ArticlePDF Available

Sustainability thoughts 194: How can we show that the sustainable development solutions to the socio-environmental sustainability problem created by traditional market thinking by 1987 are both partial and without clear priority solutions?

Authors:
  • Independent QLC researcher

Abstract and Figures

The Brundtland commission documented the socio-environmental sustainability problem created by Adam Smith's traditional market thinking 1776-1987 as it was presented as a golden economy paradigm, a market that create no social and environmental externalities, but that assumption was wrong. There were full solutions and partial solutions to that socio-environmental sustainability problem, and the Brundtland Commission chose a partial solution among all solutions available in 1987 and called them sustainable development solutions. And as no priority was set on the problem that needed to be tackled first this led to a free for all school of thoughts competition and confusion, each school of thoughts undermining the goals of the other school of thoughts, opening the door to different forms of sustainable developmentwashing. And this raises the questions, How can we show that the sustainable development solutions to the socio-environmental sustainability problem created by traditional market thinking by 1987 are both partial and without clear priority solutions? What are the expected implications of this?
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2024. Sustainability thoughts 194: How can we show that the
sustainable development solutions to the socio-environmental sustainability
problem created by traditional market thinking by 1987 are both partial and
without clear priority solutions?, In: International Journal of Education Humanities
and Social Science(IJEHSS), ISSN: 2582-0745, May-June, Vol. 7, Issue 3, Pp. 6-17, India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainability thoughts 194: How can we show that the sustainable
development solutions to the socio-environmental sustainability problem
created by traditional market thinking by 1987 are both partial and without
clear priority solutions?
By
Lucio Muñoz*
* Independent Qualitative Comparative Researcher / Consultant, Vancouver, BC, Canada Email: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca
Abstract
The Brundtland commission documented the socio-environmental
sustainability problem created by Adam Smith's traditional market thinking 1776-
1987 as it was presented as a golden economy paradigm, a market that create no
social and environmental externalities, but that assumption was wrong. There were
full solutions and partial solutions to that socio-environmental sustainability
problem, and the Brundtland Commission chose a partial solution among all
solutions available in 1987 and called them sustainable development solutions.
And as no priority was set on the problem that needed to be tackled first this led to
a free for all school of thoughts competition and confusion, each school of
thoughts undermining the goals of the other school of thoughts, opening the door
to different forms of sustainable developmentwashing. And this raises the
questions, How can we show that the sustainable development solutions to the
socio-environmental sustainability problem created by traditional market thinking
by 1987 are both partial and without clear priority solutions? What are the
expected implications of this?
Key concepts
Golden paradigms, Flawed paradigms, Sustainability, Sustainable
development, Sustainability market, Green market, Red market, socially friendly
sustainable development, environmentally friendly sustainable development,
Optimality, Abnormalities, Socio-environmentally friendly sustainable
development, Perfect traditional market
Introduction
1) The socio-environmental sustainability problem created by 1987 by the use
of traditional market thinking
The structure of the critical socio-environmental sustainability problem
created by the working of the traditional market by 1987 has been recently
highlighted (Muñoz 2024) as detailed in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1 above tells us that by 1987 the supposedly golden economic
paradigm model(TM) has led the socio-environmental problem(SEPOP1) found
between point 2 and point 1, a problem that expands as the traditional market races
to producing to the lowest traditional market price possible and shift to the right of
point 2. Hence, action needed to be taken in 1987 to put an end to the source of
this socio-environmental sustainability problem.
2) The full solutions and partial solutions available in 1987 to partially or fully
address the problem head on
There were full solutions and partial solutions to the socio-environmental
sustainability problem in 1987 as shown in Figure 2 below:
Figure 2 above shows that i) there is a full solution at point "e" where the
source of the socio-environmental sustainability problem (SEPOP1) is fully
addressed as there is no longer a socio-environmental sustainability problem at
point 3; and ii) there is a partial solution at point "f, where the source of the socio-
environmental sustainability problem(SEPOP1) is partially addressed as there is
still some remaining socio-environmental problem between point 2 and point 3.
