142,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: ISTE Consignment
- Sprache: Englisch
This book examines the city and its rapid growth, as well as the sustainability issues it poses, in several ways. First, there is a critical approach to development, as expressed by the concept of sustainable development. The city, as a complex system, primarily refers to questions of sustainability performance, which we believe to be capable of resolving problems and difficulties, even when viewed from a local perspective, and therefore from the point of view of the areas in which it must act.
Lastly, the issue of sustainability cannot be addressed without contemplating and concluding how acceptable it is to the populations concerned. All challenges raised by the urban character of the city are therefore linked to the more general question of how to define the concept of sustainable development and the sustainable city as a key area of concern.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 602
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Introduction
1 From Development to Sustainable Development: Stakes and Issues Around the Sustainable City
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Development: a concept, a history and its limits
1.3. Economic development and collateral damage
1.4. The neoliberal city and the environment
1.5. From sustainable development to sustainable cities: issues and limits
1.6. To not conclude
1.7. References
2 The City, Decision-Making Tools and Performance
2.1. Introduction
2.2. The city approached as a system
2.3. The city of the future
2.4. Proposal for an approach to improving decision support tools
2.5. The city and LCA
2.6. Agenda 21, a dedicated tool
2.7. Conclusion
2.8. References
3 Rural Eco-territoriality or the Subtle Alchemy Between Locality and Globality
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Rural territory: what does it mean?
3.3. “Glocalization” of the territory
3.4. Sustainable rurality
3.5. Prequel
3.6. References
4 The Sustainable City, Between Political Project and Theoretical Cooling
4.1. Introduction
4.2. The plan: a positivist paradigm of the modern city
4.3. The urban project, operational paradigm of the sustainable city
4.4. The political nature of creating the sustainable city
4.5. Conclusion
4.6. References
List of Authors
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1. Evolution of oil resource data
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1. Greenhouse gas trends over two major periods
Figure 1.2. Trends of exceptional events and natural disasters
Figure 1.3. Trends in oil use and pace of new discoveries
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1. Evolution of global GHG between 1970 and 2015 (EDGAR, 2016).
Figure 2.2. Stages of construction of indicators identified by Lazarsfeld (195...
Figure 2.3. Evolution of economic impacts by project phase.
Figure 2.4. Extract from the drafting of the specifications, Henriel’s thesis...
Figure 2.5. Product life cycle diagram (source: Standard 14040)
Figure 2.6. Stage of an LCA (source: Standard 14040)
Guide
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Introduction
Begin Reading
List of Authors
Index
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Pages
iii
iv
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
SCIENCES
Architecture, Urban Planning and Development,Field Director – Patrizia Laudati
Integrated Environment Management and Resilience,Subject Heads – Marc-André Mequignon and Jean-Pierre Mignot
Development and the Sustainable City
The Limits of a Technical Approach
Coordinated by
Nadège Gunia
Jean-Pierre Mignot
Marc-André Mequignon
Isabelle Bouchardy
Yann Ferguson
First published 2025 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2025The rights of Nadège Gunia, Jean-Pierre Mignot, Marc-André Mequignon, Isabelle Bouchardy and Yann Ferguson to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2024944157
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-78945-184-9
ERC code:SH7 Human Mobility, Environment, and Space SH7_5 Sustainability sciences, environment and resources SH7_7 Cities; urban, regional and rural studies SH7_8 Land use and planning
Development and Sustainable Cities: The Limits of Technical ApproachesIntroduction
Jean-Pierre MIGNOT
LERASS, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France
From its emergence to the present day, the primary status attributed to the city – the role it fulfills, if not an essential one, in all cases a primary one – lies in its functions of use for which it never ceases to grow, both through them and with them. It is first of all a technical answer to a problem that appears to be technical. It is submitted (and/or it submits), for all useful purposes, to our knowledge, to our truths of the moment and it even takes on a glamour. We now know that it is not only that, but that the social forms that develop within it also contribute, at the same time, to shaping its contours and meaning. In this respect, it becomes a mode of production of space at the same time as it contributes to the formation of social relations imbued with the present moment as much as with history, as with its history. Therefore, the interest evoked by the city stems as much from the problems it poses as from the conditions in which it is perceived and analyzed, and also from the societal issues that underlie the importance of its role in the changes that our society must undergo in the decades to come.
Furthermore, and for reasons that inexorably intersect with the conditions of its appearance, sustainable development1 now constitutes a major societal issue seeming to impose itself on us. However, the conditions under which its principles will have to be both recognized and put into effect are an open question, especially in the context of the development of an increasingly “urbanized” society (80% of the world population will be urban in a few decades). Thus, city and sustainability, that is, the sustainable city, become in the same space–time the cornerstone of our future living environment.
The problem of the sustainable city refers back to a single meaning, to the two faces of the same “Janus” whose internal logic of development must be understood, as well as the societal issues which it will inevitably face. The problem of the city associated with that of sustainable development constitute so many tools that lead to better comprehension and coordination of a specific space: to dwell2, build, produce and occupy a collective space increasingly limited by the constraints of sustainable development.
However, sustainable development brings together a set of concepts that has spread in society almost exclusively at an institutional level, while it arose, in its origins, from individual activist demands. We find ourselves faced with the following dilemma: although the various disruptions (climate, biodiversity, etc.) are not being immediately felt by the population, they are asked, on an individual basis, to integrate small measures into their daily lives, actions likely to embody in practice the fundamental principles of sustainable development. In other words, the superposition of long and short time frames induces a certain number of ambivalences, even contradictions, which must be considered.
