Abstract
Although the societal discourse on sustainable development has become more and more prominent and agenda setting, the scholarly work on it is still highly diverse. This is why the chapter steps back first to position the topic within the broader scientific discourse on sustainable development. An outline of the most influential sustainability conceptions is given to get options for discussing fiscal sustainability. As “sustainable” is understood as an evaluative term for development, the chapter takes account of methodological foundations for sustainability assessment as a second step. The chapter finally argues that fiscal sustainability should be treated as a part of the broader sustainability discourse as it is about “ensuring the state’s action and reaction potential”. However, it deals with an instrumental, not an intrinsic, good.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
It is not within the scope of this chapter to distinguish between sustainable development and sustainability.
- 2.
In an enquiry on existing research on SD at universities and other research institutions in the tri-national Upper Rhine Region (Burger et al. 2014), we distinguished 18 different topic fields ranging from energy to water issues to household consumption to governance and transition. We also included the field of fiscal sustainability.
- 3.
The famous woodcutter rule of not harvesting more wood from a forest than will grow again was first written down by Hans Carl von Carlowitz in 1713 (von Carlowitz 2012). Its roots go back to the mediaeval period as Ulrich Grober (2010) reveals. However, it is standard in today’s scientific reasoning on SD that the woodcutter rule is much too simple to serve as a foundation for conceptualising SD.
- 4.
The WCED’s definition of sustainable development uses the term “needs” (satisfaction of needs) to address quality of life. For reasons beyond the scope of this chapter, “needs” will not be considered; instead, the chapter will refer in general to a good or decent life, leaving aside the question of an appropriate metric for wellbeing.
- 5.
Among other things, this includes environmental risks.
- 6.
- 7.
The famous controversy about weak and strong sustainability, that is, about substitution of especially natural resources (capital) by economic or social capital often builds on such a capital stock approach.
- 8.
One could add the famous three-pillar approach to this list. However, I do not look upon it as a theoretical approach to SD but rather as a pragmatic management rule: consider at least societal, environmental, and economic issues when dealing with the consequences of our decisions.
- 9.
Cf. the nice metaphor in Pearce et al. (1991, p. 3): SD could be looked upon as something you simply have to like just like motherhood or apple pie.
- 10.
Meyer deals with intergenerational justice in general, not specifically SD.
- 11.
- 12.
Instead of using the unclearly defined notion of a “failed state”, Call 2011 discusses three fundamental functions a state has to fulfil: providing its population with basic goods; infrastructure security; and a legitimacy of political elites.
- 13.
Additionally, there is a vast body of literature on ecosystem services and on environmental management.
- 14.
To give an example: if you include an indicator such as “number of deaths per KWh produced”, nuclear power will be rated top since there are few (direct) casualties (e.g. Chernobyl). If you take an indicator such as “number of persons evacuated per KWh produced”, the rating will be inverted, given the numbers from Chernobyl and Fukushima.
- 15.
Further elaborating this argument would be the topic of another chapter.
References
Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281.
Armitage, D. R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J … Wollenberg, E. K. (2009). Adaptive Co-management for Social-Ecological Complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(2), 95–102.
Barry, B. (1999). Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and Futurity. Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice (pp. 93–117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bellagio Principles. (1997). Bellagio Principles for Sustainability Assessment. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2006). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burger, P., & Christen, M. (2011). Towards a Capability Approach of Sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 787–795.
Burger, P., Hofstetter, N., Ott, J., & Riesen, J. (2014). Nachhaltigkeitsforschung in der Trinationalen Metropolregion Oberrhein (TMO) / Recherche sur la durabilité dans la Région Métropolitaine Trinationale du Rhin Supérieur (RMT). Basel: University of Basel.
Call, C. T. (2011). Beyond the “Failed State”: Toward Conceptual Alternatives. European Journal of International Relations, 17(2), 303–326.
Chambers, R., & Conway, G. R. (1992). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century (Institute of Development Studies, Discussion Paper 296). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. University of Sussex.
Christen, M. (2013). Die Idee der Nachhaltigkeit. Eine werttheoretische Fundierung. Marburg: Metropolis.
Christen, M., & Schmidt, S. (2011). A Formal Framework for Conceptions of Sustainability – a Theoretical Contribution to the Discourse in Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development, 20(6), 400–410. doi:10.1002/sd.518.
Dobson, A. (1996). Environmental Sustainabilities: An Analysis and a Typology. Environmental Politics, 5(3), 401–428.
Ehrenfeld, J. R. (2004). Can Industrial Ecology Be the “Science of Sustainability”? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 8(1–2), 1–3.
Farrelly, C. (2007). Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation. Political Studies, 55(4), 844–864.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (2007). Socioecological Transitions and Global Change. Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Gallopin, G. C. (2006). Linkages between Vulnerability, Resilience, and Adaptive Capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 293–303.
Global Footprint Network. (2010). Data and Results from the 2010 Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network. Retrieved from http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_data_and_results
Government of Kanton Basel-Stadt. (2014, September 18). Press Release on Budget 2015 [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.medien.bs.ch/news/2014-09-18-mm-61062.html).
Gowdy, J. (2005). Toward a New Welfare Economics for Sustainability. Ecological Economics, 53(2), 211–222.
