Part II: Can world human society be transformed to improve its chances for future survival, and how?
Continuing directly from Part I of this post “Humanity’s current predicament and what could be done”…
…and
without now delving into the entire history of the World Bank Group
from its beginning to the present, I would simply reiterate
/recapitulate what I have just indicated in Part I above by saying that
recently there were two main periods of World Bank history. Interested
readers can read about the entire history of the World Bank Group’s main
institutional components i.e. the IBRD (International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development) (initially set up to address the
reconstruction needs of post-World War II Europe) and the IDA
(International Development Association) (established to assist and
promote the economic and social development of developing countries)
and the IFC (International Finance Corporation) (the private sector
mobilization arm of the W.B) which taken together all comprise what is
called “The World Bank Group”, a history which can be found here:
The two recent most important periods once again were these:
1)
The period of the so-called “structural adjustment” of macro /national
economies and the liberalization and privatization and deregulation of
the various economic, social and administrative sectors of developing
countries (in roughly the 1980’s and early 1990’s) and the associated
more general transition towards a new balance and roles for States and
Markets.
2)
The subsequent period of so called PRSPS (Poverty Reduction Strategy
Papers) i.e. national policy frameworks with their relatively
integrated and complementary multi sector-level policies and policy
reforms designed for poverty reduction, and the pursuit of the MDGs
(Millennium Development Goals) (still not achieved) with more attention
being paid also to “sustainability” and to environmental issues as well
as to improved “knowledge management” among the various national and
international development actors, but without necessarily putting these
goals first and foremost and at the center of “policy”; with policy
here meaning the policy of the World Bank Group, the various national
policy frameworks of nation states, and global multilateral or
international policies.
The
first period corresponded -or responded to- the so-called “Washington
Consensus” and the second was an attempt to take into account some of
its shortcomings and criticisms. (this very roughly speaking) The
Washington Consensus was fundamentally an evolving neoliberal paradigm
and vision and –as earlier indicated- also intended to modify the prior
existing balance and relationship between States and Markets i.e. where
national economies earlier presumably could be run from “the commanding
heights of the state” towards a more “facilitative and regulatory role”
for the State with implementation and policy and program delivery left
to market forces and the private sector. It also significantly
deepened and extended globalization and all of its transactions and
exchanges of goods, services, capital, information, knowledge and etc.
Once
again, I am not trying to say in this short think piece that the World
Bank Group and the IMF are now -in their present form, with their
present mandates, and with their present governance structure and
internal institutional capacities and capabilities, the right
institutions to help design and implement seriously the massive
transformations of the world economy which I (and many others) believe
are required to address CO2 emissions, global warming, climate change,
limits to growth, peak resources, and etc. Which incidentally are just
some of the most serious and pressing environmental problems though
there are also several others (e.g. increasingly serious biodiversity
loss and pollution) and all of which need to be viewed and tackled in
the broader context of the Limits to Growth systems paradigm which takes
into account the actual biophysical realities and conditions of both
“sources and sinks” and of the “carrying capacity” of the planet.
(something which mainstream economics with its “economic growth
forever” and “price signals” paradigm generally speaking does NOT do)
What
I am suggesting is that a significantly reconfigured World Bank and IMF
have at least SOME of the initial technical capacities and know-how
which would be needed and could be useful to mobilize to begin to
significantly reform and restructure the globalized world economy
(again, at present premised on a continuing economic growth which
clearly cannot go on forever on a finite planet) and the economies of
the 196 nation states currently seated at the United Nations. And
that therefore how to implement such a “great transformation” (as it
repeatedly has been called) is in fact – fundamentally- “perhaps not a
mystery”? The World Bank is haltingly and very partially moving in
this direction anyway but: a) in piecemeal fashion and not
wholeheartedly and comprehensively and single-mindedly; and b) only as
concerns “emerging” or “developing” economies and not regarding
“advanced” or “developed” economies and c) not necessarily mobilizing
all the other partners that could work together with it; (i.e. “the
network” acting in concert which was mentioned earlier)
So
why am I saying all of this? Because at least in the climate change
activism community and the environmental community more broadly there
seems to be some confusion or ambiguity -and even ignorance or
avoidance, regarding what actually needs to be done comprehensively and
at scale (and very soon) and who could do it and how the relevant
actors -national and international- would go about doing it practically
speaking. Environmentalists –and also scientists- as well intentioned
as most of them typically are have little experience in managing or
reforming economies. (And professional economists are often using the
wrong paradigms and mental models and as a result, the results which
they can achieve are also often less than satisfactory)
Communicating
better with or to the various and diverse and complex strata of the
general public which is out there and may not yet be fully convinced
regarding the problem and its nature (about both the scientific facts,
the biophysical and social systems’ effects and the problems which
inevitably flow from these, and the rational conclusions about what
humanity needs to do, or ought to do, which derive from both) and
further mobilizing NGO’s and others (the environmental movement and
community) to alert much better to the dangers and also to undertake
practical activism of various kinds, are all VERY important things to
do.
