ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET
Name: Serena Thangjam
Degree programme: MSc Development Studies
Course: Theory, Policy and Practice of development
Essay No: 2
Seminar Tutor: Ravi Raman
Seminar Group Number:
Essay Title: Can capitalism as a system become (more) ecologically sustainable?
Submission Date: 16/03/2012
Word Count (including footnote): 2987
Introduction- Defining sustainability
There has been a growing consensus on the detrimental impacts of capitalism on the environment and an
increasing focus on the challenges faced globally in the form of climate change, ozone depletion, loss of
species and habitats, energy availability, unequal economic growth and increasing urbanisation (Carley
and Christie, 2002).
Even though historically, societies in the past have been characterised by environmental degradation, the
scale of ecological destruction has been much larger under the current form of capitalism (Liodakis,
2010). As Liodakis pointed out, environmental issues such as the water scarcity and global warming have
been caused largely by capitalist development and rapid economic growth especially in the twentieth
century.
It was in response to this that there emerged the concept of sustainability in the 1970s and 1980s, with it
formally being embraced in the mainstream as a dominant environmental discourse in 1987 with the
publication of the seminal report ‘Our Common Future’ by the World Convention on Environment and
Development (Dryzek, 2005). It aimed at reconciliation between the environment and economic activities
within the capitalist system, the achievement of which would require power shifts from the state to
transnational and local levels according to Dryzek.
The WCED report defined the term sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987).
Sustainable development thus introduced the concept of needs, especially of the poorer population
globally who should be prioritised in the development process and limits of the earth’s capacity (Daly,
1994).
Sustainability according to Dryzek (2005) has meant different things to different interest groups, with it
signifying the respect for intrinsic values to environmentalists, global redistribution to Third world
activists, continued economic growth to business groups and mechanisms to keep population and capital
growth in check for the systems point of view.
The Deep Ecologists, according to Devall (1985) stress that the necessity of an ethical and spiritual
transformation of individuals in order for sustainable development to occur. Sustainability can only be
achieved when smaller communities have a control over the natural resources (Shiva, 1991). Moreover,
Chambers (1992) and Lele (1991) have pointed out that it is only through the addressing of issues of
equity, justice and participation, rather than merely development of new technology that environmental
deterioration can be reduced.
The ambiguity in the definition and concept of sustainable development itself thus has meant that there
have been varying stances in what is entailed to bring about sustainability in development within the
system of capitalism, each stance dependent on their perception of the relationship between nature and
capital.
This paper will examine the idea of sustainability from the mainstream perception and then analyse the
critique of this perception. An attempt will be made to determine the constraints which have prevented
capitalism from being sustainable and examine the opportunities and constraints which lie for capitalism
to become environmentally sustainable in the future.
Mainstream conception of sustainable development
Mainstream economists focus on coordinating productive capacity of society and endowment of natural
resources through the market which is assumed to ensure maximum welfare. Natural resources are
therefore seen as a fixed external factor which is to be utilised for production, with profit maximisation
being the primary objective (Liodakis, 2010). Natural limits and scarcity of resources have not been taken
into account and there tends to be a focus on these resources being substitutable.
With the WCED report however, there has been recognition within mainstream literature of the limits in
natural resources with it being focused on two perspectives- that of critical limits and another of
competing objectives.
The critical limits perspectives as articulated by Daly and Cobb (1989) stresses on there being limits to
the ecological capacity and thus there being a need to preserve ecosystems in order to avoid economic
and environmental collapse. Competing objectives on the other hand articulates the balance between
social, ecological and economic priorities from the human dimension rather than resource limits
according to UNDP (1994) and Farrell and Hart (1998).
The concept of sustainability within the mainstream framework is based on the idea of reconciling
environment and economic systems through economic and technological advances (Rodrigues, 1996).
Neoliberalism is based on creating capitalist markets to allow for natural resource exchange and
consumption, privatisation of resources within these markets, commodification to allow for trade,
withdrawal of government intervention from the market and increased role of local authorities and nonstate actors such as non-governmental organisations (Fletcher, 2010). It therefore encourages the
increased influence of international agencies and corporations over local natural resources, the purpose of
it being enabling of the populations to participate in the market.
Mainstream approach also stresses on private property as being a prerequisite of the free market system
and stress on extension of property rights through privatisation of natural as the appropriate response to
environmental degradation, as opposed to common property resources (Liodakis, 2010, Reese, 2002).
There are various approaches within the mainstream framework to achieve sustainability. They are based
on the idea of there being an economic opportunity in actually bringing about sustainability (Beckerman,
1992).