The nature of the full solutions and of the partial solutions varies depending on the
type of solution that is given priority. For example, if addressing fully the
environmental sustainability problem is the priority, then the full solution at point
"e" would be a green market under perfect green market thinking or if addressing
partially the environmentally sustainability problem is the priority, then the partial
solution at point "f" could be an environmentally friendly sustainable development
model or a dwarf green market model; and in that case environmentally friendly
sustainable development thinking and dwarf green market thinking would be
needed at point "f" respectively. Sustainable development ideas took shape in
1987(WCED 1987) while green market ideas(Muñoz 2016) and dwarf green
market ideas(Muñoz 2019) have been recently pointed out. Notice that all the
solutions to the socio-environmental sustainability problem(SEPOP1) in Figure 2
above are to the left of point 2 and into the future, meaning that to solve the source
of the socio-environmental sustainability problem created by traditional market
thinking by 1987 we need to leave that thinking behind, which is why the World
Commission on Environment and Development(WCED 1987) called for going
beyond business thinking as usual to solve the social and environmental
sustainability issues of the day, and they called this thinking sustainable
development thinking. In other words, you should not expect to be able to solve a
sustainability problem created by and driven by traditional market thinking using
the same thinking, a shift to a higher level model of thinking is required. Finally,
notice that at any point between point 2 and point 3 in Figure 2 above such as at
point "f" production and consumption is less than production and consumption in
the traditional market at point 2, and more than the production and consumption in
a fully corrected market at point 3.
3) Linking the partial solutions to the sustainable development solutions
advanced by the Brundtland Commission in 1987
Hence, the Brundtland commission documented the socio-environmental
sustainability problem created by Adam Smith's traditional market thinking 1776-
1987(Smith 1776) as it was presented as a golden economy paradigm in 1776, a
market that create no social and environmental externalities, but that assumption
was wrong. There were full solutions and partial solutions to that 1987 socio-
environmental sustainability problem as mentioned above, and the Brundtland
Commission chose a partial solution among all solutions available in 1987 and
called them sustainable development (SD) solutions. In other words, the
Brundtland Commission (WCED 1987) chose sustainable development solutions
for a socio-environmental sustainability issue, it chose partial solutions such as the
one found at point "f" in Figure 2 above instead of a full sustainability solution as
the one found at point "e". And as no priority was set on the problem that needed
to be tackled first to solve this 1987 socio-environmental sustainability problem ,
then, this led to a free for all school of thoughts competition and confusion, each
school of thoughts undermining the goals of the other school of thoughts, opening
the door to different forms of sustainable developmentwashing. For example,
point "f" could be a socially friendly sustainable development point or an
environmentally friendly sustainability point or a socio-environmentally friendly
sustainable development point under unclear priorities. And this raises the
questions, How can we show that the sustainable development solutions to the
socio-environmental sustainability problem created by traditional market thinking
by 1987 are both partial and without clear priority solutions? What are the
expected implications of this?
Goals of this paper
i) To point out the structure of the sustainable development solutions to the
socio-environmental sustainability problem the world faced in 1987; ii) To
highlight the structure of socially friendly sustainable development, of
environmentally friendly sustainable development; and of socio-environmentally
friendly sustainable development if correcting social issues, environmental issues,
and socio-environmental issues respectively is the priority solution; and iii)To
point out the multi-goal structure of the sustainable development framework given
to us by the Brundtland Commission in 1987.
Methodology
First, the terminology used in this paper and some operational concepts are
given. Second, the structure of the sustainable development solutions to the socio-
environmental sustainability problem the world faced in 1987 is shared. Third, the
structure of the socially friendly sustainable development solutions if correcting
the social sustainability problem has the priority is highlighted. Fourth, the
structure of the environmentally friendly sustainable development solutions if
correcting the environmental sustainability problem has the priority is stressed.
Fifth, the structure of the environmentally friendly sustainable development
solutions if correcting the socio-environmental sustainability problem has the
priority is pointed out. Sixth, the multi-goal structure of the sustainable
development framework given to us by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 is
shown. And seventh, some food for thoughts and relevant conclusions are
provided.
