Advertisement

Human Ecology

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 131–134 | Cite as

Environmental Values, Human Nature, and Economic Democracy

  • Gregory M. Mikkelson
Article
First Online:
  • 545 Downloads

Abstract

Recent social science indicates that the public at large behave more ethically, and favor environmental protection more strongly, than do the wealthiest minority. Yet the latter group exerts predominant control over the economy. This suggests that shifting power away from this minority and onto the majority would yield a better ecology. In this paper I spell out the implications of these considerations for “economic democracy” (ED), a well-developed alternative to capitalism that shifts power from wealthy shareholders onto ordinary citizens and workers. I contrast this rationale for ED with some thinkers’ defense of “sustainable capitalism”, and with others’ ecological arguments for ED based on economic stability and self-interest, rather than ethical behavior per se.

Keywords

Economic democracy Capitalism Economic growth Ethical behavior Environmental values 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

For helpful feedback on the arguments presented in this paper I thank Michael Adamson, Darin Barney, Dror Etzion, Shaun Lovejoy, David Schweickart, fellow participants in a 2015 workshop on whether capitalism could become sustainable, fellow members of the Groupe de Recherche en Éthique Environnementale et Animale (GRÉEA), and fellow participants in the 2016 conference of the International Society for Environmental Ethics. For supporting the workshop and GRÉEA, I thank the Centre de Recherche en Éthique, funded in turn by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Société et Culture.

References

  1. Amdur D., Rabe BG., Borick C. (2014). Public views on a carbon tax depend on the proposed use of revenue. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy 13.Google Scholar
  2. Booth DE. (2004). Hooked on Growth: Economic Addictions and the Environment. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Bruce A., Buck T., and Main B. G. M. (2005). Top executive remuneration: a view from Europe. Journal of Management Studies 42: 1493–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Czech B., and Daly H. E. (2004). The steady state economy: what it is, entails, and connotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 598–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daly H. E. (2010). From a failed-growth economy to a steady-state economy. Solutions 1(2): 37–43.Google Scholar
  6. Dow GK. (2003). Governing the Firm: Workers Control in Theory and Practice. Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  7. Dunlap R. E., Gallup G. H. Jr., and Gallup A. M. (1993). Of global concern: results of the health of the planet survey. Environment 35(9).Google Scholar
  8. Gilens M., and Page B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics 12: 564–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jacobsen J. B., and Hanley N. (2009). Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? Environmental and Resource Economics 43: 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lawn P. (2011). Is steady-state capitalism viable? A review of the issues and an answer in the affirmative. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1219: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leiserowitz A. A., Kates R. W., and Parris T. M. (2005). Do global attitudes and behaviors support sustainable development? Environment 47(9): 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mikkelson G. M. (2013). Growth is the problem; equality is the solution. Sustainability 5: 432–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mikkelson GM. In review. Invisible hand or ecological footprint?. The social and environmental impacts of recent economic growth.Google Scholar
  14. Mikkelson GM., Gonzalez A., Peterson GD. (2007). Economic inequality predicts biodiversity loss. Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE 2.e444.Google Scholar
  15. Piff PK et al. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 4086–4091.Google Scholar
  16. Piketty T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  17. Ramesh R. (2011). Basque country’s thriving big society. The Guardian. 30 March.Google Scholar
  18. Schweickart D. (2009). Is sustainable capitalism an oxymoron?. Perspectives on global development and. Technology 8: 559–580.Google Scholar
  19. Schweickart D. (2011). After Capitalism. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  20. Solt F. (2008). Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political Science 52: 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tokic D. (2012). The economic and financial dimensions of degrowth. Ecological Economics 84: 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wolff R. (2012). Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism. Haymarket.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and School of EnvironmentMcGill UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations