Sustainability and inequality: confronting the debate

ABSTRACT

A debate has arisen about the relevance of social justice and inequality issues for the sustainability goals of cities. Many cities exclude these goals as a part of their program as do some authors. This article explains the roots of the debate and how inequality, which undermines social justice, works against sustainability in general and environmental sustainability in particular. Types of city policies which can contribute to reducing inequality and support sustainability are given using elements of New York City policies as examples.

KEYWORDS:

• Sustainability
• inequality
• the US city sustainability
• justice
• sustainable development
• New York City

Why does it matter that the US city sustainability programs tend to ignore social justice and inequality issues? Why does this matter for environmental sustainability? The growing seriousness of our climate change and pollution problems makes it critical that we understand all of the variables that affect our ability to create a sustainable future. The lack of a US sustainability program has made our urban programs especially important in the sustainability effort. Furthermore, increasingly, global populations live in cities. It is important to explore and understand the relationship between environmental sustainability and social justice and inequality.

Debate about the compatibility of environmental sustainability and social justice issues includes questions about whether social justice would, on its own, lead to environmental sustainability implying implicitly that resulting rises in consumption could be environmentally unsustainable (Dobson 2003). This query is different. It explores how current inequalities can undermine our sustainability goals. While pursuing both inequality reduction and sustainability can lead to conflicts needing resolution, it is important to understand how inequality can deter our efforts to live more sustainably.

Debate about the impact of social justice and inequality on environmental sustainability in particular, has affected the study and implementation of sustainability plans in the US cities. Portney’s (2013) examination of the US city sustainability programs found that their major focus was on the environment (p. 89) and that plans generally excluded inequality and social justice as integral parts of their plans (p. 65) or even explicit environmental justice goals (p. 205). Portney himself presents arguments by him and others against the linking of social justice and inequality to environmental sustainability. Portney, in fact, decided to omit these variables from his study of the seriousness of city sustainability efforts. His 48-item sustainability index excludes measures of income, jobs, poverty, inequality or environmental justice.

This reported inattention to inequality and social justice in urban sustainability plans in combination with the growing concerns about rising inequality in the US calls for a direct consideration of these issues. That consideration is undertaken here. For reasons to be presented in more detail, as inequality is a basic ingredient of any justice problems, the discussion focuses on the relationship between inequality and sustainability. It includes an examination of the roots of the debate and arguments for impact of inequality on sustainability in general and environmental sustainability in particular. It will be argued that inequality undermines sustainability programs and that attention to reducing inequality makes a critical contribution to improving their effectiveness. New York City’s sustainability program has the explicit goal of reducing inequality. Examples of how New York City has worked toward that end are provided.

Definition and sustainable development

One of the earliest definitions of sustainability from the oft-cited report, Our Common Future, (WED 1987) called for consideration of the intertwined effects of the environment, economy and society as factors in decision-making in our socioeconomic lives so as to preserve the habitat of future human beings. (Increasingly, with the encroachment of climate change, we include our older selves in the group whose future welfare is to be considered.) The both general and inherent complexity of this definition easily gives rise to varied interpretations of sustainability. Insights into the role of inequality in sustainability require further exploration. Consideration of the role of inequality in development contributes to that investigation.

Role of reducing inequality in development and sustainability

The United Nations Development Program has described social justice and equity in access to opportunity as critical elements of development (UNDP 2014). These are positive traits, and there are no perfect measures of social justice or equity. However, it is possible to measure degrees of inequality, and reducing inequality strengthens efforts to strive toward either of these goals. For instance, inequality measures were needed to identify the ‘underserved’ communities which New York City’s social justice programs prioritize for receipt of spending to improve people’s access to many services such as transportation, health, education and food (NYC 2015).

