IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envval/v22y2013i1p59-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sovereign Citizens and Constrained Consumers: Why Sustainability Requires Limits on Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Susanne Menzel
  • Tom L. Green

Abstract

There is resistance to policies that would reduce overall consumption levels to promote sustainability. In part, this resistance is aided by the economic concept of consumer sovereignty (CS) and its presumption that choice promotes wellbeing. We investigate the concept of consumer sovereignty in the context of deepening concerns about sustainability and scrutinise whether the two concepts are compatible. We draw on new findings in psychology on human decision-making traits; we take into account increasing awareness about human dependencies on ‘functioning’ ecosystems and uncertainties on how ecosystems, human activities and human wellbeing are interlinked. We conclude that commitment to the concept of consumer sovereignty is incompatible with sustainability due to human characteristics, the difficult-to-predict behaviour of ecological systems and ignorance about the impact of human action on natural systems. We propose that the choice-set of available goods and services on markets should be constrained when consumption patterns can be linked to degradation of services provided by nature when those services are seen as crucial for human wellbeing. We advocate constraining the available choice-set through established governmental institutions aided by deliberative processes that engage members of the general public. Finally, we acknowledge that such processes are imperfect; nevertheless, we foresee that they will be essential for fostering wise decision-making and moving towards sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Susanne Menzel & Tom L. Green, 2013. "Sovereign Citizens and Constrained Consumers: Why Sustainability Requires Limits on Choice," Environmental Values, , vol. 22(1), pages 59-79, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envval:v:22:y:2013:i:1:p:59-79
    DOI: 10.3197/096327113X13528328798273
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3197/096327113X13528328798273
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3197/096327113X13528328798273?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Kenneth Galbraith, 2007. "Change and the Planning System, from The New Industrial State," Introductory Chapters, in: The New Industrial State, Princeton University Press.
    2. Bromley, Daniel W., 2007. "Environmental regulations and the problem of sustainability: Moving beyond "market failure"," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 676-683, September.
    3. Marko Ahteensuu & Helena Siipi, 2009. "A Critical Assessment of Public Consultations on GMOs in the European Union," Environmental Values, , vol. 18(2), pages 129-152, May.
    4. Knut Veisten & Ståle Navrud, 2006. "Contingent valuation and actual payment for voluntarily provided passive-use values: Assessing the effect of an induced truth-telling mechanism and elicitation formats," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(7), pages 735-756.
    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. Michael Howes & Liana Wortley & Ruth Potts & Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes & Silvia Serrao-Neumann & Julie Davidson & Timothy Smith & Patrick Nunn, 2017. "Environmental Sustainability: A Case of Policy Implementation Failure?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    3. Alexander Antony Dunlap, 2015. "The Expanding Techniques of Progress: Agricultural Biotechnology and UN-REDD+," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(1), pages 89-112, March.
    4. Stenger, Anne & Harou, Patrice & Navrud, Ståle, 2009. "Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 1-14, January.
    5. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    6. Aline Chiabai & Ibon Galarraga & Anil Markandya & Unai Pascual, 2013. "The Equivalency Principle for Discounting the Value of Natural Assets: An Application to an Investment Project in the Basque Coast," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(4), pages 535-550, December.
    7. John M. Gowdy, 2013. "Valuing nature for climate change policy: from discounting the future to truly social deliberation," Chapters, in: Roger Fouquet (ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 25, pages 547-560, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Olivier Chanel & Khaled Makhloufi & Mohammad Abu-Zaineh, 2017. "Can a Circular Payment Card Format Effectively Elicit Preferences? Evidence From a Survey on a Mandatory Health Insurance Scheme in Tunisia," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 385-398, June.
    9. Francesco Gangi & Jérôme Méric & Rémi Jardat & Lucia Michela Daniele, 2019. "Business for society," Post-Print hal-02382307, HAL.
    10. Gowdy, John & Rosser, J. Barkley & Roy, Loraine, 2013. "The evolution of hyperbolic discounting: Implications for truly social valuation of the future," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(S), pages 94-104.
    11. Géraldine THIRY & Philippe ROMAN, 2015. "L’indice de richesse inclusive : l’économie Mainstream au-delà de ses limites, mais en deçà de la soutenabilité ?," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2015001, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    12. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "How reliable are meta-analyses for international benefit transfers?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 425-435, June.
    13. Pellegrini Lorenzo & Luca Tasciotti, 2019. "Corruption: Public and Private," Working Papers 220, Department of Economics, SOAS University of London, UK.
    14. Vladimir Komarov, 2012. "Main Principles of Innovation Theory," Published Papers 173, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, revised 2013.
    15. Gerardo Marletto, 2012. "Which Conceptual Foundations For Environmental Policies? An Institutional And Evolutionary Framework Of Economic Change," Working Papers 0112, CREI Università degli Studi Roma Tre, revised 2012.
    16. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    17. Marie Dervillé & Andrea Fink-Kessler & Aurelie Trouvé & Ikram Abdouttalib & Jean-Pierre del Corso & Charilaos Kephaliacos & Caetano Luiz Beber & Geneviève N'Guyen, 2018. "Comment peut se construire la compétitivité des exploitations laitières aujourd’hui ?," Working Papers hal-02329036, HAL.
    18. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    19. Manner, Mikko & Gowdy, John, 2010. "The evolution of social and moral behavior: Evolutionary insights for public policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 753-761, February.
    20. Andrew Johnston, 2012. "Governing Externalities: The Potential of Reflexive Corporate Social Responsibility," Working Papers wp436, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.

    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:sae:envval:v:22:y:2013:i:1:p:59-79. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.