Mobilizing
local stakeholders to deal with mitigation and adaptation -and very
partially also with prevention or reversal- also is important as I had
indicated and supported in my earlier post on this blog by the title
“the important thing is to do something”
But
in addition to alerting and mobilizing the public and its various tiers
and segments (as indicated, there is also a great diversity within “the
public” which includes everyone from “committed deniers” to the
un-informed or “apathetic", as well as to those who are persuaded but
don’t know what to do) and stepping up the very useful activities of
NGO’s and the environmental movement as a whole, what eventually
must happen is for the actual economic and social major transformations
called for by the massive overall problem that humanity collectively
faces, to get underway seriously and actually be implemented, if
humanity wishes to survive and leave a livable planet to posterity. Such
transformations would need to include internalizing all the so called
economic “externalities” -which may be external in an economic sense
but are internal in a real biophysical systems sense- and also fully
take into account Limits to Growth (economic as well as demographic) and
Peak Oil and peak other resources.
Enough
has been said about these several important issues already elsewhere so
I don’t need to repeat it all again here. However it is probably
important to at least mention that classical mainstream economics
augmented by some aspects of institutional economics (Douglas North et.
al) (i.e. the mainstream economic models currently in use whether
Supply Side or Keynesian) generally do NOT adequately take into account
biophysical system variables and parameters and their dynamics and
interactions. This should include taking fully into account “sources
and sinks”, and stocks, flows, system delays and sub-system
interactions and dynamics of the real and tangible material variables
(and not just money) such as remaining resources, rates of depletion,
and such things as EROEI, various types of pollution, positive and
negative feedback effects, and etc. Looking at things in terms of
supply and demand and responses to price signals alone is insufficient.
(and will become increasingly insufficient the closer the overall world
economy gets to the physical capacity limits of the planet; economics
worked better earlier when the ratio of the two was smaller i.e. when
the world economy was relatively small relative to the biophysical
capacity of the planet to accommodate it and sustain it)
Therefore
a new economics that is going to take into account both classical
mainstream economics and a new kind of “physical and social systems
thinking in interaction" economics also would probably need to be
rapidly developed, so as to help economists, analysts, planners and
political leaders make much better sense of what is actually happening
in national economies and in the world economy as a whole. (current
World Bank staff is –to my knowledge- not at all well-versed in such a
new “systems thinking” economics although certain research units at the
IMF are at least considering the issue.) (and most world politicians
seem totally oblivious to such considerations)
Please see the abstract of the following recent IMF paper:
and also the following review of IMF research policy:
But
to sum up regarding this whole overall issue of “what is to be done” at
scale my view is that not nearly enough which is concrete and specific
has been said yet, let alone has started to be implemented. And in
particular about “the who and the how” of who should do “what” and when
to implement the needed (comprehensive) world economic transformation in
time. i.e. before we reach average earth temperatures several degrees above pre-industrial times and before irreversible self-amplifying loops and runaway effects have set in.
