PDF version

When people look back on the 1990s, one of the things they are going to find it almost impossible to understand is why, with pressing environmental and monetary problems all around them, a majority of the economists working at the time expressed not the slightest concern about the instability and unsustainability of the global economic system. Why did the profession charged with advising on and running the economic system fail to explore the ways in which its defectss might be rectified? our successors will ask, shaking their heads in bewilderment.

It's hard to answer this question convincingly today, even though the economists concerned are our contemporaries. Accordingly, before Feasta's launch in October 1998, the steering committee felt it would be a good idea to see what Irish economists actually thought about sustainability. How would they define it? Did they think that the present system was sustainable? And, if not, did they think that its instability mattered? We invited a cross-section of economists to take part in a three-round e-mail survey. In week one, the invitation said, they would be sent three questions to answer quickly, without too much thought. In the following two weeks, we added, they would be sent summaries of the replies we had received together with a further three questions which arose from their answers. Confidentiality would be maintained. As we were not looking for considered responses, their names would never be put to their answers.

Ten people agreed to take part but, in the event, replies were received from only six of them, five men and a woman. Two of these taught development studies, the third worked for the Central Bank, the fourth for a trades union, and two taught economics, one at Trinity College, Dublin, the other at an institute of technology outside the capital. Politically, they ranged from moderate right to marxist left. None was known to be involved in the Green Party.

Well, what did they say? Did any of them think that the present system was sustainable? The answer is no. Not one. But we'll come to that later.

First Round

QUESTION 1 asked our panelists how they defined sustainability. Were they happy with the Feasta definition that a sustainable system is one which is "capable of being continued unchanged for hundreds of years without causing a progressive deterioration in any of the factors which make it up"? If not, would they advance a better one?.

Four respondents were broadly happy with the Feasta definition, although only one gave the actual form of words unqualified approval. Two had problems with the time period it specifies. One would have liked the phrase 'hundreds of years' replaced by 'for the foreseeable future' while the other wanted an infinite time horizon. Both these options were, in fact, considered when the definition was being developed and were rejected, the first because 'the foreseeable future' was thought to be too vague, especially as we can't foresee what will happen tomorrow, while the second was turned down because no system is infinitely sustainable: after all, the Earth will eventually plunge into the Sun, which is itself a dying star. Nevertheless, the time period is obviously an important part of any definition of sustainability. "Systems are not usually sustainable or unsustainable" someone who did not participate in the survey commented. "They range from very short-term sustainability (jumping off a skyscraper) to very long term (self-regenerating forests)."

The Feasta definition was also criticised because it banned the progressive deterioration in any factor on which the system relied. One respondent thought that this prohibition would rule out running down, say, fossil energy sources while developing renewable energy supplies to replace them. He therefore wanted minimum levels to be set for certain key factors such as air and water quality, and reductions to be allowed in the levels of other factors. Another respondent had similar views: "I am not a believer in the infinite substitutability of factors," he wrote, "but I do think a certain level is allowable." In fact, the definition would not rule out running down a factor by a certain amount so long as the run-down then stopped. What it does ban is a 'progressive' - that is, a continuous, unlimited - running down. It thus insists that limits have to be set, as the two respondents suggested. All six respondents therefore agreed that a sustainable system has to ensure that no factor on which it relies deteriorates beyond a certain point.

One respondent was unhappy because there was nothing about social justice in the Feasta definition. "A system based on slave labour could be sustainable for hundreds of years" he pointed out entirely correctly. However, if the conditions for the slaves deteriorated over the years they would eventually become too weak to work and the system would collapse. In other words, because workers, whether slaves or not, are one of the factors on which an economy relies and there are limits to the extent to which they can be exploited, any system which involves a progressive worsening in their conditions cannot be regarded as sustainable. Consequently, the maintenance of a minimum level of social justice is implicit in the Feasta definition

Only two respondents offered their own definitions of sustainability. ."A system capable of allowing unchanged, indefinite consumption services" one said, a form of words compatible with the Feasta version but which seems to lack a cutting edge. The other wrote "A sustainable system: a dynamic process that allows the needs of the present generations to be met without adversely affecting the achievement of wants of future generations". He immediately added "And yeah, I know that is pretty vague but you did say you wanted an off-the-cuff response. Under my interpretation of the Feasta definition, growth is ruled out. My definition allows for growth." Not so, said another correspondent:

"I do not see that Feasta's approach is necessarily static - after all technological development and cultural or social innovation could equally be fostered and harnessed to secure greater efficiency and wider social opportunities (instead of securing constant growth) within Feasta's criteria of sustainability. In other words, the possibility of change, of evolution toward greater efficiency and equality is not precluded by the demands for a sustainable system - just the opposite, in fact: these ends might be far more likely than they currently are under a system driven by the central impetus of value-free growth."

