D evelopment models, sustainability
and occupational and environmental
health in the Americas: neoliberalism versus
sustainable theories of development
Modelos de desenvolvim ento, sustentabilidade
e saúde ocupacional e am biental nas Am éricas:
neoliberalism o
versus teorias sobre
desenvolvim ento sustentável
1 University of Massachusetts Lowell. One University Avenue Lowell, MA 01854 USA. rafael_moure@uml.edu Rafael Moure-Eraso 1
Abstract T his article describes the inherent contradiction between com petitive capitalism and the pursuing of the “three bottom lines”: 1) economic prosperity, 2) environmental qual-ity (including the workplace) and 3) social jus-tice. An alternative, genuine, sustainable ap-proach to development; the Integrated Human Ecosystem Approach will be described and con-trasted with neoliberal developm ent. The IHE approach was developed by The International Developm ent Research Center of Canada in 2001. In this approach, the triple bottom line is not a sim ple tool for neoliberal developm ent, but the focus of allocation and management of resources for sustainable development. The ac-quisition of only state power by governm ents opposed to neoliberalism is necessary but not sufficient condition to successfully find a hu-man alternative to the market ideology. A road map needs to be developed in which a clear de-finition of technologies that perm it the acqui-sition and im plem entation of an alternative ideology to achieve “social power.” T he IHE m odel provides developing countries with the basis for that ideology.
Key words Sustainable development, Neolib-eral developm ent m odel, Integrated hum an ecosystem m odel, State power, Social power
Resum o Este artigo descreve as contradições inerentes ao capitalismo competitivo e a busca do que foi cham ado “as três form as de lucro”: 1) a prosperidade econôm ica, 2) a qualidade ambiental (incluindo-se a saúde ocupacional), 3) e a justiça social. Uma alternativa a esta vi-são é a que propugna um tipo de desenvolvi-m ento sustentável genuíno, conhecido codesenvolvi-m o “sistem a integrado do ecossistem a hum ano” (IHE). Este m odelo será descrito e contrasta-do com o modelo neoliberal. O sistema IHE foi elaborado pelo Centro Canadense de Investi-gações em Desenvolvim ento (IDRC) em 2001. Neste modelo, “as três formas de lucro” não são simplesmente uma ferramenta do modelo neo-liberal de desenvolvim ento, tendo com o foco a distribuição e a adm inistração de recursos pa-ra o desenvolvim ento sustentável. A assunção ao poder de governos latino-am ericanos opos-tos ao neoliberalism o é um a condição necessá-ria, mas não suficiente para encontrar uma al-ternativa hum ana ao sistem a do m ercado li-vre. É preciso se form ar um a nova ideologia que coloque sua centralidade na questão social e o “poder social”. O modelo de desenvolvimen-to IHE poderia ser utilizado pelos países em desenvolviem nto com o a base de um a nova ideologia de centralidade do social.
Introduction
Economic development in our century contin-u es in th e Western hem isphere with in creas-in g pressures from the World Ban k an d the Un ited States to Latin Am erican cou n tries to adopt the n eoliberal m odel of developm en t un der expan din g free-m arket treaties. Eco-nomic development in Latin America is taking place un der pressures to con ciliate n ot on ly pure economic ends but also sustainable social an d en viron m en tal goals. The process occurs in an environment of incessant political, social, and ecological changes in the hem isphere and in the globe. Pessim istic global projection s based on ecological science seem to underline the economic development process.
Scientific exam ination of the world in the 21stcentury is providing us with an increasing-ly accurate description of previousincreasing-ly vague and isolated episodes of global deterioration. Science (natural and social) also has shown the system-atic character of these problem s and conveyed to us the urgent necessity for their resolution. Three of the most climactic questions come to mind (Elkington, 2001). First, the intensification of environm ental decay. Every year hum ans consume 40% of the earth’s vegetable materials while the capacity of earth to regenerate vegeta-tion and all other essential resources has been exceeded (Wackernagel, 2002). We are witness-ing: deforestation, collapse of fisheries, and global warming growing at increased rates. Sec-ond, the scandalous disparity on the consump-tion of earth resources, where twenty percent (20%) of the richest nations consum e eighty percent (80%) of all resources available. This unbalanced use of resources takes place while humans (mostly poor) have quadrupled from 2 to 8 billion in 100 years. The poorest sectors of the world population have also the greatest share of poor health caused by their environ-m en tal an d occupation al stresses. Third, the collapse of countries with collective economies and their move towards a market economy. This has strengthened the ideology of the proponents of the market economy, consolidated the power of global corporations and weakened govern-ments and public collective institutions. It also has created an unprecedented triumphalist at-titude by the in dividualistic m arket econ om y proponents. They, the modern neoliberal econ-omists, tout the global corporations as the only social institutions able to resolve the problems of the 21stcentury (Elkington, 2001).
