When this term first became popular, many economists were skeptical of its meaning. However, because it was so
overwhelming in the literature, most of them succumbed and tried to make it work for them. Now is a good to
re-examine the issue.
Sustainable development is a sort of trickle down philosophy. It implies that if we have free trade and move resources
around freely, then we can create a world where eventually everyone will be better off. What if some countries and cultures
are better at development than others; and some are better at stability? When we visit less developed countries we observe
a slower pace, more emphasis on social relationships and less social and economic climbing. Is that more sustainable than
a high powered western economy?
The path of industrialization in the U.S. has been one of social instability. It is particularly well suited to creating
flexible work forces, people who are willing to move to the jobs. We are willing and able to move because we are
unburdened by the weight of extended families. However, socially, this stresses the nuclear family which has to
raise the kids without the support of the grandparents. At the same time, there is a new expectation that the wife
and mother will work outside of the home. What will be the long term effect of this kind of social structure on our
society; and is it sustainable?
|