Abstract
Recent social science indicates that the public at large behave more ethically, and favor environmental protection more strongly, than do the wealthiest minority. Yet the latter group exerts predominant control over the economy. This suggests that shifting power away from this minority and onto the majority would yield a better ecology. In this paper I spell out the implications of these considerations for “economic democracy” (ED), a well-developed alternative to capitalism that shifts power from wealthy shareholders onto ordinary citizens and workers. I contrast this rationale for ED with some thinkers’ defense of “sustainable capitalism”, and with others’ ecological arguments for ED based on economic stability and self-interest, rather than ethical behavior per se.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Considering this fee as a tax implies that the means of production are privately owned. Alternatively, one could consider it as a rental charge, which would imply public ownership of those means.
By “new investment” Schweickart means investment from outside the company as opposed to investment by the company of its own sales revenues.
For an example of such lags, consider that while majorities of both Democrats and Republicans support the idea of taxing carbon emissions if the funds are used to develop solar and wind energy, the US Congress has so far refused to establish any carbon tax or cap (Amdur et al. 2014). Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for raising the issue of carbon taxes.
References
Amdur D., Rabe BG., Borick C. (2014). Public views on a carbon tax depend on the proposed use of revenue. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy 13.
Booth DE. (2004). Hooked on Growth: Economic Addictions and the Environment. Rowman and Littlefield.
Bruce A., Buck T., and Main B. G. M. (2005). Top executive remuneration: a view from Europe. Journal of Management Studies 42: 1493–1506.
Czech B., and Daly H. E. (2004). The steady state economy: what it is, entails, and connotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 598–605.
Daly H. E. (2010). From a failed-growth economy to a steady-state economy. Solutions 1(2): 37–43.
Dow GK. (2003). Governing the Firm: Workers Control in Theory and Practice. Cambridge University.
Dunlap R. E., Gallup G. H. Jr., and Gallup A. M. (1993). Of global concern: results of the health of the planet survey. Environment 35(9).
Gilens M., and Page B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics 12: 564–581.
Jacobsen J. B., and Hanley N. (2009). Are there income effects on global willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation? Environmental and Resource Economics 43: 137–160.
Lawn P. (2011). Is steady-state capitalism viable? A review of the issues and an answer in the affirmative. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1219: 1–25.
Leiserowitz A. A., Kates R. W., and Parris T. M. (2005). Do global attitudes and behaviors support sustainable development? Environment 47(9): 23–38.
Mikkelson G. M. (2013). Growth is the problem; equality is the solution. Sustainability 5: 432–439.
Mikkelson GM. In review. Invisible hand or ecological footprint?. The social and environmental impacts of recent economic growth.
Mikkelson GM., Gonzalez A., Peterson GD. (2007). Economic inequality predicts biodiversity loss. Public Library of Science (PLoS) ONE 2.e444.
Piff PK et al. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 4086–4091.
Piketty T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.
Ramesh R. (2011). Basque country’s thriving big society. The Guardian. 30 March.
Schweickart D. (2009). Is sustainable capitalism an oxymoron?. Perspectives on global development and. Technology 8: 559–580.
Schweickart D. (2011). After Capitalism. Rowman and Littlefield.
Solt F. (2008). Economic inequality and democratic political engagement. American Journal of Political Science 52: 48–60.
Tokic D. (2012). The economic and financial dimensions of degrowth. Ecological Economics 84: 49–56.
Wolff R. (2012). Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism. Haymarket.
Acknowledgements
For helpful feedback on the arguments presented in this paper I thank Michael Adamson, Darin Barney, Dror Etzion, Shaun Lovejoy, David Schweickart, fellow participants in a 2015 workshop on whether capitalism could become sustainable, fellow members of the Groupe de Recherche en Éthique Environnementale et Animale (GRÉEA), and fellow participants in the 2016 conference of the International Society for Environmental Ethics. For supporting the workshop and GRÉEA, I thank the Centre de Recherche en Éthique, funded in turn by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Société et Culture.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mikkelson, G.M. Environmental Values, Human Nature, and Economic Democracy. Hum Ecol 45, 131–134 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-016-9877-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-016-9877-y