Search results

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

The emergence of the Chinese aid consensus has come to have profound implications for sustainability. The Beijing Consensus “sovereignty doctrine” of non‐interference, presents a stark contrast to the Washington Consensus architecture of imposed conditionalities and the serving of geopolitical interests. For this reason, from Africa's perspective, the Beijing Consensus appears to represent the preferred comprehensive meta‐narrative for Africa. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the attributes of “good” aid architecture in relation to the peculiarities of Africa's challenges.

In examining its principles, objectives, framework differences and impact, the Beijing model shows that it supports the human rights which “unleash”, empower and protect self‐directed development grounded in ownership and in the strategic interests of recipients.

The Washington Consensus has been problematic for African development because it is economistic and exclusively instrumentalist. While conceding to this shortcoming, the inability of the consensus to appreciate the unique and complex development problems of Africa is more troubling. Comparing the two, the Beijing Consensus, which is multidimensional and encompasses the intrinsic and non‐economic roles of development aid, with the consequence of over‐emphasizing expanding local policy, is adjudged practical for Africa. The conclusion is that the dominant Washington Consensus is too poorly articulated and structured to respond to declared determination for ownership, mitigating capabilities deprivation, and improving development control.

This paper has argued that the basic approach of the Beijing Consensus has been more generous and more attractive for sustainable development in Africa. Much more important, perhaps, is the ability of the consensus to appreciate the unique and complex development problems which occur as a consequence of donor deafness on limited rights and conditionalities. In sum, the Beijing Consensus results in exclusionary changes of “less magnitude and speed” and promotes poverty reduction and sustainable development. Taken together, these factors and practices mean that the Beijing Consensus best serves the staircase of a nation's pathway to indigenous development, when compared with the Washington Consensus. Such a comprehensive meta‐narrative that builds alliances and creates a foundation for enlightened and effective politics of development aid will “unleash”, empower and protect the full potential of Africa.

This chapter explores the relationship between the global drug policy agenda and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Development is one of the key pillars of the UN's charter; however, sustainable development and drug policy have existed in separate policy spaces for decades. During 2015 and 2016, two parallel processes took place at the UN – the adoption of the 2015 SDGs, superseding the Millennium Development Goals, and the 2016 UN Special Session on the world drug problem (UNGASS), a global convening of countries to create a way forward to address illicit drugs. This chapter explores how a group of reform-oriented countries, UN agencies and civil society stakeholders used the UNGASS to advocate for better policy alignment with development principles. While some headway was made, tensions remain about allowing a development approach into the drug policy realm. This chapter argues that given strong pushback to maintain a law enforcement-driven agenda by many countries, better alignment will not happen without more clarity on what sustainable development–driven drug policy is and without champions to push these ideas in the drug policy arena.

This chapter discusses the role of energy production in the global capitalist economy and its relationship to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with particular focus on SDG 8 – ‘Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all’ – and SDG 12 – ‘Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns’. It achieves this by first introducing the Club of Rome report the Limits to Growth which utilised a system dynamics computer model to simulate the interactions of five global economic subsystems (population, food production, industrial production, pollution and consumption of nonrenewable natural resources) (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens III, 1972), the results of which posed serious challenges for global sustainability, to better understand and contextualise unconventional (also referred to as ‘extreme’) and ‘renewable’ energy production as examples of the paradoxical nature of sustainable development in the global capitalist economy. Demonstrating that unconventional energy production methods are much less efficient, more carbon intensive, more environmentally destructive and just as unsustainable, and that renewable energy relies on the extraction of nonrenewable natural resources such as lithium that result in similar environmental and social issues, this chapter will interrogate this and ask the question – is the capitalist system in its current form capable of making ‘sustainable development something more than the oxymoron it appears?’.

Development is a dynamic concept that pertains the evolution of human societies. Over the past few years policy makers, as well as academics, have incorporated a very important, yet sometimes neglected, component in the concept of development which is environmental costs and sustainability. One of the key aspects that affects sustainability is energetic consumption, therefore our aim is to determine if changes in oil, coal, and gas, prices during the period 2000–2010 influenced sustainable development.

We modified the Human Development Index (HDI) by adding energy consumption component, and propose what we call the Modified Human Sustainable Development Index (HSDI) which captures a broader definition of sustainable development. Then we employ econometric techniques to study the effects of changes in commodity prices on our index in the short run.