QUESTION 2 came in two parts. Part one asked if the present world system could be considered to be sustainable by the respondent's own definition and by the Feasta one. Part two went on to ask if an economic system which required constant growth could be made to operate sustainably. On part one, no-one wrote that the present system was sustainable by any definition and four said explicitly that it was not. Two respondents gave reasons. One of these was that the destruction of the environment was still being counted as a contribution to growth. The other was the present system could not handle growth in a socially and environmentally friendly way. Interestingly, though, one of those who avoided saying if the present system was sustainable, a development studies teacher (DST) thought that the unsustainable nature of the way we live today had not yet been proved.

On part two, four people thought that it was possible for growth to continue indefinitely - in other words, that a growing economy was compatible with a finite world - but they stressed that the growth which took place had to be in terms of quality rather than quantity. Interestingly, only one of our respondents was absolute in his rejection of growth:

"A system based on endless growth would inevitably prove incompatible with...sustainability. In particular, the endless growth that the present system demands is value-free growth, taking no account of the social costs of growth, including increasing inequality and poverty, or of the environmental costs of growth, including pollution, ozone-depletion and so on. The central problem is that the present demand for continuous growth does not arise out of development geared to meet the basic needs of the general population but from the driving logic of the system - constant accumulation and the increasing concentration of capital and resources in fewer hands (increasingly corporate and global in orientation). By contrast, a sustainable system that was both environmentally and socially just could conceivably be acheived through proper management and distribution without recourse to the driving impetus of frantic, ceaseless, value-free growth."

The second person who said that a constantly growing economy was not sustainable did so because he thought that the market system as structured at present 'does not control the behaviour of entrepreneurs in their quest for expansion and politicians do not control them either because the entrepreneurs can buy off the politicians. This means that there is no protection afforded for the environment, conservation of natural resources such as marine life or the rain forests' He did not say whether a growing economy would be sustainable if the market system was changed in some way.

QUESTION 3 asked whether it was wise for humanity to stake its survival "on the assumption that a dynamic form of sustainability is possible?" "Yes" said one respondent, with no qualification whatsoever. Another was more anguished about his decision but eventually came to the same conclusion:

"I understand and sympathize with some people's concern that while, in theory, dynamic sustainability may be possible, in reality markets don't always work in a sustainable manner, governments have often failed to legislate to combat market failure, and often we don't have enough information to properly model the system. There is much truth in these observations, but if we are talking about dynamic systems we should not fall into the trap of extrapolating from past behaviour, and underestimating the ability of the global system to react in ways that will address many of these problems. At the end of the day, I think it comes down to your faith in human ingenuity, and I hope that my faith is not misplaced."

Only two people rejected outright the idea of attempting to achieve both growth and sustainability simultaneously. In one case, the rejection was because the respondent despaired of attempting to control a perpetually-expanding system sufficently well to ensure that it remained sustainable. In the second case, the respondent thought that constant expansion was a destructive impulse and so wasn't desirable anyway. A third respondent expressed no opinion on the wisdom of pursuing both goals but thought that a growing capitalist system could 'certainly continue to function in a manner which would be satisfactory to some for the foreseeable future' .Whether this was desirable for much of humankind was 'obviously debatable.' he added.

Second Round

It was apparent from the answers we got to the first-round questions that our sample was divided four to two, the majority belonging to the pro-growth faction. To some extent, this split reflected the differences in values and belief between what the US sociologist Lester Milbrath has called the 'Dominant Social Paradigm' and the 'New Environmental Paradigm'. Some of the differences Milbrath identified are shown in the table below. Broadly, the DSP people believe in markets and human ingenuity; they focus on the short-term and are prepared to accept risks to eco-systems to achieve economic growth. The NEP adherents on the other hand prefer planning to markets, are skeptical about humanity's ability to foresee and forestall actions which will severely damage the planet and give priority to eco-system viability and long-term sustainability over raising incomes in the short term.

