C3459878

2194 words

Sustainable development is yet to be acceptably defined by the wider economic community, and there are
many associated issues such as contested definitions. Solving the problems of defining sustainable
development is therefore a complex process. Kates et al provide a widely accepted definition 1, however it
contrasts with definitions by Williams, and Seghezzo, that are also widely accepted by the economic
community 2, 3. This creates a crossroads within the concept, and it can be posited that the current lack of a
clear definition gives sustainable development flexibility, allowing the concept to be shaped to different
situations and problems accordingly, in line with the view of Kates et al. However, it can also be argued
that improving sustainability efforts is dependent on a clearly defined and accepted definition, in line with
the definitions given by Williams, and Seghezzo.
Sustainable development evolved as societys attitude to natural resources, consumption, and waste began
to change during the twentieth century. The societal shift in a post World War II world saw slow recognition
of the fragility of our society, and subsequent identification of drawbacks to the way anthropocentric and
economist views affect our society in terms of solving long term sustainability problems and our attitude to
consumption. As global industrialisation increased post World War II 4, so did consumption 5 and trade 6
(Roser, M., 2016). As a result, resource rich economies moved to maintain their wealth and influence; for
example the OPEC oil shocks during the 1970s, which resulted in a global shift towards finding new
resources (Grossman, P.Z., 2013).
Therefore, the problems of defining sustainable development are far more complicated than many realise,
resulting in contested definitions, and a tendency to target economic progress over sustainable development.
Kates et al view that the lack of definition helps solve problems of sustainable development is a complicated
issue, wherein the lack of definition solves and creates problems. This essay will debate both arguments
centred around Kates et al view, and examine issues surrounding society and sustainable development as a
whole.

Kates et al define sustainable development as a work in progress, describing it as productively

ambiguous, centred around allowing different stakeholders to adapt and develop the concept for
particular purposes (Kates et al, 2005). This definition backs up Kates et al view that the lack of definition
helps solve the problems of sustainable development, because it offers flexibility to the reach of the concept,
and supports the idea that narrow definitions obscure the aims of sustainable development. Furthermore,
this definition suggests the concept can be defined by what it aims to achieve, and can have many different
users, purposes, and aims. This view of sustainable development stems from the Brundtland Commission,
published in 1987. Brundtlands definition is broad and all-encompassing; he stated that sustainable
development is the ability to make development sustainable, aiming towards inter-generational equity;

1
Kates et al view sustainable development as a "work in progress", describing it as "productively ambiguous",
allowing different parties to use the concept for "particular purposes". (Kates et al, 2005)
2
Williams and Millington describe the concept as "messy, chaotic, and disordered", saying it is "in need or order,
and this begins by clarifying the concept". (Williams and Millington, 2004)
3
. Seghezzo states that the current ambiguity creates "theoretical and practical limitations", and it further states that
"one cannot consistently develop a concept that is poorly defined". (Seghezzo, 2009)
4
See Appendix 1
5
See Appendix 2
6
See Appendix 3
C3459878
2194 words

simultaneously meeting the needs of society today without corrupting our ability to accomplish the same
in the future.(Brundtland, G.H., 1987)
Therefore it can be suggested that if sustainable development is working in a way that benefits everyone,
there is no need for a uniform definition of the concept. Sustainable development is an elastic and
incomplete concept, which allows for further adaptation and experimentation with the idea as a whole. If
the concept is incomplete, it can be argued that we do not need a complete definition, at least until
sustainable development becomes a high priority aim of society, which it is currently not seen as. For
example, Donald Trump recently signed an executive order to repeal an act aimed at protecting Americas
rivers from coal-mining waste, thereby allowing US coal-mining companies to dump waste in rivers,
polluting the environment and damaging local ecosystems (Natter, A., 2017) . Allowing coal companies to
pollute the rivers will disrupt the natural order in the area and potentially result in health issues and the
corruption of local wildlife (Holzman, C.D., 2011). In the long-term, this will damage our world, but in the
short-term it will allow Trump to court big coal corporations, a political move in Trumps own self interest,
but not in the interest of intra or inter generational equity. Therefore, it can be suggested that this is in fact
why we need a working definition that is widely accepted and worked towards by the wider economic
society; to prevent people destroying our planet for their own personal gain; this links heavily with an
economist view, that is to say all other aspects of human existence are viewed through their economic
significance.
Some might argue that favouring economic growth over sustainability will allow us to solve the problems
by going back to fix them with increased assets and capital in the future. This is heavily linked with the
tragedy of the commons, an economic theory centred around the idea that through the population using
shared resources in self-interest, they often damage the wider common good through overuse (Hardin, G.,
1968). If one farmer puts in more cows, he stands to gain in the short term because he can sell more milk.
However, because there are more cows in the field, it becomes overgrazed, damaging the shared good in
the long run (Lloyd, W.F., 1883). Furthermore, seeking long-term fixes to sustainability problems is
considered invalid by strong sustainable development, which instead advocates society change to meet intra
and inter generational needs. Meeting these needs requires complex definitions that we do not have,
therefore it can be suggested that if we are to solve the problems that come with defining sustainable
development, we must first agree on a global definition that can be worked towards cohesively.