The sustainable city does not avoid this ambivalence, despite the means at its disposal in this area. Faced with the unprecedented development of urbanization at the global level and its consequences for the environment in general, the solutions proposed oscillate between contradictory magnitudes and interactions between competing actors which seem irreconcilable. While everything suggests that many solutions are available for a better understanding of societal aspects and better governance, scientific and technical aspects must be equally significant in the discussion. This requires close cooperation between the humanities and social sciences and the hard sciences, through mutual enrichment in a common domain. In this regard, the rhetoric developed in various places seems to us to be heavy with meaning in terms of the issues and the fractures that it reveals. The construction of discourse on the city, and more particularly on the sustainable city, can serve as a guide here. Thus, consideration of sustainability in general becomes the subject of a decisive debate for understanding the question of the city and its future. As an example, we note significant impacts concerning the relationship between climate change, its environmental consequences and a paradigm shift in economic discourse. This is because three distinct discourses characterize the positioning of individuals with regard to sustainable development, and therefore the future of the sustainable city, that we may summarize as follows.
On the one hand, a liberal approach to environmental problems which consists of applying concepts and methods straight out of the neoclassical paradigm, namely:
the economic sphere exists in itself and for itself, independently of social institutions;
methodological individualism which reduces social and collective phenomena to an individual logic;
the predominance of the idea of equilibrium and of seeking it systematically;
the role of individuals assumed to be rational both in terms of anticipation and preferences;
finally, the coordination of the whole of society by the market and the prices that it helps regulate.
This conception, since the beginning of the 1980s, has tended to prevail even though the planet’s environment, prospectively, has continued to deteriorate.
On the other hand, we may distinguish an approach that does not hesitate to take on new issues, not to say as urgent as they are unprecedented, based on new and imperative requirements and which are part of the environmental problem. With this in mind, the question of the urban environment becomes decisive for the future of the planet. This issue must then serve as the basis for a new science3 whose objectives are to study the complex interactions between a “human” vision of the economy and the biological and physical functioning of our planet. We thus find a multidisciplinary vision of the environment, an inclusive approach ranging from thermodynamics to integrative biology, passing through ecology and information theory. The tools used by these different approaches are borrowed as much from the natural sciences as from economics and sociology and have resulted in analyses in terms of “life cycle” or “ecological footprint”. Certainly, these analyses, heterogeneous as they may appear, offer a globalizing, totalizing vision of environmental questions that prove to be quite radical in certain aspects.
Finally, a third perspective comes from what can be described as a socio-economic vision, insofar as it occupies the middle ground of analysis between the natural environment and also the available resources, the cultural environment, and a moral vision, on the one hand, and social functioning subject to the constraints imposed on us by the “economic world”, on the other hand. In this context, the collective institution becomes the forum through which the emergence of individual and collective preferences becomes possible, especially as a result of different conceptual benchmarks, relating to knowledge in general and information in particular. As a result, the collective institution is called upon to play an important role both in the field of wealth distribution and in the socialization of costs. We are therefore witnessing a reversal of the liberal paradigm to the extent that action is conceived on an institutional basis, and that the global system is legitimized to think first and then promote not only the actions performed but also the moral universe within which the actors intervene. Thus, ecodevelopment depends neither on markets (and their erratic functioning), nor on individual contracts made within them, nor on the individual preferences of consumers. Conversely, decentralized planning bodies, “citizen–producer–consumer” institutions and their commitment to collective action are called upon to play a determining role.
The presentation above, to summarize, allows us to highlight a problem that is organically linked to it. If we approach the city from the perspective of sustainability, we cannot ignore the problem of future development, knowing that by 2050 nearly 80% of the world’s population will be urbanized. It is in this sense that development and urbanization constitute the two sides of a single problem. However, it is also on this point that difficulties appear, both at conceptual and practical levels. In this regard, two problems emerge, which will be discussed throughout this work. On the one hand, with regard to development itself, an initial question arises: to what extent can we see a clear compatibility between the continuous and infinite development of an economy and the finite and fundamentally limited nature of the natural resources that enable this development? Because this is the question to which sustainable development and cities return us. The different approaches raised above differ radically, and it is precisely this difference that concerns us here. Indeed, in an initial contribution, Mignot right from the start raises the question of development that is explicitly linked to the sustainability of future urban conditions. However, an immediate question arises in the following form: can infinite development (or growth; the author will provide semantic clarifications as to the meaning of these two concepts) of an economy be conceivable, possible in a finite world, that is, a world in which the available resources that make this development possible are expected to become rapidly exhausted? Infinity on the one hand, finitude and physical limits on the other hand, thus become the two constituent elements of an impossible equation. If growth and development are generally identified at a quantitative level, these two concepts differ especially at a qualitative level. The author then questions the concept of development from its origin to its current configuration as implemented by proponents of sustainable development. However, it is by and with economic development (and growth) at the global level, that is, at the planetary level, that the effects of anthropogenic activity have taken on a catastrophic character if they should continue: loss of diversity, water crisis, depletion of scarce resources and destruction of biodiversity are all factors inherited from the economic development that has continued for 250 years. Therefore, the contemporary city, whether Fordist or neoliberal, and urbanization in general at a global level, cannot be conceived outside of these general conditions. Development, even if sustainable, cannot be presented as the appropriate solution. The concept of sustainable development, itself understood as an acceptable extension of the initial concept, therefore offers a new image by integrating at the same time the principle of generational continuity and the maintenance of major spatio-temporal economic balances. Thus, for the author, sustainable development appears in many regards as complex as it is ambivalent and therefore relatively controversial. Successive repetitions of the IPCC’s warnings continue to expose us to the worsening of a situation from which it will be increasingly difficult to recover, sustainable development being for many an insufficient low-case hypothesis. All the more so, since the author evokes and refers to alternative solutions that go far beyond those envisaged solely from the point of view of sustainable development. Under these conditions, the question is then what becomes of the sustainable city. In this regard, it is appropriate to remain cautious about drawing too rapid conclusions which may prove insufficient, to the extent that urban growth, particularly in developed Western countries, has proven to be much less significant and far-reaching than in the “Global South”. In addition, given the recent pandemic, a “back to basics” phenomenon associated with a strong desire to own property, for larger living space and better working conditions, has led to significant changes in urban behavior.
Furthermore, the special relationship that links sustainable development and sustainable cities legitimates the following question: to what extent can we say that the sustainable city can effectively contribute to protecting the planet as a whole? In other words, how to articulate the global (protecting the planet) with the local (developing the sustainable city and a local economy attached to it). Bouchardy immediately raises the problem of the relationship between the effects of globalization, on the one hand, and the importance of the local as a potential response to challenges to be met locally, on the other hand. Indeed, the exit from several decades of industrial and tourist windfall is approached by way of several strategic areas of action, which intersect major national or European public policy axes with heavy local constraints. The different strata of the state are specified in terms of their competences and financial contribution, with a particular focus on intermunicipal management and execution. The urban and the rural are not opposed here, nor are competence and naturalness: spatial planning may be analyzed in these energetic, climatic and agronomic components. Several practices managing resources such as biodiversity, water, wood, land, or human impacts such as waste, lighting or mobility are judged by criteria of sustainability for everything living in the immediate environment. Three main ideal types that are transversal to the eight areas of action studied seem to emerge. On the one hand, that which tends to conserve, reserve or sanctuarize that which exists, by framing visits, observations and uses in the direction of sobriety, with proposals for new, more restrictive laws on all access. On the other hand, that which recommends better exploitation of the resource (energy) with ambitious investments, up-close management and permanent vigilance for any losses by calculating customized costs (incentive tax, polluter pays, etc.). Finally, that which campaigns more and more radically for a definitive end to the ecological aporias of artificialization of soils, water, travel, etc., and for the state to retake control over private interests and property.
This analysis actually makes it possible to restore to the foreground modes of evolution that are historically known and theorized but which have not been chosen, although several citizen forces, both local and global (international), advocate them and experiment with them.
Furthermore, this relationship between the global and the local and their increasingly identifiable interpenetrations in reality find a particular echo in an increasing phenomenon of peri-urbanization, which obviously contributes to the observation mentioned above of a relative abandonment of large urban centers to the benefit of medium-sized towns, or even the countryside in certain cases.
Throughout history, buildings have always fulfilled a symbolic function at least as important as the practical function for which they were intended. By meeting ever greater challenges, technology has enabled the production of these buildings that carry as many messages as symbols. Today, under the necessary constraints of sustainable development, the clearly stated objectives assigned to buildings relate to their environmental performance. Often, without waiting for the results of scientific research, the media and politicians set objectives and articulate policies through the necessary life cycle approach, but without addressing the difficult question of the impact of lifespan and contribute largely to the characteristics of the production of buildings. However, the built and dwelling presuppose a narrow osmosis between two aspects of the same problem. In addition, a second equally important and significant aspect has found a decisive place in the debate on sustainable development and cities, namely a technical response as an alternative to the scale of the problems. Indeed, in this context, the technical, and exclusively technical, solutions proposed do not refer to structural problems, to underlying conditions, but to answers of an essentially technical nature. This alternative solution is proposed by liberal economic analyses and follows the growth models of liberal economists, with the growth model of Solow as a central reference (for a better understanding of the question, we refer to the contribution of Mignot in this book). Because the real damage caused to the environment by growth and economic development can be “repaired” thanks to technical progress, which is therefore perceived as a savior and the lasting solution to the problems raised. In the context of his contribution, Mequignon puts into perspective the limits encountered by the technical vision: the city is a system too crowded in terms of field of reflection to be reduced to technology alone. It should be noted that this is not a question of reducing the role of technical solutions to the question of sustainability, but simply of restoring it to its place.
Indeed, the city is approached here as a complex system. This perspective makes it possible to understand the difficulty of the approach in terms of performances of sustainable development and the constraints that these generate. Regarding this approach and the difficulties it faces, interdisciplinarity has proven to be the central theme of a potential response to technical limits. And while it is imperative to produce a non-exhaustive inventory of the difficulties in mastering the approach to a desired sustainable city, it is worth mentioning the various issues related to the city addressed as a system. It is not a question of being exhaustive and coherent, but of showing the obligation to bring together multiple disciplines and the difficulties involved in some elements of the city approached as a system. The objective is to confirm the need for an interdisciplinary approach, and these issues that are as much ecological as economic or social or even at their intersection. After showing the need for interdisciplinary approaches, we show the limits of technology as a solution for improving the city. We show how culture includes forgotten effective solutions. To this end, we delve into a reference tool for engineering sciences, namely the specifications. We discuss the problem of performance measurement and propose an improvement of the tool that could lead to the improvement of urban design. The aim is to show the need to combine functions from the humanities with this traditionally functionalist tool. Finally, for measuring efficiency, the most effective method is Life Cycle Analysis. We study how this tool is suited to our problem, and more precisely its limits. We detail the maturity of the approach, especially its great fragility and immaturity in its social aspect, particularly for its use for the city.
Finally, the logic of a systemic approach, that is, a conception of the sustainable city which induces a social (and/or sociological), economic and political (in the original Greek sense of city management) vision of it, brings us to a question that will no doubt become central in time and space: the role and function of public power in the different mechanisms of adaptation, of fine-tuning to the new conditions imposed by sustainability constraints. In this perspective, Fergusson approaches the complexity of the sustainable city through the lens of the sociology of public action. Indeed, if the sustainable city is a unifying concept that has succeeded in rising into generality, its descent into specificities, that is, its operationalization, is not based on a catalog of standardized practices. On the contrary, the realization of the sustainable city addresses “cold references” that favor the “project” over the “plan” and “governance” over “government”. These semantic shifts describe shifts in the role of the state, of territories, of local elected officials, of managerial forms that highlight the prevalence of instrumentation over public action. In other words, behind the global vision imparted by the objectives of sustainability, the sustainable city is approached more through partnerships, methodologies, “collectives for the enunciation of space” than through deployment of a strong theory. In this sense, the intelligence of the sustainable city is the result of the more or less successful convergence of different intelligences that politics aims to organize. Two major questions then arise:
On the one hand, how are these collectives developed, are they synonymous with pluralism, openness and inclusion, or the fruit of power games that establish networks and communities? The chapter shows that the pluralism of collaborative arenas is limited and that a unitary democracy is established, facilitating relational efficiency within project groups. In other words, we see a joint process of openness and exclusion, pluralist, and semi-elitist governance.
On the other hand, is this approach which seems to favor the “how” (collective processes) over the “what” (a strong political vision of the sustainable city) synonymous with depoliticization of the sustainable city? The chapter evokes a paradoxical politicization of the sustainable city. On the one hand, all cities seem to effectively use the same recipes; on the other hand, the sustainable city offers a form of regulation in opposition to the liberal city.
Thus, sustainable development and sustainable cities continue to confront each other both in terms of design itself and in terms of efficiency. And the ultimate question of the role of the state as a regulatory agent remains unresolved in light of what has happened so far in this area.
References
Beck, U. (2001).
La société du risque. Sur la voie d’une autre modernité
. Aubier, Paris.
Cropper, M.L. and Oates, W.E. (1992). Environmental economics: A survey.
Journal of Economics Literature
, 30(2), 675–740.
Foster, J. (ed.) (1997).
Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment
. Routledge, London.
Godart, O. (2006). La pensée économique face à l’environnement. In
Leçons de philosophie économique. II : économie normative et philosophie
, Leroux, A. and Livet, P. (eds). Oeconomica, Paris.
Passet, R. (1979).
L’économique et le vivant
. Payot, Paris.
Sachs, I. (1998).
L’écodéveloppement. Stratégies pour le XXIème
. Syros, Paris.
Notes
1
. Sustainable development as we envision it is not exempt from criticism, far from it. Especially since this concept has, quite rightly and advisedly, given rise to very significant critical developments in terms of substance and form.
2
. “This notion of habitat comes from the critical work carried out on something that had marked the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century: the question of housing. Noting the limits of a quantitative response to the demand for housing through large complexes, the humanities brought forward the notions of habitat and then dwelling, leading housing actors to broaden this question by considering the relations between inhabitants and their environment, as well as the spatial and social context of housing.”Boissonade, J., Mequignon, M., Mignot, J.-P. (2017). Habitat durable : une approche critique.
Revue Sciences de la Société
, 98.We cannot fail to render unto Heidegger that which belongs to him, particularly with his intervention into a field that integrates the “built” as much as “thinking” into its analysis. Obviously, the association that Heidegger makes between “building”, “dwelling” and “thinking” cannot be addressed without addressing the technical question, dear to Heidegger. Because if the built is within the technical domain, this means that it enters into a direct relationship with dwelling which is not in the technical domain; thus, the response to the status of dwelling partly depends on the status of technology, which in turn depends on the societal approach. We will return to this later.See on this subject: Heidegger, M. (1993). Bâtir habiter penser.
Essais et conférences
, 170. See also, in the same work: “la question de la technique”, 9ff.
3
. Namely, “bioeconomy”, “ecological economy” or even “political ecology”. See on this subject the bibliographical references at the end of the introduction.
1From Development to Sustainable Development: Stakes and Issues Around the Sustainable City
Jean-Pierre MIGNOT
LERASS, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France
1.1. Introduction
The concept of development reflects a moment in the history of economic thought that itself reflects the designs of a historical period that seems not only to be finished, but an extension of which might be part of a vision of “the end of the world”. Indeed, the reference period for economic growth and development is constituted by the so-called Trente Glorieueses (“thirty glorious years”), a period during which Western economies experienced a particularly sustained and constant average level of growth1. From the beginning of the 1980s, the outlook has changed considerably, both quantitatively and qualitatively, mainly with the liberalization of the world market and the liberalization of trade at the global level at the same time as the massive financialization of what we may describe as a “world economy”. As deregulation increases over time, and the process of liberalization and financialization of the economy accelerates, the number of financial, banking, stock market crises and even so-called “twin” crises, increases dangerously.
