture 87;
puts development (Econ & social) + sustainability (ecology) together;

needs-based approach -> satisfaction of humans top priority;

economic growth as means not as an end (to set goals)

development through technology & fundamental societal changes -> absolute limits of biosphere absorption

fulfilment of needs of world’s poor and reduction of wants of world’s rich

introduction of 3 pillar approach

optimistic view, development is possible if we stay within planetary boundaries

limits to environmental capital imposed by state of technology and social organisation on env. resources -> biosphere cannot absorb all effects of human activities

Question 5

Pillars of sustainable development

Answer 5

economic, social and environmental

Griggs introduces nested approach since not all are equally important,
economy should serve society instead of the other way around,
wants to introduce a new definition

“… development that meets needs of the present while safeguarding support systems on which current & future welfare depends

Question 6

What are critics on sustainable development?

Answer 6

Brundtlands definition of SD needs improvement,
oxymoron -> terms are contradictory,
sustainability is a vague concept and difficult to agree on in policies,
nested approach instead of 3 pillars,
greenwashing and too western oriented