Contrastingly, the definitions provided by Williams and Millington, as well as Seghezzo, provide solid
solutions to the current state of global sustainable development; Williams et al state that sustainable
development is messy, chaotic, and disordered, requiring a strong response based around order and
clarification of the concept, instead of allowing the concept to be warped to fit individual perspectives
(Williams and Millington, 2004). Furthermore, Seghezzos definition rejects the Brundtland Commissions
definition, which is arguably the most widely accepted definition of the concept. Seghezzo stated that the
current ambiguity creates theoretical and practical limitations because one cannot consistently
develop a concept that is poorly defined. (Seghezzo, L., 2009)
Thus, it can be posited that Kates et al view of sustainable development as a work in progress does not help
the problems regarding the definition of the concept, because the lack of a clear definition is allowing
economies to manipulate the concept in order to focus on continuing economic growth in the global struggle
for wealth and power. On the other hand, this system is not without benefits; for example due to societys
C3459878
2194 words

need for growth in order to fuel job creation, infrastructure growth, to maintain current society, the system
does provide society with their needs. However, the negatives are often not considered or properly
accounted for, creating a fragile state wherein resources are increasingly used up for the purpose of
consumption, demonstrating an anthropocentric view of economics as a whole. Anthropocentrism states
that all other aspects of the world are subject to our will, and this background concept greatly contributed
to our failure to recognise the need for sustainable development for a long time.
An anthropocentric position, a very commonly held economic worldview, is on the other hand a
characterising factor of weak sustainable development, and it can therefore be argued that society as a whole
requires a definite definition in order to continue to strengthen sustainable development. This is a necessary
requirement because if we cant agree on what it means, then we cannot use the concept to effectively shift
the global perspective from the cycle of consumer spending, to the conservation of current resources, and
the concurrent hunt for new resources that can be used in more beneficial ways. Furthermore, failure to
define sustainable development creates yet more problems regarding the overall use of the concept; without
a working definition, it makes it much harder for society to progress towards long term goals and affect real
change within the wider economic community.
It can be argued that the lack of clear global understanding of the concept is contributing to the problems
of defining sustainable development. A key part of the problem is the generality created by the lack of an
accepted definition, which allows the concept to be misappropriated, misused, misinterpreted, and used in
ways that are incompatible with long term goals set out by the wider economic community. This creates a
conflict of interest within sustainable development, which stems from the tendency to put economies first,
resulting in resistance to the concept. These conflicts of interest means that powerful and influential
economies, and economies that are growing are resisting the socio-economic shift towards sustainable
development because it factors into account possible resource limits, something that often results in the
subordination of the concept.

The way that society views and understands sustainable development is intertwined with the problems of
the defining the concept, at the very centre of our needs and consumption, and material wealth. Economic
development is the aim of every country in the world, and consumption grows as the economy grows.
Everybody wants to expand their wealth and power, and many countries will do anything to stay ahead. For
example, the OPEC oil shocks in the 1970s were direct results of the resource rich using their assets to
make a statement. During the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the US came out in support of Israel and supplied
arms for the war. In response, the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries issued an oil
embargo on the US, preventing them from importing Arab oil (Oppenheim, V.H., 1976). The embargo
ended in March 1974 when OPEC were satisfied by ongoing peace negotiations; by that time the price of
oil had risen from just three dollars per barrel to nearly twelve dollars per barrel (Frum, D., 2000). At the
same time, global oil consumption was rapidly increasing 7, and global oil prices skyrocketed 8. The increase
resulted in gas rationing in the US, whilst OPEC members began to gather considerable wealth and
influence as a result (Yergin, D., 2008).
The outcome of the shock demonstrates why society needs an accepted definition to work towards; the oil
crisis saw an uptake in interest towards alternative, renewable energy sources. However, since the crash,

