Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of “weak” sustainability

Pearce, David; Atkinson, Giles

doi:10.1016/0921-8009(93)90039-9

Cited by 797 publications

(210 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

193

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It calculates GS, which it now calls 'adjusted net saving' (after Pearce and Atkinson, 1993) as follows: GS = investment in produced capital -net foreign borrowing + net official transfersdepreciation of produced capital -net depreciation of natural capital + current education expenditures Net depreciation of natural capital equals resource depletion plus environmental degradation. The…”

Section: Environmentally-adjusted Net Product and Genuine Savingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement

Dietz

Neumayer

2007

Ecological Economics

339

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we explain how the latest international handbook on environmental accounting, the System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting or SEEA (United Nations et al., 2003), can be used to measure weak and strong sustainability. We emphasise the importance of understanding the conceptual differences between weak and strong sustainability. We then outline what we consider to be current best practice in measurement, all the time flagging the relationship between our discussion and that of the SEEA-2003. This is an important task in our view, because, despite covering a very wide range of relevant conceptual and empirical issues, the handbook is by design not meant to provide clear guidelines for the purpose of measuring sustainability in either its weak or strong version.2

show abstract

Section: Environmentally-adjusted Net Product and Genuine Savingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement

Dietz

Neumayer

2007

Ecological Economics

339

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Well-Being Assessment by Prescott-Allen (2001) Genuine Savings (GS) Pearce and Atkinson (1993) put forward an index which is based on the Hicksian income concept. In 1997 this index has been enhanced by Hamilton et al (1997) using the Hartwick rule (Hartwick, 1977) which defines the level of re-investment from resource rents that are reinvested to assure that the (societal) capital stock will never decline.…”

Section: Index Of Sustainable Economic Welfare (Isew) and Genuine Promentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the immeasurable — A survey of sustainability indices

Böhringer

Jochem²

2007

Ecological Economics

681

219

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp06073.pdf Nontechnical SummaryNational sustainability indices provide a one-dimensional metric to valuate country-specific information on the three holistic dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental, and social conditions. At the policy level, they suggest an unambiguous yardstick against which a country's development can be measured and even a cross-country comparison can be performed. However it remains questionable whether we can meaningfully speak from unambiguousness in the holistic subject of sustainability development.This paper reviews the consistency and meaningfulness of eleven sustainability indices that We find that -although the sustainability indices are imputed to be concise and transparentthey fail to meet fundamental scientific requirements with respect to the three central steps of indices formation: normalization, weighting, and aggregation. Normalization and weighting of indicators -which in general are associated with subjective judgments -reveal a high degree of arbitrariness without mentioning or systematically assessing critical assumptions.As to aggregation, there are scientific rules which could guarantee consistency and meaningfulness of composite indices. Yet, these rules are often not taken into account. As a consequence, sustainability indices currently employed in policy practice are doomed to be useless if not misleading with respect to concrete policy advice. Abstract. Sustainability indices for countries provide a one-dimensional metric to valuate country-specific information on the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental, and social conditions. At the policy level, they suggest an unambiguous yardstick against which a country's development can be measured and even a cross-country comparison can be performed. This paper reviews the explanatory power of various sustainability indices applied in policy practice. We show that these indices fail to fulfill fundamental scientific requirements making them rather useless if not misleading with respect to policy advice. Measuring the Immeasurable - A Survey of Sustainability Indices

show abstract

“…Nessa perspectiva, uma economia é sustentável quando existe uma poupança maior do que a depreciação da combinação de capital natural e capital produzido pelos indivíduos, assumindo que ambas as formas de capital são substituíveis. Tal situação representa um indicador de sustentabilidade fraca, uma vez que os custos da deterioração ambiental podem ser mensurados em unidades monetárias e compensados por benefícios do capital produzido por indivíduos (Pearce & Atkinson, 1993;Rennings & Wiggering, 1997).…”

Section: Desenvolvimento Espúriounclassified

“…A salvaguarda das funções ambientais proporciona um nível de produção que pode ser mantido indefinidamente sem ameaçar as condições de vida das futuras gerações (Hueting & Reijnders, 2004). Essa situação representa a perspectiva de "sustentabilidade forte", pois identifica qualquer depreciação no capital natural como um sinal de insustentabilidade (Pearce & Atkinson, 1993). Os indicadores de sustentabilidade forte não consideram a substituição nas formas de capital e pressupõem a manutenção dos ecossistemas intactos, protegendo sua estabilidade, resiliência e função ecológica, enquanto utilizada a mensuração em unidades físicas em vez de unidades monetárias (Rennings & Wiggering, 1997).…”

Section: Desenvolvimento Espúriounclassified

A Qualidade do Capital Social com Stakeholders: Fator de Desenvolvimento Espúrio ou Sustentável

Melo

Bellen

Zaro

2015

GeAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOA discussão deste ensaio tem o objetivo de apresentar proposições sobre a avaliação da qualidade do capital social constituído entre organizações e seus stakeholders como um fator de desenvolvimento regional. O capital social é o conjunto de ativos relacionais que podem afetar a capacidade produtiva de uma entidade social, possuindo as dimensões estrutural, relacional e cognitiva, que são inter-relacionadas. As relações que uma organização estabelece com seus stakeholders constituem um capital social, cuja qualidade se refere ao potencial de desenvolvimento que elas promovem em uma região. O desenvolvimento de uma região é qualificado de acordo com a lógica predominante das ações realizadas pelas organizações locais, que resultam em um desenvolvimento espúrio ou sustentável. Este estudo apresenta três proposições. A primeira delas afirma que a qualidade do capital social nas relações entre gestores e stakeholders é revelada nas dimensões relacional e cognitiva. As demais proposições afirmam que as relações entre organizações e stakeholders constituem um capital social que promove um desenvolvimento espúrio ou sustentável.Palavras-chave: capital social, stakeholder, desenvolvimento sustentável.

show abstract

Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of “weak” sustainability

Cited by 797 publications

References 4 publications

Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement

Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement

Measuring the immeasurable — A survey of sustainability indices

A Qualidade do Capital Social com Stakeholders: Fator de Desenvolvimento Espúrio ou Sustentável

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About