Sustainability = Social + Environmental?

I’ve already dedicated one entry to the definition of sustainability as I intend to use it. Upon meeting with my advisor, however, I realized that this definition perhaps requires further explanation. Namely, why does sustainability entail both the welfare of environmental systems as well as the welfare of creatures living within the ecosystem?

This argument really turns on the development of social capital, so I will introduce the concept first. Social capital is a neutral term for naturally occurring social networks. The concept comprises relations of trust, reciprocity, common rules, norms and sanctions, as well as connectedness in institutions. These networks are vital because, in the words of Robert Putnam, these long-term, face-to-face relationships are what “enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives” (Putnam 1995).

To what extent, then, is social capital a prerequisite for long-term improvements in the environment? It seems apparent that natural capital can be improved or protected in the short-term without any attention to social capital. Indeed, regulations and economic incentives could be used to encourage a change in behavior, or strictly protected areas could be established along with regulations regarding environmental maintenance (Pretty et al, 2000). Although these regulations may change behavior, regulation and economic incentives do not be the stuff that really changes hearts and minds in favor of environmental protection.

Jules Pretty and Hugh Ward argue that social capital, rather than regulation, is necessary for sustainable and equitable solutions to natural resource management. To prove their point, they evaluate how rural communities have dealt with the task of improving and distributing natural capital. They note that these local groups do seem to manage and preserve resources more efficiently and effectively than external agencies like governments, companies, or NGOs, although these agencies may assist the community groups by increasing their skill set or training leaders. Examples include micro-finance institutions, forest protection groups in India and Nepal, and groups designated to equalize water use in the Phillipies and Sri Lanka (Pretty and Ward 2001).

Because natural capital is a public good, the market tends to overuse and under-invest in it. Indeed, the market effectually signals that natural capital is valued at $0 until it is turned into something. Most companies operate for profit, which means it is always in their best interest to chop down that forest and turn it into products for sale. In this way, a company receives the economic benefits that come from selling a product made from a natural resource, while society at large would split the (yet unidentified) cost of losing 1 forest. Social institutions based on trust and reciprocity, as well as agreed norms and behavior can mediate this sort of unfettered private action, preserving natural capital.

__________________________

Pretty, J and Frank, B.R. (2000). Participation and social capital formation in natural resource management: achievements and lessons. Paper for the International Landcare 2000 Conference, Melbourne, Australia. 2-5 March 2009.

Pretty, J. and Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29(2). 209-227.

Putnam, R. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science and Politics.

Klein, N. (2000). No Logo. NY: Picador.