General comments on the book chapter

Synthesis of comments from ASU Students on Chapters 2.1 and 2.2

An overarching question that came out of ASU’s discussion of these chapters was whether this book should be written as a “collective voice,” as it is now, or if it makes more sense to frame it as an edited volume.  As it stands, the current book is somewhere in between because of the obvious differences between the authors’ styles and topics.  An edited volume would allow more critical and reflexive conversations between the authors of various disciplinary perspectives.

We collectively found these chapters to be extremely interesting as a new perspective to sustainability science.  The material was at an appropriate intellectual level (even for those of us not trained in economics), though it took much longer to carefully read through than the other chapters.  The points that struck us the most were that “individual well-being is based on trade-offs, which vary depending on each individual… similarly social well-being can be seen as trade-offs between the well-being of different individuals,” the deconstruction of equity as a facet of sustainability, and Chapter 2.2's focus on shadow values and intergenerational ethics (Karina).

Another comment about the readability of the text is that the author packs a lot of meaning into short sentences; this was challenging for us because the tone sometimes came across as flippant. For example, we found that the brief discussion of population, colonialization and poverty traps at the end of Chapter 2.1 was not well contextualized and did not relate to the first part of chapter 2.1 (how does it fit with the proposed model?); it ended up echoing conventional (and problematic) themes in traditional development literature. The poor vs. rich an application section does not really provide a good example for the first part of chapter 2.1 and we almost unanimously agree that that section could be either considerably edited or removed from the chapter without deterring from the core substance of the chapter.

Overall, considering the depth of economics in this chapter, we were left wondering whether this inherently privileges the discipline of economics compared to the various other disciplines of the authors.  "The other authors have been able to take concepts from their respective fields and place them in a sustainability science context that can be understood by specialists and non-specialists alike" and we agreed that many of the economic models could be explained just using the text narrative and without getting into the economics jargon, which could be included in an appendix (Arijit).

Specific comments:

The introduction to each chapter needs a clearer roadmap.

"In box 4.2 on human capabilities, it reads as if no serious thinker could see the capabilities approach and the related UN HDI at all seriously. Yet Sen, Nussbaum, and others are clearly not unserious thinkers that can be so easily dismissed – especially since many self-identified sustainability and sustainable development thinkers readily adopt that approach.  In reading that section, I could not pinpoint the precise reasons that made the capabilities approach a poor substitute for the well-being approach; rather, I felt I was being told that it simply is the case that the capabilities approach is inferior. As such, the argument strikes me as tautology. In this case, I desire a much better explanation of why rights-based approaches are inferior." (Arijit)

"Why is social well-being necessarily seen as the aggregation of individual well-beings. …fails to show how collective properties of a society shape and change how individuals express their preferences and perceive of human well being." (Karina)

"How can shadow prices take into account changes in human demand, technology, etc., since the equation seems to rely on just the change in natural assets." (Marci)

"It would be useful and helpful for the authors to provide a detailed example of how these new functions could “actually” include issues of distribution, formal and informal institutions, relative well being (ie status consumption), etc." (Christina)

"What kinds of institutions and social settings are needed to put this approach to practice? This is a fair question because the chapters first propose a method and then go on to say how institutions and, especially, trust matter in building a humane economy" (Chad)

(updated at 8 pm on Monday)

First, I applaud Professor Dasgupta for incorporating so much information in this chapter.  Though I have some economics training, I found this section to be accessible to a broad audience (so I’m biased).  The comments below are a few ideas on how to improve these two sections.  I am updating this after class, as I now have a better sense of where this chapter will fit into the book.

Overall, this chapter comes across as more "disciplinary" than the previous chapters.  Do the authors desire for the chapter to serve as a comprehensive assessment of how sustainability science incorporates human well-being?  Or is this one application of how well-being is measured by a certain type of scientist (in this case economist).  I think explicitly "bounding" the chapter to a notion of human well-being (perhaps briefly addressing alternative notions) would be helpful.  I don't know much about how anthropologists or sociologists think about well-being, but if that could be addressed (and either confirmed or refuted), I would get a better sense of why this definition is important.   In addition, explicitly stating that sustainability science chooses to draw on the economics literature also seems like it couldn't hurt the chapter.  In addition, I agree with the Princeton group that current sections (e.g., poverty traps) are addressed in a cursory way that somewhat diminishes their importance.  As a reader of htis text, I feel like the more explicit the authors can be about why they choose certain approaches, models, frameworks, etc. over others can only help bring the reader along.   If so, then I would imagine expanding on some of the human rights and ethical challenges to defining human well-being.

