Markets and capitalist incentives have great strengths in promoting economic efficiency, growth and innovation; and, as Ben Friedman of Harvard University argued persuasively in his 2006 book The Moral Consequences of Growth, economic growth is good for open and democratic societies. However, markets and capitalist incentives have clear weaknesses in ensuring stability, equity and sustainability, which can adversely affect political and social cohesion.
Obviously, abandoning market-capitalist systems, and implicitly growth, is not really an option. Collectively, we have little choice but to try to adapt the system to changing technological and global conditions in order to achieve stability, equity (in terms of opportunity and outcomes alike) and sustainability. Of these three imperatives, sustainability may be the most complex and challenging.
For many people, sustainability is associated with finite natural resources and the environment. The global economy will probably triple in size in the next quarter-century, largely owing to growth in developing countries as they catch up to developed-country incomes and adopt similar consumption patterns. Thus, there is a well-founded fear that the planet’s natural resources (broadly defined) and recuperative capacities will not withstand the pressure.
To some, this logic leads to the conclusion that growth is the problem, and that less growth is the solution. However, in developing countries, where only sustained growth can lift people out of poverty, limiting it cannot be the answer. The alternative is to change the growth model in order to lighten the impact of higher levels of economic activity on natural resources and the environment.
However, there is no existing alternative to which we can all switch. Changing the growth model means inventing a new one over time, step-by-step, from complementary parts. The two key ingredients seem to be education and values. Everyone, not just policymakers, needs to understand the consequences of our individual and collective choices. We need to be aware for example, that population growth and rising consumption levels have intergenerational consequences, and that how we conduct ourselves will affect the lifestyles and opportunities of our children and grandchildren.
Thus far, the quality of our choices has been unimpressive, reflecting little sensitivity to sustainability and the impact of our choices on future generations. As a result, many developed countries have built up dangerously large public debts and even larger non-debt liabilities, owing to unsustainable growth patterns.
Most of us, I believe, do not knowingly make choices that adversely affect future generations. So perhaps incomplete knowledge of the consequences of our choices is responsible. Moreover, an unfunded liability path, once taken, is hard to leave, because at the point of departure, some generation is paying for past commitments and at least beginning to fund future ones. That seems unfair, because it is.
Most people might agree that living beyond our means in the aggregate, via unfunded social services and insurance, or disproportionate use of resources, imposes a burden on our offspring. However, we might still fail to reach agreement on who should pay for funding these programs, or for reducing our consumption of resources. Too often, it is easier to deal with the distributional problem by shifting the burden to those who are not present and who are insufficiently represented by those who are.
Education and values are the foundation of sound individual and, ultimately, collective choices. Without them, the incentives and policies that economists rightly argue are needed to increase energy efficiency, limit carbon emissions, economize on water usage and much more will lack support and fail in the democratic decision-making process.
If sustainability is to triumph, it must be predominantly a bottom-up process. Environmentalists are right to focus on education and individual choices, even when their policy proposals are not always on target. Education and values will drive local innovation, alter lifestyles and shift social norms. They will also affect business behavior via choices by customers and employees, including business leaders. Thus, they are essential components of the formulas needed to pursue sustainable patterns of growth.
But, while education and values are necessary, they clearly are not sufficient. Complementary national policies and international agreements will require careful scientific and economic analysis and thoughtful choices. The need for burden-sharing, particularly between advanced and developing countries, will not magically disappear. Climate-change risks, though serious, should not be mistaken for the entire sustainability agenda.
There are clear steps that can be taken. Appropriate regulation and sufficiently long time horizons can make structures of all kinds much more energy-efficient, without imposing burdensome costs. In a similar way, transportation can become less energy-intensive without restricting mobility. Some of these shifts might be subject to international coordination, in order to avoid adverse competitive consequences, whether real or perceived.
However, too much coordination can be a bad thing. That is why climate-change negotiations are shifting from the misguided objective of seeking risky 50-year commitments to binding carbon-emissions targets to focusing on parallel, step-by-step processes, including higher energy efficiency, better urban planning, improved transportation systems and on learning as we go. Likewise, businesses and industries that are heavy water users will simply develop new technologies and thrive in the face of scarcity.
Progress has been helped by growing awareness in populous Asia — and in developing countries generally — that sustainability is the key to achieving their longer-term growth objectives. This perspective perhaps comes more naturally in an environment of rapid growth, because their growth models require continual review and adaptation to be sustainable.
Over time, values shift as knowledge is acquired and disseminated. Policies aimed at sustainability are likely to follow. What is unknown is whether we will reach that point fast enough to avoid major disruptions, or even potential conflict.
Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics, is professor of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business and a distinguished visiting fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
There appears to be a growing view among leaders and leading thinkers in Taiwan that their words and actions have no influence over how China approaches cross-Strait relations. According to this logic, China’s actions toward Taiwan are guided by China’s unwavering ambition to assert control over Taiwan. Many also believe Beijing’s approach is influenced by China’s domestic politics. As the thinking goes, former President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) made a good faith effort to demonstrate her moderation on cross-Strait issues throughout her tenure. During her 2016 inaugural address, Tsai sent several constructive signals, including by acknowledging the historical fact of interactions and
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
HSBC Holdings successfully fought off a breakup campaign by disgruntled Asian investors in recent years. Now, it has announced a restructuring along almost the same east-west lines. The obvious question is why? It says it is designed to create a simpler, more efficient and dynamic company. However, it looks a lot like the bank is also facing up to the political reality of the growing schism between the US and China. A new structure would not dissolve HSBC’s geopolitical challenges, but it could give the bank better options to respond quickly if things worsen. HSBC spent 2022 battling to convince shareholders of
RSS