Financial crises have shaken the world economy almost without interruption for 10 years. They have been especially frequent and profound for the economies most recently integrated into international financial flows, while economies with a long tradition of financial intermediation have been less severely affected.2
Given this, we may be surprised at the persistence of the search for endless growth and development whose costs, in the end, may outweigh the benefits they claim to bring. As some have stressed, the constant reference to development has thus become more of an ideological, even dogmatic reference aimed at masking the dangers of an immutable faith in this same development, even though we see its attendant risks and dangers on the horizon: namely climate change, loss of biodiversity, danger to fisheries’ resources and oceans, depletion of fossil fuels, etc. In short, a set of environmental crises that by nature lead on to others and which seem, for some, increasingly serious3.
Our presentation below aims to interrogate, not the crises in themselves, their origin, their course and their consequences, but development itself; from the birth of the concept to its mechanisms and the directions toward which it tends, despite itself. Furthermore, it is also worthwhile to question what it generates and what it leads to overall. We have also seen the emergence of a new, appropriate concept, that of sustainable development, which is consubstantial with it and intended to respond to the consequences of global economic development, which has led the planet to its present situation. Our focus here in this description remains critical insofar as, even if it aims to be sustainable, development breathes the polluted air of a system whose only evidence is manifest, today, in the bleak outlook that all environmental experts are predicting for us. Growth and development are two concepts whose significance is now felt in the very future of humanity, and which threatens humanity and our environment in its long-term survival on the planet. The principle of denial that drives climate skeptics does not change the fate that awaits us if we continue on this path. In this context, can the sustainable city, heir to the ecological city, find its place and contribute to improving environmental living conditions? The demographic explosion, the pressure imposed by a new urbanism, the emergence of giant urban structures that bring together tens of millions of inhabitants in often deplorable conditions: can they reform themselves to the point of becoming exemplary in terms of respect for the environment; that is, respect for life? Because if the urban population, as expected, will represent between 70% and 80% of the world’s population by 2050, we will have to find the means to make the necessary changes required by this situation. Especially since, as we shall see, one of the essential pillars of sustainable development lies in generous social policies, which respect and enable everyone to live decently in a world that respects nature.
Consequently, questions abound: how do we admit the possibility of infinite development (and/or growth) in a finite world? Why insist on policies of development and growth which remain very worrying in terms of their effects and consequences? Is it possible to organize an overburdened urban system with a growing population in the process of impoverishment? Ultimately, can the principle of sustainability promoted by some respond to a situation that is difficult to maintain over the long term? Throughout our presentation, we aim to put these issues into perspective with the sole purpose of inviting everyone to reflect on a state of affairs which results from history and which should guide us toward a better future.
1.2. Development: a concept, a history and its limits
The deliberate choice to use the term development as a concept capable of accounting for specific economic phenomena, particularly in terms of urbanism, results from a double stance. On the one hand, the concept itself of development (and therefore sustainable development) implies a singular reading of the evolution of the global economy in its relationship with the environment (natural and social), which we believe is necessary to account for in order to properly understand its workings, meaning and scope; on the other hand, and consequently, the question then becomes whether the answers thus provided (and in the process of being so) are likely to resolve the vital issues for the future that they claim to satisfy. Also, if the future of the planet, as well as that of cities, is indeed at stake here, we therefore understand the importance of the subject: understanding what is at stake at the planetary level in terms of perspective, bringing together in the present framework the elements of this understanding, and developing the arguments which lead us to this knowledge, as many factors as we wish to highlight. Therefore, for all practical purposes, we put into perspective the relative importance of the concept itself, its immersion in the real world, as well as its ability to answer (or not) the crucial questions that we raise. Moreover, if we think that a single definition is not enough to shed light on the debate, we propose opening it to a broader theme which would tend to show the scope and meaning of the concept of development.
1.2.1. The question of economic development
In the context of this presentation, we cannot avoid the most classic definition of development, particularly starting with that which is most cited as well as the most shared: that of F. Perroux for whom “development is the combination of mental and social changes which enable cumulative and sustainable growth of its real and overall product”4. Or again, “the combination of mental and social changes in a population that makes it capable of cumulatively and sustainably growing its overall real product”5. In the same text referenced, the author hastens to distinguish, rightly, the development of growth which he defines as “the sustained increase of an indicator of dimension for the nation: the overall gross or net product, in real terms”6.
The author takes care to distinguish the definition of development from that of economic growth, to which he gives a more quantitative content. That said and beyond this semantic aspect, the fact remains that the concept of development cannot be fundamentally separated from the concept of growth, with the second constituting a precondition for the first. Growth is in fact the result of a net increase in wealth produced, generally measured by gross domestic product (GDP), that is, by the sum of added values created during the reference period. It therefore involves a new creation in the form of new goods and services which circulate and are exchanged within the economy. Development involves a set of structures that integrate in time and space, a general progress of society within the framework of networks of societal relations, which associate complex sets involving both quantitative (disposable income, level of consumption, etc.) and qualitative aspects (modification of mental structures, cultural aspects, social habits, etc.). In addition, development introduces changes over time within the economic system as well as in its organization, which must adapt to new conditions that also result from the conditions of growth. In a certain way, we can see that development plays a role in framing growth, is distinct from it, and is based on a broader apprehension than the concept of growth which remains purely quantitative. However, it must be noted that the economic literature does not hesitate to reduce the concept of development to that of growth, often by assimilating the former to the latter to better emphasize the significance of the purely economic component over societal factors.