Can
the World Bank Group and the IMF and the “broader network” of other
development and commercial banks which I mentioned at the beginning of
this piece (in Part I of this post) ever be organized and mobilized and
be totally re-oriented and reconfigured and their staffs adequately
retrained and strengthened so they can be placed at the effective
service of the urgently needed economic, social and political
transformations? Personally –given the current state of international
relations (and the various realities of the current international system
at least as I have come to know it and understand it)- and the current
political and economic and social policies of the key countries of the
planet, I regrettably DO NOT think so. But it is theoretically
possible at least as far as concerns the needed economic transformations
sphere and this is all I wished to convey for the consideration of
others within this think piece. What would need to happen?
The
key countries -the politically powerful and economically wealthier and
demographically most significant- of the world first, followed by all
the others, would have to begin by recognizing and openly communicating
officially to the world public and to their own national publics that we
face an unimaginable disaster if we do not act and act soon and
decisively and effectively. (and comprehensively) But for this to occur
the “power vectors” or the “power systems” or the “political and
economic vested interests” that actually govern and run these countries
through their governmental institutions (parliamentary, executive and
judicial at national, provincial and local levels, as well as at
international level) would need to start to see their own “interests”
very differently from the way they see them at present. That is, much
more intelligently since if the world economy and world society collapse
they inevitably will collapse along with the rest. (first class
tickets on the Titanic with lots of paper money to spare, certainly will
not be of much help)
Who
are some of these “power systems or vectors” and their corresponding
“interests” which strongly influence governments’ decisions and
policies? This is of course debatable but those which have been
mentioned repeatedly by knowledgeable analysts are: i) the military
industrial complex (of various powerful nations, often also acting in
concert); ii) the fossil fuel complex of big oil and big coal
corporations (e.g. the “seven sisters”) iii) the finance and banking
(Wall Street, City of London and etc.) complex of major financial
institutions and large banks; iv) big industrial agriculture and the
“big food” and “big pharma” industries; (which keep us eating unhealthy
foods and then “cure us” of the ailments we inevitably develop) v) the
big “national security” industry and their “big secrecy” internal and
external apparatuses; (recently in the spotlight and not exactly
favorably) ..and.. vi) the mainstream corporate media both print and
television and Internet and parts of mainstream academia and also
aspects of mainstream religions (which all together support and directly
or indirectly legitimize ideologically all the preceding industries,
systems or “complexes” and their broad and diverse range of practices
including also continuing economic and demographic growth and the
ubiquitous “consumerism”)
These
industries also have very powerful lobby groups and some of their top
level staff also play “musical chairs” and rotate between the various
branches of governments, industry and “consulting” and assorted lobbying
roles and posts within nations and sometimes also across them. (for
instance many major nations have active parliamentary lobby groups in
other nations and particularly in the U.S.) What governments do or
don’t do and which policies and rules and political and policy and
regulatory frameworks end up being implemented is probably far more
influenced by these people and these “complexes” than it is by “we the
people” or by the voters.
There are countless examples of such "revolving door job rotations” between senior positions in government and its agencies and the senior executive or advisory positions of each of the six “complexes” or industries listed above. One such example, recently the subject of significant criticism (whether warranted or not), is the one below which pertains to the possible nomination of the next chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve and his earlier career path and benefits from a number of Wall Street firms and the "Finance and Banking Complex". But there also have been very many other such cases and examples for each of the other “complexes” (most notably perhaps the Military Industrial Complex) which when taken together raise very serious questions about who actually runs or controls governments and their key institutions. (and in whose interests and for whose benefit)
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/gag_me_with_lawrence_summers_20130729/
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/01-2
It is beyond the scope of this post to try to describe each of these six power systems and their complex inter-relationships to governments, or to the ultimate orientation and quality of national or global governance, or to policies, in any depth. However a very good general description of one of them (the “Seven Sisters” of the petroleum industry) is provided
in the following set of four episodes recently produced and aired by the
television station Al Jazeera which I think are well worth watching in
their entirety. If readers watch these videos they can then perhaps
“extrapolate” what is shown and described also to the other five
“complexes” or power systems I have listed above and perhaps thereby
obtain what I would consider a more “realistic” “overall idea” of who
actually runs the world and how. Bearing in mind that the effects on
governments and policies of the six power systems or complexes I just
identified (and quite readily and easily too, since they too are “no
mystery”) tend to be synergistic and cumulative.