FUNDAMENTAL AND BELIEF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO PARADIGMS
Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP)	New Environmental Paradigm (NEP)
Priority for economic growth and development. Focus on short-term or immediate prosperity.	Priority for ecosystem viability, focus on long-term sustainability.
Continuation of economic growth justifies dangers of perturbing biogeochemical systems.	Disturbing biogeochemical systems is rarely if ever justifiable.
Perpetual economic growth: unrestricted population growth.	Growth beyond replacement must be halted for sustainability.
Accept risks to ecosystems to maximise wealth.	Avoid risks to the ecosystem and overall societal well-being
Reliance on markets to spur growth and ensure a bright future.	Reliance on foresight and planning to secure a bright future.
Emphasis on immediate, materially oriented gratification.	Emphasis on simplicity and personal growth.
Emphasis on hierarchy and authority.	Emphasis on horizontal structures that maximise interaction and learning.
Centralised decision-making and responsibility.	Greater personal and local responsibility.
Emphasis on private rather than public goods.	Ensure protection and supply of public goods.
Great faith in science and technology.	Sceptical about technology, wants critical evaluation.
Reliance on mechanistic simple cause/effect thinking and narrow expertise.	Recognises the need for holistic/integrative thinking.
Emphasis on competition, domination and patriarchy.	Emphasis on co-operation, partnership and egalitarianism.
Violence needed to maintain society.	Averse to violence - seek order without it.
Subordinate nature to human interests.	Place humans in an ecosystemic context.
Emphasise freedom so long as it serves economic priorities.	Emphasise freedom so long as it serves ecological and social imperatives.

CONTRASTING POLICIES/STRATEGIES/APPROACHES AS A RESULT OF THE DIFFERENT PARADIGMS
(DSP)	(NEP)
Maximise growth even at the cost of polluting.	Reduce waste and avoid pollution even at economic cost.
Encourage conspicuous consumption.	Discourage conspicuous consumption.
Emphasise work to fill economic needs.	Emphasise fulfilment in work.
Utilise whatever resources are needed to maximise current economic activity for the benefit of the current generation.	Conserve and maintain resource stocks for future generations.
Emphasise the profitable use of non-renewable resources; rely on markets to resolve resource shortages.	Emphasise renewable resources; plan for resource shortages.
Encourage the virtually unrestricted deployment of technology.	Critically evaluate and if needed, restrict the deployment of technology.
Use hard/large-scale technologies.	Use soft/'appropriate' technologies.
Support the development of nuclear energy.	Phase out nuclear energy.
Sacrifice other species for economic gain.	Protect other species, even at economic cost.
Encourage monocultures to maximise output and wealth for humans so as to allow unlimited population growth.	Restore/preserve ecosystem diversity. Observe limits to population growth.
Emphasise high-yield, intrusive agriculture.	Emphasise regenerative/appropriate agriculture.
Rely on markets to determine who gets what. Minimal use of planning.	Plan, but also use subsidies, taxes and prohibitions to ensure that markets give the results that society wants.

Milbrath's analysis made the answers we got to our second-round questions broadly predictable. Unfortunately, only five people replied this time - one DSP-er, the only woman in our sample, dropped out.

QUESTION 1 asked the panel if they thought that the type of growth being generated in the world today was benefitting more than a minority of the human population. No, said one of the two NEP-ers. "The type of growth being generated today is primarily of benefit to a small section of society" He went on:

"Admittedly, this growth may, for some social groups or geographic areas, mean more general benefits - like employment. However, in equating such "growth" with progress or development, the disbenefits, like increasing inequality, poverty or environmental "risk", are blatantly written off as unfortunate but necessary side effects, or else simply ignored. To a large degree, powerful institutions - multinational corporations, the IMF, World Bank, EU, US, etc - are orchestrating this growth through NAFTA, GATT, and other "globalisation" policies. These institutions are not in the business of creating a fairer society or practising respect for the environment, and their policies favour very narrow interests. The inevitable result is the relentless concentration of capital (and power) in fewer hands and a cavalier attitude to environmental protection, which is rarely allowed to get in the way of profits."

The second growth sceptic was just as blunt. "In the past 25 years the developed economies have grown but most of the economies of the south have gone backwards or stagnated. So a minority of the world's population have enjoyed the benefits of growth. Within the developed economies the gap between rich and poor has been widening e.g.in the UK, in the US and in Ireland."

