IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i13p5326-d1420321.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a General Theory of Sustainable Development: Using a Sustainability Window Approach to Explore All Possible Scenario Paths of Economic Growth and Degrowth

Author

Listed:
  • Jyrki Luukkanen

    (Finland Futures Research Centre, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland)

  • Jarmo Vehmas

    (Finland Futures Research Centre, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland)

  • Jari Kaivo-oja

    (Finland Futures Research Centre, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland)

  • Tadhg O’Mahony

    (Finland Futures Research Centre, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland
    School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, D04 V1W8 Dublin, Ireland)

Abstract

Across decades of contemporary discussion on sustainable development, a core concern has been the balance between economic, social, and environmental dimensions. A critical strand of the debate focuses on economic growth versus economic degrowth and, more specifically, on whether economic growth can be sustainable in environmental terms and whether degrowth can be sustainable in social terms. This conceptual and theoretical article used the Sustainability Window , or “ SuWi ”’ method, to theoretically determine the sustainable window of economies. The window is defined as the upper and lower bounds of future change in GDP that could be deemed in line with achieving both environmental and social sustainability. The conceptual analysis considers all theoretically possible scenario paths for development by combining the outcome paths of economic, environmental, and social dimensions with the environmental and social productivities of GDP. Through SuWi analysis, it is found that only four of the logically possible scenario paths could be considered theoretically “sustainable”—two cases involving economic growth and two of degrowth. In the cases of each of the four paths, sustainability only emerges where they adhere to strict conditions in terms of environmental and social outcomes, as well as related productivities. The SuWi approach and its applied analytical formulas have many potential uses in 21st-century policymaking for sustainability, including supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. It provides a unique and comprehensive theoretical and analytical framework that enables the categorisation of the complex challenges of sustainability and quantitative analysis of policy choices. Such foresight analysis could greatly assist in providing an evidence base for future development planning and policy formulation, ex ante of locking in a pathway. Further implementation in applied studies that explore a comprehensive indicator set, robust and consistent across all relevant dimensions, offers a promising opportunity to advance empirical analysis of key questions in sustainable development globally at a critical juncture in human history.