Comments on the chapter (some general, some specific):

• I did not have trouble following the math, but I found that it slowed the reading of the chapter and diluted the discussion of the economic intuition/conceptual reasoning.  I would assume that if someone reading the book was going to build a model, he or she would go to an economics textbook.  Thus, it might be more useful to develop the concepts further and leave out some of the formulas.  This might also alleviate the problem identified by ASU, that this chapter is long and therefore the salience of some of the most important concepts is lost.
  
• If we are going to include formulas, I would incorporate a G function that is not still additive among individual U functions.  Thus, I would want to see something that was G(U1, U2, U3..) all within one function, rather than G(U1)+G(U2)...which would emphasize that individual utilities could enter into an overall societal utility function differently, and interact.
• The introduction to the Chapter, 2.1, is rather abrupt.  It begins immediately by discussing how one would evaluate an economy.  I imagine there may be an introduction preceding this, but if there is not, there probably should be.  As is, it's confusing how this builds upon the human-environmental systems we talked about previously, as well as how the "economy" will relate back to human well-being.  It might be worth stating explicitly why we care about human well-being as part of human-environmental systems (and perhaps noting that the environment is a critical enabler of well being).
  
• The description of the difference between "optimum development" and "sustainable development" is confusing in the introduction, though it is better stated later.  By describing "optimum development" as the path we would ideally wish to follow, I am left wondering if the author means "we" as sustainability scholars, or "we" as a consumption-oriented broader society.  It may be that this could be fixed by adding something such as "the path we would wish to follow if not limited by resource constraints".  Then, as the author describes sustainable development as looking at the past, it would probably make sense to say that sustainable development is also about designing a future path that allows us to exist within the constraints and sustain into the future (again, this is much clearer later, but might confuse readers up front).
• The discussion of the constituents and determinants of human well-being was very good.  It feels important, as the author did, to note that this function is inherently different for different individuals, but that there are some universal indicators of well-being (health, relationships, purpose).
•  In terms of the natural capital section, I would have expected more on substitution of natural capital with manufactured capital (and increases in total factor productivity).
• The chapter goes through a lot of definitions, some more useful than others.  I would remove definitions of largely mathematical relevance (e.g., monotonicity, concavity, numeraire).
• Discount rates (pg. 18 of 2.2) discussion could mention hyperbolic discounting
• I was surprised that they not to introduce natural capital until 2.2.  I would have at least identified it up front in 2.1.  Otherwise, like me, the reader spends a lot of time skimming around trying to figure out when it will be mentioned.

Previously Elizabeth Walker wrote:

First, I have to applaud Professor Dasgupta for incorporating so much information in this chapter.  Though I have some economics training, I found this section to be accessible to a broad audience (though I’m biased).  However, the comments below are some of my initial thoughts on how to improve these two sections.  These chapters cover a lot of material. Also, on a broader level, this chapter is more clearly couched within a discipline than the previous chapters, and as a result I’m having a little trouble understanding how it will fit into the text.  Thus, some clarification up front would be helpful. 

 

Comments on the chapter (some general, some specific):

 

·       I did not have trouble following the math, but I found that it slowed the reading of the chapter and diluted the discussion of the economic intuition/conceptual reasoning.  I would assume that if someone reading the book was going to build a model, he or she would go to an economics textbook.  Thus, it might be more useful to develop the concepts further and leave out some of the derivations.  This might also alleviate the problem identified by ASU, that this chapter is long and therefore the salience of some of the most important concepts is lost. 

·            The discussion of the constituents and determinants of human well-being was very good.  It feels important, as the author did, to note that this function is inherently different for different individuals, but that there are some universal indicators of well-being (health, relationships, purpose).

·            I was surprised that this chapter was called “human well being”.  A key concept to me is that human well-being is intricately connected to “nature’s wellbeing”.  I would at least note this somewhere up front.  This would also help it to flow better with the prior chapters on human-environmental systems.

·            As a result of the above decision, we observe that the chapter focuses more on development and human well-being, and less on natural capital and environmental sustainability.  Yet, there are some important environmental economics concepts (in addition to natural capital) that should be included somewhere.

·            Such concepts would include, in my opinion, a more in-depth discussion of externalities (e.g., Coase), and provisioning of public goods and common pool resources. I would also envision more on irreversible/reversible changes, exhaustible/inexhaustible resources. 

·            In terms of the natural capital section, I would have expected more on substitution of natural capital with manufactured capital (and increases in total factor productivity).