The inequality in question here is not the inequality of diversity which reflects variations in tastes rather than limitations in choice. It is not, for instance, when two people with similar standards of living vary in the pursuit of overtime pay because one is saving for a car while the other wants the time for family. At issue is dysfunctional inequality, a degree of inequality sufficient to undermine people’s ability to be effective human agents, defined by the UN as the ability to provide for themselves and their families, and to be productive member of society in the present and future (UNDP 1995, 2014). Such inequalities can be corrosive, spreading from one aspect of life to another and increasing over time. For instance, inferior early education can create cumulative disadvantages  such as problems acquiring later education, work opportunities, income, access to legal protection and understanding of society. As a result, people can become ever less able to be effective human agents in participating in and protecting their communities now and in the future, the goal mentioned in the 1987 report, Our Common Future. For these reasons, reducing inequalities which interfere with human agency is a logical concern of both development in general and sustainable development in particular. Further, it will be argued that inequalities can be detrimental to environmental sustainability per se.

Roots of the debate

What are the reasons for the relative inattention to issues of inequality in the discussion and measurement of sustainability? Both the report, Our Common Future (WED 1987) and the U-shaped environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) contain the roots of the argument that improving inequality, with its consequential impacts on social justice, is not necessary to improve environmental sustainability (Portney 2013). Both link economic growth alone to improvements in environmental quality, implicitly suggesting that attention to inequality and its justice concomitants is not required to attain that goal. The EKC shows increases in per capita income alone eventually leading to better environmental quality, the suggested cause being a rise in the ability to pay (ATP) and willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental improvements. The implicit suggestion that economic growth is compatible with sustainability was supported by the World Bank (Stern 2004).

However, the criticisms of the simplistic link in EKC studies between income growth and environmental quality are extensive. They include, besides critiques of econometric techniques, narrow definitions of environmental quality, failure to recognize the negative effects of growth and the exclusion of other variables, such as income distribution, education, literacy and segregation which have been shown to affect environmental quality and protection (Boyce et al. 1999; Bimonte 2002; Stern 2004; Morello-Frosch & Jesdale 2006; Boyce 2007; Magnani 2011). Additionally, some studies linking income increases to pollution mitigation were reporting slower but not declining rates of pollution (Stern 2004). In sum, the claim that growth alone, independent of other factors, can lead to environmental protection fails under close scrutiny.

How inequality undermines environmental sustainability?

It has been argued that the concerns of environmental justice and sustainability have been complementary, with the former focused on present-day environmental inequalities and the latter on the long run and life cycle perspective of sustainability with both needing, for our future resiliency needs, the insights of vulnerability analysis (risk of vulnerability to climate change). (Boone 2010; Dobson 2003). In all three cases, inequality can undermine the desired goals. The focus of sustainability programs on environmental sustainability, and increasingly, resiliency, with relative inattention to inequality, calls for a direct examination of the impact of inequality on the environmental aspect of sustainability.

Economic growth can have an unsustainable ecological footprint which is destructive to the natural capital inheritance of future generations (Faber & McCarthy 2003; McLaren 2003). In addition, it can perpetuate and even increase current inequality, as has happened in the US in recent years (Stockhammer 2012; Van Treeck & Sturn 2012) and have consequent adverse effects on environmental spending. Even if average income is rising, greater inequality can reduce real lower level incomes, resulting in lower ATP and WTP among the economically disadvantaged for such personal environmental investments such as cleaner vehicles, septic maintenance, energy-efficient appliances and home repairs such as insulation. The income pressures can erode their support for environmental spending in their communities and in general. Government revenues needed for environmental spending can be adversely affected by both the declining or slow-growing incomes and declines in property values due to inadequate home maintenance (Hoffman 2005; Magnani 2011). Local communities with high proportions of economically disadvantaged residents would be especially adversely affected (e.g. Kozol 1991).

Further ways in which conditions of inequality can diminish environmental protection include negative effects arising from greater economic insecurity, such as unemployment, temporary work and below-living wages contributing to a reduced willingness to risk investment in public goods such as health, education and environmental protection, both individually and by the government. Cumulative negative impacts can result, such as failure to invest in individual or community education affecting future productivity and therefore future ATP and WTP for environmental needs (Magnani 2011).

