Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: insights for the global environment from a cross-development analytical model

Zagonari, Fabio (2017) Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: insights for the global environment from a cross-development analytical model. Bologna: Dipartimento di Scienze economiche DSE, p. 26. DOI 10.6092/unibo/amsacta/5544. In: Quaderni - Working Paper DSE (2001). ISSN 2282-6483.
Full text available as:
[img]
Preview
Text(pdf)
License: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial

Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

This paper develops a theoretical framework to assess the feasibility of global environmental sustainability solutions based on one or more value changes. The framework represents four sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability WS, a-growth AG, de-growth DG, strong sustainability SS) and five value changes (i.e., a sense of responsibility for nature β, future generations γ, or current generations in developing countries δ; aversion to inequality for current generations ε or future generations ζ). It defines solutions in terms of consumption, environment use, and welfare for representative individuals in both developed (OECD) and developing (non-OECD) countries. Solutions are characterised by efficiency (i.e., Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks) with respect to welfare and by intra- and inter-generational equality for consumption, environment use, and welfare, by confirming internal consistency and consistency with alternative equity approaches for utilitarianism (i.e., Harsanyi), egalitarianism (i.e., Arneson for welfare; Dworkin for consumption or environment use; Sen for consumption and environment use), and contractarianism (i.e., Rawls). Theoretical and operational insights are described for alternative sustainability paradigms and equity approaches. In terms of feasibility, by considering improved technology θ, decreased population η, and modified consumption α, the ordering is γ > δ > ε > ζ and AG > SS > DG > WS: β is unfeasible. In terms of internal consistency, γ > δ = ε = ζ and SS > AG > DG: WS is internally inconsistent. In terms of consistency with an equity approach, γ > δ = ζ > ε and SS > AG > DG > WS.

Abstract
Document type
Monograph (Working Paper)
Creators
CreatorsAffiliationORCID
Zagonari, FabioUniversità di Bologna0000-0002-9872-8731
Keywords
Weak sustainability; a-growth; de-growth; strong sustainability; duty; inequality; efficiency; equity
Subjects
ISSN
2282-6483
DOI
Deposit date
20 Apr 2017 07:13
Last modified
07 Jun 2017 09:56
URI

Other metadata

Downloads

Downloads

Staff only: View the document

^