Grober, U. (2010). Die Entdeckung der Nachhaltigkeit. Kulturgeschichte eines Begriffs. München: Antje Kunstmann.
Grunwald, A. (2009). Konzepte nachhaltiger Entwicklung vergleichen – aber wie? Diskursebenen und Vergleichsmaßstäbe. In T. Egan-Krieger, J. Schulz, P. P. Thapa, & L. Voget (Eds.), Die Greifswalder Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit. Ausbau, Anwendung und Kritik (pp. 41–64). Marburg: Metropolis.
Habermas, J. (2007). Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hopton, M. E., Cabezas, H., Campbell, D., Eason, T., Garmestani, A. S., Heberling, M. T., et al. (2010). Development of a Multidisciplinary Approach to Assess Regional Sustainability. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 17(1), 48–56.
Janssen, M., & Ostrom, E. (2006). Resilience, Vulnerability, and Adaptation: A Cross-Cutting Theme of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change [Editorial]. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 237–239.
Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What Is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values, and Practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(3), 8–21.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007a). Transition Management as a Model for Managing Processes of Co-evolution. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology (special issue on (co)-evolutionary approach to sustainable development), 14, 78–91.
Lafferty, W. M. (2004a). Introduction: Form and Function in Governance for Sustainable Development. In W. M. Lafferty (Ed.), Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function (pp. 1–31). Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Lafferty, W. M. (2004b). From Environmental Protection to Sustainable Development: the Challenge of Decoupling Through Sectoral Integration. In W. M. Lafferty (Ed.), Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function (pp. 191–220). Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Meadowcroft, J. (2004). Participation and Sustainable Development: Modes of Citizen, Community and Organisational Involvement. In W. M. Lafferty (Ed.), Governance for Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function (pp. 161–190). Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Meyer, L. (2015). Intergenerational Justice. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved March 12, 2017, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-intergenerational/
Moser, A. (2014). Ein Metaverständnis der Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung. Für eine vergleichende strukturelle Analyse zur Standortbestimmung der wissenschaftlichen Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung im Energiebereich (Master Thesis). Basel: University of Basel.
Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability. A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Nuclear Energy Agency. (2000). Nuclear Energy in a Sustainable Development Perspective. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/docs/2000/nddsustdev.pdf.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social- Ecological Systems. Science, 325, 419–422.
Ott, K., & Döring, R. (2008). Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Marburg: Metropolis.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Adaptive Capacity and Multi-Level Learning Processes in Resource Governance Regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365.
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Partridge, E. (2001). Future Generations. In D. Jamieson (Ed.), A Companion to Environmental Philosophy (pp. 377–389). Oxford: Blackwell Publisher.
Pearce, D., & Atkinson, G. (1998). The Concept of Sustainable Development: An Evaluation of Its Usefulness Ten Years after Brundtland (Center for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, Working Paper PA 98-02). Norwich: University of East Anglia.
Pearce, D., Markandya, A., & Barbier, E. B. (1991). Blueprint for a Green Economy. London: Earthscan Publications.
Rauschmayer, F., Omann, I., & Frühmann, J. (Eds.). (2012). Sustainable Development: Capabilities, Needs, and Well-Being. Abingdon: Routledge.
Renn, O., & Klinke, A. (2015). Risk Governance and Resilience: New Approaches to Cope with Uncertainty and Ambiguity. In U. F. Paleo (Ed.), Risk Governance (pp. 19–41). Dordrecht: Springer.
Robèrt, K. H., Schmidt-Bleek, B., De Larderel, J. A., Basile, G., Jansen, J. L., Kuehr, R., et al. (2002). Strategic Sustainable Development – Selection, Design and Synergies of Applied Tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3), 197–214.
Smith, A., & Sterling A. (2008). Social-Ecological Resilience and Socio-Technological Transitions: Critical Issues for Sustainability Governance (Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability Working Paper 8). Brighton: Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability Centre.
Solow, R. M. (1974). Intergenerational Equity and Exhaustible Resources. The Review of Economic Studies, 41, 29–45.
Sustainable Development Commission UK. (2006). The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy (UK Sustainable Development Commission Position Paper). London: UK Sustainable Development Commission. Retrieved from http://www.sdcommission.org.uk/publications.php?id=344
United Nations. (1992). The Rio Declaration. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.
von Carlowitz, H. C. (2012). Sylvicultura oeconomica. Anweisung zur wilden Baum-Zucht (Faksimile der Erstauflage). Remagen: Kessel Verlag.
Voss, J. P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (Eds.). (2006). Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Voss, J. P., Newig, J., Kastens, B., Monstadt, J., & Nölting, B. (2007). Steering for Sustainable Development: A Typology of Problems and Strategies with Respect to Ambivalence, Uncertainty and Distributed Power. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(3–4), 193–212.
Weale, A. (2011). New Modes of Governance, Political Accountability and Public Reason. Government and Opposition, 46(1), 58–80.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Burger, P. (2018). Sustainability, Sustainability Assessment, and the Place of Fiscal Sustainability. In: Malito, D., Umbach, G., Bhuta, N. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Indicators in Global Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62707-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62707-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62706-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62707-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)