World Development, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 37>384, 1988. 0305-750X/88 $3.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. 0 1988 Pergamon Press plc

Sustainable Development: Differing Perspectives

of Ecologists and Economists, and Relevance
to LDCs

CLEM TISDELL*
University of Newcastle, Australia

Summary. -The claim is now widely made that it is desirable to aim for a sustainable society, for
sustainable economic development and for sustainable productive systems. This reflects the out-
look of ecologists rather than the majority of economists, although a small group of economists
does see particular virtue in sustainability. The outlook of ecologists is illustrated by Conways
criteria for assessing the desirability of agricultural systems. This approach, is shown to involve
several unresolved conceptual issues. This leads to a discussion of the policy of a safe minimum
standard as proposed by some economists and the critique of expected utility and risk-benefit
analysis by Page and MacLean and whether this might provide a bridge between the views of
economists and ecologists. A basis is established for considering whether sustainability of produc-
tive systems is likely to be a more important goal in less developed countries than in developed
countries. Further examples of the stress of ecologists on the production sustainability goal are
given and additional policy prescriptions. for instance, involving nomadism and transhumance,
are discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION while maintaining its potential to meet the needs

and aspirations of future generations. Conserva-
It has been suggested in the World Conserva- tion of this type is intended to promote sustain-
tion Strategy (1980) that humankind should aim able development.
for sustainable development, and many ecolo- These definitions raise some queries. Do they
gists see the sustainability of productive systems, imply that no development is desirable which
including agricultural systems, as an important temporarily raises the income of existing genera-
goal. While ecologists place considerable stress tions? To what extent should the potential of
on the desirability of economic sustainability, future generations to meet their needs be main-
economists have given much less attention and tained? Is it, for example, ever acceptable to
emphasis to this characteristic. On the whole it engage in current developments that reduce the
has been economists outside the mainstream of potential of future generations to meet their
economics who have concerned themselves with needs? What trade-offs, if any, are acceptable
the sustainability of productive systems. between present generations and future ones?
Given the emphasis placed by ecologists on the It is argued in the World Conservation Strategy
sustainability of productive systems, it is import- that sustainable economic development requires:
ant to have a clear idea of what is meant by sus- (1) the maintenance of essential ecological
tainability or the lack thereof. My examination of processes and life-support systems;
the work of ecologists indicates that their concep- (2) the preservation of genetic diversity; and
tion of sustainability is unclear. For example, (3) sustainable utilization of species and eco-
the World Conservation Strategy (1980) defines systems.
development as the modification of the bio-
*This paper is based upon a seminar presentation to the
sphere and the application of human, financial,
Faculty of Economic Studies at the University of New
living and non-living resources to satisfy human
England. I would like to thank Brian Hardaker,
needs and improve the quality of life and con- Warren Musgrave and other seminar participants for
servation as the management of the human use their helpful comments on the original paper, as well as
of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest M. Alauddin and an anonymous reviewer of this
sustainable development to present generations journal.

373
 374 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Agricultural systems, forests, and coastal and Shaw (1982). have argued in favor of a steady
freshwater systems are claimed to be the most state economy in which there is zero population
important life-support systems for humans and to growth and per capita consumption is restrained.
be under the greatest threat. To what extent, They argue this principally on the grounds that it
however, must each of these matters be attended will promote the earths capacity to sustain life
to to ensure sustainability of development? To and promote the longevity of the human species.
what extent is it acceptable to extend agricultural Daly believes that such an approach will promote
systems at the expense of other life-support an objective which he sees as important:
systems? To what extent can we expect exten- maximizing the greatest number of people who
sions of agriculture and the use of more intensive will ever live subject to maintaining a sufficient or
agricultural systems to be unsustainable? It is satisfactory per capita level of income or product
true that some of these issues are recognized (Daly, 1979. pp. 353-354). He states that It is
in the World Conservation Strategy but little hard to find any objections to maximizing the
progress is made in debating trade-offs and con- number of people who will ever live at a material
sidering opportunity costs. level sufficient for a good lifej (Daly, 1979. p.
Conservational pressure groups strongly advo- 353). Nevertheless, Daly accepts Georgescu-
cate a sustainable society. For example, Lester Roegens view about entropy (Georgescu-
Brown and Pamela Shaw of the Worldwatch Roegen, 1975) and points out that a steady state
Institute promote policies to this end (Brown, economy does not guarantee ecological salvation
1981; Brown and Shaw, 1982). They suggest that and eternal life for the species (Daly, 1979.
six steps need to be taken: (1) stabilize world p. 370).
population; (2) protect cropland against soil ero- However, is a stationary state necessary to
sion; (3) reforest the Earth; (4) recycle more ensure that humankind survives for as long as is
resources; (5) conserve energy; (6) rely more on possible? It is not clear to me that this is so. It is
renewable energy. I do not intend to debate the uncertain whether the economic activity of man
specific policy recommendations here but wish to will seal his fate. If humankind is highly likely to
underline the significance of the concept of extinguish itself through nuclear or similar mis-
sustainability in current debates. Furthermore, it adventure in the next 100 years (or so) a steady
should be pointed out that many advocates of a state economy would hardly seem rclcvant.
sustainable society arc highly critical of the pre- Again, some may argue that maintaining the
scriptions of traditional economics and believe existence of human beings on Earth for as long as
that a market economy in itself will not promote possible is not a worthwhile goal. Rather, one
a sustainable society (Brown and Shaw. 1982, pp. should concentrate on ensuring that the max-
6, 12-13). For instance, Brown and Shaw (lYX2. imum number of souls get to Heaven or Paradise
p. 12) say In a world where the economys or some equivalent. Furthermore, would it be
environment support systems are deteriorating, unsatisfactory to allow population to increase
supply-side economics - with its overriding now if this would force future generations to have
emphasis on production and near blind faith in smaller families than current generations? This
market forces - will lead to serious problems. adds a new dimension to the intergenerational
Thus, the view is now being widely propagated conflict, namely possible intergenerational con-
that if economic development is to be sustain- flict about family size.
able, the ecological systems on which economic Many economists have argued that individual
production ultimately relies also need to be sus- development plans should be assessed in terms of
tainable (see Thibodeau and Field, 1984). In their net present value. In terms of this approach,
addition, sustainable development may require there is no reason to favor per SE a project that
sustainable patterns of economic exchange provides a sustained income over one which gives
(see Tisdell and Fairbairn, lY84; Bertram, 1986) a high income now followed by a much lower
as well as sustainability of political and social level of income later. In fact, if the stream of
structures or sustainability of community. as for income associated with the latter project has a
example outlined by Douglass (lY84, pp. 19-20). higher net present value than the former stream,
Thus the concept of sustainability now arises in the latter project is to be preferred.
many contexts involving development. As Clark (1976) points out, the net present
value criterion may justify the extinguishing of a
species. If the rate of increase in the value of the
2. ECONOMISTS AND SUSTAINABILITY stock of a species is less than the rate of interest,
and if harvesting costs are zero, the owner of the
Economists such as Hermann Daly (I%()), stock can make an economic gain by harvesting
expressing views similar to that of Brown and the whole stock. However, from a social point of
 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 375