From the instruments of sustainability as identified by Carter (2007), the mainstream approach has been
to rely on regulation, market based instruments, collaborative action and information instruments rather
than norms.
Neoliberalism in particular, stresses on the creation of an incentive structure, based on the notion of
individuals being self-interested, to bring about environmental sustainability (Fletcher, 2010).
This is closely linked to the theory of ecological modernisation which is based on the principle that
continued industrial development is the best option available for solving the world’s global crises. Mol
and Spaargaren (2002) have described the main assumption of ecological modernisation to be that of
economic growth being a necessity for the development of new and non-polluting technologies and in
turn environmental concern being the source of economic growth in the future. It was designed to be an
answer to the ineffective Command and control based regulation system of the 1970s (Langhelle, 2000)
and was aimed at and practised in the Western industrialised countries.
Ecological modernisation according to Hajer (1990) shifts the reliance on state led command and control
regulations to a market led, focusing on institutional changes and preventive mechanisms such as
integrated pollution abatement, integration of environmental concerns into all ministries, inclusion of
environmental into cost risk calculations through mechanisms such as Polluter Pays, Cost Benefit
Analysis, Risk analysis, Precautionary principle, tradable pollution rights and pollution charges and taxes
(Pepper 1999).
Constraints to sustainability within capitalism
The notion of sustainable development with its assumption of economic growth and environmental
protection being compatible with each other, as propagated within the mainstream has been critiqued by
several scholars.
The inability of capitalism being unsustainable as a system comes from the Marxist understanding of
capitalism. The interaction between people and the environment including that of extraction of raw
materials, and then the use of technology for the purpose of surplus production according to Marxists has
led to creation of private property and the creation of a certain class structure. Surplus value accumulation
and profit maximisation has been stressed by Marx as the end and purpose of capitalist production.
Capitalism has thus been touted as anti-ecological in that its functions of international trade, urbanisation
and technological use have all contributed to an alienation of people from nature and excessive depletion
of resources (Liodakis, 2010). It is therefore so that sustainable development and capitalism are
incompatible with one another. There is therefore a need for the contradictions between environment and
society of this system to be addressed in order for capitalism to become environmentally sustainable.
Carvalho (2001) points out the crucial role played by the international political economy structure within
which sustainable development is to take place. The decisions made by the States and other international
actors are affected by this structure which can influence national and local level policies. He provides the
example of climate change mitigation which faces international constraints with states affected northsouth divisions were yet to reach a consensus regarding the terms in the Framework Convention on
Climate change.
Carvalho also stresses on the role played by historical processes relating to capitalism.
Underdevelopment and its negative impacts in the South have been caused by global historic, economic
and political processes. Dependency theory and world system structuralism both link the emergence of
capitalism itself in 15th century Europe, the consequent establishment of trilateral trading routes and the
linking of remote areas in the South to the internationalised economy exerting pressure on their
environment (Merchant, 1992). Interactions between the world economy and the colonial areas (referred
to as peripheral) has led to the replacement of the pre-existing sustainable indigenous resource use
systems and caused dependent development and environmental degradation (Goodman and Redclift,
1991).
These processes have shaped social relations and the relationship between the communities and natural
environment in these areas with them replicating the urban elite capital and technology intensive
mechanisms of extraction and accumulation causing substantial social and environment costs (Goodman
and Redclift, 1991). Barber (1998) illustrates this with the example of South East Asian timber based
economies which have caused degradation of their tropical forests. According to Carvalho, sustainable
development cannot be achieved without global equity.
Furthermore, according to the theories of World systems, Dependent and Uneven development, the
international division of states into Centre, Periphery and Semi-periphery has perpetuated uneven
development and dependency, and allows for extraction of resources from the periphery for the benefit of
the centre. Moreover, the beneficiaries of the current model of development are unlikely to allow for
changes in the system which would upset the system and therefore change is likely to only be incremental
(Reid, 1995).
The role of international institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations Agencies is crucial
in the development process and influencing of policies in developing countries (Escobar, 1985). Even
though theoretically, these institutions have made efforts in the form of establishment of Environmental
departments and sponsoring of reports such as the 1992 World Environment Report, the continued
funding given by these institutions to centralized, capital and technology intensive, large scale projects
has been detrimental to the purpose of achieving sustainability in development (Dryzek, 2005). Examples
of projects such as the Sardar Sarovar Dam in India and the Transmigrassi in Indonesia vividly illustrate
the unsustainability of the development model being pursued currently according to Carvalho (2009).