But
if these national and international power systems and power vectors and
vested interests (e.g. “the seven sisters”) would change their stances
or could be compelled to do so by popular pressure, a new consensus
could then be articulated and developed and established which would NOT
be the old neoliberal paradigm “Washington Consensus” but instead would
be a “Collective International Consensus for Common Survival and
Authentic and Equitable Sustainability? Is such a thing even remotely
possible? But if ever achieved, such a consensus then would give top
priority to “Collective Survivability”, and not necessarily just to
profits or to a loosely and vaguely defined “sustainability”, and also
would have the authority to over-ride and trump national sovereignty
whenever needed, and would get on with the job of restructuring and
transforming the globalized world economy and world society bit by bit
and place by place towards a specific agreed upon authentically
sustainable end-state scenario?
The
earlier neoliberal paradigm program with a greater role for markets and
a different role for the state than those which had existed previously
during the so called “Cold War” period was implemented in roughly 20
years and this new “survivability / sustainability” paradigm’s program
(which is far more difficult to implement both technically and
politically) might take 30-50 years to implement? (I am only guessing
very roughly) Therefore given the current rate of steady increase of CO2
into the atmosphere (and the steady increase of its increase i.e. not
just the velocity of its accumulation but also its acceleration given
also the many newly "emerging" nations and their rapidly growing "middle
classes" and urbanization) and the likely extremely serious global
warming effects which will occur by 2063, what this “50-year time frame”
means is that in fact we should have started 30-40 years ago at the
very latest. But better late than never?
In
such a “new political and ideological and intellectual context” the
World Bank, a broader network of development and commercial banks, the
IMF, UN programs and UN specialized agencies, bilateral “donors”, and
the many other state and non-state actors at international and national
levels (for instance the framework of ministries and public agencies and
entities which exists in every country) and which are now involved in
what is at present called “development assistance” or “national economic
development and management” would receive and mobilize brand new
mandates, additional staff with new capacities and skill sets, and
additional financial and technical resources so that they could
orchestrate and oversee and implement the massive transformation effort
required at global, national and local levels with the participation and
contribution of the very large number of different kinds of actors and
stakeholders which this would require.
All
countries would come under these new mandates and requirements and
their derivative programs and not only the developing nations, but also
the so-called “developed” and industrialized ones. So what I am saying
in fact is that the U.S. and the developed and industrialized OECD
countries (e.g. the EU) -as well as China and the BRICS- all would
need to undergo major restructuring and reforms just as Zambia or
Paraguay or Papua New Guinea would.
As
I already have indicated above very clearly, I DO NOT think the above
is at all “politically realistic” – at least not at this time-. I
believe it may become “realistic” possibly (though it still would not
very likely) only after the dramatic effects of ever increasing CO2
emissions will be fully observable and their catastrophic impacts will
be directly experienced by various populations and their leaderships,
more and more. But by then it will likely be far too late to implement
the needed transformations. (runaway feedback effects such as Arctic
melting and methane release are already now at work)
Regrettably
in the current international system “political realism” trumps “real
biophysical realism” i.e. that based on the laws of physics and of
ecology and of chemistry and biology and of other key resource and
tangible material and energy realities, availabilities, stocks, flows,
delays and other complex system parameters, dynamics, interactions,
feedbacks, and their various effects.
Which
are the key countries that could theoretically create and lead this new
“Collective International Consensus for Survivability” which then could
lead to the other steps described above? Others may disagree and may
wish to add or delete countries from my list which follows, but those
below are the key countries in my opinion which could hold the key to
beginning the transformation that is required and without whose
leadership and commitment we are surely headed towards disaster.