view, the social value of a species ought to be centuries. As the trend intensifies, man becomes
assessed. For example, account should be taken even more vulnerable. His food supply now
depends on the success of a small number of
of the existence value of the species. Even after
species, and the failure of one of them may mean
this has been done. there may well be some
starvation for millions of people.
species that it would pay to extinguish. Neverthe-
less, especially when uncertainty is important this For this reason, many ecologists urge us to main-
may be too simplistic. This is, for example, tain genetic diversity in the world either by
suggested by the theory of a safe minimum stand- preserving natural areas containing potential
ard designed to allow for uncertainty about the cultivars or by maintaining artificial banks of
future repercussions from extinction of species reproductive material.
(Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1968; Bishop, 1978; Page and Differences in the characteristics of agro-
MacLean, 1983). I shall take up this matter later. ecosystems as perceived by Conway can be
illustrated by Figure 1. Conway argues that
traditional agriculture systems have high sustain-
3. SUSTAINABILITY, AGRICULTURAL ability whereas improved or modern systems
SYSTEMS AND DEVELOPMENT- have low sustainability. On the other hand,
AN ECOLOGISTS APPROACH modern systems have high productivity com-
pared to traditional systems. However, one
One ecologist who has devoted much atten- should not be categorical about the notion that
tion to the principles of agricultural develop- modern agricultural systems are less sustainable
ment is Gordon Conway (1983a, 1983b, 1985b) than traditional ones and more damaging to the
and he has given particular attention to agroeco- natural environment. This may not be true of all
system technology development in LDCs modern agricultural systems. Schultz (1974, p.
(Conway, 1985a). He suggests that agricultural 74) argues the opposite to Conways view. He
systems should be assessed on the basis of four claims that modern agriculture enlarges the
properties: environmental possibilities, improves and makes
(1) productivity (measured in terms of yield or Nature somewhat less unstable and he points
net income); out that the modernization of agriculture in the
(2) stability of yield or net income; plains states of the United States has made this
(3) sustainability of yield or net income; area less vulnerable to dust storms. If minimum
(4) equitability in terms of income distribu- and low tillage practices are also regarded as a
tion. part of modern agriculture, it could be that some
Economists have given attention to all these of these will add to sustainability. It seems
properties but have not given very much atten- inappropriate to generalize about this matter. It
tion to the concept of sustainability and its appears that some modern techniques would
economic significance. These properties of a make for less sustainability than particular tradi-
productive system are illustrated in Figure 1. tional ones but that the opposite is the case for
Conways concept of sustainability deals with others, and that the position needs to be assessed
the propensity of a system to withstand collapse for individual techniques.
under stress. It has to do with the robustness or In amplifying the concept of sustainability,
continuing viability of a system. Some agri- Conway says
cultural systems may be highly productive but
subject to substantial risk as far as their sustain- Sustainability can be defined as the ability of a sys-
ability is concerned. Indeed, ecologists are tem to maintain productivity in spite of a major
worried that advanced agriculture is becoming disturbance such as that caused by intensive [main-
tained] stresses or a large perturbation Satis-
subject to greater risk as far as sustainability is
factory methods of measuring sustainability have
concerned because of its growing dependence on
still to be found, however. Lack of sustainability
a narrower genetic base than ever before may be indicated by declining productivity but,
(Harlan, 1977; World Conservation Strategy, equally, collapse may come suddenly and without
1980). In this respect Harlan (1977, p. 57) warning. (Conway, 1983a, p. 12)
observes
The following observations on Conways
The trends for more and more people to be approach to assessing agricultural systems and
nourished by fewer and fewer plant and animal food
development seem pertinent:
sources has reached the point today where most of
the worlds population is dependent on a handful of (1) It is qualitative rather than quantitative.
species This is a relatively recent phenomenon (2) A method of comparing the desirability of
and was not characteristic of the traditional subsis- different income flows in time, such as a
tence agriculture abandoned over the past few net present value measure, is not given.
376 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