Terminology
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TM = Traditional market GOP = Golden paradigm
FLP = Flawed paradigm P = Market price
D = Demand TMS = Traditional market supply
GOPS = Golden paradigm supply SD = Sustainable development
SFSD = Socially friendly sustainable development
GOPP = Golden paradigm market price
FLPP = Flawed paradigm market price
EFSD = Environmentally friendly sustainable development
SEFSD = Socio-environmentally friendly sustainable development
SEPOP = Socio-environmental sustainability problem
RSEPOP = Remaining sustainability problem
Q = Quantity produced and consumed
FLPQ = Quantify produced and consumed in the flawed paradigm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational concepts
1) Optimal development, the one displayed by golden market paradigms.
2) Flawed development, the one displayed by flawed market paradigms.
3) The traditional market, the flawed market paradigm behind the creation of
socio-environmental problems.
4) Sustainable development, the thinking that is aimed at bringing the world away
from traditional market thinking through development that is socially and/or
environmentally friendly.
5) Sustainability, the thinking that aims at shifting traditional market thinking to
higher level market thinking such as red markets, green markets, and sustainability
markets through social, environmental, and socio-environmental cost
internalization, respectively.
6) Full solution, the one that fixes the sustainability problem by internalizing the
source of unsustainability.
7) Partial solution, one that only patches the source of unsustainability.
8) Distorted traditional market prices, the traditional market tool behind socio-
environmental problems.
The structure of the sustainable development solutions to the socio-
environmental sustainability problem the world faced in 1987 given to us by
the Brundtland Commission
As indicated in the introduction, the Brundtland Commission recommended
in 1987 sustainable development thinking (SD) to solve the socio-environmental
sustainability problem and move the world away that way from traditional
economic thinking, but they did not set clear priorities as sustainable development
has the limitation that it can mean many things at the same time, depending on the
competing school of thoughts implementing it as shown in Figure 3 below:
Figure 3 above shows three different sustainable development points
coexisting at the same time: i) a socially friendly sustainable development(SFSD)
point at point "h"; ii) an environmentally friendly sustainable development(EFSD)
point at point "g"; and iii) a socio-environmentally friendly sustainable
development(SEFSD) point at point "f", all partial solutions. As the Brundtland
Commission did not set a priority goal to either step by step or at once address the
socio-environmental sustainability issue (SEPOP1) they were dealing with, and all
approaches have been working at the same time, without a clear link to the
overcome the challenge of moving the world fully out of socio-environmental
sustainability problems to avoid being stuck for ever in managing critical
sustainability issues.
The structure of the socially friendly sustainable development solutions if
correcting the social sustainability problem is the priority
Had the Brundtland Commission made solving the social sustainability issue
the priority in 1987, then the structure of socially friendly sustainable development
(SFSD) would have looked like as illustrated in Figure 4 below:
We can appreciate the following based on Figure 4 above: i) At point "h"
there is a socially friendly sustainable development(SFSD) point, where less is
being produced and consumed in a way that is socially friendly as compared to the
traditional market point(FLPQ2) at point 2 as indicated by the continuous blue
arrow from point 2 to point "h"; ii) there is still a remaining sustainability problem
to be dealt with in the future as indicated by the broken blue arrow from point "h"
to point "e"; and iii) hence, the socially friendly sustainable development(SFSD))
solution is a partial solution.
The structure of the environmentally friendly sustainable development
solutions if correcting the environmental sustainability problem is the priority
Had the Brundtland Commission made solving the environmental
sustainability issue the priority in 1987, then the structure of environmentally
friendly sustainable development (EFSD) would have looked like as shown in
Figure 5 below:
We can see the following based on Figure 5 above: i) At point "g" there is an
environmentally friendly sustainable development(EFSD) point, where less is
being produced and consumed in a way that is environmentally friendly as
compared to the traditional market point(FLPQ2) at point 2 as indicated by the
continuous blue arrow from point 2 to point "g"; ii) there is still a remaining
sustainability problem to be dealt with in the future as indicated by the broken blue
arrow from point "g" to point "e"; and iii) hence, the environmentally friendly
sustainable development(EFSD) solution is a partial solution.
