Dariusz Pieńkowski’s recent work, The Economics of Sustainable Development and Distribution: The Unfairness and Injustice of Milton Friedman’s Capitalism, argues that capitalism’s short-term focus undermines sustainable development, sparking debates rooted in neo-Malthusian thought. However, the book goes beyond exploring capitalism’s clash with sustainability. It contextualizes neo-Malthusianism and extends this discourse to sustainable development debates, focusing on pursuing just goals and fair processes. Pieńkowski’s narrative emphasizes the equitable allocation of resources according to collective needs as the fairest approach. It urges immediate and necessary reforms in socioeconomic institutions, reshaping the social frameworks, moral standards, and behaviors rooted in capitalist ideals of individual work-based allocation. This scholarly book targets academics and advanced students seeking a comprehensive understanding of the neo-Malthusian paradigm in sustainable development discourse.

Pieńkowski’s book is theoretical and provides a rigorous and thought-provoking critique of prominent economists’ views. He identifies Nobel laureates in economics, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, as leading proponents of the capitalist worldview. He critically examines their perspectives, particularly the sacralization of property rights and market self-regulation in resource allocation. Pieńkowski argues that Friedman and Hayek prioritize short-term efficiency over long-term sustainability. He attributes to these economists the theoretical justification of capitalism’s fairness and justice under neoclassical perfect market competition, where the Pareto efficiency criterion would be met—when no individual can be made better off without making another individual worse off. However, as perfect competition assumptions are unrealistic (e.g., perfect knowledge and price-taking agents), capitalism fails to achieve Paretian efficiency. The true dynamics of capitalism involve unfair resource exploitation and unjust distribution based on work rather than need, jeopardizing sustainable development. Pieńkowski argues that extensive government intervention can be just and fair if it restricts individual freedoms to provide a net benefit over doing nothing. He recommends the general principle: “Of all the available economic procedures of efficiency (e.g., optimal or suboptimal), the one is chosen that most effectively achieves the goals of sustainable development with the greatest possible freedom” (p. 171, italics in original).

Chapter 1 distinguishes between fairness and justice concepts, discussing the assumption that competing fairness formulas are just if consistently applied in different society models. Chapter 2 constructs a sustainable development framework, addressing capitalism’s challenges through active policies and institutional design. Chapter 3 illustrates the mechanisms of capitalism attributed by the author to Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, whom he labels neoclassical economists. It describes the neoclassical approach to perfect competition as unjust due to resource exploitation and unequal distribution. However, unlike Friedman, Hayek, an Austrian economist, should not be categorized as neoclassical. This serious misinterpretation affects the nuanced understanding of their economic perspectives. Chapters 4 and 5 examine Western countries’ development strategies that enhanced well-being but broke the Pareto criterion, emphasizing capitalism’s unfair and unjust practices during colonial conquest. The book concludes by reviewing the main findings regarding economic and ecological issues and advocates for a more socialistic distribution model.

The author engages with literature on capitalism and environmental issues, although he exclusively cites Marxist, degrowth, structuralist, and welfare economists within ecological economics. While thought provoking, this selective framework results in a partial view of environmental issues, making the book riddled with theoretical errors and misguided conclusions. Contrary to Pieńkowski’s claims, capitalism and sustainability are compatible. Capitalism, rooted in private property rights and free markets, empowers individuals to own and take responsibility for their actions and exchanges (Foss & Klein, 2012). Private property rights imply that individuals own and are responsible for their bodies, minds, actions, and the results of voluntary exchanges or goods acquired without prior ownership (Bylund & McCaffrey, 2017; Bylund & Packard, 2022). The unhampered market process works through exchanges of property rights, offering and demanding solutions to human problems. Prices emerge from these exchanges, signaling resource usefulness and scarcity according to individual needs. This process allows short- and long-term economic calculation in an intertemporal coordinating trend, decisive for sustainable development (Kirzner, 2017; Espinosa et al., 2021). Profit and loss guide individuals to coordinate with their neighbors as economically as possible. Savings play a pivotal role in accumulating physical and human capital, expanding solutions to complex human problems on the supply side, and increasing access to these solutions on the demand side. Institutions can facilitate, obstruct, or impede property rights definition and security, influencing economic calculation and resource economization—achievable under capitalism, difficult under interventionism, and impossible under socialism (Boettke et al., 2007; Acemoglu & Robinson, 2019; Espinosa, 2021; Moreno et al., 2022).

