Weak Sustainability

What is it about?

Definition/Description The issue of sustainability has received various treatments over the past two decades. A spectrum of perspectives has been identified ranging from a technocentric “very weak sustainability” position to an ecocentric “very strong sustainability” position (Gibbs et al. 1998). Weak sustainability (shallow environmentalism) emphasizes the idea of the quantitative side of growth (Balaceanu and Apostol 2014). Based on Robert M. Solow’s (1986, 1993) ideas, weak sustainability implies a constant amount of total capital assets (resources) over the time, while natural and produced (manmade, manufactured) capital is interchangeable (Turner 1993). Some resources may be reduced because of the increase of other ones (Neumayer 2003). Following the definition proposed by Pearce and Atkinson (1993), an economy is considered sustainable if its savings rate is greater than the combined depreciation rate on natural and produced capital (Cabeza Gutés 1996). Under this notion, sustainability is equivalent to non-decreasing total capital stock. This is referred to as “weak” sustainability since no restrictions on the degree of substitutability between natural and produced capital are introduced, and thus natural capital receives no special treatment. Consistent with this interpretation, Pearce and Atkinson (1993) presented a weak sustainability index as an economic indicator of sustainable development. The weak sustainability index is defined as the difference between the savings rate and the sum of the depreciation rate of natural and produced capital. That is, an economy is considered to be “weakly” sustainable if and only if the weak sustainability index is greater than zero (Cabeza Gutés 1996).

Featured Image

Photo by Carl Tronders on Unsplash

Photo by Carl Tronders on Unsplash

Why is it important?

Summary The studies reveal the existence of two interpretations of the environment, namely, from an environmental perspective and from a perspective of an economic development, reflecting different positions. A spectrum of perspectives can be identified ranging from a technocentric “very weak sustainability” position to an ecocentric “very strong sustainability” position. Weak sustainability positions assume that there is a very high degree of substitutability between human capital and natural one. Strong versions of sustainability emphasize the assumption of almost infinite substitutability of resources. Under weak versions of sustainability, the market and the preservation of the status quo play a much greater role than in strong versions. Weak sustainability stresses the adjustment of existing activities within existing operational boundaries. It represents resource conservationism and “managerial” position. It requires the maintenance of the total capital stock through time by regulating intergenerational capital bequests and expanding the stock of resources, e.g., by developing renewable resources, creating substitutes for nonrenewable resources, making more effective use of existing resources, and/or by searching for technological solutions to problems such as resource depletion and pollution. So, by changing some processes there will be less tangible problems dealt with. What concerns on ethical principles, weak sustainability stresses the idea of instrumental value in nature and intergenerational equity. According to some researchers, also intragenerational equity is covered by the core ethic of weak sustainability. Green economy and green markets guided by economic incentives are supported by advocates of weak sustainability. Very week (weaker) sustainability sees that problems that arise will be solved by modificating existing structures through technological development. It stresses that resources are exploitative, and thus, it has growth-orientated position. Traditional ethical justification for the right of the present generation to use nature is supported. So, nature has instrumental value, and it is seen as a resource to which human beings have a right of dominion. The advocates of very weak sustainability think that economic growth is a valid measure of “progress” and they emphasize unfettered free market. Very week and weak sustainability are seen to employ a technocentric and an anthropocentric perspective. The core idea of the technocentric perspective is that any problems that arise will be solved through technological development. In the anthropocentric perspective, it is seen that nature is predominantly a resource to which people have a right to dominate. The difference between the concepts of very weak and week sustainability lies in how nature is used and how much use of nature is allowed to satisfy human needs.