·            The chapter goes through a lot of definitions, some more useful than others.  I would remove concepts such as the construction of a “G” function, definitions of largely mathematical relevance (e.g., monotonicity, concavity, numeraire) and maybe the whole section on human rights and goal-based and rights-based theories.

·            Discount rates (pg. 18 of 2.2) discussion could be expanded to include hyperbolic discounting.

·            Seemed strange not to introduce natural capital until 2.2.  I would have at least identified it up front in 2.1.  Otherwise, like me, the reader spends a lot of time skimming around trying to figure out when it will be mentioned.

 

 

I look forward to our class conversation of this chapter.

The introduction of this chapter provides a critical view on human well-being that is at the core of sustainability science. The fact that our well-being is mainly constituted by our relationships, satisfaction at work and health, as opposed to wealth or human consumption brings hope that we could succeed in having a sustainable world. It is estimated that several planets would be needed to offer a quality of life equivalent to developed countries for all people in the world. Clearly a different view of progress should be explored. Moving away from the idea that wealth improvement through time determines a sustainable development is in my opinion the pathway to follow in the attempt to achieve a high human development for all while conserving our natural resources for generations to come.  Basic needs (e.g. food, shelter, security, health care, education) should be guarantee for everybody, but our measurement of human progress should be based on key elements that define our well-being, relationships with others, satisfaction at work and our health care. How do we promote these ideas in a timely fashion to address the urgent needs of current environmental degradation is a challenging question brought up in our internal discussion. Perhaps we should look at some countries like France or Venezuela that have restricted the amount of work hours per week, leaving their citizens with the time availability for doing whatever fulfills their well-being.  Such cultural shift may not be currently politically viable in all countries around the world. However, I would like to add my voice to those of you who also believe a new model with a completely different view of the current materialism paradigm would greatly benefit the sustainable development debate.

1) Speaking to different disciplines at multiple levels of understanding
I enjoyed this chapter; despite the high level economic model Dasgupta proposes, the economic discussion begins at step one – explaining the types of questions that an economic analysis can pose. Tracing history of well-being through history is very well done. Explanation of the approach of “contemporary welfare economics” is well outlined and clarified my thinking. This approach – which speaks to different disciplines at a basic and then advanced level, is a good structure that could be replicated more fully in other chapters.

There is also an excellent explanation of different ways economists and psychologists have chosen to measure well-being. Written in both an accessible and complex way – gives new insight to those who have studied these areas while also making the overarching discussion points clear to newer readers. 

That said, there is a question (as was raised in the Cambridge discussion after class, as well as Juan Pablo Giraldo above) of whether the chapter adequately addresses the psychological and cultural determinants of well-being. For example, the chapter does not adequately address the difference between goods and services as determinants of well-being as compared to other, non-quantifiable components of well-being, such as the quality of relationships (which social psychology has found to be very important to well-being.)
 

2) Linking this chapter to the rest of the book
This chapter stands quite apart from other sections of the book as it is currently written. There are areas where it could be more firmly linked to other sections. For example, the discussion of natural capital could flow into the natural capital chapter and could include some of that distilled analysis. In addition, two other sections struck me as prime places for integration: 

4.7.4 – Mutual Causation Among Factors
In order to better integrate this framework with the other chapters, the analysis that multiple drivers interact to form economic growth could be approached through a system lens; this would help to link chapter 4 with the overall framework for the book. Currently, this chapter is firmly rooted in a (well-explained) economic approach; however, the discussion of poverty traps or reinforcing cycles could also be seen from a system approach. 

4.7.5 Institutions
Similarly, the interesting discussion of the economic trajectories in developed vs. developing countries is currently explained from an economic perspective (“total factor productivity” / “technological progress.”) This section could benefit from collaboration with geographers, political scientists and institution scholars working on the book, in order to better integrate and compare findings across disciplines (e.g. literature on environmental scarcity and conflict; literature on institutional analysis).

Comments from Cornell:

Overall this was a informative talk, it brought to light some problems that need to solve in order to have a well structured method of measuring sustainable development. The mathematical approach was particularly helpful to condense these ideas into something that can be manipulated and analyzed. Some concerns are due to additive utility, this could give rise to very unbalanced distributions of utility having the same overall utility as a much more evenly distributed setting. Which is, in many ways, intuitively better. 

Another concern is related to shadow pricing, quantifying these looks like a very difficult problem. The difficulty involved in predicting these prices accurately may be the Achilles heal of this approach.

An area where the clean math might fall apart is related to quantifying well being evaluation. There are many different possibilities to measure this and although some are easily quantifiable if polling of the population is used this leaves the information open to lots of noise and shifting perspectives over time.