The structure of the socio-environmentally friendly sustainable development
solutions if correcting the socio-environmental sustainability problem is the
priority
Had the Brundtland Commission made solving the socio-environmental
sustainability issue the priority in 1987, then the structure of socio-environmentally
friendly sustainable development (SEFSD) would have looked like as indicated in
Figure 6 below:
We can highlight the following based on Figure 6 above: i) At point "f"
there is a socio-environmentally friendly sustainable development(SEFSD) point,
where less is being produced and consumed in a way that is socio-environmentally
friendly as compared to the traditional market point(FLPQ2) at point 2 as indicated
by the continuous blue arrow from point 2 to point "f"; ii) there is still a remaining
sustainability problem to be dealt with in the future as indicated by the broken blue
arrow from point "f" to point "e"; and iii) hence, the socio-environmentally
friendly sustainable development(SEFSD) solution is a partial solution.
The multi-goal structure of the sustainable development framework given to
us by the Brundtland Commission in 1987
If there is no priority in sustainability problem solving then we end up with
the multi-goal structure that the Brundtland Commission set in motion in 1987 as
described in Figure 7 below:
We can appreciate in Figure 7 above that i) all forms of sustainable
development, at point "f" we have socio-environmentally friendly sustainable
development(SEFSD), at point "g" we have environmentally friendly sustainable
development(EFSD), and at point "h" we have socially friendly sustainable
development(SFSD), are partial solutions as indicated by continuous blue arrows
from the traditional market supply TMS1 going left towards the golden paradigm
supply GOPS1, each attached to remaining socio-environmental sustainability gaps
as indicated by respective broken blue arrows. Moreover, Figure 7 above illustrates
that all types of sustainable development solutions consistent with the sustainable
development thinking a la Brundtland Commission shown there active at the same
time trying to solve their core issue while competing with other schools of thoughts
seeking their own core issue under unsustainability. In other words, the
sustainable development framework pursues several goals at the same time, that
are unconnected with the aim of the other goals, and which are unconnected too to
the overall goal of fully eradicating the socio-environmental sustainability problem
one day or without a clear transition of how each of those types of sustainable
development approaches will end up at a world without sustainability problems
through their own development route or combined development route. Figure 7
above gives a sense that sustainable development a la Brundtland Commission and
its goals is a framework of islands managing their core value without any concern
about how they are affecting or being affected by development in the other islands
as shown at point "f" where there is socio-environmentally friendly sustainable
development, at point "g" where there is environmentally friendly sustainable
development, and at point "h" where there is socially friendly sustainable
development, all attached to corresponding remaining socio-environmental
sustainability problems, all active at the same time, pointing out the multi-goal
nature of sustainable development working among competing core values.
In summary, as sustainable development a la Brundtland Commission did
not set any specific priority in 1987 on what to address first to eliminate the socio-
environmental sustainability problem created by traditional market thinking in the
future it became a multi-goal framework based on a set of partial solutions at work
at the same time under sustainable development core value competition or school
of thoughts competition.
Food for thoughts
i) Can the difference between socio-environmentally friendly sustainable
development and socially friendly sustainable development be expressed in
environmental terms? I think Yes, what do you think?; and ii) Is the traditional
market a flawed market because of embedded socially and environmentally driven
traditional market price distortions? I think Yes, what do you think?