DESIRABLE UNDESIRABLE

High
.

PRODUCTIVITY

I
LOW
0,
0
>

Time Time

w
Unstable

Stable

STABILITY

Time Time

Sustainable Not susteina ble

Stress Stress

SUSTAINABILITY

Time
I iime

ni
I

5 Relatively equal distribution Unequal distribution

3
f

L
ii
P
EOUITABILITY 5

I
Income Income
I

Figure I. An illustration of a desirable agricultural system and un undesiruble one uccording to Conways criteria
(Conway, 1983a, 19X3b. 198%).
 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 377

(3) No clear indication is given as to what the occurrence of the shocks may drive the
types of trade-offs should be made system towards another equilibrium and it
between characteristics when a choice is may be impossible to return from this
available or who should make trade-off equilibrium to the previous one. Some-
judgments. Of course, this problem will thing even more limiting than mere
not arise if one agricultural system hysteresis6 may occur, namely blocking
dominates another in terms of desirable of return to an earlier equilibrium once
qualities but this situation may not be particular values of the system are experi-
common. Nevertheless, Conways own enced, no matter what available shocks
work suggests that he sees sustainability as are applied.
the prime objective. He has devoted con- More thought needs to be given to clarifying
siderable research to devising sustainable the concept of sustainability, measuring it and
agricultural systems for the tropics. deciding how individuals and society might judge
(4) He sees sustainability in terms of the the desirability or otherwise of different types of
ability of an agricultural system to with- sustainability. It ought to be noted that an
stand (environment) stress. and recover equilibrium state or a strongly stable equilibrium
from stress. The factor affecting sustain- state is not necessarily ideal. In this respect
ability is exogenous to the agricultural Mentis (1984, p. 538) has observed:
system itself. However, there may be some
Agriculturally the most desirable conditions are
agricultural systems that are unsustainable unlikely to be equilibrated states. There is a need to
because they themselves generate unfavor- manage to keep disequilibrium - this is why
able environmental changes, for example, management is tricky! The ideal state in one case
soil depletion. The factor leading to lack of need not be so in another. Thus the central eco-
sustainability is endogenous to the system agricultural paradigm based on the delightfully
rather than exogenous to it in this case. simple and superficially plausible neo-Clementsian
The growing of particular crops for doctrine is mistaken. Mother nature cannot be
example may deplete soil nutrients and divided into natural and unnatural, harmonious and
disharmonious. We have to return to our frame of
lead to a deterioration in its structure so
reference to distinguish right from wrong.
that a pure mining effect is present in
this case. Clearly also in Conways concep- As noted earlier, many economists assess acti-
tion, the risk and uncertainty character- vities in terms of discounted net income flows,
istics associated with the occurrence of the adjusted where necessary to allow for social
stress factor would be important in decid- factors. This for example, has tended to be the
ing on the suitability of an agricultural approach adopted in cost-benefit analysis. It
system. If, for example, the stress factor is leads to the view that sustainability is not a virtue
certain to occur and can be well predicted, in itself and that it may be optimal from the point
then it can be argued that system is akin to of view of maximizing discounted net benefits to
a pure mining one. If its occurrence is un- drive or exploit a system so that it is no longer
certain then some rules for decisionmaking sustainable. For example, it can be quite rational
under risk or uncertainty are required. from this point of view to harvest slowly repro-
(5) What relationship does the concept of sus- ducing species or slowly growing populations of
tainability have to that of equilibrium and species to the extent that they are exterminated
to catastrophe theory (Jones, 1977; (Clark, 1976). Even some salting, erosion or
Zeeman, 1976)? Is a sustainable agri- degradation of soils can be justified on the basis
cultural system to be identified as one of discounted net income flows provided of
which has a unique equilibrium value that course, that all externalities and similar con-
is stable? If so, then the impact of any siderations are taken into account (Dumsday
shock and the dynamic path of return to et al., 1983).
equilibrium will be important character- This is not to deny that there are economic
istics for the purposes of evaluation. Do arguments for sustainability. For example, by
some agricultural systems have more than sustaining species one keeps options open and
one equilibrium and are some of these this can have an economic value. Furthermore,
inherently unstable? However, the situa- with the collapse of a productive system, for
tion may be more complicated than this example an agricultural system, unwelcome
because certain changes may be irrever- income distributional and social consequences
sible. For example, while it may be pos- could follow. Again as will be discussed in the
sible to maintain one equilibrium in the next section, rational doubts have been ex-
system in the absence of significant shocks, pressed about the universal applicability of the
 378 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

