Advertisement

Rousseau, Rio and the Green Economy

  • Carlos Lopes
Chapter

Abstract

Rewriting a new social contract implicitly means creating a redistributive system that enhances both intra-generational and inter-generational equity. The Rio rationale 20 years ago is not radically dissimilar to the Rousseauist ideal of freedom and justice. The challenge of a multilateral governance model that advocates sustainable development cannot be severed from one that is able to set global agendas, legitimizes principle of common actions and brings global communities to commit to a process of implementing change at the local, national and international level.

Keywords

Social contract Green economy Rio+20 summit Global governance Equities 

References

  1. Castree N (2003) The geopolitics of nature. In: Agnew J, Mitchell K, Toal G (eds) A companion to political geography. Blackwell, London, pp 423–439Google Scholar
  2. Cervellati M (2005) Hobbes to Rousseau: inequality, institutions and development. Issue 1450 of Discussion Paper, IZAGoogle Scholar
  3. Dasgupta P (2001) Human well-being and the natural environment. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ECA (2009) Sustainable development report, sustainable development report on Africa 3: sustainable consumption and production for sustainable growth and poverty reduction, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), Addis Ababa, EthiopiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Happaerts S (2012) Sustainable development and subnational governments: going beyond symbolic politics? Environ Devel 4:2–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hasenclever A, Mayer P, Rittberger V (1997) Theories of international regimes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 4:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kant I (1795) Towards Perpetual Peace. Liberal Arts PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Kates RW, Dasgupta P (2007) African poverty: a grand challenge for sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(43):16747–16750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin GC, Grubler A, Huntley B, Jager J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B III, O’Riordan T, Svedlin U (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Najam A, Papa M, Taiyab N (2006) Global environmental governance: a reform agenda. International Institute for Sustainable Development, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  12. Newman L (2006) Change, uncertainty, and futures of sustainable development. Futures 38:633–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. North D (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Series political economy of institutions and decisions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Papa M, Gleason N (2012) Major emerging powers in sustainable development diplomacy: assessing their leadership potential. Glob Environ Chang 22:915–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Paterson M (2001) Understanding global environmental politics: domination, accumulation, resistance. Palgrave, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  16. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Rousseau J-J (2007 (1762)) The social contract and discourses. bn PublishingGoogle Scholar
  18. Sen A (2009) The idea of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf, Accessed on 23 Aug 2013
  20. United Nations, World Population Prospects (2012) The 2012 revision, http://esa.un.org/wpp/documentation/pdf/WPP2012.press.briefing_Directors.remarks.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug 2013

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Commission for AfricaUNECAAddis AbabaEthiopia

Personalised recommendations