The pro-growthers did not agree that current growth was not benefitting most of the world's human population. "It is" said the central banker baldly. Both the DSTs thought that more explanation was needed. "Material goods are now more widespread than ever before. Look at the evidence in terms of TV, radios, bicycles, cars etc., in rural areas in Asia, Africa, Latin America" one wrote. "Growth is not a homogenous activity/process. The historical records show that some countries and regions are are better-off in a material sense now than at any other time in the past. Indeed, looking at global aggregates, there would appear to be improvements in terms of life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates and improved levels of education in many countries." He failed to stop to ask whether economic growth was responsible for these improvements.

The second DST was more cautious."No one type of growth is being generated today. Some of it is obviously not benefitting the majority but, until recently, much of East Asian growth did just that as, for example, Oxfam's 1997 report, Growth With Equity shows. The key question is the type of growth and the structures through which the growth operates. A less equal structure - of land ownership for example - will tend to ensure that growth favours the minority."

What about the effect of present growth on future generations? Was it beneficial for them too in view of global warming and the loss of soil and biodiversity? "The jury is still out" the central banker said. Both development studies lecturers were also non-committal: "[It] depends on the type of growth we are talking about and the distribution thereof" one wrote. "[That] depends whether our present use of resources increases or decreases the opportunities [available to] future generations" the other said. The sole growth sceptic who answered this question said that he could not possibly see how the growth being currently generated under 'the capitalist democraciesŠ. could possibly be construed as doing more good than harm for the future."

QUESTION 2 read: "Given that all respondents seem to agree that the achievement of sustainability requires the acceptance of limits, do you feel that any of the limits you would like to see observed have been exceeded yet? If they have, should priority be given to changing (reducing?) the economic system so it no longer breaks these limits rather than to continuing to expand it to generate further growth? In other words, do you really think that growth and sustainability can be achieved simultaneously? Economics is all about making choices. Shouldn't we chose to give sustainability priority? " We then made the question more provocative by adding an aside: "On the question of limits, Paul Ehrlich said to the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science last month:[September 1998}:

"Estimates of the long-term carrying capacity of Earth with relatively optimistic assumptions about consumption, technologies, and equity are in the vicinity of two billion people. [His reference for this was G.C.Daily, A.H. Ehrlich and A. Ehrlich: 'Optimum Human Population Size', Population and Environment, 15:469-475, 1994.] Today's [six billion] population cannot be sustained on the 'interest' generated by natural ecosystems, but is consuming its vast supply of natural capital -- especially deep, rich agricultural soils, 'fossil' groundwater, and biodiversity -- accumulated over centuries to eons. In some places soils, which are generated on a time scale of centimeters per century are disappearing at rates of centimeters per year. Some aquifers are being depleted at dozens of times their recharge rates, and we have embarked on the greatest extinction episode in 65 million years."

Predictably, both growth sceptics thought that limits had been exceeded and priority should be given to getting back on to the sustainable side of them even if that meant halting economic growth. One wrote:

"Without any figures or unshakeable scientific proof to hand, I would just say on the question of limits that living in a fairly large city provides daily evidence that all kinds of desirable limits are already being exceeded. The industrial noise, the filthy rivers, the polluted air, the evening "glow" in the sky - not to mention whatever is actually living in the Irish Sea at this stage - suggest broken limits all over the place.

"I seriously worry about the purely "reformist" approach to sustainability inherent in the argument that growth and sustainability are compatible. This angle is already being applied by many public and private sector bodies, who are happy to use (or even exploit) the rhetoric of sustainability without ever actually putting in place policies that could even begin the move towards a more sustainable economy. In short, the argument that economic growth and sustainability can both be attained simultaneously sounds, at best, meaningless and, at worst, a handy way of legitimating the current trajectory of economic growth, however damaging it may be. Yes, I think sustainability has to be given priority, otherwise the structural change necessary to actually achieve it will never come about."

The other wrote:

"Marine resources - if one looks at the Atlantic it is clear the acceptable limits have been breached but it is difficult to stop the fishermen from Europe who are now moving to the South Atlantiic to exploit the resources there at the expense of inshore fishermen in Africa. Similarly in the rainforests in SE Asia and Brazil , thousands of acres of trees that take hundreds of years to grow are being felled and not being replaced. But how do you stop this in a market system where multi national companies that exploit the resources are larger than governments and these companies may be protected in their exploitation by the government of country of origin e.g. US multinationals operating in South America. Economics is about choices for government, but governments may have agendas which push difficult choices onto other governments. This applies in the pollution area when a process is banned in one country, it is exported to another with less stringent legislation. So even if limits are being exceeded it is difficult to get governments to accept a common agenda to tackle the problem of sustainability."

