Pensamiento Economico De Carlos Marx

Invited Address, World Bank, April 30, 2002, Washington, DC.

Sustainable Development: Definitions, Principles, Policies
Herman E. Daly School of Public Affairs University of Maryland (hd22@umail.umd.edu) Introduction—I begin by considering two competing definitions of sustainability (utilitybased versus throughput-based), and offer reasons for rejecting the former and accepting the latter.Next I consider the concept of development as currently understood (GDP growth led by global economic integration), and why it conflicts with sustainability, as well as with the premises of comparative advantage. Then I turn to the more general necessity of introducing the concept of throughput into economic theory, noting the awkward consequences to both micro and macro economics of having ignoredthe concept. Finally I consider some policy implications for sustainable development that come from a more adequate economic theory. These policies (ecological tax reform and/or cap and trade limits on throughput) are based on the principle of frugality first, rather than efficiency first. As a concluding addendum I comment on the World Bank’s 2003 World Development Report, dedicated this year tothe topic of sustainable development, and note points of agreement and difference with the ideas presented here. I. Definitions Exactly what is it that is supposed to be sustained in “sustainable” development? Two broad answers have been given: First, utility should be sustained; that is, the utility of future generations is to be non-declining. The future should be at least as well off as thepresent in terms of its utility or happiness as experienced by itself. Utility here refers to average per capita utility of members of a generation. Second, physical throughput should be sustained, that is, the entropic physical flow from nature’s sources through the economy and back to nature’s sinks, is to be nondeclining. More exactly, the capacity of the ecosystem to sustain those flows is not tobe run down. Natural capital1 is to be kept intact. The future will be at least well off as the present in terms of its access to biophysical resources and services supplied by the ecosystem. Throughput here refers to total throughput flow for the community over some time period (i.e., the product of per capita throughput and population). These are two totally different concepts ofsustainability. Utility is a basic concept in standard economics. Throughput is not, in spite of the efforts of Kenneth Boulding and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen to introduce it. So it is not surprising that the utility definition has been dominant.

Natural capital is the capacity of the ecosystem to yield both a flow of natural resources and a flux of natural services. Keeping natural capital constant is oftenreferred to as “strong sustainability” in distinction to “weak sustainability” in which the sum of natural and manmade capital is kept constant.

1

1

Nevertheless, I adopt the throughput definition and reject the utility definition, for two reasons. First, utility is non-measurable. Second, and more importantly, even if utility were measurable it is still not something that we canbequeath to the future. Utility is an experience, not a thing. We cannot bequeath utility or happiness to future generations. We can leave them things, and to a lesser degree knowledge2. Whether future generations make themselves happy or miserable with these gifts is simply not under our control. To define sustainability as a non-declining intergenerational bequest of something that can neither bemeasured nor bequeathed strikes me as a nonstarter.3 I hasten to add that I do not think economic theory can get along without the concept of utility. I just think that throughput is a better concept by which to define sustainability. The throughput approach defines sustainability in terms of something much more measurable and transferable across generations-—the capacity to generate an entropic...