Conclusions
First, it was pointed out that there were full and partial solutions to the 1987
socio-environmental sustainability problem, and that the Brundtland Commission
chose partial solutions, implemented at the same time as they did not set a clear
path on how to go from a world under socio-environmental sustainability problems
to a world under no socio-environmental sustainability problems. Second, it was
highlighted that they gave us socially friendly sustainable development solutions,
environmentally friendly sustainable development solutions, and socio-
environmental friendly sustainable development solutions to be implemented at the
same time as all of them meet the sustainable development definition while
reflecting their core values. Third, it was stressed, one by one, the structure of
socially friendly sustainable development, environmentally friendly sustainable
development, and socio-environmentally friendly sustainable development had the
priority goal be set clearly to meet development goals as correcting the social
issue, correcting the environmental issue or correcting the socio-environmental
issue, respectively. And finally, it was stressed that not having set a clear
development path to move from a world with socio-environmental sustainability
problems to one without them has led to a framework where social goals,
environmental goals, and socio-environmental goals exist like islands who can take
care of addressing their core values without affecting or being affected by other
schools of thoughts at work at the same time with conflicting and unconnected
values.
References
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016. Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the
Structure of the Perfect Green market?, In: International Journal of Science
Social Studies Humanities and Management (IJSSSHM), Vol. 2, No. 5., May,
Ed. Dr. Maya Pant, India.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2019. The Flipping of Traditional Economic Thinking:
Contrasting the Working of Dwarf Green Market Thinking with that of
Green Market Thinking to Highlight Main Differences and
Implications, In: Global Journal of Management and Business Research: E
Marketing, Volume 19, Issue 4, Version 1.0 , Framingham, Massachusetts, USA.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2024. Sustainability thoughts 192: What are the sustainability
consequences of assuming that flawed paradigms are golden paradigms? The
case of the perfect traditional market, In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año
18, 4, La Paz, Bolivia.
Smith, Adam, 1776. The Wealth of Nations, W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London,
UK.
World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED), 1987. Our Common Future,
Oxford University Press, London, UK.
Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2024. Sustainability thoughts 194: How can we show that the
sustainable development solutions to the socio-environmental sustainability
problem created by traditional market thinking by 1987 are both partial and
without clear priority solutions?, In: International Journal of Education Humanities
and Social Science(IJEHSS), ISSN: 2582-0745, May-June, Vol. 7, Issue 3, Pp. 6-17, India.
... The multi-goal sustainable development framework where competing school of thought are acting in development at the same time given to us by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 has been recently pointed out (Muñoz 2024a) as summarized in Figure 1 below: Figure 1 above shows the following: i) There are 3 types of sustainable development active at the same time, a socially friendly sustainable development(SFSD) point at point "h", an environmentally friendly sustainable development(EFSD) point at point "g", and a socially and environmentally friendly sustainable development(SEFSD) point at point "f"; ii) each point has a sustainable development based sustainability gap as indicated by the broken blue arrows pointing to the left as all of them are partial social, environmental or socio-environmental solutions to the socio-environmental pollution problem working at the same time; and iii) The Brundtland Commission did not recommend a full solution that is found at point "e" or point 3 in Figure 1 above as to do that they needed to come up with full development priorities. In other words, the sustainable development framework(SD) can be looked as an environment where several different markets reflecting different core responsibilities, social, environmental, and socio-environmental, respectively, coexist at the same time without affecting each other goals and with no clear link on how each of them will one day transition to a world without socio-environmental problems, given the feeling of sustainable development for ever while sustainable development based sustainability gaps are still active and polluting. ...