expected utility hypothesis as widely employed tually prove useful to humans. Though less well-
by economists. The arguments involved tend to known to economists, natural uncertainty is as
support more risk conservatism than implied by impressive as social uncertainty. It is an understate-
the expected utility approach. ment to say that there is still a great deal to be
learned about nature. (Bishop, 1978, p. 12)
More discussion is needed by economists of the
concept of sustainability. Both economists and Given the degree of ignorance and uncertainty
ecologists need to give more consideration to the about possible losses from the extinction of a
types of trade-offs that should be made between species, the choice about whether or not to save a
the type of objectives specified by Conway. So species is best considered in terms of game
far ecologists have given us little guidance about theory. It is suggested by Ciriacy-Wantrup and
the desirability of trade-offs. Since not all objec- by Bishop that it might be appropriate to apply
tives can be simultaneously achieved as a rule. the minimax loss principle for making the choice.
trade-offs are inescapable. The nature of the game can be illustrated by the
matrix set out in Table 1.

4. THE ECONOMICS OF A SAFE

MINIMUM STANDARD: A BRIDGE Table I. Matrixof losses
BETWEEN ECONOMISTS AND
ECOLOGISTS? States of nature
1* 2t Max. losses
The preservation of species and thereby gen-
etic diversity has been seen as an important Extinction 0 Y Y
requirement for sustaining economic develop- Safe minimum X X-Y X
ment (World Conservation Strategy, 1980).7 The
desirability of preserving species has been *State of nature such that there is no loss from
approached in two ways by economists. The extinction.
approach at Resources for the Future (RFF) has tState of nature involving a loss from extinction.
been to extend conventional criteria for optimal
public investment to take account of the irre-
versibilities associated with actions involving If the size of the possible loss, Y, from extinc-
natural environments (Smith and Krutilla, tion of the species exceeds the cost, X, of main-
1979). In this approach to evaluating the de- taining the species at a safe minimum population
sirability of preserving endangered species, level (that is, one that avoids the extinction of the
uncertainty is characterized by a probability species), the minimax strategy is to opt for pre-
distribution of possible states of nature each of servation of the species at the safe minimum
which has a known payoff, and the objective may level. Otherwise, extinction is the minimax strat-
be (usually is) the maximization of expected egy. The matrix indicates that, other things held
utility. Economists such as Ciriacy-Wantrup equal, the preservation strategy is more likely to
(1968) and Bishop (1978) are critical of this be an optimal minimax one, the lower is the cost
approach and argue in favor of an approach of ensuring a safe minimum level of the popula-
based on the minimax loss principle.K Bishop is tion of the species. Bishop (1978) argues that the
critical of the RFF approach because he believes cost of preserving many species is extremely low
that it does not adequately take account of the in relation to the potential gain foregone by not
degree of uncertainty about the likely value of saving them. Furthermore, the minimax principle
species in the future. should not be followed blindly. If the difference
Species form a genetic reservoir and in his view between X and Y is very small and X is very high,
any reduction in the reservoir is shrouded both in it may not be desirable to adopt the minimax
social and natural uncertainty. strategy. However, Bishop does not provide us
with a specific rule in this case.
By social uncertainty is meant the lack of know- Bishop (1978, p. 13) suggests that not only are
ledge about future time paths for the income levels, the probabilities poorly understood but also the
technologies, and other variables that will deter- outcomes themselves and the associated losses
mine which life-forms eventually become resources
so that the payoff values attaching to alternative
and which will not. History is replete with examples
where unanticipated events caused natural phe-
strategies can be quite uncertain. Furthermore,
nomena to become resources. Our future must what do the payoffs measure? The cost of saving
certainly be equally unpredictable. Natural uncer- a species from extinction is likely to fall prin-
tainty refers to large gaps in knowledge about the cipally on current generations whereas future
characteristics of flora and fauna that may even- generations are likely to be the main bene-
 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 379

