Literature review

Order Description
(please make sure that major arguments, claims and concepts are put forward, also that correct information is rewritten and that the paper is well structured. )

rewrite book reviews provided below.

BOOK REVIEWS:

Sustainable Capitalism: A Matter of Common Sense. John E.

?Capitalism As If the World Matters.?Jonathon Porritt

The sustainable development of capitalism is the goal of both these two books, and although a few years since publication, the topic remains very relevant to current global debates about the
environment, sustainability, and climate change. The contribution made by these books is best understood by situating both in relation to the concept of sustainable development.
? The starting point for both books by Ikerd and Porritt, is about a notion of sustainability that does not threaten but is compatible with capitalism, that supports capitalism and does not
challenge a wage-labor system of commodity production for profit.?John Ikerd’s book Sustainable Capitalism: A Matter of Common Sense seeks to challenge “the inherent lack of sustainability in the
neoclassical paradigm” (ix) and advocates a new way of achieving sustainable capitalism. Ikerd considers that neoclassical economics is responsible for the lack of sustainability in the U.S.
agricultural sector in particular, and the American economy more broadly. Thus, he endeavors to develop a “new economics of sustainability” based on principles of living systems that are capable of
self-renewal and regeneration. Sustainability, he claims, is “seen most clearly by those closely connected to the earth” (ibid) for which, in his view, he is suitably qualified having been raised
on a farm, trained to work as an agriculture economist, and having spent half of his academic career as a “traditional free- market, neoclassical economist” (211)!
Ikerd’s definition of sustainable development, echoing that of the Brundtland Report, is that which “meets the needs of the present while leaving equal or better opportunities for the future” (45).
This, he considers, is achievable not by limiting growth but by creating a sustainable economy that is economically viable, socially just, and ecologically responsible. Ikerd acknowledges the
inherently destructive relationship which characterizes the relationship of capitalism with the environment, but blithely proposes that public policies should be used to impose social equity and
ecological integrity upon all capitalist economies.
The book’s eleven chapters are riddled with these sorts of generalized statements and propositions without any cogent analysis in support. Ikerd’s critique of neoclassical economics is a case in
point. He constantly reminds the reader that this dominant paradigm views society as nothing more than a group of selfish and self-interested individuals. As much as I am loath to defend
neoclassical economics, such a depiction is far too simplistic. It does, however, provide the perfect platform from which Ikerd launches his new economics of sustainability based on what he calls a
set of “first principles.”
According to Ikerd, we need an economics rooted in the neglected principles of classical political economy—the principles of happiness, free markets, free trade, and capitalism—from “which all
other truth and rightness are derived” (3). Adoption of these first principles, and imbued in public policies, will result in the pursuit of happiness and societal well-being instead of the
relentless pursuit of wealth (the legacy of neoclassical economics) which, according to Ikerd, will mean more caring and sharing by families, communities, and cultures. If we care for each other,
and the earth, sustainability will be achieved.
‘Sustainable capitalism begins in the hearts and minds of people. It begins with a common sense understanding of the fundamental first principles that define an enlightened concept of self-
interest. It begins with a return to the pursuit of a more desirable quality of life, instead of the pursuit of financial wealth. It begins with an understanding that a desirable quality of life
depends upon the rightness of our relationships with each other and with the earth. Sustainable capitalism begins with our willingness to return to the pursuit of happi- ness’. (203)
This final passage encapsulates Ikerd’s argument, the presentation of which is generally hindered by the book’s structure, inconsistencies between chapters, a poorly expressed understanding of
contributions to the sustainability debate (he conflates environmental and ecological economics), and a somewhat evangelical tone throughout.
The opening two chapters deal with Ikerd’s new economics of sustainability followed by a third discussing the problems of capitalism’s sustainable development. Then we slip back to a discussion of
economics for two chapters before reverting to a discussion about managing sustainable organizations. This back-and-forth approach does nothing for the argument’s clarity or a sense of the logic
that the author is seeking to convey.
Inconsistencies are also evident. For example, on p. 3 Ikerd states that more is required than “just fine-tuning or restructuring current economic thinking” reinforced by his subsequent contention
that “the inadequacies of neoclassical economics . . . are intrinsic and systemic and cannot be solved by tinkering around at the edges of the discipline” (63). But by the end of the book, Ikerd
concludes that “current economic theories and policies . . . are quite compatible with a sustainable economy and need only be adjusted and redirected to accommodate the social and ecological
requirements of sustainability” (194). Perhaps these differences reflect an evolution in Ikerd’s thinking given the book’s lengthy genesis of ten years, according to the author.
The core weakness of Ikerd’s argument lies, however, in the book’s omnipresent quasi- religious tone which gathers pace after a quote on p. 33 about the meaning of love from the apostle Paul, and
the reader being exhorted of the need for principles based on “some higher, unknowable order to things” (34) to provide ethical and moral well-being. The faith-based fervor continues as Ikerd
contends that the principles of sustainable capitalism are firmly rooted in a “belief in God” (71) and that “people need a sense of spiritual connectedness with something that transcends self and
others” (88).
For this reviewer, an argument for sustainable development and a new economics is weak, unconvincing, and implausible to say the least when it rests on nothing other than religious belief.
Challenging the abstractions of neoclassical economics to explain the contemporary environmental challenge, and proposing ways to achieve sustainable development, are worthy endeavours, but faith-
based economics is folly.
Porritt in his book Capitalism As If the World Matters shares Ikerd’s view that capitalism can deliver sustainable development, although he advocates a much different path to get there. Porritt is
