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 valuesNotes
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
- 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
- Booth DE. (2004). Hooked on Growth: Economic Addictions and the Environment. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Daly H. E. (2010). From a failed-growth economy to a steady-state economy. Solutions 1(2): 37–43.Google Scholar
- Dow GK. (2003). Governing the Firm: Workers Control in Theory and Practice. Cambridge University.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Mikkelson G. M. (2013). Growth is the problem; equality is the solution. Sustainability 5: 432–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mikkelson GM. In review. Invisible hand or ecological footprint?. The social and environmental impacts of recent economic growth.Google Scholar
- Mikkelson GM., Gonzalez A., Peterson GD. (2007). Economic inequality predicts biodiversity loss. Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE 2.e444.Google Scholar
- Piff PK et al. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 4086–4091.Google Scholar
- Piketty T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
- Ramesh R. (2011). Basque country’s thriving big society. The Guardian. 30 March.Google Scholar
- Schweickart D. (2009). Is sustainable capitalism an oxymoron?. Perspectives on global development and. Technology 8: 559–580.Google Scholar
- Schweickart D. (2011). After Capitalism. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Solt F. (2008). Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political Science 52: 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tokic D. (2012). The economic and financial dimensions of degrowth. Ecological Economics 84: 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wolff R. (2012). Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism. Haymarket.Google Scholar