ficiaries. How are intergeneration income distri- ceptions and estimates of the actual risks
bution questions to be settled? Despite such and dangers involved; and
differences Bishop believes that the safe min- (3) individuals may obtain or suffer unequal
imum standard/game theory approach is useful amounts of expected gain or loss in rela-
in conceptualizing the choices facing society and tion to the risk borne (which itself may but
of greater operational value than the Resources need not be equally borne).
for the Future approach (Bishop, 1979). It should be noted that differences in estimates
Without necessarily embracing the minimax of risk may be held rationally and that it may not
approach, Talbot Page and Douglas MacLean be possible to obtain consensus about estimates
(1983) argue convincingly that expected utility on the basis of available knowledge even with
theory has defects under particular circumstances goodwill.
both as a description of actual behavior and as a In most cases, the event giving rise to the risk
normative doctrine. When these circumstances does not satisfy the Paretian gain test - some of
prevail a policy maker might reasonably adopt a those affected feel better off while others are
strategy more risk conservative than the usual worse off. Kneese and Sweeney (1985) discuss
risk-benefit analysis (Page and MacLean, 1983, this ethic and others specifically in relation to an
p. 1,025). Risk conservatism involves more than environmental risk involving several generations
mere risk aversion as would be implied by strictly such as nuclear waste storage. Even if an
concave utility functions. For example, where environmental risk passes the Kaldor-Hicks test,
one is uncertain of the probabilities of payoffs that is involves a potential Pareto improvement in
associated with a particular event such as the that the gainers could compensate the losers,
extinction of species or of a productive system there are still, as is well known, many limitations
this may result in at least temporary uncertainty to such a test for determining increases in social
avoidance. This may take the form of further welfare (Ng, 1979, Chap. 3) such as its lack of
information gathering and delay during which resolution in relation to income distribution
time it can be important to keep the existing changes. But in the present context, there are
system functioning, that is in a sustained state. additional problems. Those that expect to gain
Page and MacLean believe that the expected util- from a risky event which may result in non-
ity theory is appropriate under some circum- sustainability may have an inflated idea of gains
stances but not others. As summarized by to be achieved and may underestimate risks. If
Chisholm (forthcoming) several other econom- this is true, they may not be in a position to com-
ists have also recently criticized expected utility pensate losers even in a probability or expected
maximization as a relevant objective for indi- sense. However, let us suppose that the expected
vidual decisionmaking in many circumstances. gainers are right in their probability estimates.
These critiques raise the question, taken up later, They may only be able to pay compensation if a
of whether risk conservatism is likely to be more favorable outcome occurs. The payment of the
appropriate for less developed countries (LDCs) compensation (or the possibility of its payment)
than for developed countries (DCs). is conditional upon a favorable outcome to the
The expected utility criterion seems even more lottery in which all are required to participate
vulnerable to criticism when it is applied to social (no free choice). Both on these two grounds and
rather than individual decisionmaking. Most on the ground that the risks being faced are u11-
development issues involve a social dimension. certain and the probabilities could be to some
The disappearance of species and varieties of extent fictional, some risk conservatism would
living organisms, for instance, affects the whole not be misplaced. This seems especially so for
of society and all future generations. Many of the events which involve a low risk of high damage to
global environmental risks which we face do not individuals since in such circumstances indi-
have potential effects that would average out viduals appear typically not to follow expected
over the whole population. The statistical law of utility rules (Chisholm, forthcoming; Page and
large numbers does not apply to these events or MacLean, 1983; Loomes and Sugden, 1982).
risks as it does to various risks for which insur- Returning to the minimax principle of Bishop
ance exists. They remain risks for us all in toto. - what is its relationship to the desirability of
How we should decide in relation to such sustainable development or sustainable produc-
global or pervasive risks is complicated in a social tive systems? In certain cases, sustainable
context because systems may be those that maximize the min-
(1) different individuals may have markedly imum possible loss. In that case, a sustainable
different attitudes to uncertainty and risk- development or productive strategy would
bearing; correspond to extreme risk avoidance. This is so
(2) different individuals may have diverse per- for the loss matrix shown in Table 2.
380 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Table 2. Matrix of possible losses from ulterncrtiw pro- reserves to search for employment or alter-
duction strategies native living conditions elsewhere in the
economy. In addition, the costs of search
State of nature are likely to be high in LDCs compared to
No stress DCs because communication systems are
stress occurs Max. loss
poor.
(3) Since incomes in some areas in many
1 2 LDCs are barely above subsistence levels,
Not sustainable 0 - 10 ~ IO there are few reserves for taking a risk on
Sustainable -3 -4 -4* non-sustainability. The consequence of
failure may be death. The option exists of
*Minimax value. avoiding this risk and as Page and
MacLean (1983, p. 1,024) indicate it may
be rational to do so.
5. PREFERENCE OF LDCs FOR (4) Dire consequences for the individual of
SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS failure of productive systems in an area are
also more likely in LDCs because social
Would LDCs be more likely than DCs to favor insurance or security systems (e.g., public
a minimax approach to determining economic unemployment benefits) are poorly
development programs and the desirability of developed and there are few national
alternative production systems? This is a difficult reserves for subsidizing regions or indus-
question to answer a priori. On the one hand tries in economic difficulties. Inhabitants
because of low incomes the inhabitants of LDCs in LDCs are more likely to have to stay
might be expected to have a high time preference put in the face of adverse economic diffi-
for consumption now rather than conservation culties and less likely to get aid from out-
for future generations. High interest rates in side communities than in DCs.
LDCs also militate against conservation. It has (5) LDCs are comparatively more dependent
been argued by some writers that in the stage of on environmentally based living-resource
backward economic development, societies pre- production than are DCs, e.g.. on agri-
fer to take environmental risk for the sake of eco- culture and fisheries. The structure of
nomic growth (Fleming, 1977, p. 8; Tisdell, societies in LDCs is likely to be severely
1983b). On the other hand, forces are present in disrupted if any of these major industries
LDCs which might make sustainable productive becomes non-sustainable.
systems more appropriate for them than for DCs (6) There may be greater uncertainty about
(see Tisdell. 19X5) and more suitable than less the probable effects of new technology or
sustainable ones or ones subject to a high risk of developments in LDCs than in DCs.
non-sustainability. Knowledge about the value in the tropics
In the above respect the following factors need of various agricultural systems developed
to be taken into account: in temperate areas may be limited. There
(1) Population rises in response to increased is a lack of knowledge about the value of
income may be greater in LDCs than in various species and practices indigenous to
DCs. If income cannot be maintained. LDCs. It is possible that asymmetric
there are considerable welfare problems uncertainties as to probabilities (Page and
involved in the long term given that popu- MacLean, 1983, p. 1,024) are greater in
lation levels cannot be easily reduced (see LDCs than in DCs. This would suggest
Tisdell and Fairbairn, 1984). that greater risk conservatism would be
(2) Capital and labor mobility in LDCs is less rational in LDCs. This may imply that
than in DCs and the societies of LDCs are species and existing systems should be pre-
more heterogeneous. If environmental served (or preserved up to a reversible
deterioration or collapse of productive level) until more knowledge is gathered.
systems occurs in a local area or region of (7) In certain circumstances, a government
an LDC those individuals affected are not may desire to sustain or to see sustained
easily able to find alternative employment particular productive systems because poli-
in the economy and may find considerable tical support for it comes from those
difficulty in adjusting to a different social involved in these systems. This, however.
situation in another part of the country. is not peculiar to LDCs.
Furthermore, because incomes are already Thus it can be seen that LDCs may have
low in LDCs, individuals have little or no a greater preference for sustainable productive
 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 381