1.2.2. A brief history of a concept
As Paul Bairoch notes7, in a chapter devoted to development, this concept is not short on ambiguities, especially since it appeared quite late in economic literature, toward the end of the 1940s. The author defines development as “the set of economic, social, technical and institutional changes linked to the increase in the standard of living resulting from technical and organizational changes”8. Therefore, in this case, the notion of development merges with the idea of structural changes which produce effects at both qualitative and quantitative levels. In this respect, development is quite clearly distinct from growth. In reality, the principle of growth is limited to quantitative increase in volume and therefore of “per capita” production, whereas development implies and integrates more qualitative, more “societal” changes, that is, in a certain way, outside the purely economic field. We can therefore speak of economic growth without implying the idea of development, while the opposite seems more delicate because of the broader references suggested by the latter concept.
If we return to the history of the concept of development, its emergence as such is first associated with that of “underdevelopment”; the two concepts will remain linked because they mutually imply each other. This is because, in English as in French, the real meaning of the concept is above all associated with awareness of the problems posed by underdevelopment: the concept of development indeed proceeds from its “negative”, namely underdevelopment. Indeed, during his inaugural address in 1949, President Truman posed, as a pillar of his economic policy, active support for Western economies that oscillated between three differentiated strands. On the one hand, support for the new organization of the world, notably within the framework of the United Nations; on the other hand, a large effort (albeit to the benefit of the American economy) in favor of the reconstruction of Western Europe (the Marshall Plan); finally, as part of a vast joint effort to defend the same geopolitical zone with the creation of NATO in the face of the Soviet threat. Faced with these first very precise points as to their objectives (history has clearly shown this), a fourth aspect emerges: to recognize the need for aid to the most disadvantaged nations, aid similar to that granted to Latin American countries. The additional point of Truman’s speech (also called “point IV”) was to mark what would be called the “age of development”9. This text appears to be the foundation, even the ordering, of a new world system organized around the American economy, which would spread its benefits. It thus comes to sanction a new vision of the world whose epicenter is constituted by the most powerful economy from a double point of view: on the one hand, by discrediting the old colonial system which only generated misery and poverty; and on the other hand, by positing development for all and for each as an essential paradigm, development adorned with all the “civilizational” virtues. In reality – and contemporary history has amply shown this to date – the objective sought lies mainly in the conditions thus defined for undivided domination of the economy, with all the environmental consequences that this has had for the planet10.
In this perspective, namely the relativization of the concept of development, we cannot fail to refer to the perspective which has enriched this concept, to the extent that several “schools” of economic thought have attempted to appropriate its meaning, its content, perhaps even the ideological cover to which it ultimately belongs. We will distinguish three approaches closely related to the ideological environment of those who produced them.
The “orthodox” or even neoliberal approach, according to which a state of underdevelopment would be associated with a previous situation of economic evolution, thus only implying a circumstantial delay. This view is based on a method of revisiting the history of Western economies as proposed by W.W. Rostow
11
. This delay is not explained but simply described, and could be quickly compensated for if the countries concerned accepted a strong integration of their economies into the global market. Indeed, by specializing in the production of goods in which they enjoy a comparative advantage
12
, the countries concerned can then buy the cheap capital goods necessary to ensure what Rostow calls their “economic takeoff”, that is, their development. With favorable terms of trade, it becomes possible to generate the profits necessary to finance growth and sustained internal accumulation. The market finds the qualities attributed to it by the neoclassicals, namely a strong capacity for achieving an optimal allocation of resources essential to strong growth.
A so-called “developmentalist”
13
approach, for which development necessarily takes on a specific character, and which cannot constitute a simple stage but is the original product of a particular history characterized by dualism and dependence; dualism, because of the existence of a particular sectoral division, between a stagnant traditional sector and a more modern, “extroverted” fast-growing sector. Here, the terms of trade remain unfavorable and do not facilitate the integration of local economies into the global economy, with multinational firms further accentuating the dependence of these economies through untrammeled domination. Only structural changes in the economy can alter such a situation, with the national state aiming to establish “self-centered development”.
Finally, a so-called “third-worldist”
14
approach, for which it is an illusion to expect positive effects from the different strategies for developing international economic relations. What is at issue is the internal and external logic of the dominant system, so that the precondition for any form of development lies in the breaking of the links connecting the economies of these countries with the dominant system by imposing “unequal exchange” upon them. This is because dependence on the global market that integrates these economies leads to, or even accentuates, chronic relative underdevelopment. The terms of trade which thus deteriorate due to integration into the world market cause transfers from the “periphery” to the center, that is, from developing countries to developed countries. Therefore, only rupture with the global market can be prerequisite for the establishment of an “internal dynamic” of development.
We can see that the idea of development, as different as its genesis may be, has remained at the center of concerns since the middle of the 20th century, and can only be really understood in the context of its consequences on the evolution of the relationship that we maintain with our environment.