Bernstein and Woodhouse (2009) focused on the impact of capitalism on Africa, and found that the
dynamics affects Africa in several ways- large scale extraction of natural resources for export resulting in
large scale environmental destruction; impact of global warming (caused by global industrial production
and consumption) in the form of variability in rainfall and increased incidences of drought; perception of
Africa as a suitable location for mitigation efforts, especially carbon sequestration through tree planting;
adverse impact of green imperialism especially in the form of environmental conditionality imposed by
aid agencies has meant increased conservation of environments as protected areas often at the cost of
displacement of local populations. This is largely encouraged by international conservation agencies.
Furthermore with the advent of increasing influence of neo-liberalism, protected areas have begun to be
perceived as commodities by corporations and conservation organisations and the encouragement in rural
development policies which open up markets and thus encourage participation of African farmers in
markets. These policies have however not only adversely affected the livelihoods of the poor but also
leave the environment vulnerable to external forces (Bernstein and Woodhouse)
The case of Africa has clearly illustrated the adverse impacts of capitalism and the subsequent neoliberalism based attempts at sustainability. Traditional farming practices that had been reliant on
indigenous knowledge, risk minimizing strategies and on common property resources to regulate access
to these resources were replaced as these were seen as being primitive and the common property notion
was seen as causing environmental degradation. Mainstream neo-liberal agendas therefore encouraged
private property, centralized state regulation of natural resource use and the reform of social institutions
to encourage market mechanisms for efficient resource allocation (Bernstein and Woodhouse). This has
only led to further alienation of people from their lands and unsustainable practices.
Moreover, in the case of the industrialised countries, there have been constraints to sustainability in the
form of normalisation and inability to change the patterns of consumption and production.
According to Blühdorn (2011) and Luke (2005), environmental crisis has to an extent been normalised in
society with the people accepting increasing levels of consumption and environmental change as
standard.
Neo-liberalist policies have tended to aim only at incentivising what are seen as sustainable practices
through the market. There are thus no attempts to indoctrinate ethical norms and values (Fletcher, 2010).
Moreover economic growth and distribution have not been challenged adequately by social movements,
and thus have not altered what Blühdorn calls ‘trajectory of unsustainability’ in countries.
The inability reach a consensus on climate change mitigation in 2009 Copenhagen United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate change according to Blühdorn (2011) has been indicative of the
inadequacies and limitations of the approaches and institutions of sustainable development.
There has of late been an increasing consensus of the incapability of the present system to deal with the
ecological crisis because of the pursuing of what Blühdorn and Welsh (2007) called politics of
unsustainability which has meant the retention of socio-economic structures and social practices even
though they have been found to be unsustainable. According to Vlachou (2004), there is a need for a
transformation in the existing system of capitalism which can be brought about through policies which
address the struggles of economic and social agents.
Moreover, even where there has been an acceptance that there is a need for radical change in the
lifestyles, values and social practices and in turn the production and consumption patterns of capitalism,
there has been little progress in bringing about this change in policy making (Blühdorn, 2011). Blühdorn
and Welsh (2007) have cited the example of Britain to illustrate the negative impacts of mere market
reforms under ecological modernisation. According to them, it has led to social unsustainability and
inequalities in addition to excessive individualisation.
Taking into consideration the failure of capitalism to by and large be environmentally sustainable, there
exists a comprehensive literature on the alternative paths that could be undertaken.
Most of these scholars oppose the notion that economic growth and modernisation are essential for
development and argue for alternative models of development.
The focus on Economic growth as a means of attaining sustainability according to many is misleading
and has been propagated by neo-liberalist institutions with vested interests. Capitalism can best become
ecologically sustainable when it focuses instead of capital accumulation, on the micro level of local
participation and inclusion of social groups (Shiva, 1989). The concepts of eco-populism and deep
ecology has stressed on the decentralisation and common property to bring about sustainability.
Conclusion
Even though historically, societies in the past have been characterised by environmental degradation, the
scale of ecological destruction has been much larger under the current form of capitalism (Liodakis,
2010). As Liodakis pointed out, environmental issues such as the water scarcity and global warming have
been caused largely by capitalist development and rapid economic growth especially in the twentieth
century.
There has been an inability for sustainability to be established within the system of capitalism since it has
been incorporated in its weakest form (Blühdorn, 2011). Baker (2007) has pointed to the inability of
sustainable development to facilitate a transition from the traditional model of economic development.
Sustainability as a concept has remained, according to Blühdorn (2011) and Baker (2007) as merely a
contested concept interpreted by most as the sustenance of economic growth and competitiveness.
Economic mechanisms through markets are inadequate for ensuring environmental sustainable and there
is therefore a need for socio-political reformation and encouragement of participative planning from the
ground level, along with focus on small scale production which allows for ecological diversification
(Burkett, 2006).There is thus a need for the creation of an equitable and stable international economic
order in order to attain sustainable development has been observed by scholars such as Reid (1995) and
Lele (1991).