One of the three pro-growthers also thought that limits had been exceeded. "Many countries have seen increasing erosion of some of their resource base, in terms soil erosion, running down of water tables, chemical pollution of soil and surface water etc., and at an international level there are also concerns in terms of overfishing, levels of airborne pollutants, etc." he wrote. However, this did not mean that he thought that becoming sustainable should be given priority over growth as, he seemed to suggest, corrective measures were already in hand: "Many national governments and international agencies are trying to combat these problems already with varying degrees of success, and in some cases, local communities, for example Machakos in Kenya, have responded to resource erosion problems in very innovative and effective ways."

Both the central banker and the other DST seemed unsure if any limits had been breached so far. "There are in my limited view only a few basic limits that critical" the banker wrote. "How far away [we are] from the[se] limits I can't judge. This counsels caution not stagnation." The DST wrote: "Of course, if I felt that some of the limits I deem critical had been exceeded, I would prioritise correction over growth". But not, perhaps, if it meant a big fall in the standard of living. "One could have a 'sustainable' situation of appalling poverty and exploitation. Why prioritise that?" he asked. The central banker, on the other hand, thought that there was no absolute reason to give sustainability priority "Other choices might be desirable if [you are] violating your sustainability criterion." he said. The mind boggles. Just what might such choices be?

Question 3 pointed out that, in their answers to the first round of questions, most respondents had expressed the view that the economic system needed to be altered or controlled in some way to ensure that it became less unsustainable. "Do you feel that it is realistic to expect the required changes or controls to be introduced, and to be made to work effectively, within whatever period is left before the carrying capacity of the planet is sharply reduced if (1) free trade and the free movement of capital are preserved and (2) in circumstances in which every firm's survival depends on its ability to find a competitive edge over its rivals, thus putting it under constant pressure to try to cut costs by evading the new controls? " the question asked "No" said one growth critic. He went on:

The issue of sustainability is an externality and the market system is totally guided by short term profits and the current share price. Nothing else is relevant. The free movement of capital has spread this right throughout the world and companies are only interested in getting resources as cheaply as possible to increase profits and if it means depleting resources , so what? Firms will always try to avoid controls. Look at all the financial scandals in Ireland at the moment.An expert in management told me that in business anything goes as long as you do not get caught. So if controls are put on certain aspects of business behaviour, firms will try to circumvent them if it means more profit.

The other critic was equally definite. "The two conditions [in the question] relate to the kind of neoliberal policies that demand far-reaching deregulation (though with massive State intervention in infrastructure, security, social control and so forth). I do not see how any limits or controls can realistically be put in place as long as these "facts of the market" prevail." he wrote.

The three pro-growthers all dodged the question. Both DSTs used the old trick of answering one question with another. "First," one wrote, "we need to answer the question : 'Is the carrying capacity of the planet being reduced?' And if it can be shown that it is, then it is up to political will to ensure that appropriate responses are taken." The second admitted that Feasta's question was a reasonable one. "But if one answers it in the negative, that leaves you with another question - how feasible it is to expect limits to be imposed on trade, capital and the competitive system? The key issue is a political one - how can we mobilise pressure to reform the system?" he wrote, thus indicating that he thought that reform was required.

Our laconic central banker thought so too. "Make markets for the environment. Think expansively, act contractionary!" he said.

Third Round

The reform of the current economic system was the subject of our final round of questions. Unfortunately, only two pro-growthers - the DSTs - and one growth sceptic replied.

Question 1 asked our panellists if they thought that, rather than trying to make existing economic system operate better by imposing additional regulations, it might not be more effective to make fundamental changes to it. If they did, what changes were they inclined to favour?

One of the DSTs seemed broadly happy with the present system while the other thought that the only way to change it was to bring it under 'maximum democratic control' in order to regulate it. One should not run away from it, he advised. The growth sceptic, on the other hand, doubted if regulation would work. " Business people will always try to buy the regulators" he said. "The term regulatory capture is well known in the US, where regulation of utilities has occurred over a long period of time." He went on:

By it's nature the capitalist system is difficult to change from the path it is presently pursuing because the nature of a system is one of individuals looking after their own interests with no regard to the greater good of society. To them there is no society, so trying to include other goals such as the quality of life, social justice etc is not on. I must admit that I may be unduly influenced by work I have been doing on the Irish economy since 1987. Governments in the period have acted as pawns to business interests ,while they express commitment to social justice, and have reduced taxes and used spending in such a way that the better off in our society are the beneficiaries of growth and that the less well off get the crumbs from the table. Maybe it is different in other European countries.

