Recently I held in my hands a printed copy of the new Fourth Edition of my book Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in a Developing World. It had been a long while coming. The contract I signed in 2012 set a submission date of December 2014: the manuscript was finally submitted in 2019, a cool four and a half years late.
In my defence, revising it was hard. When I blithely agreed to do a new edition, both I and Routledge thought in terms of a quick update, with maybe a few new bits of writing to meet some of the more enthusiastic suggestions of reviewers.
It did not turn out like that. Too much had changed – and too much was wrong with the previous edition (not least that I found it long-winded, choked with quotations that made it hard to read). I ended up rewriting almost every paragraph, restructuring the argument and adding new chapters. I cut words and references fiercely, like a gardener clearing brambles. But as hard as I cut, behind me new words took root and grew.
I should have known it would be difficult to do justice to the field of sustainability and development. I had made exactly the same mistake twice before. This was the fourth edition of the book. The original was written in the 1980s and published in 1990. It was written in a world without email or Internet: I spent my small advance on my first ever word processor (the remarkable Amstrad PCW). At that time, systematic thinking about environment and development depended on the World Conservation Strategy (1980), and the Brundtland Report (1987). The second edition appeared in 2001 and the third in 2009. These had to respond to the 1992 ‘Rio Conference’ and the explosion in international debate and policy that followed it (not least about the UN Conventions on Climate Change and on Biological Diversity) and the Millennium Development Goals.
Everywhere there was more to say: more case studies, more theories, more contrasting ways of looking at the problems, more arguments about what ‘the problems’ were and what perils lay in particular ways of defining them. Everybody had an argument to make about sustainability, nature and human futures. There had been endless meetings and reports, generating well-intentioned statements that ranged from the visionary to the self-serving, the heartfelt to the platitudinous. A huge crop of new academic writing had sprung up, with new disciplines (for example ecological and institutional economics or conservation biology) flowering and new ideas setting seed (for example ecosystem services, natural capital, resilience and governance).
In the face of this growth industry, the second and third editions of Green Development grew fatter, slower, less sharp. By the time I finally turned seriously to the new edition, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development had taken place back in Rio in 2012, and the Sustainable Development Summit in New York in 2015. The Sustainable Development Goals had generated their own explosion of scholarship. The challenge of dealing with all this material seemed overwhelming.
Curiously, as I hacked my way through thickets of old writing and new, it was the first edition to which I turned for the heart of the new book. Not just because it was shorter and better written (or at least I thought so), but because of the critique of the conventional model of development that it built upon. These were the debates of my youth. I was doing my A Levels in 1972 when The Limits to Growth appeared, and the new Ecologist Magazine produced A Blueprint for Survival. The following year saw publication of E.F. Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. The very title of Only One Earth by Barbara Ward and René Dubos, also 1972, summed up the impossibility of accepted ideas of growth. Like others of the generation who watched the Apollo missions unfold, I took for granted the idea that the Earth was a unique and limited place in an inhospitable universe.
Doing my PhD on the impacts of development projects on small farmers in the African Sahel, I discovered Robert Chambers’s Rural Development: Putting the Last First, and later the works of Murray Bookchin and Robert Goodland. I realized that development as often brought problems as solutions. And that was what I meant by ‘green development’ in the title of the first edition. As I wrote in my first blog for Thinking Like a Human in 2014, the word ‘green’ is so loosely used that it might seem meaningless, a rough label for any kind of ‘environmental’ argument or action. But to me the word seemed useful to draw together challenges to the conventional development model of unceasing economic growth, of unconstrained production and consumption, and the appropriation for profit of non-human nature.
In the 1990s and 2000s, as sustainability became a mainstream idea, critiques of Western developmentalism got rather drowned out in the torrent of academic and popular debate. Now it has come into its own again. In the 1970s, environmentalists spoke rather piously of existential challenges to human futures. Today such challenges are unmissable, particularly in the form of climate change. Moreover, the poverty of international policy responses has drawn attention to the structure of the world economy, to failures and limitations of governance and the pervasive inequalities and injustices that characterize and entrench them.
The standard model of development that served industrialized countries so well for so long is once again understood as a problem, not a blueprint for the future. In the 1970s, the key concept to frame this understanding was ‘limits to growth’. This time around, attention is focused forwards, on degrowth. Can we build an economy of care, of the commons, of simplicity and conviviality, of cooperation? Can we achieve prosperity without growth? Can we rethink economics to deliver happiness?
When you are writing a book, you can keep tinkering with the text (indeed, that is one reason why books get delayed!). But as soon as the manuscript is delivered, that window closes. As an author you suffer agonies until publication day, watching new publications appear, and the world you have written about start to change.
So it was with the new edition of Green Development. In the months after submission in 2019, the newspapers were full of Extinction Rebellion protests in the streets of London and other cities, and Greta Thunberg lecturing jaded politicians about their responsibilities to the earth. The new edition of Green Development finally appeared in print back in January 2020. Holding the finished book my hands then, I measured it against this explosion of interest about new ways of living. I had re-centred the book on critiques of developmentalism, but I wished I had done more.
But now even January 2020 seems a lifetime ago. The Covid-19 pandemic, with its cascade of closed economies, locked down people, and death stalking ordinary lives, has changed the debate again. Some commentators have drawn hope from responses to the pandemic, seeing vision, courage, empathy, care, a respect for science, and sheer hard work in the common good. To some, the radical policy innovation demanded by Covid-19 arguably shows what might be done to build a sustainable and just world. Climate change may be a slower burn crisis than Covid-19, but, as Greta Thunberg points out, it demands as serious a response.
Yet radical change is scary. The familiar exerts a huge pull, particularly for those who have been doing well out of the existing system. Calls to re-establish ‘business as usual’, global trade, high street shopping, cheap air flights and holiday travel, are strong. To re-imagine human futures is one thing, to lead or even follow the policy change is unnerving and takes courage.
And some Covid-19 policy-making is not encouraging, marked by short-sightedness, greed, selfishness, and aversion to risk. We sense the pulling up of drawbridges, the closing off of sympathy for those who are different from ourselves. The Black Lives Matter protests have focused global attention on structural injustice and inequality, and the bloody and coercive histories behind the wealth of ‘developed’ countries.
Thinking about Green Development, I recognise that it probably does a better job of explaining problems than offering solutions. I comfort myself that if you don’t understand problems you can’t fix them, although this is an easy cop out. Thinking about the book in the light of this extraordinary year, the Covid-19 pandemic holds up a mirror in which we can look at ourselves and our societies. If we gaze into it, we see not a world easily remade, but a set of intractable challenges and tough choices. Many of these are horribly familiar, even if they strike us as new.
Old entrenched problems are often the hardest to solve. But one thing is very clear: never has bold thinking about what matters in the world been more urgent.