Suggested Citation

  • Jyrki Luukkanen & Jarmo Vehmas & Jari Kaivo-oja & Tadhg O’Mahony, 2024. "Towards a General Theory of Sustainable Development: Using a Sustainability Window Approach to Explore All Possible Scenario Paths of Economic Growth and Degrowth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-31, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:13:p:5326-:d:1420321
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/13/5326/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/13/5326/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Desai, Meghnad, 1994. "The Measurement Problem in Economics," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 41(1), pages 34-42, February.
    2. Fariborz Zelli & Harro van Asselt, 2013. "Introduction: The Institutional Fragmentation of Global Environmental Governance: Causes, Consequences, and Responses," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, August.
    3. Marc Fleurbaey, 2009. "Beyond GDP: The Quest for a Measure of Social Welfare," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1029-1075, December.
    4. Daly, Herman E., 1997. "Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 261-266, September.
    5. Trainer, Ted, 2020. "De-growth: Some suggestions from the Simpler Way perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    6. Robert M. Solow, 1973. "Is the End of the World at Hand?," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 39-50, March.
    7. Hueting, Roefie, 1990. "The Brundtland report : A matter of conflicting goals," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 109-117, June.
    8. Joseph Stiglitz, 1974. "Growth with Exhaustible Natural Resources: Efficient and Optimal Growth Paths," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(5), pages 123-137.
    9. A. Markandya, 1998. "The conditions for achieving environmentally sustainable development," Chapters, in: The Economics of Environment and Development, chapter 3, pages 43-53, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. C'esar A. Hidalgo, 2022. "The Policy Implications of Economic Complexity," Papers 2205.02164, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    11. Michael J. Boskin, 2000. "Economic Measurement: Progress and Challenges," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 247-252, May.
    12. Krausmann, Fridolin & Gingrich, Simone & Eisenmenger, Nina & Erb, Karl-Heinz & Haberl, Helmut & Fischer-Kowalski, Marina, 2009. "Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2696-2705, August.
    13. Daly, Herman E., 1990. "Toward some operational principles of sustainable development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-6, April.
    14. Max-Neef, Manfred, 1995. "Economic growth and quality of life: a threshold hypothesis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 115-118, November.
    15. Arrow, Kenneth & Bolin, Bert & Costanza, Robert & Dasgupta, Partha & Folke, Carl & Holling, C.S. & Jansson, Bengt-Owe & Levin, Simon & Mäler, Karl-Göran & Perrings, Charles & Pimentel, David, 1996. "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 104-110, February.
    16. Peter ven de Ven & Anne Harrison & Barbara Fraumeni & Dale W. Jorgenson & Paul Schreyer, 2017. "Measuring Individual Economic Well-Being and Social Welfare within the Framework of the System of National Accounts," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 63, pages 460-477, December.
    17. Tom Waas & Jean Huge & Thomas BLOCK & Tarah Wright & Francisco Javier Benitez Capistros & Aviel Verbruggen, 2014. "Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/189410, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    18. Costanza, Robert, 1995. "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 89-90, November.
    19. Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), 2005. "Handbook of Economic Growth," Handbook of Economic Growth, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    20. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, 1986. "The Entropy Law and the Economic Process in Retrospect," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 3-25, Jan-Mar.
    21. Hidalgo, César A., 2023. "The policy implications of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    22. Cleveland, Cutler J. & Ruth, Matthias, 1997. "When, where, and by how much do biophysical limits constrain the economic process?: A survey of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's contribution to ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 203-223, September.
    23. Jens Heidingsfelder & Markus Beckmann, 2020. "A governance puzzle to be solved? A systematic literature review of fragmented sustainability governance," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 355-390, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Quentin Couix, 2019. "Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 1341-1378, November.
    2. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    3. Mircea Saveanu, 2014. "Sustainability as a Resource Distribution Constraint," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 10(2), pages 139-151, April.
    4. V. K. Shrotryia & Shashank Vikram Pratap Singh, 2020. "Measuring Progress Beyond GDP: A Theoretical Perspective," Emerging Economy Studies, International Management Institute, vol. 6(2), pages 143-165, November.
    5. Gonçalves, Jorge & Costa, Manuel Luís, 2022. "The political influence of ecological economics in the European Union applied to the cap-and-trade policy11This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commerc," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    6. Rothman, Dale S., 1998. "Environmental Kuznets curves--real progress or passing the buck?: A case for consumption-based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-194, May.
    7. Richard T. Carson, 2010. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Seeking Empirical Regularity and Theoretical Structure," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 3-23, Winter.
    8. David I. Stern, 2017. "The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 7-28, April.
    9. Toman, Michael, 1998. "Sustainable Decisionmaking: The State of the Art from an Economics Perspective," RFF Working Paper Series dp-98-39, Resources for the Future.
    10. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias, 2004. "Sustainable Value Added--measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 173-187, February.
    11. Stern, David I., 2014. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Primer," Working Papers 249424, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    12. Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Globalisation and sustainability: environmental Kuznets curve and the WTO," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 185-196, November.
    13. Iñigo Capellán-Pérez & David Álvarez-Antelo & Luis J. Miguel, 2019. "Global Sustainability Crossroads : A Participatory Simulation Game to Educate in the Energy and Sustainability Challenges of the 21st Century," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-23, July.
    14. Ayres, Robert U. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2005. "A theory of economic growth with material/energy resources and dematerialization: Interaction of three growth mechanisms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 96-118, October.
    15. Ricker, Martin, 1997. "Limits to economic growth as shown by a computable general equilibrium model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 141-158, May.
    16. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    17. Hukkinen, Janne, 2001. "Eco-efficiency as abandonment of nature," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 311-315, September.
    18. Halkos, George & Paizanos, Epameinondas, 2015. "Environmental Macroeconomics: A critical literature review and future empirical research directions," MPRA Paper 67432, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Quentin Couix, 2018. "The role of natural resources in production: Georgescu-Roegen/ Daly versus Solow/ Stiglitz," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01702401, HAL.
    20. Lux, Kenneth, 2003. "The failure of the profit motive," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 1-9, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:13:p:5326-:d:1420321. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.