As for the international agencies, they are subject to the will of the major donor countries and in many cases act in the interest of multi-national business. The current banana war between the US and the EU, occurred because Chiquita ,the US multi-national banana grower in South America, gave a $550,000 donation to the Democrats in the US and the US took up the case with the World Trade Organisation.. It is only when catastrophe is approaching that the business people, who have received more and more power over the system in recent years through the liberalising of capital controls, will agree to do anything to save the system.

Question 2, which asked if neo-liberal economics ought to be resisted and whether we should we attempt to develop an alternative ideology to confront it, produced a near-unanimous response.

"Yes, I believe it does need resisting" one DST wrote, although he had no idea of what ideology should replace it. Instead, he though, people who felt as he did could work on a pragmatic basis, opposing such things as the free movement of capital and bio-patenting, and working for the global regulation of multinational corporations. "There is a theme running through these suggestions" he wrote, "namely, the desirability of democracy. But that is something that is best worked out in practice, not as an abstract philosophy."

The other DST thought that 'certain aspects of neo-liberalism' needed addressing, particularly its theory-based policies which had failed in the real world. He said he found the pandering of governments to "market/investor confidence". particularly worrying. "We are presently witnessing cases where governments are willing to handcuff themselves in terms of policy response in order to maintain that confidence, or are prepared to surrender sovereignty without looking for complementary restraints" He had been alarmed, he said at the secretive way the Multilateral Agreement on Investment had been developed. "Does that process not conflict with the supposed agenda of a 'greater voice for the people'? " he asked. However, he too advised against trying to develop an alternative ideology and recommended pragmatism. "I would not recommend devoting time to finding an alternative ideology.It too could become dogmatic." he wrote. "Instead, a more flexible, openminded and accommodating mindset is needed. As Keynes once remarked "If the facts change, I change my opinion".

The growth sceptic was more radical, although even he did not call for a new ideology. "There is need for a thorough revamp of economics so that the goal of society is the well-being of all society and this includes both the rich and the poor in the developed societies and in the South as well" he wrote. "Neo liberal economics is a misnomer in the sense that there is nothing liberal or free about the markets.[in which it operates] " he wrote. "World industry has become concentrated with globalisation. This has led to duopoly , monopoly and oligopoly in the major industrial markets. Moreover, firms rig the markets through advertising and other means. They restrict entry and keep prices high. "

Question 3 asked the panellists what areas they would like to see Feasta investigate and made some suggestions. The two DSTs agreed that the extent to which current growth is benefitting or harming future generations and how the present system might be better regulated to ensure that their interests were protected was the key priority area. And both rejected out of hand the study the growth sceptic thought most important - defining the goals of economic progress and the development of alternative indicators to monitor it. This was too abstract, one said, and in any case, it was work already being done by organisations such as the UNDP. "Not a priority. Done to death' the other said.

Conclusions

It's very hard for someone with a particular worldview to sympathise with the opinions of those working within a different one. However, the overall impression given by the answers of the members of our panel who still adhered to the Dominant Social Paradigm to someone who no longer shares that view was that they were finding their positions increasingly difficult to maintain and were consequently having to resort to 'this has still to be proved' arguments about matters which those within the New Environmental Paradigm had long regarded as cut and dried. The first-round question about whether current growth was proving universally beneficial provided a good example of the diverging views on an outcome over which the statistics show there can be little doubt.

It is not an easy matter for anyone to switch from one paradigm to another as the process involves a complete re-assessment of all the things they thought they knew. The switch is particularly difficult for economists though because it involves the recognition that incremental changes to the present system - the imposition of tougher regulations perhaps - are unlikely to be enough to correct what is going wrong and that a massive, radical restructuring is required. Any economist who adopted this view would automatically be seen as an extremist and consigned to the fringes of the profession. So, naturally, he or she resists changing for as long as they can.

Back to top

This article is from the first Feasta Review, a 204-page large format book. Copies of the book are available for £15 from Green Books.

Continue to the first annual Feasta lecture, by Professor Herman Daly