The unsustainability of development.

• Author: Holmen, Hans

Abstract

For more than a decade now, the issue of sustainable development has been, in rhetoric at least, the load-star of scholars, organisations and governments alike. As a political buzz-word, the concept has attracted legions of supporters who rather unquestioningly aim to realise 'sustainable development'. It has been taken more or less for granted that sustainable development is achievable in the north as well as in the south. There is, however, little consensus about the meaning of the concept, or even of 'sustainability', just as there is widespread disagreement about the meaning of 'development'. Moreover, if, as is sometimes argued, development must be at the same time both ecologically, economically and socially sustainable, the concept becomes really problematic. It is, for example, often claimed that economic development takes place at the expense of social and/or ecological sustainability, or vice versa.

In spite of the enormous attraction of 'sustainable development, this paper argues that sustainable development is a misnomer and that sustainable development is not achievable. The two concepts 'sustainability' and 'development' are, in my view, not compatible (depending, of course, on how they are defined). Hence, it is futile to aim for sustainable development. There is no doubt that in parts of the world development is necessary. However, in other parts of the world it would be more realistic to strive for a sustainable level of development, rather than for a sustained process of change. In the article, the sustainability complex is analysed in terms of growth vs. development and development vs. sustainability. This discussion is illuminated by empirical examples from 'developed' as well as 'underdeveloped' societies.

**********

What's in a Word?

During the past decade and a half, 'sustainable development' has become a phrase on virtually everybody's lips. Politicians, teachers, researchers and many others repeat it in a parrot-like fashion as if there was a widespread agreement on what it means. As many before me have already pointed out, there isn't. In my mind, the phrase contains a contradiction of terms and is more than likely to be misleading rather than revealing, i.e. it obscures the development process and promises too much about sustainability.

No doubt, 'sustainable development' is a perfect slogan--it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. And indeed it has. Redclift (1994: p12) thus underlines that "much sustainable development thinking ... is predicated on a social consensus that rarely exists in practice". Apart from that, Kirby et al (1999: p2) remind us that "[b]oth 'sustainable' and 'development' are rational and enlightened concepts. It is difficult to imagine that anyone, except out of perversity, could agree with the diverse". That may well be the case. In themselves the two concepts can be both rational and enlightened. However, taken together they are misleading. As will be argued below, the slogan 'sustainable development' is, in most cases, likely to lead us astray. I stress 'likely' because we are dealing with two highly contested and constantly negotiated concepts. As underlined by Brandin (1998: p290): both 'sustainable' and 'development' are "in various ways difficult to pin down". It is therefore somewhat surprising (or, perhaps, it isn't) that the combination of the two found its way into everybody's vocabulary with such ease. This is all the more so as we seem to be dealing with two incompatible entities.

It has been said that 'sustainable development' defies definition. Not only is it both "difficult to grasp analytically" (Barbier, 1987: p101), it is also "difficult to pin down in operational terms" (van Latesteijn & Schoonenboom, 1996: p225). Nevertheless we need to know what we are talking about, especially since we are told that our children's welfare depends on its realisation. In an effort to clarify the contradiction, I will first discuss the two-component concept. Thereafter the use and meaning(s) of 'sustainability' and 'development' respectively will be analysed and given reasonable contents. This will shed light on how the two halves of the slogan are or might be related and whether they can at all be combined in a meaningful way.

Sustainable development

In everyday language, 'sustainable development' is thought of as referring to a balance or harmony between society and nature. This may seem simple enough but, as we shall see, the concept has many more connotations. Moreover, 'environmental' aspects appear not to be the most problematic to deal with.

The concept 'sustainable development' was popularised in the so-called Brundtland report 'Our Common Future' (WCED) in 1987. Then it spread like a bush-fire and has by now become an almost mandatory buzz-word, no matter what is being discussed. During this process it has been propagated, questioned, interpreted and reinterpreted by innumerable users with varying and sometimes antagonistic agendas. Irrespective of purpose, everyone seems willing to kidnap 'sustainable development' and impose their own interpretation on it (this paper is no exception). No wonder that many have reached the conclusion that the concept has become severely devalued and meaningless. But it could also be argued that 'sustainable development' was so vague and imprecise already when it was launched that it was meaningless even before these efforts were made to squeeze the term into ready-made discourses. Perhaps it was just an empty slogan "whose time had come, without anyone really knowing what it meant" (Redclift, 1994: p3).

For researchers and politicians alike, it was a safe concept. If nothing else, going for 'sustainable development' defined you as one of the good guys (or dolls). Politicians love vague and positively value-laden slogans with no clear obligations attached. The novelty and timeliness of the phrase could also give the (perhaps correct) impression that scholars were busying themselves at the prestigious 'research frontier'. In both cases, the trick was to embrace 'sustainable development' first and engage in the struggle over its meaning later. Furthermore, lots of research funding accompanied the introduction of the concept. For a number of reasons then, 'sustainable development' has seldom been seriously questioned. Instead it attracts followers from both left and right and is presently advocated by those who propagate growth and/or development as well as by those who oppose it. Typically, "environmentalists and groups on the political left emphasise the 'sustainable' part ... [whereas] those to the right lay stress on the 'development' component" (Rees, 1998: p20-21). To be sure, opportunism was not the only driving force behind this over-night acceptance, but it did--and does--play a not unimportant role in its use.

The Brundtland report identified two major and related threats to mankind's earthly habitat: environmental degradation and Third World poverty. It concluded that in ecological terms the economic systems of the rich countries are "obviously not sustainable" (p10) at the same time as poverty and limited options force poor people in poor countries to resort to soil-mining, deforestation and other short-sighted survival strategies. For different reasons they both lead to overexploitation of natural resources and massive environmental destruction. This called for a rethinking of how (much) the populations in the rich countries produce and consume; how we measure economic growth and how we relate to nature. The report as well as many followers found that we must form our present and future societies within the limits set by the earth's eco-systems. As Hagerstrand (1994: p25) puts it: "the real long-term environmental task is ... to find a modus vivendi which converts us from being devastators into partners with respect to nature". The solution apparently is 'sustainable development'.

With the two emphases mentioned above, the Brundtland report defined 'sustainable development' as a development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (p57). As suggested, there are several problems related to this concept and its definition. For example, how do we define needs (rather than wants) and who's definition counts? Here, the report merely refers to "the essential needs of the poor" but that, actually, is not very revealing. Are 'essential' needs to be understood as 'basic' needs, or (how far) do they go beyond that? Moreover, if it is difficult to define present needs (which differ inter alia between regions, generations, sexes, classes, and cultures), how do we determine future needs? Above the level of 'basic needs', we know that needs change as societies develop (Maslow, 1954). How then do we avoid compromising future generations' needs, when we cannot foresee which these needs will be? In reality, "the needs of future generations must be defined as those felt by the present generation on behalf of future generations" (van Latesteijn & Schoonenboom, 1996: p226). The slogan sounds good but it might not be a solution.

The report concluded, "inequality is the world's greatest environmental problem. It is also the most important development problem" (p19). The solution to this is more economic growth, not only in poor countries, which is an obvious necessity, but everywhere. The report makes it clear that it does not propose zero-growth, not even in those parts of the world that suffer from over-consumption. Instead, it equated 'sustainable development' with "more rapid economic growth in both industrial and developing countries" (p105, emphasis added). To be sure, this proposed "global economic growth" must be kept "within ecological limits" (ibid.). There are, however, many which believe that this can't be done and that this receipt is anything but 'sustainable'. Hence, "many environmentalists hate the term...