To conclude, capitalism in its present form have made incremental efforts at becoming ecologically
sustainable. The concept of sustainability in itself as conceived by the mainstream literature has been
found to be inadequate as it does not change the actual processes of production and consumption and is
still very much focused on economic growth and capital accumulation.
With efforts on achieving sustainable development within capitalism being focused at the market and
incentivising sustainable practices, it is therefore inevitable that in its present form, capitalism as a system
cannot transform into an environmentally sustainable system. As has been seen with the lack of progress
in climate change talks, states and institutions are still unwilling to bring about radical changes and reach
a compromise in terms of economic growth to transform capitalism into an ecologically sustainable
system.
Doing so would necessitate a structural change within capitalism itself and a change in its focus from that
of economic growth accompanied by the instilling of ethical and moral attachments to the environment in
individuals especially in the industrialised countries. There is also a need for international institutions and
states to rise above their self-interests and work together for the common good, in a way which does not
disadvantage the poorer sections of society. Achieving this seems highly improbable in the current
scenario.
Baker, J. (2007), Sustainable development, Routledge, London
Barber C, (1998), Forest resource scarcity and social conflict in Indonesia. Environment, 40(4), pp 4–9,
28–37
Beckerman, W. (1992), Economic Growth and the Environment: Whose Growth? Whose Environment?,
World Development, 20 (4), pp. 481-496
Bernstein, Henry and Woodhouse, Africa: eco-populist utopias and micro-capitalist realities.' in Panitch,
L. and Leys, C. (eds.), Socialist Register 2007,Merlin
Blühdorn, I. (2011), The politics of unsustainability :COP15, Post-Ecologism, and the Ecological
Paradox, Organization and Environment, 24 (1), 34-53
Blühdorn, I. and Welsh, I. (2007), Eco-Politics beyond the Paradigm of Sustainability: A Conceptual
Framework and Research Agenda, Environmental Politics, 16 (2), pp 185-205
Burkett, P. (2006), Marxism and Ecological Economics: Toward a Red and Green Political Economy;
Brill Academic Publishers: Boston
Carley M. and Christie I. (2002), Managing sustainable development, Second edition, London: Earthscan
Carvalho, G.O. (2001), Sustainable development: Is it achievable within the existing political context,
Sustainable development, 9, pp 61-73
Daly, H. and Cobb, J. (1989), For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Towards Community and
a Sustainable Future, Beacon, Boston
Devall, B. (1985), Deep ecology and radical environmentalism, Society & Natural Resources: An
International Journal,4 (3), pp 247-258
Dryzek, J.S (2005), The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, 2nd Edition, Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Fletcher, R. (2010), Neoliberal Governmentality: Towards a Poststructuralist Political Ecology of the
Conservation Debate, Conservation and Society, 8(3), pp 171-181
Hajer A. (1995), The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy
process, Oxford Press
Harvey, D (2003), The New Imperialism; Oxford University Press: Oxford
Kolk, A. (1996), Forests in International Environmental Politics:International Organizations, NGOS and
the Brazilian Amazon,International, Utrecht.
Le´le´ S. 1991. Sustainable development: a critical review, World Development 19(6): 607–621
Liodakis, G. (2010), Political Economy, Capitalism and Sustainable development, Sustainability, 2, pp
2601- 2616
Liodakis, G. Totalitarian Capitalism and Beyond; Ashgate Publishing: Surrey, UK, 2010
Luke, T.W (2005), Neither Sustainable nor Development: Reconsidering Sustainability in Development,
Sustainable development, 13, 228-238
Merchant C, (1992), Radical Ecology: the Search for a Livable World, Routledge: New York
Carvalho, G.O (2001), Sustainable development: Is it achievable within the existing international political
context?, Sustainable Development, 9, pp 61–73
Goodman, D. and Redclift, M. (1991), Environment and Development in Latin America: the Politics of
Sustainability, Manchester University Press, Manchester
Pepper, D. (1999), Ecological modernisation as the “ideal model” of sustainable development?,
Questions prompted at Europe’s periphery’, Environmental Politics, 8(4), pp. 1–3
Reid, D. (1995), Sustainable development: an introductory guide, Earthscan, London
Shiva, V. (1991), Ecology and the Politics of Survival, United Nations University Press-Sage, London
Vlachou, A. (2004), Capitalism and ecological sustainability: the shaping of environmental policies,
Review of International Political Economy, 11 (5), pp 926-952
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford Press,
Oxford accessed at http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/handle/123456789/18365