Our results show a nonlinear effect of commodity prices on our index, low and middle-income countries display a positive effect of prices on our HSDI, with smaller effects in the former ones, while high-income countries do not seem to exhibit a significant effect. While low and middle-income countries are typically commodity producers.

Middle-income countries are able to obtain larger benefits in terms of sustainable development due to a better institutional structure which constitutes an opportunity for them in the aftermath of the crisis.

Middle- and low-income countries should design policies that enable them to take advantage of the rises and protect their economies from the falls.

We address the problem of sustainable development and commodity prices in a post-crisi world, which was not reviewed in the literature. In addition we build a measurement of the Human Sustainable Development Index that considers energy consumption as one of its factors. Which is in line with previous results about energy consumption and the Human Development Index.

This paper aims to expose the violence intrinsic to globalization and to suggest a conceptual and practical domain focused on arresting and preventing the structural violence of globalization.

The paper integrates theory, scholarly literature and the author’s fieldwork analyzed through solidarity and liberationist methodologies.

The paper shows that severe, violent and irreparable destruction of formerly thriving and sustainable cultures and communities around the globe is an inherent component of globalization; current notions of “development” and “poverty” provide ideological cover for such destruction; a wide range of mainstream institutions and organizations (including governments, trade and financial institutions and national and multinational corporations) benefit from the destruction and collude in these dynamics, while a passive majority participates through its silence and consumptive lifestyle; and to arrest these dynamics requires awareness of the structural violence of development and globalization, and that those of us living in currently unsustainable societies commit both to re-localize our effects to our own communities and to change the operating rules of the global system.

This paper offers analysis, perspectives and practical considerations toward transformations essential to ending the structural violence of globalization, while inviting broad-based solidarity for further advancements.

Bridging global and local realities, the paper exposes systematic large-scale structural violence endemic to globalization, “development”, mainstream ideas about poverty and practices of “poverty reduction”. The paper identifies some fundamental requirements for arresting the structural violence of the global system.

Children are often side-lined in both national and international provisions. Whilst the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development mentions children, it does so not as World citizens but rather as subjects; this replicates their position in most state constitutions. The chapter considers the use of Amartya Sen's justice theory to deliver the 2030 Agenda to children who offend. For Sen, justice requires the identification and removal of sociostructural barriers which limit the life chances and impede the ability of many children to pursue legitimate and meaningful goals. He prioritises choice for all, including children. This chapter uses these ideals to consider the delivery of justice whilst respecting human agency. It takes as its example Wales, where children are central to a sustainable future and embraced as citizens with full human and fundamental rights. In particular, the Welsh Government's emphasis on ‘universal’ entitlements places a moral and political imperative on agencies to promote the well-being of all children, including those in conflict with the law; it seeks to deliver well-being to all children. The Welsh example is suggested as a just solution that might be replicated elsewhere and so result in a true delivery of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

Sustainable luxury has often been seen to offer both environmental sustainability and the possibility for innovative entrepreneurial development of natural and cultural heritage. The possibility and challenges of sustainable luxury tourism for Indigenous groups have been discussed by Poelina and Nordensvärd (2018) at some length by including a cultural governance perspective that brings culture and nature together. They stressed how protecting our shared human heritage and human culture can be aligned with a new wave of sustainable luxury tourism. To achieve this, we need to create links to both management and protection of landscapes and ecosystems as vital parts of heritage protection and social development. This chapter explores how and why we need to integrate social sustainability into sustainable luxury tourism, where we can foresee potential pitfalls and conceptualise nature-based and Indigenous tourism to empower local Indigenous communities and provide them with sustainable employment, economic development and community services. The sustainable tourism model provides brokerage necessary to strengthen their capacity for innovation, entrepreneurship and transformational change. This transformational change requires tourist visitors and non-Indigenous tourism operators to be open to a new experience with Indigenous guides and tourism operators to see, share and learn how to feel ‘Country’ (Poelina, 2016; Poelina & Nordensvärd, 2018). We will use Martuwarra (Fitzroy River) and its communities in Kimberley (Western Australia) as a case study to develop a sociocultural sustainable luxury tourism framework that includes governance, legal and management and social policy perspective.