Disaster for the current human cohort of 7 billions, or disaster for
future generations, or disaster for both and to differing extents
depending on what ends up being done or not done:
The
United States; The European Union; other OECD countries, and the
BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). The other two
members of the U.N. Security Council (which could potentially also play a
role since real and actual world security is -in this instance-
actually at stake) also could be added, namely the U.K. and France
although they are already represented by the EU. This isn’t to say
that there aren’t also several other important countries and - with
respect to climate change in particular- Canada and Australia being just
two which immediately come to mind since both are very resource rich
and one holds the tar sands and the other huge coal reserves. And
Venezuela with its Orinoco tar sands and Indonesia with its large coal
reserves also are important, as are many other countries. (Japan,
Germany, and etc.)
And
this is why above I had suggested the G-20 for the leadership role
since it is an already existing international body that meets regularly.
But again, the G-20 will never do anything or be able to agree on a
course of practical actions unless the economic and political
“interests” which are the real power behind its 20 governments (and
their various national and international stakeholders) start to see
their own “interests” very differently.
Rather
it is to suggest that the countries above probably could decide (if
they wished to; even if at the moment their national political,
economic, social and cultural elites clearly do NOT wish to, or are not
ready to do so collectively and seriously yet; since if they were, what
to do would be just as clear to them as it is to me or to any of the
readers of this blog -or even much clearer given the intellectual and
technical and advisory resources which they easily can have access to
and mobilize, and that I and others reading or contributing to this blog
mostly lack, to launch a World Program or a Crisis Emergency Response
to climate change and to Limits to Growth.
This
program or “Great Transformation” would be of the kind which has been
described as being needed –indeed indispensable-, by Paul Gilding and
by Tapio Kanninen and by the WBGU below, and also by many others. (The
Club of Rome and etc. etc.) In fact no dearth of analyses and
recommendations of what needs to be done exists. (but regrettably very little is being done to actually implement them)
Interested
readers should carefully review the publications below and examine the
different types of programs or emergency responses suggested. Are they
the same or are they different? Can a consensus on how best to proceed
be achieved by having a qualified group of international
multi-disciplinary experts carefully review them all and make
(practically implementable) recommendations that then actually will be launched and followed?
If
the political consensus and political will were to (magically?) somehow
emerge the technical and institutional capacities and some of the
policy tools and measures needed to implement the needed transformation
program are in part already defined and available. All they would have
to do is be significantly re-oriented, reconfigured, strengthened,
augmented and re-focused and the implementing actors get to work. Hence
“no “mysteries” (or at least “less of a mystery”) about what needs to
or could be done.
Readers
also may wish to note that I have tried to articulate a possible
(though perhaps only remotely so) solution path based on the currently
existing international relations and global institutional context and
its main current institutional frameworks. Some may rightfully
consider that to be able to implement the above program, major
institutional reforms to the international system order first would be
required. For instance a complete overhaul and updating of the United
Nations system has been discussed for a very long time but very little
actually has been done to reform even just its main current institutions
i.e. the General Assembly, the Security Council or the ECOSOC or its
programs (e.g. UNDP) and its many U.N. specialized agencies. (many of
which suffer from serious organizational, bureaucratic and managerial
problems due to various U.N. system-wide or institutionally-specific
issues) As an overall result global governance is weak and often
depends on an almost impossible to achieve consensus and on voluntary
contributions or participations on the part of the 196 (and often very
fractious) member states.
The
same is true for regional governance when one looks at –for instance -
the present quandary of the European Union. (though other regional
institutions such as the African Union or ASEAN are at even earlier and
less functional stages of institutional development) The EU now cannot
move backwards to individually fully sovereign states and it cannot seem
to move forward towards a federal Europe either, yet its current
institutional configuration and stage of overall institutional
development and internal inter-dependence is inherently unstable; that
is, over the past roughly fifty years a growing number of European
nations have managed to come together and have set up a Common Market,
some more or less representative European institutions (the European
Commission, The European Council, the European Parliament), the
European “Communities” , the relatively free movement of people
(Shengen), a European Central Bank and a Common Currency; (the Euro)
but the common currency is now creating some very serious problems for
the current EU membership (since countries which otherwise would, now
can no longer devalue their currencies) and is leading to a two-track
Europe, a generally counterproductive austerity, and a whole host of
other economic and political problems, divisions and dilemmas; to go
forward the European Union would need to undertake several new major
steps including significant Finance and Banking Sector Reforms and much
improved financial and banking sector common regulation, the
establishment of Eurobonds, the establishment of a common Fiscal Union
on both the revenue collection and the spending side and finally the
establishment of a real Political Union and a Federal Europe. Will the
current EU given its current governance institutions and those of each
member state be able to do this (this further self-transformation and
development) in the next 20 years or is this more likely to take one
hundred years as various national political and economic interests and
elites will continue to wish to safeguard their own so called
sovereignty (reinforced by the significant cultural and identity
differences between the various national populations) and narrow self-
interests and generally will fail to see “the long-term forest through
the short-term trees of their many ongoing national level problems”?