7
See Appendix 2
8
See Appendix 4
C3459878
2194 words

energy policy has focused on quick fixes and a crisis-like mentality, ignoring facts, and promoting
expensive, reckless policies that do not provide a sustainable future. The US response to the shock in
particular was paradoxical by nature. Efforts were made to reduce consumption, for example the national
speed limit was reduced to 55 mph 9, but few efforts were made to seek out alternatives, despite the
vulnerability it created (Grossman, P.Z., 2013). This demonstrates that society can experience widespread
resource shortages and increased cost, but even then global consumption trends do not change overall,
instead policies focused solely on oil because society did not want to change, and it did not have a set
definition or aim to work towards.
Therefore it can be asserted that the problems of defining sustainable development are not limited to pre-
existing, contrasting definitions. The problems that we face regarding the definition of sustainable
development are indicative of the way that society views the concept, the tendency of the wealthy to resist
change, and the way that modern economies are structured around having more possessions, having
different possessions years on year. By nature, this is not sustainable. Constant consumption and ritualistic
replacement can not go on forever. There must be a breaking point, but the issue is not whether or not we
can define sustainable development to solve the problem, but whether or not people actually care about, or
notice, the effect that our lifestyle has on the world around us. Some argue that the lack of a definition for
sustainable development is responsible, yet this is just an excuse. Humanity was too slow to notice that the
way it was developing was not sustainable, but the lack of a clear definition makes it easier for society to
ignore the need for the concept, therefore we must define sustainable development before our planet reaches
breaking point.

Kates et al view of sustainable development as a work in progress may offer some benefits in regards to
solving the problems of defining it, such as flexibility and an all-encapsulating attitude, however, the need
for a definition outweighs this. Kates et al view of sustainable development as a work in progress contributes
to the overall lackadaisical use of the concept by the wider economic community, as the lack of definition
allows it be misused and misappropriated for unsustainable practices, and gives a wasteful, consumption-
based society a scapegoat for unsustainable habits, from the everyday consumer to those in the upper
echelons of wealth and power.
Furthermore, this essay disagrees with the suggestion that Kates et al view of sustainable development helps
solve the problems of defining the concept, because of the complicated way that the concept is viewed by
our consumerist and materialistic society as a whole; capitalism dominates modern economic thinking, and
short term profit is often sought over long term security. Society rejects and subordinates sustainable
development because of this, therefore this essay posits that in order to solve the problems of sustainable
development, we must first define the concept in order to unify the wider economic community behind a
global societal shift.

9
This was repealed in 1995 by the Clinton administration, and the effect of the law was unclear due to a number of
factors. (Fulwood, S., 1995)
C3459878
2194 words

Appendices
Appendix 1

Roser, M., (2017) A history of global living conditions in 5 charts. Published online at
OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-
in-5-charts/ [Online Resource]
Appendix 2
C3459878
2194 words

"Global Fossil Fuel Consumption Surges | Worldwatch Institute". Worldwatch.org. N.p., 2017. Web. 13
Mar. 2017. Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org/global-fossil-fuel-consumption-surges
[Online Resource]
Appendix 3

Roser, Max and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina. "International Trade". Our World In Data. N.p., 2017. Web. 2017.
Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/international-trade
Appendix 4
C3459878
2194 words

"Crude Oil | 1946-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast | News". Tradingeconomics.com. N.p., 2017.
Web. 2017. Available at: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil [Online Resource]

Bibliography
Brundtland, Gro Harlem. "Our Common FutureCall For Action". Environmental Conservation 14.04
(1987): 291. Print.
Lloyd, W. F. Two Lectures On The Checks To Population. 1st ed. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1833. Print.
Frum, David. How We Got Here. 1st ed. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. Print.
Fulwood III, Sam. "Clinton Signs Bill Eliminating 55 M.P.H. Limit". latimes. N.p., 1995. Web.
Hardin, Garrett. "The Tragedy Of The Commons". Science 162.3859 (1968): 1243-1248. Print.
Holzman, David C. "Mountaintop Removal Mining: Digging Into Community Health Concerns". N.p.,
2011. Print.
Grossman, Peter Z. U.S. Energy Policy And The Pursuit Of Failure. 1st ed. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2013. Print.
Natter, Ari. "Trump Signs Measure Blocking Obama-Era Rule To Protect Streams". Bloomberg.com.
N.p., 2017. Web.
Oppenheim, V. H. "The Past: We Pushed Them". Foreign Policy 25 (1976): 24-57. Web.
Robert W. Kates, Thomas M. Parris, and Anthony A. Leiserowitz. "What Is Sustainable Development?
Goals, Indicators, Values, And Practice". Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development
47.3 (2005): 8-21. Web.
Roser, Max. "A History Of Global Living Conditions In 5 Charts". Our World In Data. N.p., 2017. Web.
Roser, Max and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina. "International Trade". Our World In Data. N.p., 2017. Web. 2017.
Seghezzo, Lucas. "The Five Dimensions Of Sustainability". Environmental Politics 18.4 (2009): 539-556.
Web.
C3459878
2194 words

Williams, Colin C and Andrew C Millington. "The Diverse And Contested Meanings Of Sustainable
Development". The Geographical Journal 170.2 (2004): 99-104. Web.
Yergin, Daniel. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. 1st ed. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1990. Print.