systems than DCs. This does not imply the non- There is also evidence that some common-
introduction of new productive systems but that property resources (shared land resources) can
these need to be considered more carefully provide a highly productive and equitable use of
before being adopted in LDCs. One upshot of land even in settled agricultural communities
this discussion is that expected utility analysis or if they are collectively managed. Jodha (1985)
traditional risk-benefit analysis may, using the points out the substantial economic advantages
criteria suggested by Page and MacLean (1983), of such areas (compared to completely private
be more appropriate for DCs than for LDCs. land ownership) in farming in arid and semi-arid
This is somewhat at variance with the view also tropical India. His conclusions are based on
expressed in the literature that economically detailed studies in villages in Rajasthan and
backward countries should be (or are) less Madhya Pradesh. It is most important, however,
averse to environmental risk-taking (Fleming, that there be an appropriate social or political
1977, p. 8) than are DCs. Certainly this matter is framework for the management of such areas
by no means settled. In DCs some conservation otherwise erosion and degradation is liable to
groups have expressed strong opposition to tradi- occur with rising economic demands on scarce
tional risk-benefit analysis and associated values land resources. In the absence of this framework
and prefer a minimax regret approach to an the resource becomes unsustainable. This under-
expected value one (Bergstrom, 1984, p. 12). lines the point that resources and productive sys-
tems may become unsustainable not just on
account of new technology but also on account of
6. MORE ON ECOLOGISTS AND new political and social systems (see Jodha, 1985;
SUSTAINABILITY OF PRODUCTION Tisdell, 1983b).

As further evidence of the importance that

ecologists place on sustainable production, con- 7. CONCLUDING COMMENTS
sider the following three recommendations from
a report from Dasmann and Poore (1979): It seems that the sustainability criterion plays a
much greater role in the type of policy advice
- The stocking of rangelands in high mountain given by ecologists than that given by econom-
areas with domestic animals must be planned so
ists. Why is it that ecologists focus so much on
that the grazing lands can support the numbers
proposed without the long-term loss of produc-
this characteristic and economists give it so little
tivity of either plants or animals. (p. 25) attention? Since ecologists and biologists put so
- Where grasslands have been so overgrazed that much store on sustainability why is this concept
their productivity and stability have been not more carefully defined and measured by
impaired, the pressure on them should be them? Are sustainable agricultural systems more
reduced to restore their productivity. (p. 27) appropriate for LDCs than less sustainable
- Especially in arid and semi-arid regions, no- systems such as those reputed to be widely used
madic grazing and transhumance often makes in developed countries? These are questions to
the best sustained use of grazing lands, these
which I do not yet have answers.
traditional practices should not be changed
On the other hand, it is not clear where eco-
without very good reason. (p. 27)
nomics and economists stand on the desirability
It is difficult to understand what these recom- of sustainability. Most economists do not see sus-
mendations precisely amount to. Are the authors tainability as a desirable goal in itself. Economic
concerned with maximum sustainable yield or principles tend to suggest that the mining,
maximum economic yield? Why is sustainability depletion or elimination of living resources is
so desirable? Nevertheless, I would accept their justifiable from an economic point of view and
point that nomadic grazing and transhumance that unsustainable productive activities may
after make the best economic use of grazing lands be economically rational. This being so, what
and that the establishment of individual plots scope is there for economists and ecologists to
of private land in some areas inteferes with or agree on this matter? To what extent do the
supplants nomadic activity and may reduce theories of Ciriacy-Wantrup, Bishop, Page and
economic productivity. (Has this, for example, MacLean, provide a bridge between economists
occurred in parts of Kenya?) The establishment and ecologists?
of private ownership in land subject to nomadic Despite continuing differences between
activity could impose a high transaction cost on economists and ecologists on the desirability of
nomads wanting to use it and render nomadism sustainable productive systems and the desir-
uneconomic even when it represents the best ability of sustainable development, it would seem
form of land use. unwise for economists and others undertaking
 382 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

social cost-benefit analysis of projects for LDCs important is a serious shortcoming (Little and
to ignore ecological considerations and spill- Mirrlees, 1974; Dasgupta et al., 1972; Tisdell,
overs. Indeed, the claims in the traditional 1986). The ecological consequences of many pro-
economic manuals for project evaluation in jects and developments in LDCs have been far
LDCs that such matters are likely to be un- from minor as evidenced by James (1978).

