The Water Cooler
A refreshing gulp of reports and ramblings from policy-central.
Will 2008 mark the beginning of a "no growth" world economy?
With the ever-worsening state of the American dollar, ageing
populations in much of the developed world and the climate crisis
looming, economists have been widely predicting recession for
2008. Some have taken these issues a step further to predict an
immanent shift to a "no growth" economy. Even more surprising, the
pundits of "no growth" argue such a change could be a good thing,
moving the world onto a more sustainable course.
In an editorial in The Globe and Mail, Doug Saunders weighs the world's fears of increasing unemployment, poverty and reduced social mobility against the notion that 2008 could see the world's resource-depleting consumption patterns moderated to a more acceptable level.
Apparently the idea that humanity could continue to prosper in the absence of economic and population growth has been around for awhile. It was 31 years ago, five years after the Club of Rome published "The Limits to Growth", that the economist Herman Daly developed what he called "steady-state economics." Daly argued that instead of just looking at the income generated by resource depletion, we should consider the long term deficits produced by such activities.
Ironically, 3 decades later, the notion that we should put a price tag on emissions -- through the Kyoto protocol -- is finally getting the attention it deserves.
But while an economic chill-out has obvious positive implications for the environment, what about the plight of humanity?
The plight of the world's poorest has improved significantly in the past two decades, and population growth is predicted to turn around in the next 50 years -- but there are still a heck of a lot of people living in misery. What happens to them if economies stop growing? Does the amelioration of their lives depend on a growing economy?
One could argue that the rich countries of the world have a duty to transfer some of that wealth to those whose concerns are more crucial to their existence than a nice new mobile phone or pair of Levi jeans. But what happens to that wealth when the populations of rich countries continue to retire en-masse, to depend on pensions, healthcare and other revenue-consuming benefits while not contributing through income tax?
It seems the no-growth crowd has yet to consider the full implications of their theory. I'm certainly not satisfied by it, but I imagine only time will tell. In the meantime I'll be saving my Euros.
In an editorial in The Globe and Mail, Doug Saunders weighs the world's fears of increasing unemployment, poverty and reduced social mobility against the notion that 2008 could see the world's resource-depleting consumption patterns moderated to a more acceptable level.
Apparently the idea that humanity could continue to prosper in the absence of economic and population growth has been around for awhile. It was 31 years ago, five years after the Club of Rome published "The Limits to Growth", that the economist Herman Daly developed what he called "steady-state economics." Daly argued that instead of just looking at the income generated by resource depletion, we should consider the long term deficits produced by such activities.
Ironically, 3 decades later, the notion that we should put a price tag on emissions -- through the Kyoto protocol -- is finally getting the attention it deserves.
But while an economic chill-out has obvious positive implications for the environment, what about the plight of humanity?
The plight of the world's poorest has improved significantly in the past two decades, and population growth is predicted to turn around in the next 50 years -- but there are still a heck of a lot of people living in misery. What happens to them if economies stop growing? Does the amelioration of their lives depend on a growing economy?
One could argue that the rich countries of the world have a duty to transfer some of that wealth to those whose concerns are more crucial to their existence than a nice new mobile phone or pair of Levi jeans. But what happens to that wealth when the populations of rich countries continue to retire en-masse, to depend on pensions, healthcare and other revenue-consuming benefits while not contributing through income tax?
It seems the no-growth crowd has yet to consider the full implications of their theory. I'm certainly not satisfied by it, but I imagine only time will tell. In the meantime I'll be saving my Euros.
0 Comments