Market and non-m arket econom y analysts in world fora are developin g a con sen sus that the earth’s lon g term su rvival will depen d on society’s ability to deliver longer term sustain-ability n ot on ly to wealthy western n ation s, i.e., the U.S. and EU, but also to developing and poor n ation s. Sustain ability is defin ed as the characteristic of developm en t that allows for the fulfillm en t of society n eeds of the presen t generation without compromising the needs of future generations (Brundtland, 1987).
Elkin gton , an au th or an d con su ltan t to Eu ropean global corporation s has an oin ted the global corporation as the deliverer of sus-tainable development. He recognizes that cor-poration s n eed the help of govern m en ts an d non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but the protagon ist of an y chan ge, in his view, is ultim ately the global corporation . H e says, however, that in order to accomplish this feat, the corporation m u st tran sform itself from a simple profit generator (one bottom line) to an in tegrated “triple bottom lin e” in stitution , where: 1) economic prosperity, 2) environmen-tal quality (in cludin g the workplace), an d 3) social justice are con sidered sim ultan eously (Elkington, 1999).
This au thor characterizes this n ew “su s-tain able capitalist” as a “cannibal with a fork.” The accurate designation of “cannibalism,” de-scribes the predatory an d n o-holds-barred com petitive approach of global corporations. The “fork,” according to Elkington, is this in -tegrated “triple bottom line” that he urges cor-porations to adopt by pursuing the triple bot-tom lin e as the tool of choice to achieve su s-tain ability. This tool, we are assured, would permit corporations to devour its competitors, obliterate industries and jobs, while at the same tim e achievin g gen eral prosperity an d doin g the right thing for Mother Earth.
It is at least disin gen uous to preten d that the cannibal will be acceptable sim ply because it is using a fork or that it will deliver environ-mental, social, and economic prosperity by im-proving his/her manners. We need then to find an alternative more humane model of develop-m en t that is an idevelop-m provedevelop-m en t over pridevelop-m itive economic models.
gen-u in e sgen-u stain able approach to developm en t, where the in tegrated approach to the triple bottom line is not a sim ple tool for neoliberal developm en t, but the focus of allocation an d m an agem en t of resou rces for su stain able de-velopment.
Sustainability and development
Neoliberalism is tryin g to su bordin ate the con cept of su stain ability – expressed as the “triple bottom lin e” – as sim ply an other tool that would allow the unregulated, continuous growth of world econom ies under the ideolo-gy of what is called “free m arkets.” H owever, the very predatory character of this ideology does not lend any credibility or confidence to the notion of simultaneous triple bottom lines. What historically has been really a prim ary concern under corporate capitalism is the first bottom line, i.e., pure profit generation, while the environment and social issues must be sub-ordin ated to the “econ om ic well-bein g,” de-fin ed m ostly as short-term profit gen eration .
The con ten tion here is that pu rsu in g the en -han cem en t of the econ om ic bottom lin e as a basic ethical valu e preclu des the attain in g of the social an d en viron m en tal developm en t aims.
If we look at proposals on developm ent in em ergin g econ om ies, we have to look at two differen t approaches of m an agem en t of re-sources for developm ent. The first is the clas-sical neoliberal approach to resource allocation presented above. It consists of a hierarchical se-quen ce of discrete un its where econ om ic fac-tors are prim ary, followed by com m un ity as-piration s (social factors) an d occu pation al/ en viron m en tal im pact issues, in that order of im portan ce (Figu re 1). The secon d develop-ment approach is defined as the Integrated Hu-m an EcosysteHu-m Approach (IH E). It was origi-nally developed by the Canadian/USA Interna-tion al Join t Com m ission for the Great Lakes (Commission Mixte Internationale, 1988) and further elaborated by the International Devel-opment Research Center (IDRC) of Canada in 2001 (Forget and Lebel, 2001). In this approach the con cepts of hu m an health an d
develop-Figure 1
m ent are intim ately related as the United Na-tions urged in its Action Plan Agenda 21 (UN-EP, 1992).