Additionally, inequality can reduce effective vigilance over privileged community members with decision-making influence and result in environmental injustice and also increased pollution. Since some environmental effects can, at least temporarily, be localized, the privileged have a short-term incentive to lower their taxes by ignoring the need to clean up pollution in poor areas or to make financial gains from allowing additional polluting activities which can be located in poor areas (Colton 1997; Hurley 1997; Agyeman et al. 2003; Boyce 2007). The artifice by which the privileged can temporarily protect themselves from the true external costs of polluting activities results in a less sustainable future for all, as we are discovering in the case of global warming.

By weakening the bonds of social cohesion, inequality can undermine the community contributions and cooperation necessary for environmental protection. If some system of privilege (such as gender, class, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference) blocks human agency for some groups, not only are their incomes reduced but also important development goals such as dignity, self-esteem and access to rights are denied. When such systems of privilege result in entire communities having lower and less steady incomes and being socially isolated from other communities, their future incomes can be diminished because the community members would have inferior access to information and opportunities (McGahey 1986; Borjas 1995). Not only community members but also community businesses would have an accordingly lower WTP and risk spending on new environmental technology through either purchase or innovation (Magnani 2011). Additionally, reduced communication bridges among communities can limit the exchange of ideas and talents which would enhance environmental protection.

Systems of privilege and resulting inequalities can undercut the willingness of disadvantaged groups to participate in community activities important to environmental protection and sustainability (Henrich et al. 2001). Systems of privilege can erode respect for law, including environmental laws, among all members of the community, encouraging illegal behaviors such as those involving littering, recycling and hazardous waste disposal. While such activities can be policed, avoidance of environmental harms is preferable and cheaper than cleaning them up, and policing such behavior is both expensive and imperfect. (Hoffman 2010).

Inequality can also adversely affect general well-being, not just that of the disadvantaged, and the very existence of a society. On a macro level, greater inequality in income distribution has been shown to have negative effects on investment and economic growth itself (which in turn could discourage overall environmental spending) (Perotti 1993; Persson & Tabellini 1994; Perrons 2012). Also, inequality has been associated with poorer health for all community members, not just the disadvantaged (Wilkinson 1992; Morello-Frosch & Jesdale 2006). Finally, the society’s very sustainability is eroded as perception of the legitimacy of the society’s legal structures and trust in the system are undermined. Such inequality has been variously tied to crime, revolution and the collapse of entire societies (Belknap 1989; Hoffman 1997, 1998; Diamond 2005; IsHak et al. 2012; Motesharrei et al. 2014).

Policy implications for sustainability programs

Because inequality can undermine the affordability of and willingness to make needed investments, collaborative behavior, and the culture and enforcement of sustainable behaviors and practices, inequality reduction is a necessary facet of sustainability programs. Even without the levers of distributive powers available to national governments, local governments can gear their policies to help reduce dysfunctional inequalities. A collection of essays published in 2003 (Agyeman et al. 2003) offers insights into the potential and the challenges of addressing issues of sustainability and justice issues jointly at local and regional levels around the world. New York City’s sustainability program provides a more current example.

OneNYC, New York City’s current sustainability plan, contributes to the understanding of the inextricable relation between inequality and sustainability now and in the future (NYC 2015). A ‘Just and Equitable City’ is a major goal, and inequality reduction is woven into the fabric of the other three goals: development, environment and resilience, already included in PlanNYC, New York’s first sustainability plan begun in 2008. For instance, economic development plans not only attend to inequities in access to employment such as skills and transportation but also to the need to reduce the inequitable impact of the expansion of online retailing on health of poor neighborhoods from truck exhausts and noise. Solutions include current rescheduling for off-hour delivery and investment in future expansion of rail and water delivery services as well as research to develop more efficient trucking delivery paths.