1.2.3. Return to a definition and its consequences
As emphasized, for more than half a century, economic crises have followed one another at a high pace without, however, any questioning of economic development, the forms it takes and thus of the growth that supports it. Therefore, we are witnessing an escalation in wanting to unconditionally defend the idea of development without questioning its consequences, which are nevertheless widely observable and to which everyone admits. This is because it seems difficult (if not impossible) to objectively dissociate the process of development from its consequences, particularly with regard to the environment and therefore the evolution of the planet. All the more so since, although the problem of development and its consequences concern the developed countries themselves in particular, the fact remains that all developing countries are knocking on the door of development in order to finally benefit from it on an equal footing with developed countries. Therefore, the terms of the alternative are as follows: on the one hand, how to make those who have not benefited from the “benefits” of economic development understand that their future remains compromised due to the negative consequences for the environment caused by growth for its own sake. On the other hand, and conversely, how can we justify imposing on countries such as China, India, Brazil and the African countries, that they must now renounce the “positive” effects (for their people) of the “qualities” implied by economic development? Through this double question, we find ourselves face-to-face with the major problem, at the heart of the subject concerning development, its meaning and scope, confronted with the future of the planet. However, a question then arises that we might describe as “subsidiary”, but which remains, in our eyes, essential: should we not question the concept of development and its consequences more deeply? It should be noted here (and from the outset) that any questioning of development includes the question of sustainable development in its interrogative structure. We will definitely return to this.
That said, how can we properly ask and understand the question of development?
The first principle when addressing the issue of economic development is to identify the concept without preconditions, that is, to eliminate false evidence (as far as possible); this amounts to “laying bare” a mechanism that allows us to distinguish, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the differences between developed and developing countries. This is because we cannot forget that the idea of development first appeared as part of the questioning of “underdevelopment”. We propose taking as a starting point the definition proposed by G. Rist in his exemplary work on the subject:
Development is made up of a set of sometimes seemingly contradictory practices which, to ensure social reproduction, require the generalized transformation and destruction of the natural environment and social relations with a view to increasing the production of commodities (goods and services) intended, through exchange, for solvent demand.15
This definition requires several comments:
The definition of development above cannot deviate from an empirical, real and effective constant. This therefore excludes any normative approach that presupposes wishing, first of all, to show what we want rather than what is. It is well known that treatment of the problems associated with development is generally indicative of ideological choices that determine its content, especially since it is a question of reproducing these conditions in time and space on a global scale.
The major function of the economy is to transform in a generalized way what nature gives us into consumer goods, infinitely to the extent possible, and this is a major feature of development: on the one hand, we destroy raw materials, called “inputs” that we transform into products (or “outputs”) that become consumables. Production and its development therefore constitute destruction
16
in several respects: on the one hand, of the materials initially supplied by nature; and, on the other hand, the resulting release of elements such as greenhouse gases, polluting waste and other negative factors. Moreover, the development and generalization of this production has led to secondary impacts on land ownership, the control of water, the living environment in general, etc.
The impact of development is not limited to the constituent elements given by nature, and the social relations intertwined in the context of production do not avoid these consequences. Indeed, commodity production and its development are the expression and manifestation of the generalization of the production of goods which have a price on the market and which in turn require a solvent demand: only those who have the necessary means can consume the goods offered by the market. With the ultimate development of the market and monetary system, we have witnessed an explosion in the commodification of the world in recent decades, subjecting the whole of humanity to these constraints. For example, the commodification of the living world in all its forms is significant. Furthermore, the process of development is constantly oriented toward a maximum and the resulting growth may no longer appear as a choice but as a necessity. This explains (only in part) the existence of economic recovery plans within the framework of public policies aimed at maintaining growth rates, all of them generally dedicated to maintaining a level of employment deemed satisfactory.
The economic system dominated by commodity exchange has been established and developed on the basis of a previous system and in rupture with it. Therefore, while the circulation of goods produced was long organized on the basis of relationships of kinship or hierarchical legal status, modern commodity production is in fact subordinated to social relations that dictate its organization and ordering. This is because human beings are considered free with respect to each other (contrary to the previous state of affairs) and the commodity then appears as a mediation between them in the context of a specific place where they meet each other, namely the market. Therefore, there is no direct, immediate encounter between the co-exchangers, but an encounter around an object that becomes an object of exchange, each actor regaining their original individual freedom after the exchange. “This autonomization of the object legitimizes that of the economy, which, therefore, strives to remove political, ethical and personal ‘interferences’ from its domain.”
17
Also, although the reference model is always described in its “original purity”, it is clear that, in reality, this is not always the case.
There is a close relationship between the various movements of goods in society, which can be summarized as follows: first we produce, then we distribute and finally we consume. Therefore, from a systemic point of view, there must be a balance between what is produced upstream and what is consumed downstream, with the aim of distribution being to enable a balance between production and consumption. This presentation, somewhat too mechanical, forgets a decisive element in the logic governing the functioning of the whole, namely solvent demand. Indeed, our system functions based on money as a unit of account, a measure of value, and above all a store of value, and therefore as the only recognized means for allowing exchange. In other words, if we want to trade as a customer, we must hold the quantity of money necessary to ensure the exchange (directly or indirectly). Therefore, the solvency of the applicant becomes the distinguishing criterion of the possibility of exchange and the main characteristic of the commodity system
18
. As Adam Smith pointed out in the 18th century, commodity exchange is based on individual interest, which, in his view, constitutes the best possibility of ensuring social ties
19
. However, this constraint of solvency specific to the monetary and commodity system may run counter to the objectives of the logic of development; incomes may prove insufficient to guarantee the possibility of acquiring the goods necessary to maintain general equilibrium
20
. Therefore, development confronted with its own reality does not necessarily appear to us in its best light: the undeniable economic development of the global economy due to liberalization and globalization is not shared by all, the development of poverty appearing as the counterpart of an accumulation of wealth at the other pole of society.
