Development and economy – From myth into reality

10 Feb 2010

Most people use two words, development and growth of the economy, synonymously. Others give a wider definition for development, incorporating it with social values, social status (health, education, technology and literature etc.) and political structure. So under normal circumstances development means growth in any aspect of the economic or social spheres.

Nowadays people are questioning the validity of the measuring rod used for determining growth since using different parameters gives an entirely different picture of the status of growth in a country. Sticking to the oft used measuring rod can give a false sense of prosperity for some countries at the cost of others. Here we tried to evolve a new definition for development. We redefine development on a comprehensive world view value system or paradigm in relation to the environment.

In its simplest form “paradigm” means a world view or sort of an all-pervading structure which is based on fundamentals, values, hypotheses or episteme. So according to this meaning there can be many models within the same paradigm (for example, the Newtonian paradigm of physics contains both particle and wave models which are quite distinct from each other).

If we look at the history of humankind we could recognize at least three types of development paradigms.

1. Primeval Development
In this paradigm the relationship between humankind and the environment was in dynamic equilibrium, without disturbing the ecosystem locally or globally. The people worshiped environmental phenomena as Gods. Humankind based on that culture formed an integral part of the environment.

2. Coexistent Development
In this paradigm the relationship between humankind and the environment affected the dynamic equilibrium of the eco system locally but maintained it globally. That was done consciously. Even urban development did not cause serious damage to the environment. Sustainable cities were built. Diverse social systems based on economic, technological and cultural models existed.

3. Predatory Development
This development paradigm bloomed in Western Europe and later spread to the whole world. It changed the dynamic equilibrium of the ecosystems locally, regionally and, more importantly, globally. This development is totally based on fossil fuels and in the belief that human knowledge and technological innovation would solve any problem or crisis that arises (technological optimism), so that human kind would be able to achieve infinite growth. Within this paradigm there existed a few social models. The capitalist model based on private property and the communist model based on state owned property were the two most competitive models. After 1989, the market based private property system dominated the world but, to an extent, state intervention too played an important role (China, Russia, Singapore).

Now we are living in the predatory development paradigm. But it was also hailed as a modern development paradigm because it incorporated modernization – the scientific outlook, rapid industrial growth, market based competition, democratically elected governance systems, etc. There are various social models dependent on nationality, religion, ideology, etc. But it is now accepted that the mainstream social model is based on market phenomena. There are debates on the extent to which the state should intervene. Now, due to the economic recession, the state becomes more and more involved in prioritizing and managing market trends.

The question is: would it be possible to sustain this development model? In 1968, the Club of Rome clearly identified two limiting factors – scarcity of resources and pollution due to growth-oriented development, and they predicted that due to these limits humankind will be compelled to abandon its growth-oriented development and associated life patterns by 2050. That means this development paradigm is not sustainable.

As far as the global environment is concerned, all the abiotic resources – land, minerals, fuels, water and atmospheric gases are limited in nature, and excessive use of these resources causes scarcity. In addition, pollution of waterways, erosion of the soil, and pollution of the atmosphere further restrict the use of these resources. Hence, scarcity of resources coupled with pollution causes serious environmental destruction.

In the present-day humankind’s ecological foot print – that is the resource base needed to sustain the demand – is about 2.23 global ha per person annually, whereas the bio capacity – that is the actual capacity of the earth to supply resources – is 1.78 global ha per person annually. That means we are running at an ecological debit of 0.45 ha per capita, or we consume resources at a rate that is 25% more than the rate at which they are being replenished. From 1976 that deficit has been widening. Like what led to the global credit crunch, we have limited time to address the issues, and postponing corrective measures may lead to an ecological credit crunch on a global scale.

Related posts
- Global recession - Blessing in disguise? - Part 1
- Global recession - Blessing in disguise? - Part 2

References
- This article is excerpt from chapter 2 of "Towards a green era" by Patali Champika Ranawaka