Article
Full-text available
Abstract The fact that the Brundtland Commission did not set a clear priority path for sustainable development thinking to be used to transition from a world under socio-environmental sustainability problems they had in 1987 to a world without them created a free for all development environment where different schools of thoughts with even conflicting goals enter into action at the same time advancing their core values acting like islands unconnected with other islands; and unconnected with the general goal of world free of all sustainability issues. Then towards 2012 the world finally decided to move away from a world without sustainability priorities to a world with environmental sustainability priorities, a decision that lead to two interesting periods, a science based period that culminated in 2012 with the push towards green markets, followed by a non-science based period with a push away from green markets and towards dwarf green markets. The author calls these two periods, the shift to green market period 1987-2012 and the period of green market paradigm shift avoidance 2012-2022, and links them to the end of the sustainable development period a la Brundtland Commission. As the move towards dwarf green markets after 2012 to avoid implementing green markets took place under academic silence not much is written about the science and policy implications of green paradigm shift avoidance and the confusion it creates, and how this confusion opens the door to issues such as green Marxism threats, greenwashing threats, and the circular economic thinking threats. Hence, the need to understand these threats fed by the green market vs. dwarf green market confusion attached to the green market paradigm shift avoidance period from the science point of view makes the following research topic and question relevant: Understanding the road from sustainable development thinking to green market paradigm shift avoidance 1987-2022: What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to those questions. Resúmen El hecho de que la Comisión Brundtland no estableciera un camino prioritario claro para que el pensamiento sobre el desarrollo sostenible fuera utilizado en la transición de un mundo con problemas socio-ambientales de sostenibilidad que tenían en 1987 a un mundo sin ellos creó un entorno de desarrollo libre para todos en el que diferentes escuelas de pensamientos con objetivos incluso contradictorios entran en acción al mismo tiempo que promueven sus valores fundamentales actuando como islas desconectadas de otras islas; y desconectado del objetivo general de un mundo libre de todos los problemas de sostenibilidad. Luego, hacia 2012, el mundo finalmente decidió alejarse de un mundo sin prioridades de sostenibilidad a un mundo con prioridades de sostenibilidad ambiental, una decisión que condujo a dos períodos interesantes, un período basado en la ciencia que culminó en 2012 con el impulso hacia los mercados verdes, seguido por un período sin base científica con un alejamiento de los mercados verdes y hacia mercados que parecen ser verdes. El autor llama a estos dos períodos, el período de cambio hacia el mercado verde 1987-2012 y el período de evitación del cambio de paradigma del mercado verde 2012-2022, y los vincula con el final del período de desarrollo sostenible a la Comisión Brundtland. Dado que el movimiento hacia mercados que parecen ser verdes después de 2012 para evitar la implementación de mercados verdes se produjo bajo el silencio académico, no hay mucho escrito sobre las implicaciones científicas y políticas de evitar el cambio de paradigma verde y la confusión que crea, y cómo esta confusión abre la puerta a cuestiones como las amenazas del marxismo verde, las amenazas del lavado verde y las amenazas del pensamiento económico circular. Por lo tanto, la necesidad de comprender estas amenazas alimentadas por la confusión entre el mercado verde y el mercado que parece ser verde asociadas al período de evitación del cambio de paradigma del mercado verde desde el punto de vista científico hace que el siguiente tema de investigación y pregunta sean relevantes: Comprendiendo el camino desde el pensamiento del desarrollo sostenible hacia la evitación del cambio de paradigma del mercado verde 1987-2022: ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones de esto? Uno de los objetivos de este artículo es proporcionar respuestas a esas preguntas.
Article
Full-text available
Abstract There are golden paradigms and flawed paradigms and they have different structure and behavior when they expand. Golden paradigms have an optimality structure as they do not have abnormalities; they are true perfect markets. Therefore, when they expand they create no abnormalities because they moved along the optimal expansion line. Flawed paradigms have a non-optimality structure as they have abnormalities embedded in their structure; they are not true perfect markets. Hence, when they expand the state of the embedded abnormalities worsen leading through time to critical development problems. Then, if we assume that a flawed paradigm is a golden paradigm, then we expect optimal outcomes, but instead we end up with sustainability problems as expansion after expansion leads worsening abnormality conditions. As you may know, Adam Smith assumed in 1776 that a traditional market could expand without producing social and environmental abnormalities forever, which means that he took the traditional market as being a golden paradigm that was going