NOTES

1. However, I agree with a reviewers comment that objective of maximizing the number of souls that get to
a vague definition is better than spurious precision and Heaven could be a serious objective. This objective can
much better than ignoring the issue, especially if it conflict with Dalys objective and is likely to be at
subsequently stimulates further development of new serious odds with myopic maximum economic growth
concepts, as I believe discussions of sustainability will. objectives which may seriously limit the maximum
number of individuals who ever live.
2. For a discussion of these matters in relation to
Bangladesh and the green revolution, see Alauddin 6. Hysteresis occurs when the extent of control over
and Tisdell (forthcoming). a system depends on the sequence and values of past
events which have affected the system. Some past
3. While this objective appears quite anthropo- events may make it more difficult but not impossible to
centric, it is likely to be much more favorable to the return to a previous equilibrium.
survival of other species than the objective of myopic,
all-out economic growth. It also is apparent that Dalys 7. Incidentally the set of priorities put forward in the
personal values do include a naturalistic element not World Conservation Strategy for saving species from
captured in the above objective for he has also stated extinction is of dubious value. For example, it is sug-
that the SSE [steady state economy] is simply a stra- gested that priority should be given to saving
tegy of good stewardship for taking care of Gods crea- endangered families rather than say an endangered
tion for however long he wills it to last. In taking care of species within a family. But why should a family (which
that creation, special, but not exclusive, attention must may contain only one species) necessarily be of greater
be given to humanity, including not only the present value than a species within a family that itself is not
but also future generations . (Daly. 1980, pp. 37& endangered? There is no a priori reason why one
371). should adopt the WCS priorities. However, it could bc
argued, even though this point is not made in WCS,
4. As suggested by a reviewer, this may not be in fact that by saving a family, one leaves possibilities for
Hermann Dalys goal. This raises the question of genetic manipulation and change more open. Never-
whether one might have to forgo some longevity of the theless, the approach to species preservation of
species in order to increase the cumulative number of ecological policy advisors involved in the World
lives ever lived over time at a per capita resource con- Conservation Strategy is somewhat disappointing (see
sumption level that is sufficienf for a good life. But it is World Conservation Strategy, 1980; Tisdell, 1983a).
not my purpose to debate Dalys view or model here for Some ecologists, in particular Myers (1979), are
this would not do justice to it. Rather it is being men- however taking an approach which is helping to bridge
tioned because it is an economic view favoring sustain- the gap between ecologists and economists in the
able development. discussion of the issue of species preservation.

5. This need not be inconsistent with Dalys objec- 8. This principle requires the decisionmaker to
tive. However, if the same proportion of individuals adopt the strategy which maximizes the minimum pos-
who ever live are saved irrespective of their per sible gain, or which minimizes the maximum possible
capita income, this would suggest that the objective loss. It entails the highest possible avoidance of risk.
ought to be to maximize the number of individuals who See for example, Lute and Raiffa (1966).
ever live (long enough to be saved). This suggests an
optimal income per capita somewhat lower than Dalys 9. Transhumance is the seasonal movement of stock
level sufficient for a good life. But of course, the pro- from one region to another, e.g., from lowland areas to
portion of individuals saved may not be independent mountainous areas during the summer.
of per capita income levels. For some individuals, the

REFERENCES

Alauddin, M., and C. Tisdell, New agricultural tech- Change, Development and the Environment: Socio-
nology and sustainable food production: Bangla- Economic Perspectives (London, UK: Croom Helm,
deshs achievements, predicament and prospects, in forthcoming), Chap 3.
C. A. Tisdell and P. Maitra (Eds.), Technological Bergstrom, S., Economic Growth and the Role of
 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 383