a former chair of the British Green Party, past director of Friends of the Earth, and environmental adviser to the Prince of Wales, who was appointed by Tony Blair in 2000 as chair of the UK
Sustainable Development Commission. He is also co-founder and director of the UK development charity Forum for the Future.
Porritt takes a different approach from his earlier (more radical) 1984 book Seeing Green: Politics of Ecology Explained arguing that capitalism is the only option for an environmentally
sustainable world, and green politics should aim to transform it to make it more sustainable, not seek to abolish it. This shift in Porritt’s position is strongly reflected in the Blairite third-
way “sensible” approach embodied in Capitalism As If the World Matters. Throughout the book he concedes that economic growth and the environment are in conflict, are unnatural bedfellows of
capitalism, but passionately argues that a reasonable balance between them must—and can—be found. Porritt’s balance, however, is a smokescreen for the real solution which he advocates.
Distinguishing sustainability, “the capacity for continuance into the long term future” (33), from sustainable development which he views as the process to achieve sustainability, Porritt contends
that the Brundtland definition ignores society’s biophysical limits if natural capital is not to be eroded, i.e. there must be natural limits to human development. Porritt also is of the view that
“there is no inherent, fixed or non-negotiable aspect of capitalism” (137) that makes sustainability unattainable. These are the fundamental premises that he seeks to prove in the book, dismissing
any contrary evidence or arguments as “denial.”
Claiming to draw from the disciplines of “economics, ecology, sociology, psychology and so on” (213), Porritt presents a hypothetical model of capitalism comprising five types of capital: natural,
human, social, manufactured, and financial. (This “five capital model” was developed some years earlier by Porritt’s charity Forum for the Future.) Natural capital has primacy and human beings are
“merely an ephemeral subset of that earthly natural capital” (141).
‘The Five Capitals Framework unhesitatingly asserts the primacy (or “preconditionality”) of natural capital: after nearly 4 billion years of life on Earth, of which we have been around for just a
few tens of thousands of years, that has to be the right way of looking at things.’ (163, emphasis added)
Beyond making the assertion, Porritt fails to prove that just because nature has been around longer it must take precedence over human beings, just as he fails to prove his premise that there are
natural limits to human activity presenting weak “evidence” (generally the quotes of others or Forum for the Future material) to justify such claims.
Porritt contends that humanity faces two conflicting imperatives—a biological imperative to limit consumption growth and a political imperative to raise living standards—although, for Porritt, the
biological imperative far outweighs the political. He does not go as far as advocating lower consumption instead proclaiming the solution as a better quality of growth with wise consumption. This
will be primarily achieved, according to Porritt, by “making” sustainable development desirable, “explaining” the high price of materialism, and “increasing awareness” of the interdependence
between ourselves and the natural world. In essence, his solution is to repackage the idea of natural limits to gain the understanding and acceptance of the majority of the population.
Moreover, the mechanisms to undertake this repackaging and create Porritt’s new form of sustainable capitalism, of better quality growth and wise consumption, will be the “usual levers—government
intervention, consumer preference, international diplomacy, education and so on” (138) and “properly regulated markets” (90).
Porritt claims to have moved beyond the naiveté and impracticality of the environmental movement. Yet his sustainable capitalism of “an evolved, intelligent and elegant form of capitalism that puts
the Earth as its very centre” underpinned by the core values of “interdependence, empathy, equity, personal responsibility and intergenerational justice” (347), and his proposed means to get there,
suggest more than an element of naiveté. For example: why would capitalism deliver Porritt’s sustainability if this transformation relies on capitalism’s “usual levers” and markets?
Overall, his analysis, solution, and vision demonstrate a failure to understand the nature of ownership and control in capitalist society and the attendant alienation, capitalism’s accumulation
process and the relentless pursuit of profit, the state’s relationship with capital, and the economic-environment relation of capitalism.
The notion promulgated by Porritt, and Ikerd, that capitalism can deliver sustainability, may be intuitively attractive but is at considerable variance with history and reality. Air and water
pollution, deforestation, desertification, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and global warming dominate the ecological legacy from the conjunction of twentieth century capitalism’s widespread use
of fossil fuels, technological change, industrialization, mass production and mass consumption, and globalization. This is capitalism’s relation to nature. Capitalism requires nature as an
indefinite resource and condition of production (O’Connor 1998). This is the challenge for sustainable development.
Environmental problems are a direct result of the structural relations between the economic system and nature. The economic system’s interaction with the environment materializes in the extraction
of energy and matter as well as the dissemination of residuals from the productive process into the environment. As capitalism has evolved, the speed of economic growth has accelerated and so too
has capitalism’s dependence on nature as a tap and sink causing widespread ecological degradation. Policy responses, exemplified by the growing dominance of market-based measures, to purportedly
alleviate and retard some forms of environmental degradation have not averted ongoing destruction. They have, however, facilitated—not impeded—capital accumulation. Thus, sustainability in the form
proposed by Porritt (and for that matter Ikerd) is not that of a socially-just and ecologically-sustainable society but limited to that which does not challenge the fundamental essence of
capitalism: the process of accumulation.
Porritt’s book is easy to read, written in a populist media-savvy style appealing more to the reader’s emotion than using logic and reasoned argument. (I do admit, however, to being quite
fascinated by his account of the massive upsurge in religious engagement with the environment.) In many respects, the book is akin to a manifesto for a political party which, given Porritt’s
desired repackaging of the idea of natural limits to convince the majority, may have been an implicit objective.
Despite their respective shortcomings, if the books of Porritt and Ikerd engage those previously not engaged with the environmental agenda, that, in itself, would be worthwhile.