![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper outlines a conceptual framework for a sufficiency economy, defining sufficiency as the space between a generalizable notion of human wellbeing and ungeneralisable excess. It assumes an objective and universal concept of human needs to define a ‘floor’ and the concept of planetary boundaries to define a ‘ceiling’. This is set up as an alternative to the dominant preference satisfaction theory of value. It begins with a brief survey of the potential contributions of sufficientarianism and limitarianism to this endeavor before outlining a theory of objective, universal human need. This recognizes the contextual variable nature of need satisfiers and the distinct methodology required to adjudicate necessities. It then turns to the planetary boundaries literature and utilizes a sequence of causal and normative reasoning to derive an operational ceiling and the concept of ungeneralisable luxuries. The final section addresses how the concepts of floors and ceilings might be operationalized via forms of dialogic democracy but noting the absence of any such institutions at the global level. Its policy conclusion is that a safe climate cannot be achieved through supply-side mitigation alone, and that fair demand-side mitigation necessarily requires a clear distinction between necessities and unnecessary luxuries, between which (hopefully) lies a space of sufficiency.
Acknowledgments
The research for this article was supported by an Emeritus Fellowship awarded by the Leverhulme Trust, titled ‘Valuing what matters: from efficiency to sufficiency’. I am most grateful for their support.
Many thanks to Charlotte Rogers for valuable research assistance. I am grateful to many friends and colleagues who commented on earlier drafts including Richard Bärnthaler, Eric Beinhocker, George Boss, Sam Bowles, Oliver Carr, Anna Coote, Len Doyal, David Fell, Ben Fine, Fergus Green, Geoff Hodgson, Frank Nullmeier, John O’Neill, Ingrid Robeyns, Thomas Schramme and Julia Steinberger. There are also two anonymous referees.
Apart from the initial conference in Bremen in late 2019 that forms the basis for this special issue, I have also gained much from presenting to other colloquia, notably the interdisciplinary workshop on “New Approaches to Normative Economics”, Oxford University, and (online) the interdisciplinary workshop on ‘What we Owe the Future: Needs, Capabilities, and Intergenerational Justice’, University of Graz, both in June 2022.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Or of Sen’s capabilities – see Gough (Citation2015).
2. I am grateful to George Boss for this clarification.
3. The large literature includes Caney (Citation2012, Citation2018), Shue (Citation1993, Citation2014), Raworth (Citation2017), and Di Giulio and Fuchs (Citation2014). See also Schramme in this issue.
4. To simplify the analysis, I analyze only climate mitigation here, not climate adaptation.
5. For further reflections on the PB see Biermann and Kim (Citation2020), Ulrich Brand and 28 other scholars (Citation2021), and Alcott (Citation2022). These issues are revisited in Section 5.2 below.
6. It is also important to note that the discussion below focuses on ‘protected needs’ where ‘governments and other collective actors have an obligation to provide the preconditions for their satisfaction’ (Di Giulio & Défila, Citation2021). As they note, some needs could not form a legitimate obligation of government or any collective organization, for example a need to be loved.
7. Di Giulio and Defila (Citation2021) propose a ‘societal debate’ to operationalize the concept of consumption corridors in Switzerland. Building on the tradition of popular referenda, it proposes to simulate a deliberative form of politics by confronting a large representative sample of Swiss citizens with a series of polar opposing views on beliefs relevant to consumption corridors, such as enabling government to limit individual freedoms to achieve a ‘sufficiency strategy’. However, they recognize that the results may apply only to Switzerland, a country where the climate of political discourse is relatively consensual.
8. For example: a ban on high-emission vehicles by 2025; a mandate to display GHG emissions in all retail, consumer places and advertisements for brands; prohibiting the advertising of high GHG products; and limiting the use of heating and air conditioning in housing, public spaces and buildings, commercial and industrial buildings.