It would be no exaggeration to describe the above quote as the most widely cited definition of sustainable development. Equally, sustainability and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development are amongst the most widely discussed and reported issues as the world grapples with the consequences of climate change, poverty, conflict, and resource scarcity. Sustainable development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) might seem like a clear and straightforward agenda for ending poverty, protecting the planet, and promoting peace and prosperity. Yet, the truth could not be further than that. This is an idea fraught with contradictions and questions about the future of humanity.
Writing in Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary, the sequel of The Development Dictionary that was published in 1992, Wolfgang Sachs describes the idea of sustainable development as the expression of an unequivocal mind shift in the geopolitics of development compared to the post-colonial and post–Cold War era from a discourse of progress to that of survival (Sachs 1992, 2018: xiii). Yet, sustainable development is still underpinned by a narrow and one-dimensional perception of development, one that is tied to a market-driven conceptual framework and a mantra that sees appropriate technologies, markets, and institutional policy reforms as the solution (Kothari et al. 2018). As several of the contributors in the Post-Development Dictionary confirm, there is a pressing need for scholarly work to both deconstruct and re-politicise the idea of sustainable development. We need to critique the social structures that underlie ecological destruction and need to bring to the forefront the multidimensional and alternative visions of sustainable development through an interdisciplinary effort. To all the above I would add the need for a critical approach to the idea and measurement of development as a whole, informed not just by expert and scientific knowledge but by the unique knowledge, experience, and voice of the people at the grassroots level.
It is in this effort that this book aims to contribute first by advancing the idea that genuine sustainable development is more likely to happen through smaller and self-sustained projects rather than institutional efforts that rely on large aid packages and a ‘silver bullet’ mind set; and second by bringing into focus the critical role of communication, voice, and the social relations that are at the heart of such projects. At a time when achieving genuine sustainable development on a global scale entails a multi-stakeholder approach with resources and knowledge drawn from different social groups, communication could not be more crucial (Servaes and Malikhao 2016). In fact, as the world is faced with an unprecedented humanitarian and economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic that is unravelling at the time of writing, the need and value of communication and social relations has become even more pressing. The physical distancing policies implemented globally to control the disease have only strengthened the importance of and need for communication and social relations to support and bolster our economies and societies. According to the Chief Executive of the Bank of England Andy Haldane, the crisis has exposed the need for recognising the importance of this social capital in the way we measure the success of our societies, placing well-being at the centre (Haldane 2020). The same should apply to our understanding and measurement of sustainable development, with more attention placed on the voices of the people on the ground.
Sustainable development emerged as a prominent development paradigm in the 1980s, with the year 1987 becoming a landmark for the ‘sustainability revolution’ with the publication of ‘The Brundtland Report’ by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). In this, sustainable development was defined as ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Elliott 1994: 4), with core issues including development, energy, food security, and biodiversity. It can be argued that the Brundtland Report was also a landmark for the establishment of what today is called the ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs). The SDGs summarise the agenda agreed by the United Nations’ member states to achieve sustainable development between 2015 and 2030, and which continues the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were adopted in 2000. Sustainable development has also been theorised as a form of development and social change, ‘a social process, which has as its ultimate objective sustainable development at distinct levels of society’ (Servaes and Malikhao 2016: 174).
There has been no shortage of criticism when it comes to the reactions to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, succinctly reflected in suggested alternative readings of the SDGs acronym, such as ‘Sustainable Survival Goals’ (Sachs 2018: xiii), ‘Stupid Development Goals’ (The Economist 2015), and ‘Senseless, Dreamy, Garbled’ (Easterly 2015). The reported inadequacy of the SDG Agenda to offer a realistic development policy has recently received considerable criticism from scholars and experts alike. SDGs have been accused to be driven by a neoliberal ideology, failing to invest in health, correct trade injustices, and protect low and middle-income countries, with the COVID-19 pandemic deepening existing undercurrents even further (van de Pas 2020). Early sustainability debates were initially influenced by The Limits to Growth report by the Club of Rome (Meadows et al. 1972), which raised concerns about mass production technologies and consumption patterns and the limitations of perpetual growth. These concerns were captured by the term ‘eco-development’ and the rejection of the idea that economic growth will spread from the few to the masses; but were ultimately rejected by powerful political actors hence paving the way for sustainable development as the new guiding policy (Gómez-Baggethun 2018: 71).
Although at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UN’s focus turned onto global environmental threats and the advancement of SDGs directly linked to climate action, land, and water, the sustainable development discourse has shifted the emphasis from social justice to poverty alleviation in line with the economic imperatives of growth (Gómez-Baggethun 2018). The Rio+20 final declaration advocates the need for economic growth in more than 20 articles, championing the conviction that economic growth and technological progress will offer the solution to environmental issues (Demaria and Kothari 2017). Although the importance of economic growth for human development cannot be denied, it is its non-uniqueness, as a means to development, that needs to be recognised. This requires a shift away from dominant discourses that frame development in line with Western-Northern hegemony and growth, and a recognition of the multidimensionality of human development and well-being. The following section presents three theoretical approaches that exemplify this idea.
Development Beyond Economic Growth: Deconstructing Sustainable Development
The limitations of the economic aspect of sustainable development have been in the public debates at least since the 1990s during which time we also saw the launch of the Human Development Index (HDI) and a shift in the emphasis of development economics from national income accounting to human-centred policies. In the UNDP report Sustainable Human Development: Concepts and Priorities (1994), authors Sudhir Anand and Amartya Sen put forward the idea of human development as a goal in itself that safeguards sustainable development by enhancing people’s capability to live worthwhile lives, without denying the importance of poverty alleviation for environmental protection. These debates also highlighted the need for deconstructing and reviewing the concept of development as a linear process that relies on material and financial growth, and recognising that well-being and quality of life depend as much on social relations and the environment. According to Demaria and Kothari (2017), deconstructing development can pave the way for a matrix of alternative, richer, and more complex views that challenge the dominant ideas of sustainable development and promote ethical values such as solidarity, interconnectedness, inclusiveness, to name but a few. There are at least three theoretical frameworks that have contributed to this deconstruction and will be presented here. These are Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach (1999), Alsop and Heinsohn’ Empowerment Framework (2005), and Dorothea Kleine’s Choice Framework (2013). All three frameworks contribute to a deconstruction of the idea of sustainable development in a way that reveals the complexity of well-being and the multiplicity of resources, processes, and relations that make up development and can also lead to sustainability.
The Capability Approach
The capability approach can be broadly described as a normative framework, an approach, or a mode of thinking about normative issues that can be used for the evaluation of indi...