SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: TWO VIEWS

  Most definitions of sustainable development are based on intergenerational equity, which is captured by the idea that "...the current generation must not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their material needs and enjoy a healthy environment" (Batie, 1989:1084) (Footnote 1994 issue of Economic Affairs for a contrary view that does not base the definition of sustainable development on the idea of intergenerational equity). Advocates of sustainable development agree that use of resources in the present should not result in a decreasing standard of living for future generations. Despite this, two rather different interpretations of how sustainability can be achieved exist, and these lead to different definitions of sustainable development.

View 1: The Constrained Growth Definition

  The first definition of sustainable development can be subsumed under the notion of Constrained Economic Growth. Advocates of this position argue that sustainable development is "...the pursuit of growth subject to environmental constraints"; (Batie, 1989:1084). This approach to development involves two distinct stages. First, contractual arrangements based on ecological criteria must be established. Only then can the standard utilitarian objective of maximizing economic returns can be pursued.

  The Constrained Economic Growth definition differs little from standard neo-classical approaches to economic development. It simply qualifies utility maximization by adding ecological considerations. Growth, although pursued in a slower and more ecologically sensitive manner, is still the primary objective. This definition dominates official discourse. As Korten (1992) points out, even as the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development (1987) detailed the environmental consequences of unregulated growth, it nevertheless concluded that sustainability depended on continued growth: "If large parts of the developing world are to avert economic, social, and environmental catastrophes, it is essential that global economic growth be revitalized" (Bruntland Commission quoted in Korten, 1992:161). This conclusion, according to Korten, contradicts the Commission's own analysis "...that growth and overconsumption are root causes of the problem" (Korten, 1992:161). In his view, continued growth, even if planned with ecological considerations in mind, ignores the mounting evidence suggesting that the economic demands we have placed on the environment now exceed what the ecosystem can sustain.

  Other critics of the Constrained Growth Approach (Daly and Cobb, 1989; Lele, 1991) argue that equating sustainable development with sustainable growth is contradictory and misleading. Lele (1991:609) summarizes this perspective:

"When development is taken to be synonymous with growth in material consumption - which it often is even today - SD (sustainable development) would be 'sustaining the growth in material consumption' (presumably indefinitely). But such an idea contradicts the now general recognition that "ultimate limits" [to usable resources] exist. At best, it could be argued that growth in per capita consumption of certain basic goods is necessary in certain regions of the world in the short term. To use 'sustainable development' synonymously with 'sustain[ing] growth performance' (Idachaba, 1987)...is therefore a misleading usage of the term, or at best a short-term and localized notion that goes against the long-term global perspective of SD" (Lele, 1991:609).

  Usage of the term, in this context, is often a mechanism by which governments and international aid agencies coopt and placate opposition to growth as usual (Buttel and Gillespie, 1988). In short, critics of the Constrained Growth Approach to sustainable development see it as a smokescreen which obscures the ecologically disruptive consequences of conventional development strategies (Worster, 1995).

The Resource Maintenance Definition

  The second definition of sustainable development can be referred to as the Resource Maintenance Approach. This position is rooted in the criticisms discussed above and emphasizes the maintenance of existing and future resources rather than continued growth. Here, efforts are focused on minimizing our impact on the environment and use of natural resources while simultaneously meeting the material needs of people (Batie, 1989:1085). In this framework, economic development is not achieved by determining a sustainable level of growth and pursuing traditional economic development objectives. Instead, protection of natural resources is an explicit goal and is placed on equal footing with economic considerations.

  The Resource Mainenance Approach requires a fundamental rethinking of our relationship to the environment, consumption patterns, and standards of living. It is most clearly (and some would say radically) articulated by proponents of the "deep ecology" movement such as Arne Naess. Chief among the changes called for in the Resource Maintenance Approach are: an appreciation of the intrinsic value of the natural environment and all life forms; satisfaction of vital needs rather than desires; anti-consumerism and minimization of personal property; and, the use of simple and appropriate technology whenever possible (Naess, 1995).

  Above all, what distinguishes the Resource Maintenance Approach from the Constrained Growth Model is the former's very different definition of development. Following Redclift (1987), Yanarella and Levine (1992:762) argue that development should be understood explicitly in terms of ecological sustainability:

Working from the proposition that sustainable development socially can be discerned in part by working from the dynamics of ecosystems, Redclift shows how complex ecosystems, like the tropical rainforests, achieve ecosustainability or homeostatic balance, or what natural ecologists call 'climax systems' of high diversity, large biomass, and high stability through protection from rapid change and 'through shifts of energy system flows away from production and towards the maintenance of the system itself.' By contrast, he (Redclift) notes, human settlements typically seek to stall such ecosystems in early stages of ecological succession, where the yield of products is high, but where the stabilizing elements of organic matter and biomass fail to accumulate. High production within these ecosystems, then, comes at the cost of confounding nature's strategy of maximum protection or adaptation.

  From this perspective, growth is defined as a "...quantitative expansion of the physical dimensions of the economic system, while development should refer to the qualitative change of a physically nongrowing economic system in dynamic equilibrium with the environment" (Daly and Cobb, 1989:71). At the heart of this distinction is the idea that the earth is finite and nongrowing, and that any physical subsystem must also eventually become nongrowing. Thus, it makes no sense to speak of sustainable growth because the concept is contradictory (Daly and Cobb, 1989:72). Sustainable development, on the other hand, because it focuses on resource maintenance, involves no contradiction.

  It should be noted, however, that even among proponents of the Resource Maintenance Approach, there is disagreement over the extent to which humanly created and natural capital must be maintained separately. Those who advocate what Daly and Cobb (1989:72) call "weak sustainability" suggest that the total stock of humanly created and natural capital be maintained. This line of reasoning is based on the assumption that human and natural capital can be easily substituted in most production functions. Practically, this means that as natural capital is depleted, it must be offset by gains in human capital. A "strong sustainability" approach to resource maintenance, by definition, rejects the idea that growth of humanly created capital can offset the continual loss of natural resources (Daly and Cobb, 1989:72). Advocates of this position argue that human and natural capital must be maintained separately, since "...they are complements rather than substitutes in most production functions" (Daly and Cobb, 1989:72).