(which in several countries are very serious and have been nearly
intractable for decades)
Unfortunately
such broad institutional reforms are quite likely to take even longer
than trying to get a world economic transformation underway one way or
another. (at G-20 level or at U.N. level and mainly in the context of
existing institutions) And time is of the essence as writers such as
Paul Gilding and others have repeatedly pointed out. An Emergency
Response is needed before Earth heats up any further and is further
irremediably degraded. So we probably cannot wait for UN system
reform and for adequate Global Governance to take place or to emerge.
But
for additional views on the possible reform of Global Institutions and
an improvement and strengthening of global governance Tapio Kanninen
(see above) also offers a very good analysis and many useful
suggestions. Chapter 8 “The Future: Thinking Big about Global
Institutions and World Governance” of his recent book “Global
Institutions: Crisis of Global Sustainability” ….“discusses
organizational and governance solutions to manage effectively the
interlinked global problems of the future and takes the global emergency
described in previous chapters as its starting point”. This book
–which I have read and can strongly recommend to interested readers- is
available here:
And now it is time for me to end this very long post for whose length and probable tediousness I need to apologize to readers.
So
as I ponder once again what I had considered in my opening introduction
to Part I of this post (Namely “An Unbearable Lightness of Being”,
“An End to History”, “TINA”, or Pier Paolo Pasolini’s sui generis
analyses and criticisms of modern society in his “Scritti Corsari” , I
am not at all sure whether this think piece of mine has been in any way
helpful or not.
But
as I also said at the outset I think it probably describes an
“unrealistic reality” which might perhaps at least orient or inspire
some. In any case it is what I happen to think though I am not even
sure whether it inspires or de-motivates me personally. But it is my
own infinitesimal contribution to the current thinking and discussion
about “what to do” at scale once the “persuasion of others” phase is
hopefully soon completed. What can be done and who should do it and how
and by when? These are very basic and important questions that I
believe we all should be thinking about.
Naturally
if there are other ways to reform and transform the entire world
economy and society from top to bottom (and bottom to top and laterally
too) in time to avert catastrophe and collapse that others might be able
to think of (and that hopefully also might be far more “realistic” than
what I have just finished describing) I certainly would be quite
interested in hearing what they are and how such could and /or would be
practically implemented. Or if someone can make a fully truthful and
realistic case for why BAU could just continue indefinitely –but which
would be something other than the usual misleading propaganda- that
highly improbable argument too, would be very welcome.
But I do believe we need to go beyond improving
our communications about the science (and/ or about the ongoing
observable effects of climate change, or about the other many
environmental degradation and destruction problems of various types
which are occurring and that we are continually reading about, or
about the other Limits to Earth’s “sources and sinks” problems and the
overshooting of the planet’s carrying capacity, and also go well beyond
talking about and extending some of the good initial partial results
achieved so far through the environmental movement’s actions and
political activism) and begin to talk specifically and concretely
about what actually needs to happen comprehensively and at scale and how
it can be done.
Whether
this then will actually ever occur or not is probably “another
question”. And if the answer to that question will end up being mainly
in the negative (as I personally suspect it will be) then what is most
likely to occur is either a big collapse or a series of small ones. And
if that’s where we will be heading then the key questions will become
instead how best to mitigate the worst effects and the worst of the pain
to come and how to try to safeguard at least “some sort of a future"
for future human generations. I leave up to each reader individually
whether she or he prefers to be “pessimistic” or “optimistic” about all
or any of the above.
