Redclift, Michael. 1988. "Sustainable Development and the Market: A framework for analysis." Futures (Dec): 635-650.

Thesis:

"Sustainability, as a concept, needs to be related to the role of the market within the process of development itself" (p.635). "'Managerialist' solutions to environmental problems fail to address the causes of the problems" (p.636).

Summary:

Redclift addresses what he sees to be a "neglect of the environment in social science theory" (p.636). The objectives of Redclift's article are to: review existing perspectives on environmental change under capitalism; to locate our conception of the 'environment' within a broader historical and comparative framework; and to identify common elements in a political economy of the environment.

The work that has been done on the environment in the social sciences has tended to fall within either the Neo-Malthusianism or eco-centrism perspectives. Sustainable development has emerged as a goal in both perspectives, but the role of the market in defining "environment" in its different historical contexts continues to be overlooked (p. 638).

The paradigm that dominates the current discussion on sustainable development is that of 'environmental managerialism, which begins with problems and assumes a responsibility to solve them with whatever technological means are available. Environmental managerialism rests on the following assumptions: (1) that there is an optimal balance of natural resource uses, which can combine sustainability in agriculture and forestry; (2) the object of policy to determine this optimum and to make it come about; (3) long-term interests in the environment are convergent, though short-term interests may diverge. Redclift argues that these assumptions are never analyzed, and that environmental managerialism is highly prescriptive (p.639). It is important to recognize that this perspective, while assumed to be universally applicable, emerges from a Western, post-industrialist context. To assume otherwise overlooks the historical role that capitalist development plays in shaping our views of 'the environment'.

Redclift proposes that there are differing social systems, each of which reflect a different interaction between the environment and the development of capitalism. He emphasizes that these are not to be seen as an evolutionary or linear framework, though some nations have experienced each in stages. These are:

Autochthonous societies, in which usually indigenous communities, though the capitalistic market may have penetrated their economy, nevertheless live under a form of 'natural economy' where use values predominate.

Post-industrial society, in which national food security has been achieved, the class structure of agriculture is relatively formed and homogeneous, and the focus is more upon environmental sustainability than on agricultural sustainability (i.e. through technological development the two are seen as distinct).

Structurally transformed societies, in which the primary emphasis in development is the achievement of agricultural growth through the operation of market forces, with state intervention. The separations between nature and society, and use value and exchange values are not as distinct.

'The environment' is socially constructed differently in each of these contexts, which impacts our capacity to see environmental sustainability issues in the other contexts (p.643). Specifically, from the perspective of most development efforts, it must be recognized that "environmental managerialism consists of a set of responses to specific circumstances," which may not be appropriate in other contexts (p.643).

Redclift has four primary objections to the environmental managerialism approach (p.644):

It considers the environment after the 'development' objectives have been set.

The environmental consequences of development are separated from the social and economic ones, especially in environmental interventions that involve resettlement programs.

It takes as a 'given' the distributive consequences which the market produces in the course of development, oftentimes with the rural and urban poor paying the greatest costs.

The techniques of managerialism deflect attention away from the context of environmental degradation.

Redclift argues that environmental managerialism "needs to be recognized as ethnocentric and ahistorical" (p.648). 'The environment' is historically constructed through nature's interaction with market systems, and deserves more rigorous analytical attention. The concept of sustainability assumes very different forms in autochthonous, transitional, and post-industrial societies (pp.646-648). Thus, "[p]olicies to affect 'conservation' goals would then carry different implications for each context" (p.648)

Keywords: environmental managerialism, sustainability, capitalist development