Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Monday, May 28, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT:
Kayjatta
The environment and development are recurring issues of conflict among environmental scientists and economists. The goals of economic development/economic growth often conflict with the goals of environmental protection and sustainability. As a result, a large a body of literature has developed by academia over the years with regards to this discourse about the economic, social, political, philosophical, cultural and physical environmental implications of the impact of economic development/economic growth on the environment.
This paper discusses this topic from the perspectives of the following articles and scholars:
1. ‘Uneven and Combined Development…’ by James O’Connor.
2. ‘Third World Critique of Western Environmentalism, by Ramachandra Guha.
3. ‘The Tragedy of Commons’ by Garret Hardin
4. ‘Poverty Breeds Over-Population’ , by Barry Commoner
5. GDP as a measure of economic development and societal well-being.
In ‘Uneven and Combined Development….’, O’Connor explores the impact of modern capitalism on the stability of the natural and social environment. He argues that economic development as a result of industrialization has been achieved at great costs to environmental and cultural stability. But economic development itself has been examined in two contrasting senses. Firstly, economic development is described as “uneven” in the sense that there is uneven spatial distribution of production, consumption, wealth, labor relations and political configurations (O’Connor, 1989). This uneven development has resulted in the dichotomy between country and town, developed and under-developed countries, and generally exacerbated global poverty and inequality. Secondly, economic development is described as “combined” in the sense that industrial capitalism, in its effort to maximize profits combines the most profitable features of development and underdevelopment.
O’Connor argues that the worst environmental disasters disproportionately affect the poor and the marginalized (1989). He cited examples of pesticide poisoning in India and Mexico both in 1984, the earth quake in Mexico City in 1985, the volcanic eruption in Colombia, and the flooding in Mississippi.
O’Connor also explores the spatial origin (source) of pollution and its impact as it relates to “uneven’ and “combined” development approaches. He argues that because of “uneven development” where industry and population are concentrated in (pockets) of urban centers, the earth’s assimilative capacity is disturbed and pollution and resource depletion results. In a similar way, agriculture (monoculture) and resource extraction being concentrated in the rural (countryside) or underdeveloped areas, the assimilative capacity is disturbed in these areas and the soil resources are depleted as well. He cites examples from Brazil and the Sahel in Africa where monoculture and deforestation (introduced by colonialism) ruined the soil resources so much that recovery from the resulting poverty is still impossible. In “combined development’, O’Connor recognizes the social and economic forms that maximizes profits in a global economy. The movement of people from resource-deprived poor regions (countryside and underdeveloped nations) into industrial towns and developed nations; and outsourcing of capital and technology to less regulated poverty stricken regions are all features of “combined development”. As a result, air pollution and resource depletion in these underdeveloped nations worsen. Air pollution in the cities of underdeveloped nations such as Ankara (Turkey), Bangkok (Thailand), Bombay (India), Cairo (Egypt), Caracas (Venezuela), Mexico City (Mexico), Seoul (South Korea) and Tehran (Iran) for example are much worse than many cities in developed countries; (O’Connor, 1989).
Partly as a result of these global and regional disparities brought about by the uneven and combined impact of industrial economic development, different philosophical, socio-political and academic movements have arose with regards to the relationship between humans (and human activity) and the physical environment. One such movement is called deep ecology. One of the critics of this movement is Ramachandra Guha. Guha welcomes the philosophy of deep ecology, but doubts it fits the underdeveloped nations; arguing that it uniquely fits the American culture. The sole focus on wilderness preservation can threaten economic survival in the underdeveloped nations, Van De Veer and Pierce, 2003). Guha identified four underlying aspects of deep ecology in relation to human/nature interactions, namely:
1. Deep ecologists subscribe to the idea of a biocentric world as compared to an anthropocentric world where the earth’s welfare is supreme to the interests of mankind. Guha insists that this dichotomy is irrelevant to the real environmental problems of over-consumption and militarization.
2. Deep ecologists also emphasize the preservation of wilderness and restoration of degraded areas. This, Guha argues ignores the real environmental and economic problems faced by poorer people in the underdeveloped world, and their livelihood is therefore threatened.
3. Deep ecologists also relate their conceptual roots of biocentrism to Eastern religious philosophies and primal people in non-Western cultures. Guha objects to this claim and argues that Eastern religious sources are selectively cited and lacks the environmental awareness that deep ecologists claim it has.
4. Deep ecologists consider themselves as the “leading edge” and custodians of global environmentalism.
In addition to these four tenets of deep ecology, Guha argues that there are two fundamental ecological challenges facing the world; over-consumption by the industrialized world and the urban elite in the underdeveloped nations, and militarization; and none of these has to do with the dichotomy between anthropocentric and biocentric world views that dominate the philosophical debates among environmental groups.
Lastly, Guha recommends equity as well as economic and political redistribution of production as an alternative to Western emphasis on wilderness preservation and restoration.
As indicated above, these issues of environment and development can be complex, controversial and in some cases very divisive. Another perspective that contributes to this ongoing discourse is that provided by Barry Commoner in his article “Poverty Breeds Over-Population”. Commoner is perhaps a neo-Malthusian in that he largely concurs with the Malthusian premises of population growth, although he sees the solutions as more complex. Although technological advancement and its resultant increased food production has changed the Malthusian population equilibrium, Barry Commoner blames lack of economic growth for the population explosion particularly in the underdeveloped world. Rather than viewing population control as a precursor of economic growth, Commoner views economic growth as the driver of declining birth rates; and he further argues that this has not happened in the underdeveloped world. Increased economic development results in increased higher education and opportunities especially for women, thus reducing birth rate since highly educated women tends to marry later and bear fewer children. Therefore Commoner argues that birth rate is not purely determined biologically, but also socially determined. Partly because of this, Commoner rejects the “Life-Boat Ethics” (earth as a spaceship) concept of Garrett Hardin. He (Commoner) recognizes what might be called demographic parasitism as colonialism and neo-colonialism where the Western world is able to sustain large populations at high standards of living largely be living off of the resources of the underdeveloped nations of Africa, Asia, and eastern Europe.
The connection between family size and infant mortality has been identified by Commoner. This observation is very relevant to the underdeveloped nations where infant mortality is still very high and consequently family sizes are large to ensure the survival of some of the off springs. Also in the underdeveloped world large family size ensures adequate availability of farm labor.
Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” is an argument for privatization and individual personal responsibility. It could as well serve as a hand book for today’s conservative thinkers. Hardin argues that private property owners are better suited to care for the property, as compared to common (access) property where many become free riders by taking as much as they can while contributing as little as they can to the upkeep of the common property. He argues that the air and water resources are polluted today because they are treated as common property. Hardin’s argument is similar to Ronald Coase’s theorem, however critics of both pointed out that both confused common property rights to ‘open access’ and that in much of the underdeveloped the use of commonly shared property come with social responsibility where the right to use can be lost if the property is not taken care of. Private ownership of land for example as observed in East Africa (Kenya) but also true for much of Africa has resulted in commoditization of land and smaller and smaller subdivisions causing overgrazing, deforestation and depletion of soil nutrients. The resulting environmental destruction increases poverty and inequality.
This above discourse considers some of the leading authorities on the issue of economic development and the environment. The debate is far from settled but the concepts outlined here could help development experts chart a reasonable development strategy that balances the need for economic development and the environmental sustainability.
References:
6. ‘Uneven and Combined Development…’ by James O’Connor.
7. ‘Third World Critique of Western Environmentalism, by Ramachandra Guha.
8. ‘The Tragedy of Commons’ by Garret Hardin
9. ‘Poverty Breeds Over-Population’ , by Barry Commoner
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)