Science (Department of Business Administration, man, in Scientific American Book, Food and Agri-
Stockholm University, 1984). culture (San Francisco: Freeman, 1977).
Bertram, G., Sustainable development in Pacific James, J., Growth, technology and the environment
micro-economies, World Development, Vol. 14, in less developed countries: A survey, World
No. 7 (1986) pp. 809-822. Develoament. Vol. 6 (1978). vv. 937-965.
Bishop, R. C., Endangered species and uncertainty. Jodha, N*. S., Common propert;resource in farming
The economics of a safe minimum standard, in arid and semi-arid tropical India (ICRISAT,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. Pantancheru, P.O. 502 324, A.P., India, 1985).
60. No. 1 (1978) pp. 1@18. Jones, D. D., The application of catastrophe theory to
Bishop, R. C., *Endangered species, irreversibility and ecoloeical svstems. Simulation. Vol. 29, No. 1
uncertainty: A reply, American Journal of Agri- (19777, pp. 1-1s.
cultural Economics, Vol. 61, No. 2 (1979). pp. Kneese, A. V., and J. L. Sweeney, Ethics and
376-379. environmental economics, in A. V. Kneese and
Brown, L. R., Building a Sustainable Society (New J. L. Sweeney (Eds.), Handbook of Natural Re-
York: W. W. Norton, 1981). source and Energy Economics, Vol. 1 (Amsterdam:
Brown, L. R.. and P. Shaw, Six Steps to a Sustainable Elsevier Science, 1985).
Society (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, Little, I. M. D., and J. A. Mirrless, Project Appraisal
1982). and Planning for Developing Countries (London:
Chisholm. A., Sustainable resource use and develop- Heinemann Educational Books, 1974).
ment: Uncertainty, irreversibility and rational Loomes, G., and R. Sugden, Regret theory: An alter-
choice. in C. A. Tisdell and P. Maitra (Eds.), . , Tech- native theory of rational choice under uncertainty,
nological Change, Development and the Environ- The Economic Journal, Vol. 92 (1982), pp. 805-824.
ment: Socio-Economic Perspectives (London, UK: Lute, R. D., and H. Raiffa, Games and Decisions
Croom Helm, forthcoming), Chap. 9. (New York: Wiley, 1966).
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., Resource Conservation: Eco- Mentis, G., White paper on agricultural policy,
nomics and Policies, 3rd edn. (Berkeley: University South African Journal ofScience. Vol. 80 (1984).I.. vv.
of California Division of Agriculture Science, 1968). 538-534.
Clark, C. W., Mathematical Bioeconomics (New York: Myers, N., The Sinking Ark (Oxford: Pergamon Press,
John Wiley, 1976). 1979).
Conway, G. R., Agroecosystem Analysis, ICCET Ng, Y., Welfare Economics (London: Macmillan,
Series E, No. 1 (London: Imperial College, 1983a). 1979).
Conway, G. R., Applying Ecology (London: Centre Page, T., and D. MacLean, Risk conservatism and the
for Environmental Technology, Imperial College, circumstances of utility theory, American Journal of
1983b). Agricultural Economics, Vol. 65 (1983). pp. 1021-
Conway, G. R., Agricultural Ecology and Farming 1026.
Systems Research, in .I. V. Remenyi (Ed.), Agri- Schultz, T. W., Is modern agriculture consistent with
cultural Systems Research for Developing Countries a stable environment? in The Future of Agriculture:
(Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agri- Technology, Policies and Adjustment, Papers and
cultural Research, 1985a). Reports, 15th International Conference of Agri-
Conway, G. R., Agroecosystems analysis, Agri- cultural Economists (Oxford: Oxford Agricultural
cultural Administration, Vol. 20 (1985b), pp. 31-55. Economics Institute, 1974).
Daly, H.. Economics, Ecology and Ethics (San Smith, V. K., and J. V. Krutilla, Endangered species,
Francisco: Freeman, 1980). irreversibilities, and uncertainty: A comment,
Dasgupta, P., A. Sen, and S. Marglin, Guidelines for American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 61
Project Evaluation (New York: United Nations (1979) pp. 371-375.
Industrial Development Organization, 1972). Thibodeau, R.. and H. Field, Sustaining Tomorrow: A
Dasmann, R. F., and D. Poore, Ecological Guidelines Strategy for World Conservation and Development
for Balanced Land Use, Conservation and Develop- (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1984).
ment in High Mountains (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, Tisdell, C. A., An economists critique of the world
1979). conservation strategy with some examples from
Douglass, G. K., The meanings of agricultural sus- Australian experience, Environmental Conserva-
tainability, in G. K. Douglass (Ed.), Agriculfural tion, Vol. 10 (1983a). pp. 43-52.
Sustainabilitv in a Changing World Order (Boulder. Tisdell, C. A., Conserving living resources in Third
CO: Westview Press, 1984), pp. >29). World countries: Economic and social issues, Inter-
Dumsday, R. G., D. A. Oram, and S. E. Lumley, national Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol. 22
Economic aspects of the control of dryland sali- (1983b). pp. 11-24.
nitv. Proceedings of the Roval Society of Victoria, Tisdell, C. A., The law, economics and risk-taking,
VoI. 95, No. 3 71983) pp. -139-145: . Kyklos, Vol. 35 (1983~). pp. %20.
Fleming, J. C., The Law of Torts, 5th edn. (Law Book Tisdell, C. A., World conservation strategy, economic
Company, 1977). policies and sustainable resource-use in developing
Georgescu-Roegen, N., Selections from Energy and countries, The Environmental Professional, Vol. 7
economic myths , Southern Economic Journal, (1985), pp. 102-107.
Vol. 41. No. 3 (1975) reprinted in Daly (1980). Tisdell, C. A., Cost-benefit analysis, the environment
Harlan, J. R., The plants and animals that nourish and informational constraints in LDCs, Journal of
384 WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Economic Development, Vol. 11 (1986), pp. 63-81. World Conservation Strategy (Gland, Switzerland:
Tisdell, C. A., and T. 1. Fairbairn, Subsistence eco- IUCN, 1980).
nomies and unsustainable development and trade: Zeeman, E. C., Catastrophe theory, Scientific
Some simple theory, The Journal of Development American No. 234 (1976), pp. 65-73.
Studies, Vol. 20 (1984), pp. 227-241.