- •Strong and weak sustainability
- •Making sustainability operational
- •Sustainability in the real-world economies.
- •Economic growth and sustainability.
- •Equity within and between generations.
- •Environmental accounting and green budgets.
- •Market limitation.
- •Economic instruments for environmental protection.
- •Conclusive remarks.
Economic growth and sustainability.
The article deals with problems which for many years to come will excite people in central and eastern Europe more than any other political or environmental issue.
Economic growth is a major concern for the states in transition from centrally planned to market economy in central and eastern Europe. However environmental protection needs to go hand in hand with economic growth if the development is to be sustainable.
For most economists (as well as for a public at large) 'sustainability' (see folia 3) typically refers to a much shorter time horizon than implied by the definition adopted in the Brundtland report. A process such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP)4 growth would be considered sustainable by many, if it could be sustained for a generation, that is, two or three decades.
GDP is an aggregate measure of final goods and services produced by an economy in a given year.
In fact, by the very nature of constant-rate growth of throughput, this process cannot last forever because sooner or later it would hit a constraint of physical availability of resources and environmental capacity. So such a process may contradict the definition given in section 1.
'Sustainable growth in GDP' or a 'sustainable macroeconomic stabilization' is useful as they reflect actual concerns of millions of citizens in economies in transition. They are aware of a drastic welfare gap that separates them from developed market economies. For example, measured in nominal GDP per capita, the gap is illustrated by the Swedish GDP of $17800 versus the Polish one of $1900 (see tables_8_figures). Even when substantial differences in the purchasing-power of national currencies in various countries are taken into account, the gap remains and it is measured by the ratio of almost 4:1. It puts extra pressures on governments to compromise longer-term objectives by surrendering to the demands of those who are frustrated by the difference in living standards. Therefore the gap contradicts both strong and weak sustainability.
Equity within and between generations.
Intergenerational equity is an important issue in economies which like Poland and Sweden. Whereas in Sweden it is the younger generation that is worse off than the older one, in Poland it is the other way round, since the young generation does and will benefit from the transition more than their parents. In either case the state will have to provide for some intergenerational wealth transfers in order to ease social tensions.
The main idea is to let representatives of various generations meet at a hypothetical convention to agree on an intergenerational distribution of wealth. The key element of the idea is that the representatives do not know which generation they belong to, that is, they act behind the veil of ignorance (see folia 3). But practical arrangement for parties to act impartially can ever be set up. It is just a theoretical concept since actual decision makers can never dissociate from their personalities.
There are some circumstances where an agreement may in fact be negotiated from behind the veil of ignorance. An example of such a case is to draft and approve a convention on preventing climate change before parties know with some certainty who will lose more and who less from climate deterioration. As a rule, however, parties are aware of their positions and particular interests, so that sustainability instruments are rather unlikely to be implemented on an efficient scale.
One of the key problems in intergenerational equity is how to measure the wealth to be inherited by one generation from another (see folia 4). In the theorem just mentioned above, it is assumed that decision-makers know the mathematical relationship between possible consumption patterns in one period versus another period. To be more precise, consumption in period 1 cannot be increased but, by decreasing consumption in period 2 and vice versa, there is a concave monotonic function which characterizes this relationship. In order to model such a link, one needs to estimate numerically how increased present consumption subtracts from the wealth that future consumption depends on.
