Democracy's Dilemma, Environment, Social Equity and the Global Economy

Citation

Butler, C. (2008), "Democracy's Dilemma, Environment, Social Equity and the Global Economy", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 878-879. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290810905478

In this book, Robert Paehlke synthesises a considerable body of literature concerning economic history, ecological economics and criticisms of globalisation. He acknowledges the accelerating global environmental crisis and identifies many failings of the existing economic system. The book is dense with ideas, with many of which I agree. On first impression, I liked this book. However, the more I reflected on it the more uncomfortable I became.

Most importantly, this book fails to convey a sufficient sense of urgency. At best, we have several decades before our interacting environmental problems hatch a global social crisis. This means that many environmental trends must be reversed as quickly as possible. This is a formidable task, and it is unfair to blame Paehlke for apparently not understanding this. Indeed, to attempt to convey such urgency is risky for serious academics; the topic of global collapse is also taboo among respectable publishers.

The analysis of global governance is confusing. A central message of this book is that democracy faces a dilemma. Global governance must advance through the democratic policies of existing states, “one nation at a time”. However, few – if any – states are currently interested in such a grand vision. The challenge, therefore, is to form a circle from the few isolated segments which now exist. If reached, the closed circle might be solid, stable and even sustainable. The dilemma is how to achieve this.

But what does Paehlke mean by “global governance”? At one point, he describes this as “a blind juggling act on a moving stage”. This is an attractive image but on reflection is elusive and unconvincing. I cannot find a clear definition of what is intended by this frequently used term. Perhaps this is intentional. Global governance is, however, stated as different to global government, which he calls “understandably frightening”. Yet at one point, he claims that global governance “already exists”. Indeed “global governance … by default” is “the governance of trade treaties that pretend that everything that is not trade is a “side” issue that can be all but ignored.” So, what Paelke really seems to be arguing is that global governance needs reform, and in particular less “economism”. (This is his preferred term for “economic totalism” – defined as the systematic and continuous dominance of social, cultural and environmental concerns by narrowly defined economic objectives.)

To summarise, if global democracy could emerge from the broadening and coalescence of its current isolated fragments, and if global governance could be transformed into a self‐organising and self‐sustaining ethical system then a fair and sustainable future would be possible. That leads to my final criticism. The book is replete with noble aspirations, but the author is hazy in identifying plausible mechanisms that could generate a sustainable future.

For example, the author calls for the tying of “environmental protection, social equity, human rights and democracy to global economic participation”. Achieving these goals requires “reborn civic activism at all jurisdictional levels”. A recurrent theme is the need for global market reforms, especially the incorporation of externalities (hidden costs which disproportionately harm the poor, the future and the distant) into the price of goods and services. Inequality needs to be lower.

Well and good, however, the problem is to leverage sufficient public opinion to bring about these changes. As he notes, positive changes on environmental and social fronts may evolve a few nations at a time. But this still leaves a large gap between what is likely to develop in the next few years and what is actually required.

Nevertheless, while this book is (understandably) insufficient to trigger the tsunami of change which is required, it does constitute an element in the earthquake that could generate that wave. Paehlke points out that “electronic” capitalism (a term he prefers to “digital” capitalism) is a media monolith. The dominant forces and influential people who profit from modern inequality have a strong grip on the public mind, via the mass media. Paehlke laments the corporatisation of many subjects and the scarcity of many others, in both schools and universities. These include “critical interpretations of history and patterns of governance, non‐corporate environmental studies, or consumer education with a cutting edge”, of such temper that it might even challenge consumerism.

Despite its faults there are many valuable ideas in this book. I agree that there is a crisis. I agree that “economism” is a major contributing factor to this crisis. And I agree that a reformed global governance, distinct from global government, is essential for sustainability. This book is a useful addition to the library of scholars and economic departments, but it raises as many questions as it answers.