As a provisional conclusion, the reality of development, although it undeniably appears at the macroeconomic level, seems to take shape as the planetary extension of the market system, that is, all its strengths and weaknesses. This is for several reasons: on the one hand, and despite the efforts of those who conceived them, the concept of development seems quite close to that of growth and therefore remains usually assimilated to the economic constraints which make it essential; on the other hand, its proven and declared goal lies in a certainly sincere desire to put an end to the poverty of a large proportion of humanity. In this regard, the concept of development stems from a humanist perspective, although the question of results is not currently working in its favor. In the end, despite its desire to define itself within a moral framework, one that dictates exemplary behavior in terms of solidarity and sharing, it does not seem to function as an absolute moral imperative. This is why some have concluded that it is a purely “Western belief”, insofar as it is true that the concept has a negative connotation.
Development thus defined, particularly in all its concrete determinations and in a systemic manner, namely the relationship that we have established between the concept itself and its structural relationship with growth, therefore requires us to put its specific modalities and functionalities into perspective at the historical level. We propose to show by means of a historical example – the Fordist era of growth following the immediate post-war period – the internal logic of the strong growth that Western economies have experienced. This results from the temporal coincidence between the level of production and therefore factor productivity on the one hand, and the increase in income and sustained rate of consumption, on the other hand. It is through this cross-linking of the composite variables of this growth that we wish to put into perspective the conditions of this growth, as well as (and perhaps above all) its consequences.
1.2.4. Development and growth: a functional approach
The approach by definitions, as presented above, has the merit of simplifying the elements that we want to develop further. Indeed, we can deduce without risk of error that the relationships between growth and development remain close and that the former remains the condition of the latter. We want to highlight here the fact that economic growth is the foundation of the development of Western economies in the immediate post-war period and that to understand its workings, and especially its consequences, it is necessary to show its content and effects. Within the limited framework of this contribution, we will limit our remarks and highlight the conditions of this unbridled growth and especially its consequences for the environment, whose debt toward nature we are partly repaying. Whether it is the productivist system of production, on the one hand, or the methods of consumption, on the other hand, these are clearly the two determining factors of this growth and of these consequences. This means that we begin from the hypothesis that all the damage to the environment and pollution thus created result almost exclusively from the anthropogenic activity that we usually call economic development and growth. It is therefore within the concrete formalities, the different modalities of this development, of this growth posed in terms of functionalities that we will put into relation all the factors that led us to it.
1.2.5. Development, productivism and consumer society
1.2.5.1. Development and productivism
The new determining element of post-war growth lies in the stability of progressive change throughout the reference period, more than in the values themselves: this growth lasted without interruption for more than 25 years, without any break in the trend. Growth rates were particularly high over a long period: in France, between 1949 and 1975, the average annual growth rate was 5.6% per year, which is remarkable, particularly compared to the growth rates of the economy subject to the neoliberal “credo”, with less than 3% per year over the last 20 years21. OECD countries, that is, the most developed countries, experienced a growth rate of 4.9% per year over the entire period, which is exceptional. Finally, to complete the picture, a national economy like Japan saw a growth rate of more than 10% per year on average over the entire period. In other words, modern economies have never experienced such high growth rates over such a long period of time, and with such regularity.
Therefore, in the context of a previously unknown economic stability, with such significant and regular growth rates, it is possible to characterize the transformations of the French economy (even if an identical observation might be established for other countries) by the articulation between two driving forces: the very strong increase of productivity gains in industry and a structuring of consumption adapted to new conditions of production. It is this fundamental articulation as to the transition from extensive to intensive accumulation that has allowed mass production to be associated with mass consumption, the latter ensuring permanent outlets for mass-produced consumer goods.
Indeed, the dominant phenomenon of the period, and surely the most significant, is undoubtedly a very strong acceleration in productivity, resulting in much faster and stronger productivity growth than previously. While there are lively debates about the status of the concept of productivity, for once French economists from different backgrounds agree: whatever the indicator used, the improvement in the output/input ratio has been the symbol of French growth.
The role of productivity gains in the dynamics of growth and the transformation of the system of relative prices is decisive. Indeed, the growth of this indicator at the industry level induces a partial (or global) decline in the unit value of the goods produced. Two remarks are as follows:
Productivity gains in an industry or sector may have two distinct origins: on the one hand, the diffusion of technological progress through use of more efficient capital goods, and on the other hand, the introduction of new forms of the organization of work, both factors being cumulative. In general, these two ways of increasing productivity are implemented simultaneously (since new, more efficient machines go hand in hand with a new organization of work); the link between machines, the organization of work, and material processes of production is certainly not unambiguous. For example, from 1957 to 1974, the relative share of shift workers increased from 10.3% to 22%, allowing improved productivity by saving capital. Conversely, for certain forms of mechanization (as in the case of automation), there is a substitution of capital for labor, thus leaving the organization of work unchanged.