The IHE integrated development approach differs from the conventional approach on the fact that all the three developm en t factors are con sidered join tly an d sim ultan eously. There is n o hierarchy of im portan ce an d there is a common area of intersection (more details be-low). These three components are merged in a Ven n diagram , a geom etrical represen tation used in m athem atics to show relation ships of in tersectin g sets. The in tersection zon e is la-beled “public health “ and represents the health of the in habitan ts of the hu m an ecosystem (Forget and Lebel, 2001).
The hum an ecosystem is an en sem ble of air, soil, water, an d livin g organ ism s (in clud-in g biota, an im als, an d hum an s) that in teract with each other in an in terdepen den t m ode. The concept of healthy human ecosystem high-lights clearly the association that humans make on issues of health, i.e. public health – and ap-plies to the hu m an ecosystem that in clu des economic and social components of equivalent im portan ce. The healthy ecosystem has be-com e part of the lan gu age of scien ce, policy m akers, and the public when discussing issues of environm ental degradation. But m ore than that, the healthy ecosystem has come to repre-sen t a global approach to resource m an age-ment and thus developage-ment that can be under-stood by referen ce to a very in tim ate hum an experien ce: public health (Ross, 1997; Forget an d Lebel, 2001). An ecosystem is healthy as long as it is sustainable; in other words, as long as it rem ain s active an d can m ain tain its or-gan ization an d auton om y over tim e, an d re-bound from stress (Constanza, 1998).
The IDRC proposes the ecosystem ap-proach to development as a systems apap-proach to public health. It sets out the high priority areas for an integrated management of ecosystem re-sources: the econ om y, the en viron m en t, an d social issues. This focus allows for three simul-taneous actions: 1) to explore the relationship between the different components of an ecosys-tem , 2) to iden tify the m ost im portan t deter-minants of public health, and 3) to estimate the im pact of hum an activity on the sustainability of the ecosystem. In this way, human needs are placed fron t an d cen ter am on g developm en t concerns (Forget and Lebel, 2001).
The Canadian Institute (IDRC) has devel-oped the ecosystem m ethodology to con du ct
developm en t research in terven tion s in Third World countries. It points out that the research study group must be transdisciplinary and that participatory m ethods shou ld be u sed to ex-amine the different roles and strategies used by social groups to manage their ecosystem (For-get an d Lebel, 2001). The IRDC an d its part-ners in developing countries are committed to the ecosystem approach an d have published exam ples of its application. They recom m end its adoption by all those who seek to prom ote sustainable and equitable developm ent that will ensure, as suggested by the Brundtland Commis-sion, a rich and healthy environm ent for gener-ations to com e(Forget an d Lebel, 2001). The IRDC has applied this developm ent approach in various projects in Africa and Asia with re-markable success.
Characteristics of resource management in neoliberal
and sustainable (human ecosystem) development models
A more detailed comparison of the two models appears in table 1. The characteristics of the m odels are separated in th e th ree factors of developm en t described as the “three bottom lines” above. The classical neoliberal m odel of developm en t has been the defau lt m ethod of econ om ic an d social growth in developin g cou n tries, especially developm en t spon sored by the World Bank in Latin America.
• Economic factors– This m odel prioritizes econom ic factors, i.e., m axim ization of short-term return on investment and promotes con-tinuous growth preferably in unregulated set-tin gs. Social an d en viron m en tal factors are su bordin ated to econ om ic factors, m ean in g that the relentless search for substantial short-term profit might justify ignoring social or en-vironmental consequences of the development enterprise, or simply made, they are secondary con sideration s (Figure 1). The m odel tries to attain m axim um profits by ignoring real costs (Daly, 1993). Applications of science and tech-n ology for developm etech-n t are cotech-n cetech-n trated otech-n issu es related to the produ ction process with little allotment for social or environmental con-sideration s. Con tin uous growth is taun ted as the solver of all economic, social, and environ-mental problems (Daly, 1993).
eco-n om ics is eco-n ot the prim ary factor of develop-m ent, but is considered concurrently with so-cial and environm ental factors. Market forces are modulated to conceive long term planning, for at least one generation. Local investm ents are protected to permit its survival in fair com-petition with foreign investment (Daly, 1993). Growth is subordinated to social and environ-mental concerns. The impact of economics on public health is also considered.