Aligning capitalism with sustainability offers a promising alternative, fostering hope for sustainable economic growth and development. The key issues lie in the establishment and enforcement of clear property rights and regulatory frameworks. Without proper legal structures, resource management and environmental protection become challenging, leading to overexploitation and pollution. Effective legal systems ensure accountability and sustainable practices. For example, the polycentric solution to the commons problem within capitalism promotes decentralized, collaborative management of shared resources. It entails clearly defining private property and co-property rights, continuous monitoring, graduated sanctions, and active community involvement in decision-making and resource management (Ostrom, 2010; Aligica & Tarko, 2012; Paniagua & Rayamajhee, 2024). This approach empowers local communities to address resource challenges effectively, drawing on their knowledge and insights for sustainable resource stewardship.

Pieńkowski’s claim that capitalism exploits resources unfairly and allocates them unjustly based on work is unfounded. Capitalism fosters sustainability by saving for capital-intensive investment projects, which is vital for ecological transitions. Factors of production, including labor, are allocated according to consumer needs determined by marginal productivity in the market process. Hence, capitalism facilitates resource allocation based on needs and fosters innovation and prosperity (Leeson & Boettke, 2009; Huerta de Soto, 2010; Steele, 2013; Piano & Rouanet, 2020). Demographic growth under capitalism also expands solutions to human problems in a superabundant open-ended universe upheld by diminishing marginal utility and comparative advantage laws (Bauer, 1998).

Pieńkowski overlooks the significant differences in the economic perspectives of Friedman and Hayek (see Garrison, 2014). On the one hand, Friedman aligns with the neoclassical Chicago school, which relies on the perfectly competitive market and the Pareto criterion, often advocating government intervention in market failures. On the other hand, Hayek’s Austrian school roots emphasize the study of economics as a science of human action shaped by institutions. The Austrian dynamic efficiency criterion surpasses the neoclassical Paretian criterion by capturing real-life human actions, expectations, errors, learning, exchanges, and uncertainties. The unhampered market process is dynamically efficient because prosperity is achieved by continually using intellect to identify and solve others’ problems in the most economical way possible, which also leads to effectively solving one’s own problems. In contrast, neoclassical equilibrium relies on comparative statics, where there is no true human action, rejecting the study of the market process as the central objective of economics. It is worth noting that Austrian economists do not claim that markets are perfect or capable of solving every problem. They challenge the concept of “market failure,” arguing that it presupposes the unrealistic framework of perfect competition. Instead, Austrians emphasize the dynamic nature of institutions like markets and the role of entrepreneurship in filling gaps and completing inputs to solve human problems. The Austrian concept of dynamic efficiency addresses the neoclassical market failure paradox: if market participants cannot identify the “social optimum” due to knowledge and coordination issues, it is equally improbable that government officials, who also face information flaws and are subject to incentives and errors, can perform better. Politically determining individuals’ intertemporal needs and resource allocation is inherently arbitrary and uneconomic, meaning it is unsustainable. Systematic intervention distorts property rights, market signals, and economic calculation, leading to dynamic inefficiencies and economic discoordination, resulting in true unfairness through institutional coercion in the market process and the unjust distribution of resources based on political rather than economic criteria.

Amid a possible shift from neo-Malthusian thought, The Economics of Sustainable Development and Distribution offers essential insights. Pieńkowski’s book provides a thought-provoking critique of capitalism and its impact on sustainable development, engaging deeply with Neo-Malthusianism. This makes it a valuable resource for understanding this perspective. However, its selective citation of economists and theoretical errors may limit its usefulness for comprehensively analyzing sustainability issues. Contrary to the author’s claims, capitalism, emphasizing private property and free markets, can promote sustainability by enabling fair resource utilization and ensuring just distribution based on needs, thereby fostering ecological transitions and sustainable development.

Readers would benefit from the book’s unique insights on capitalism and sustainability, but should approach it critically due to its selective viewpoint and potential biases. Suitable for advanced undergraduate and graduate courses in ecological economics, sustainable development, and critical economic theories, it serves as a supplementary text to provoke discussion and critical thinking.