Lele, Sharachchandra M. 1991. "Sustainable Development: A Critical Review." World Development 19 (6): 607-621.

Summary:

The author maintains that current interpretations of sustainable development (SD) are inconsistent: "The idea here is to clarify the semantics and to identify some critical weaknesses in concepts and reasoning - weaknesses that will have to be addressed if SD is to become a meaningful paradigm of development" (p. 608). The phrase "sustainable development" is examined as two concepts: sustainability and development. There are three connotations of sustainability: 1) literal in that it refers to sustaining anything; 2) ecological in that it refers to sustaining the ecological basis of human life; and 3) social in that it refers to sustaining the social basis of human life. In the same way, development can be understood as process and objectives. Process refers to growth and/or change while objectives describe basic needs (see Figure 1. The semantics of sustainable development p. 608). Lele discusses these interpretations in terms of contradictions and trivialities. The author then examines the evolution of the concept of sustainable development as three parts: development, sustainability and sustainable development.

In evaluating SD, Lele identifies the shift in mainstream thought as first represented by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources - IUCN (1980 - the World Conservation Strategy) when ecological sustainability was the focus. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the IUCN-UNEP-World Wildlife Fund conference on Conservation and Development (1986) broadened mainstream interpretations to include social factors. Current mainstream SD interpretation is based at least in part on the World Commission of Environment and Development (WCED)'s 1987 report, incorporating environmental degradation, traditional development objectives and process.

Lele focuses the bulk of the article on a "mainstream" definition of SD: "a form of societal change that, in addition to traditional development objectives, has the objective or constraint of ecological sustainability" (p. 610). That is, "ecological sustainability is, of course, not independent of the other (traditional) objectives of development. Trade-offs may sometimes have to be made between the extent to and rate at which ecological sustainability is achieved vis-à-vis other objectives. In other cases, however, ecological sustainability and traditional developmental objectives (such as satisfaction of basic needs) could be mutually reinforcing" (p. 610). Implicit in this definition are three fundamental objectives of SD: removal of property (the traditional developmental objective), sustainability and participation (p. 614).

Lele identifies several weaknesses with these current interpretations:

1. A simplistic characterization of the problems of poverty and environmental degradation. Lele challenges the assumption that poverty causes environmental degradation and that economic growth is necessary for environmental sustainability.

2. Ambiguously conceptualized central objectives of the paradigm: development, sustainability and participation. Distinctions between the goals and means of attaining SD are ambiguous. Lele also questions the neo-classical economic assumptions that (a) economic growth necessarily constitutes development; and (b) economic growth reduces poverty. Distinctions should be made between ecological and social sustainability, such that the dynamic interplay between social structures and environmental conditions are recognized. Finally, Lele challenges the notions that (a) "participation" can be equated with justice and equity and that (b) participation necessarily yields ecologically sustainable practices.

3. Inadequate action strategies adopted in the face of incomplete knowledge and ambiguity. Lele argues that many "sustainable development" policies have not recognized (a) the inequities of the global monetary exchange system and that (b) "free trade" has different impacts in differing economic systems and it does not necessarily yield equitable, sustainable development. Consequently, policy prescriptions in terms of international trade and economic relations, sustainable agriculture and tropical forests are inconsistent and inadequate.

The author concludes with a call for environmentalists and development activists to cooperate in an effort to: 1) reject the notion that economic growth is the means to eliminating poverty; 2) recognize the inconsistencies and inadequacies in existing neoclassical economic theory and practice; 3) accept the existence of structural, technological and cultural causes of both poverty and environmental degradation; 4) understand the complexity of sustainability; 5) explore what patterns and levels of resource demand and use is compatible with different levels of ecological and social sustainability as well as with different forms of equity and social justice.

Keywords: ecological, economic and social sustainability; international and intergenerational equity; poverty; participatory democracy; global economy