to lead to optimal production, optimal consumption and optimal population growth through time, but by 1987 the Brundtland Commission found and documented the opposite, meaning that they determined that traditional economic development was based on a flawed paradigm in social and environmental terms, flaws that had led to critical socio-environmental problems by then, which needed to be corrected with higher level thinking; and they recommended the use of sustainable development thinking to do that. This means that we can use golden paradigm and flawed paradigm theories and contrast them to understand what went wrong with traditional economic thinking from 1776 to 1987, which allow for critical sustainability problems to materialize in front of our eyes as we do not expect them by assumption. And this raises the research question: What are the sustainability consequences of assuming that flawed paradigms are golden paradigms? The case of the perfect traditional market. Resúmen Hay paradigmas de oro y paradigmas defectuosos y tienen diferentes estructuras y comportamientos cuando se expanden. Los paradigmas de oro tienen una estructura de optimización ya que no tienen anomalías: Son mercados perfectos verdaderos. Por lo tanto, cuando se expanden no crean anormalidades porque se mueven a lo largo de la línea de expansión óptima. Los paradigmas defectuosos tienen una estructura que no es óptima ya que tienen anomalías incrustadas en su estructura: No son mercados perfectos verdaderos. Por lo tanto, cuando se expanden, el estado de las anomalías arraigadas empeora y conduce con el tiempo a problemas críticos de sostenibilidad. Entonces, si asumimos que un paradigma defectuoso es un paradigma de oro, luego esperamos resultados óptimos, pero en cambio terminamos con problemas de sostenibilidad ya que expansión tras expansión conduce a condiciones de anormalidad cada vez más peores. Como quizás sepan, Adam Smith asumió en 1776 que un mercado tradicional podía expandirse sin producir anormalidades sociales y ambientales para siempre, lo que significa que tomó el mercado tradicional como un paradigma de oro que conduciría a una producción óptima, un consumo óptimo y a un crecimiento demográfico optimo a lo largo del tiempo, pero en 1987 la Comisión Brundtland encontró y documentó lo contrario, es decir, determinó que el desarrollo económico tradicional se basaba en un paradigma defectuoso en términos sociales y ambientales, fallas que habían conducido a problemas socio-ambientales críticos para entonces los cuales necesitaban ser corregidos con un pensamiento de modelo de nivel superior; y recomendaron el uso del pensamiento de desarrollo sostenible para lograrlo. Esto significa que podemos utilizar las teorías del paradigma de oro y del paradigma defectuoso y contrastarlas para comprender qué salió mal con el pensamiento económico tradicional de 1776 a 1987, que permite que problemas críticos de sostenibilidad se materialicen ante nuestros ojos, ya que no los esperamos por suposición. . Y esto plantea la pregunta de investigación: ¿Cuáles son las consecuencias para la sostenibilidad de asumir que los paradigmas defectuosos son paradigmas de oro? El caso del mercado tradicional perfecto.
Article
Full-text available
Abstract From the time of Adam Smith(1776) to 2012 UNCSD Rio +20 Conference we lived in a world where government intervention in markets was not welcomed or it was discouraged, except in very specific circumstances, a feeling at the heart of free market thinking. From 2012 to now 2019 we have slowly moved to a world where permanent government intervention is not just welcomed, but also encouraged such as when governments directly intervene in markets to deal with environmental issues. This indeed is a move away from free market thinking and towards non-free market thinking as it represents a shift from green market solutions to dwarf green market solutions. In other words, the promotion and implementation of dwarf green market thinking like carbon pricing truly requires a departure from traditional economic thinking, a practice that apparently is now accepted by today’s economists. And this raises questions such as: Has traditional economic thinking been flipped in practice when dealing with the environmental question? If yes, what are the implications of this in terms of consumption and production in dwarf green markets? How are dwarf green markets then be expected to work? Among the goals of this paper is to share a green market framework and a dwarf green market framework with the aim of contrasting them in order to highlight the working of green market thinking and that of dwarf green market thinking and provide that way answers to the questions listed above.
Article
Full-text available
We are now living in the world of green markets, yet we seem not to be able to see that the paradigm shift from the traditional market to green markets has created a green market knowledge gap. And it is this knowledge gap that apparently is limiting the ability of governments(developed and underdeveloped) and institutions(local and global) alike to set up green markets and implement green market based sustainable development programs such as low carbon based development. For example, we know what the structure of the traditional perfect market is; and the paradigm shift raises the question what is the structure then of the perfect green market if the perfect traditional market idea was left behind? One of the goals of this paper is to provide an answer to this question.