Advertisement

Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 83–100 | Cite as

Principles for sustainability: the need to shift to a sustainable conventional regime

  • Nicolas Buclet
  • David LazarevicEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper argues that the present dominant economic system rests upon unquestioned beliefs that are in a deep contradiction with the pursuit of sustainable development. The economics of conventions is used as an analytical framework through which to demonstrate the conflict between the dominant conventions underpinning societal development and the objectives of sustainable development. It suggests that a trajectory towards the objectives of sustainable development should be managed through a reflexion concerning the conventional principles required to be adopted in order to favour the emergence of a new conventional regime. The principles of proximity, the increase in individual and collective capabilities, and participative democracy are presented as possible principles that could be adopted in order to favour the emergence of a new conventional regime.

Keywords

Sustainable development Sustainability Coordination Conventional regimes 

References

  1. Barles, S. (2002). Le métabolisme urbain et la question écologique. Annales de la Recherche Urbaine, 92, 143–150.Google Scholar
  2. Baudrillard, J. (1970) La société de consommation. 2009 Edition. Editions Denoël. Folio Essais.Google Scholar
  3. Bentham, J. (1789). Introduction to the principles of Morals and Legislation. 2007 Edition. Dover: Philosophical Classics.Google Scholar
  4. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2004). The evolution of strong reciprocity: Cooperation in heterogeneous populations. Theoretical Population Biology, 65, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyer, R. (2006) L’économie des conventions 15 ans après: un point de vue à partir de la théorie de la régulation. In: Eymard-Duvernay, F. (Ed.) L’économie des conventions: méthodes et résultats (pp. 45–66). Tome I Débats.Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, R., & Orléan, A. (1992). How do conventions evolve? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2(3), 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyer, R., & Orléan, A. (1994). Persistance et changement des conventions. Deux modèles simples et quelques illustrations. In A. Orléan (Ed.), Analyse économique des conventions (pp. 219–247). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  8. British Nutrition Foundation. (2013) National Pupil Survey 2013 UK Survey Results.Google Scholar
  9. Buclet, N. (2011a). Le territoire entre liberté et durabilité. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, Coll Innovations institutionnelles et développement durable.Google Scholar
  10. Buclet, N. (2011b). Écologie industrielle et territoriale : stratégies locales pour un développement durable. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
  11. Buclet, N. (2011c). Territoire, innovation et développement durable: l’émergence d’un nouveau régime conventionnel? Revue d’Economie Régionale et Urbaine, 5, 911–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buclet, N., & Godard, O. (Eds.). (2000). Municipal waste management in Europe: A comparaison of national regimes. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Chiappori, P.-A. (1994). Anticipations rationnelles et conventions. In A. Orléan (Ed.), Analyse économique des conventions (pp. 61–77). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  14. Colletis, G., Gilly, J.-P., Leroux, I., Pecqueur, B., Perrat, J., Rychen, F., et al. (1999). Construction territoriale et dynamiques productives. Sciences de la société, 48, 25–46.Google Scholar
  15. Coméliau, C. (2006). La croissance ou le progrès? croissance, décroissance, développement durable. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  16. Crutzen, P., & Stoermer, E. (2000). The anthropocene. Global Change Newsletter, 41, 17–18.Google Scholar
  17. David, P. (1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.Google Scholar
  18. De Munck, J. (2006) Vers un nouveau paradigme du Droit. In: Eymard-Duvernay, F. (Ed.) L’économie des conventions: méthodes et résultat (pp.249–262). Tome I Débats.Google Scholar
  19. EEA. (2013). Transport final energy consumption by mode (TERM 001)—Assessment published Dec 2013. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  20. Elias, N. (1975). La dynamique de l’Occident. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.Google Scholar
  21. Eymard-Duvernay, F., Favereau, O., Orléan, A., Salais, R., & Thévenot, L. (2005). Pluralist integration in the economic and social sciences—The economy of conventions. Post-Autistic Economics Review, 34, 22–40.Google Scholar
  22. Finnveden, G., & Moberg, Å. (2005). Environmental systems analysis tools—an overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(12), 1165–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Georgescu-Roeggen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  25. Gorz, A. (1988). Métamorphose du travail. Seuil, Paris: Critique de la raison économique.Google Scholar
  26. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Mock, M. Omann, I. Rauschmayer, F., Fuchs, D. (2013) Do community currencies enhance sustainable quality of life? Working paper. UFZ Discussion Papers, no 16/2013. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/86151.
  28. Ibrahim, S. (2006). From individual to collective capabilities: The capability approach as a conceptual framework for self-help. Journal of Human Development., 7(3), 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J., & Engel-Yan, J. (2007). The changing metabolism of cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lazarevic, D. (2012). Life cycle thinking and waste policy: Between science and society. Stockholm: KTH - Royal Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  31. Lazarevic, D., Buclet, N., & Brandt, N. (2012). Conventional regimes—Part I: Sustainability transitions from a conventional perspective. In D. Lazarevic (Ed.), Life cycle thinking and waste policy: Between science and society. Stockholm: KTH - Royal Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  32. Livet, P., & Thévenot, L. (1994). Les catégories de l’action collective. In A. Orléan (Ed.), Analyse économique des conventions (pp. 139–167). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  33. Mauss, M. (1925). Essai sur le don. 2007 Edition. Paris: PUF, Quadrige.Google Scholar
  34. Mill, J.S. (1861) Utilitarianism. 2002 Edition. Sher, G. (Ed) Hackett Publishing Company, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  35. Nonacs, P. (2011) Reciprocity, Reputation and Nepotism American Scientist, www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/reciprocity-reputation-and-nepotism.
  36. Nowacs, M. A., & Highfield, R. (2011). Supercooperators: Altruism, evolution, and why we need each other to succeed. New York: Free Press. Simon & Schuster Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Pecqueur, B., & Zimmermann, J. (2004). Économie de proximité. Cachan: Hermès-Lavoisier.Google Scholar
  38. Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation (2001st ed.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rifkin, J. (2010). The empathic civilization: The race to global consciousness in a world of crisis. Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Hartcher Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Rojot, J. (2002). Economics and management theory: New developments in France. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 9(2), 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosa, H. (2003). Social acceleration: Ethical and political consequences of a desynchronized high-speed society. Constellations, 10(1), 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sitarz, D. (1993). Agenda 21: The earth summit strategy to save our planet. Boulder, CO: EarthPress.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, A. (1759). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. 2010 Edition. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, A. (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of Nations. 2013 Edition. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
  47. Sugden, R. (1989). Spontaneous order. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(4), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thévenot, L. (1986). Les investissements de forme. In L. Thévenot (Ed.), Conventions économiques, Cahiers de Centre d’Étude de l’emploi (pp. 21–71). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  49. Vatn, A. (2005). Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 55, 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. von Hayek., F. (1944). The Road to Serfdom. 2007 Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Weaver, P. M., & Rotmans, J. (2006). Integrated sustainability assessment: What is it, why do it and how? International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 1(4), 284–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weisz, H., & Steinberger, J. K. (2010). Reducing energy and material flows in cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(3), 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. United Nations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut d’Urbanisme de GrenobleUMR 5194 PACTE-Territoires (CNRS, UPMF, UJF, IEPG)GrenobleFrance
  2. 2.Division of Industrial EcologyKTH - Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations