Weak and Strong Sustainability, Environmental Conservation and Economic Growth

Abstract

ABSTRACT. To investigate the role of explicit and implicit assumptions in different models of weak and strong sustain‐ability, the Solow/Hartwick model of intergenerational equity with nonrenewable resources is gradually extended to include renewable resources, endogenous technical progress, and stock pollution. This reveals the fundamental role of endogenous technical progress for sustainable development, the inconsistency of implicit sustainability assumptions in various models, as well as the existence of a Hartwick rule for Daly's steady‐state economy. Moreover, it shows that the concepts of Solow sustainability and strong sustainability coincide as a special case of weak sustainability. The latter integrates economic and environmental concerns and aims at maintaining the welfare potential of an economy over time. It does not rule out economic growth by assumption. Rather, the analysis shows that environmental conservation and economic growth can be compatible with each other, without jeopardizing social welfare. Finally, the analysis shows that the discussion of sustain‐ability models cannot be restricted to the explicit differences that are usually pointed out by their authors and commentators. Rather, implicit assumptions must be made explicit.

Towards an understanding of the influence of sustainability culture on the accounting profession

“…Thus, a new global culture of sustainability came into being that aligns with Hofstede's (1980) definition of culture as 'a collective programming process by society'. Out of fear for the survival of present and future generations, the global society has programmed and imbibed a culture of sustainability that also pervades Hofstede's (1980) classified sets of cultural mores (individualism versus collectivism, strong versus weak, large versus small power distance, femininity versus masculinity) and it is evident that present-day sustainability culture manifests the aforementioned sets of cultural mores, as illustrated by Diehl and Brezet (2003), Dutilh and Casimir (2003), Hediger (2006) and Young and Stretton (1991).…”

“…Furthermore, in approaching sustainability culture from eco-design strategy and learning, Diehl and Brezet (2003) apply large versus small power distance as cultural characteristics that can affect the way eco-design is taught and learned to facilitate sustainability. In the same vein, Hediger (2006) recognises the contemporary differing characteristics of sustainability, weak and strong, to demonstrate that achieving the goal of inter-generational equity requires that environmental conservation and economic growth are compatible with each other, without jeopardising social welfare. The fourth characteristic of societal value, femininity versus masculinity, has also been applied to sustainability.…”

Multifunctionality and Sustainability of Agriculture and Rural Areas: A Welfare Economics Perspective

“…Various analysts have emphasized that the latter is a normative principle. Above all, it calls for maintaining some suitably defined aggregate of capital intact over time (Daly, 1991;Hamilton & Atkinson, 2006;Hartwick, 1978;Hediger, 2006;Neumayer, 2003;Pearce et al, 1994;Solow, 1974). In addition, sustainable development requires the satisfying of basic human needs and compliance with some thresholds of ecosystem resilience (Common & Perrings, 1992;Khan, 1995;Moffatt, 1996;WCED, 1987).…”

Deconstructing sustainability

“…For instance,Daly (1991) argued that natural capital must be protected separately from the man-made capital, because they are complements in most production functions. However, this will not be adequate for analyses at an aggregate level where possibilities of substitution exist(Hediger, 2006). The rationale then implies that the intersection of the economic and environmental regions corresponds to the complementarity between inputs in a production function, which seems not to conform to the usual diagram lecture.…”