OneNYC programs (OneNYC 2015) are designed both to prevent and reduce existing inequality. Also, by prioritizing underserved neighborhoods, the plan seeks to avoid the problem of a sustainability plan that increases inequality through its distribution of benefits. Examples of preventive programs to help children include school breakfast programs, converting school yards to all-day playgrounds, replacement of public housing roofs to reduce asthma, improving community health access and providing computer science education for all. Underserved, poorer neighborhoods are generally prioritized. Ameliorating existing inequality will also prevent future inequalities for children by, for instance, improving parental housing and job prospects. Other programs to reduce existing inequalities include affordable housing measures which seek to keep people in their own neighborhoods, improving transportation and parks in underserved neighborhoods, expanding Wi-Fi services and fresh fruits and vegetables affordability and availability in digital and food deserts and more supports for minority and women-owned business enterprises. Criminal justice programs to prevent crime include neighborhood consultation-based alterations in the physical environment like lighting and improvements in public safety community services, such as assistance for the mentally ill. Examples of programs to reduce existing criminal justice inequalities include using risk analysis to allow substitution of community supervision for bail and the 2015 Fair Chance Law prohibiting inquiry about or consideration of criminal histories of candidates for employment or promotion until a conditional offer has been made.

Program, law, research and coordination tools are all employed to reduce inequalities. New OneNYC programs to reduce inequality not previously mentioned include spending on a Shop Healthy program to place healthy food in small stores, free fitness programs and computer science for all in the schools, prioritizing underserved schools. Establishing a City law, such as the Fair Chance Law, leaves a relatively permanent gain for inequality reduction. Securing legislative support at the state level is more challenging. The City did obtain expanded funding for PreKindergarten programs that also resulted in a statewide program, but was not allowed to raise City income taxes on high incomes to finance the program. A OneNYC research demonstration project to develop quieter trucks will provide relief to low-income neighborhoods characterized by a concentration of truck deliveries (NYC 2015) .

Coordination tools include partnerships and creation of links to overcome what economists call coordination failure, or what does not happen because two agents of action do not meet. Such programs can leverage city funding and fill gaps whose existence contributes to inequality. External partners such as the regional and federal partners participating in planning regional transportation and supply line resiliency make sustainability efforts more realistic. Some linking programs, often established with partnerships, which contribute to educational success include improving high school counseling and school language services, and establishing one-stop information shops for families of students with disabilities. A new caring neighborhoods program expands primary care in underserved community by using federal hospital partners and improving links among City agencies. A OneNYC tech pipeline connecting public college students to internships and job training in the tech sector has already produced hundreds of placements in tech companies that pay well (OneNYC 2015).

Any sustainability plan will provide lessons during implementation. New York is not an exception. For instance, having the police work more closely with communities required them to adapt to training focused on communication instead of tactics. (Keesee 2016). Affordable housing and homeless reorganization plans stir debates and protests. (Jorgensen 2015; Barker 2017; Chapman 2017). As a result of experience, sustainability plans are likely to be subject to modification..

‘Inequalities’ born of diversity of preference or culture, minor inequalities of choice, can add to the richness of a society, but inequality stemming from limitations of choice and which result in economic insecurity, lack of access to opportunity, unjust treatment and impoverished well-being is in conflict with the general goals of sustainability and undermining to the narrow goals of environmental sustainability. Local sustainability programs can help reduce inequality. Where their tools are not adequate to the tasks, they will have gathered information and built a case to argue for assistance of higher levels of government. Climate change promises to generate both more and different kinds of inequalities. It is important for a more sustainable future that we engage with learning the lessons of reducing inequalities now.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Joan Hoffman

Professor Joan Hoffman of John Jay College of Criminal Justice is the author of the 2011 book ‘The Collaboration Challenge of the Economics and Protection of Water Supplies’ and a variety of articles related to social stratification, sustainability and environmental justice and also their interactions.