Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Hickel Paradigm

    Uploaded by

    Gian Lazaro
    1) The document argues that the current approach to development through economic growth is unsustainable and has failed to reduce poverty, as the global economy has greatly expanded while poverty has increased. 2) It proposes that instead of pushing poorer countries to "catch up" to wealthier ones through growth, countries should strive to "catch down" consumption levels to stay within planetary boundaries, as overconsumption in rich countries is largely responsible for the global environmental crisis. 3) Low- and middle-income countries like Cuba and Costa Rica have achieved high life expectancies and well-being at a fraction of the income and consumption levels of wealthy nations, suggesting an alternative model of "appropriate development" rather

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hickel Paradigm

    Uploaded by

    Gian Lazaro
    34 views2 pages
    1) The document argues that the current approach to development through economic growth is unsustainable and has failed to reduce poverty, as the global economy has greatly expanded while poverty has increased. 2) It proposes that instead of pushing poorer countries to "catch up" to wealthier ones through growth, countries should strive to "catch down" consumption levels to stay within planetary boundaries, as overconsumption in rich countries is largely responsible for the global environmental crisis. 3) Low- and middle-income countries like Cuba and Costa Rica have achieved high life expectancies and well-being at a fraction of the income and consumption levels of wealthy nations, suggesting an alternative model of "appropriate development" rather

    Original Description:

    tfgf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The document argues that the current approach to development through economic growth is unsustainable and has failed to reduce poverty, as the global economy has greatly expanded while poverty has increased. 2) It proposes that instead of pushing poorer countries to "catch up" to wealthier ones through growth, countries should strive to "catch down" consumption levels to stay within planetary boundaries, as overconsumption in rich countries is largely responsible for the global environmental crisis. 3) Low- and middle-income countries like Cuba and Costa Rica have achieved high life expectancies and well-being at a fraction of the income and consumption levels of wealthy nations, suggesting an alternative model of "appropriate development" rather

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    34 views2 pages

    Hickel Paradigm

    Uploaded by

    Gian Lazaro
    1) The document argues that the current approach to development through economic growth is unsustainable and has failed to reduce poverty, as the global economy has greatly expanded while poverty has increased. 2) It proposes that instead of pushing poorer countries to "catch up" to wealthier ones through growth, countries should strive to "catch down" consumption levels to stay within planetary boundaries, as overconsumption in rich countries is largely responsible for the global environmental crisis. 3) Low- and middle-income countries like Cuba and Costa Rica have achieved high life expectancies and well-being at a fraction of the income and consumption levels of wealthy nations, suggesting an alternative model of "appropriate development" rather

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Hickel's Paradigm

    This week, heads of state are gathering in New York to sign the UN’s new sustainable
    development goals (SDGs). The main objective is to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncé, One
    Direction and Malala are on board. It’s set to be a monumental international celebration.
    Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about to offer a fresh plan for how to save
    the world, but beneath all the hype, it’s business as usual. The main strategy for eradicating
    poverty is the same: growth.
    Growth has been the main object of development for the past 70 years, despite the fact that it’s
    not working. Since 1980, the global economy has grown by 380%, but the number of people
    living in poverty on less than $5 (£3.20) a day has increased by more than 1.1 billion. That’s 17
    times the population of Britain. So much for the trickle-down effect.
    Orthodox economists insist that all we need is yet more growth. More progressive types tell us
    that we need to shift some of the yields of growth from the richer segments of the population to
    the poorer ones, evening things out a bit. Neither approach is adequate. Why? Because even at
    current levels of average global consumption, we’re overshooting our planet’s bio-capacity by
    more than 50% each year.
    In other words, growth isn’t an option any more – we’ve already grown too much. Scientists are
    now telling us that we’re blowing past planetary boundaries at breakneck speed. And the hard
    truth is that this global crisis is due almost entirely to overconsumption in rich countries.
    Instead of pushing poor countries to 'catch up' with rich ones, we should be getting rich countries
    to 'catch down'
    Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1.8 “global hectares”
    annually – a standardised unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is roughly what
    the average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the US and Canada
    consume about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares – many times their
    fair share.
    What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward argues that instead
    of pushing poorer countries to “catch up” with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways to get
    rich countries to “catch down” to more appropriate levels of development. We should look at
    societies where people live long and happy lives at relatively low levels of income and
    consumption not as basket cases that need to be developed towards western models, but as
    exemplars of efficient living.
    'Those sitting on wealth and power aren't going to stand aside and do the right thing'
    How much do we really need to live long and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is 79 years
    and GDP per capita is $53,000. But many countries have achieved similar life expectancy with a
    mere fraction of this income. Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US and one of the
    highest literacy rates in the world with GDP per capita of only $6,000 and consumption of only
    1.9 hectares – right at the threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar claims can be made of
    Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Tunisia.
    Yes, some of the excess income and consumption we see in the rich world yields improvements
    in quality of life that are not captured by life expectancy, or even literacy rates. But even if we
    look at measures of overall happiness and wellbeing in addition to life expectancy, a number of
    low- and middle-income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manages to sustain one of the highest
    happiness indicators and life expectancies in the world with a per capita income one-fourth that
    of the US.
    In light of this, perhaps we should regard such countries not as underdeveloped, but rather as
    appropriately developed. And maybe we need to start calling on rich countries to justify their
    excesses.
    70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe overconsumption is putting our
    planet and society at risk

    The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might prove to be a strong rallying cry in the global
    south, but it will be tricky to sell to westerners. Tricky, but not impossible. According to recent
    consumer research, 70% of people in middle- and high-income countries believe
    overconsumption is putting our planet and society at risk. A similar majority also believe we
    should strive to buy and own less, and that doing so would not compromise our happiness.
    People sense there is something wrong with the dominant model of economic progress and they
    are hungry for an alternative narrative.

    The problem is that the pundits promoting this kind of transition are using the wrong language.
    They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth or – worst of all – de-development, which are
    technically accurate but off-putting for anyone who’s not already on board. Such terms are
    repulsive because they run against the deepest frames we use to think about human progress,
    and, indeed, the purpose of life itself. It’s like asking people to stop moving positively thorough
    life, to stop learning, improving, growing.
    The pope v the UN: who will save the world first?
    Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere. The idea of “steady-state” economics is a step in
    the right direction and is growing in popularity, but it still doesn’t get the framing right. We need
    to reorient ourselves toward a positive future, a truer form of progress. One that is geared toward
    quality instead of quantity. One that is more sophisticated than just accumulating ever increasing
    amounts of stuff, which doesn’t make anyone happier anyway. What is certain is that GDP as a
    measure is not going to get us there and we need to get rid of it.
    Perhaps we might take a cue from Latin Americans, who are organising alternative visions
    around the indigenous concept of buen vivir, or good living. The west has its own tradition of
    reflection on the good life and it’s time we revive it. Robert and Edward Skidelsky take us down
    this road in his book How Much is Enough? where they lay out the possibility of interventions
    such as banning advertising, a shorter working week and a basic income, all of which would
    improve our lives while reducing consumption.
    Either we slow down voluntarily or climate change will do it for us. We can’t go on ignoring the
    laws of nature. But rethinking our theory of progress is not only an ecological imperative, it is
    also a development one. If we do not act soon, all our hard-won gains against poverty will
    evaporate, as food systems collapse and mass famine re-emerges to an extent not seen since the
    19th century.
    This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery
    or imposing harsh limits on human potential. On the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level
    of understanding and consciousness about what we’re doing here and why.

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-
    network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich-countries-sdgs

    You might also like