Green Growth: Ideology, Political Economy and the Alternatives

Global Environmental Change, 2011

Green growth has become a buzz word in both policy and academic circles. A clear definition is still lacking, but most analysts would associate the term with environmentally sustainable, biodiverse, low-carbon and climate-resilient growth in human prosperity. That is, green growth is much more than just low-carbon growth of conventional GDP, although the focus often is on climate change mitigation and GDP-based measures of costs and benefits. The attraction of the green growth narrative is both strategic and analytical. From a strategic point of view, green growth allows environmental protection to be cast as a question of opportunity and reward, rather than costly restraint. Authors such as Barrett (2003, 2007) have long argued that a key barrier to reaching an international agreement on climate change is the burden-sharing focus of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol are structured around obligations, targets, penalties and costs. As such, they are not very attractive agreements to join or to defend in addressing electorates. A structure that rewards environmental behaviour, for example, by offering market opportunities for clean energy, would be much easier to agree. The green growth narrative responds to this observation and aims to reposition both the international and national debates on climate change and the environment. The analytical argument is perhaps more fundamental, and mostly relates to the economics of climate change. For years the economic debate on greenhouse gas mitigation has been about marginal abatement costs. Economists and engineers have argued at length about the merits of various cost estimates, the difference between top-down and bottom-up modelling, the existence of an energy efficiency gap and much else (see, for example, Kuik et al., 2009; Edenhofer et al., 2010, for recent discussions). But their analysis is usually divorced from broader economic and environmental concerns, such as the co-benefits of mitigation. The 'green growth' agenda abandons this narrow focus, throwing the debate wide open and bringing broader, more nuanced and richer strands of economics to bear. In doing so the emerging green growth literature can draw on many long traditions of economic thinking that encompass the work of, among others, John Maynard Keynes, Arthur Cecil Pigou, Joseph Schumpeter, and Henry George. The agenda also opens up important new research questions which policy-makers will need answered. 2. The Keynesian perspective Considering first short-term horizons-which seem to be of most importance in politics-the 'green growth' agenda reconnects

Green Growth: Managing the Transition to a Sustainable Economy, 2012

Energy Policy, 2012

c ''Green growth''-from a sectoral to an integrated view of the economy. c Green investment can increase the GDP. c ''Green growth'' is both, rapid growth of green sectors and ''de-growth'' of others. c ''Zero growth'' is no solution of the environmental problem. c Rich countries can achieve high speed of eco-innovation even with low growth rates.

Social Cohesion and Development, 2016

Sustainable development, the basic social, economic and ecological strategy of the late 20th century at the national and international level, is gradually giving its place to green growth. This change is associated with important socioeconomic adjustments. We argue that although green growth has moved away from the one-dimensional concept of economic growth, by incorporating the environmental dimension, apart from the economic one, at the same time it neglects the social aspect that constitutes the third dimension of sustainable development. Therefore, the widely proposed in recent years green growth strategy could be characterized as a major social drawback.

Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory, 2015

The intellectual debate between green political economy and neo-classical economics is one that lies partly within the framework of the academic production of knowledge, but is also a debate that goes far beyond the academy. This is also an ideological battle, only part of which occurs within the academy. Neo-classical economics supports a particular view of the economy and society, one which, with a few exceptions, is supportive of a capitalist organization of the economy, private ownership of the means of production, and production for profit; justifies an unequal distribution of income and wealth; promotes free trade, deregulation, and economic globalization; and above all is committed to promoting orthodox economic growth. By orthodox 'economic growth” is meant “undifferentiated, monetary/GDP measurements of economic growth as a permanent feature of the economy” (Barry 2012). In short, neo-classical economics supports the prevailing capitalist status quo, yet does not make this explicit, and therefore underpins actually existing unsustainability: neo-classical economics sustains the unsustainable.

2011

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

2012

The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Governments in countries across the world increasingly adopt the "green growth" discourse to underline their ambition for the greening of their economies. The central tenet of this narrative is the economic opportunities rather than challenges arising from the pursuit of environmental sustainability. Our paper synthesises insights from 113 recent scientific articles, dealing with both environmental issues and economic growth, as well as innovation. Our ambition is exploratory in attempting to take stock of heterogeneous contributions across the spectrum of social science. The articles have been reviewed with a focus on six themes, derived from current discussions in economic geography and transition studies: skills, technology, physical resources, markets, institutions and policies. Four major implications emerge from the review. First, green growth requires competences that allow for handling complex, non-routine situationsin both the private and the public sector. Second, technological progress should be directed towards greener technologies, to avoid investments funds being channelled to brown technologies for short-term returns. Third, our knowledge of the opportunities for achieving green growth must base upon a joint assessment of market failures, structural system failures and transformational system failures. Finally, greater attention should be devoted to the geography of green growth processes at different scales.

2018

This book discusses the growing political contest between conservative and reform-orientated defenders of capitalist societies on the one side, and the policies and imagined futures advanced by green and socialist critics on the other. All are subjected to detailed scrutiny. Is ‘green growth’ innovation able to resolve deep-seated global inequality and other socio-political and environmental problems? Can new technology sustain capitalist production and high consumption by decoupling economic growth from the limits of nature? How feasible or utopian are ‘post-work’ or post-capitalist societies based on full automation and a universal basic income? What are the political economic strengths and weaknesses of green post-growth or degrowth proposals? These and other crucial issues are analysed by the author in a challenging and thought-provoking book covering an extensive range of policy reports, social theories, environmental proposals and political practices across the world. Boris Frankel is a social theorist, political economist and cultural critic. He is Honorary Principal Fellow in the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute at the University of Melbourne.

Highlights of sustainability, 2024

Environmentalists have long claimed it is unjust for the state to prioritize economic interests over environmental ones by sacrificing ecosystem integrity and functioning to unsustainably expand the economy. Recently, mainstream environmentalists have moved to a more conciliatory approach highlighting the common ground between environmental and economic goals. They today claim processes of economic growth and development can be made just if they become green. This paper explores the question: should states pursue "green growth"? Although some critics claim green growth is impossible, I maintain it is. I theorize three conditions that must be met for an instance of growth to be truly considered green. That a development project is green, however, does not automatically ensure it is just. Justice considerations remain in adjudicating the competing interests of different groups of stakeholders. I then examine four reasonable approaches to resolving controversies over the pursuit of green growth: cost-benefit analysis, sufficientarianism, democracy, and pluralism. I conclude a liberal pluralist form of decision-making is best for ensuring fairness.