• Social factors– Social concerns in a neolib-eral m odel are m ostly based in volu n tarism sin ce there is a con stan t effort to de-regulate an d privatize developm en t in itiatives an d the own ership of resources. The m odel requires and promotes a weak public sector where busi-ness, social, and environmental regulations are restricted. En terprises are m an aged from the top down in au thoritarian n on -participatory system s. H um an rights are n ot a priority an d
Table 1
Comparison of Neo-Liberal and Sustainable (Human Ecosystem) Models of Development.
Classic Neo-Liberal Development Model Sustainable Development Model (Human Ecosystem)
Economic Factors
I. Economics is the primary factor Economics is considered concurrently and non-to be considered for development hierarchically with Social and Environmental factors
“Free market” based on maximization Regulated market based in long term return
of short-term return on investment on investment
Short term planning Planning for at least one generation
Maximize production for continuous Production modulated by social and environmental
and linear growth concerns with emphasis on public health
Unregulated foreign investment. “Free” trade Fair protection of local investment. Fair trade
Social/Community Factors
II. Social factors are secondary to economics Social factors are considered concurrently and non-hierarchically with Economic and Environmental factors
Dominance of the private sector. Top-down authoritarian Balance between public and private sectors. organizations. Limited human rights. Non participatory Fully participatory of stakeholders on development.
Full human rights (unionization)
Weakening of the public sector. Deregulation & voluntarism Public sector with clear and fair regulatory functions on business, public health and environment
Science and technology focus mostly at the service Science and technology also applied to social
of material values and environmental concerns. Emphasis on public health
Occupational and Environmental Factors
III. Environmental factors are tertiary to economics Environmental factors are considered concurrently
and social factors and non-hierarchically with Economic and Social Factors
Limitless use of natural resources Use of natural resources limited by sustainability
Emphasis on non-renewable energy sources Emphasis on renewable energy sources
Pollution control at end-of-pipe. Risk shifting between media Pollution prevention through toxics use reduction at source. (pollution shifted from: worksites to community, air to water) Avoid risk shifting between worksite and community.
Reduce/eliminate sources
Compliance with minimal occupational Actions beyond compliance. Implement alternatives and environmental regulations to improve worksite and community environments
Waste control Cleaner production. Design for environment.
ar e n ot u n iver sally ap p lied . For exam p le, u n ion ization is discou raged. The su stain able model maintains a balance between the public an d private sectors with a fair regulatory system that allows for stron g an d effective en -forcement of laws. Universal human rights are also a priority. In this m odel, application of science and technology are brought to resolve so cial an d en viron m en tal problem s with the same intensity applied in the neoliberal model to produ ctivity issu es. Pu blic health is also a central concern and an important social value. • Environmental and occupational factors– The sharpest differences between the two mod-els are foun d in their differen t approaches to the work an d com m un ity en viron m en ts. The neoliberal model advocates for the limitless use of n atural resources with em phasis in the use of non-renewable energy sources. The sustain-able (hum an ecosystem ) m odel lim its the use of resources em phasizing regenerated and re-newable sources.
The approach to pollution in the neoliber-al model is towards “control,” where risks from differen t sou rces (air, water, soil, worksites) are transferred from one m edium to another, som etim es from workers to the com m un ity and vice-versa (Moure-Eraso, 1999). The meth-ods are described as end-of-pipe methmeth-ods (fil-terin g, dilution , disposal). Firm s also com ply with the m inim al requirem ents of regulations and shop from venue to venue to find the least stringent enforcement.
Th e ap p r oach of t h e su st ain able m od el r elies in pollution preven tion (source reduc-tion) with credible efforts to avoid risk shifting between m edia. It searches for altern atives to toxic use with the ultimate aim of cleaner pro-duction . All the efforts for im provem en ts on the work an d com m un ity en viron m en ts have as the ultimate aim the improvement of human health (pu blic health), which is the u n ifyin g them e on the three bottom lin es of develop-ment: economic prosperity, community/social concerns, and environmental concerns (includ-ing occupational health).
At the 1999 Davos, Switzerlan d, m eetin g o f the World Economic Forum, a gathering of big busin ess an d m ultin ation al corporation s, The Un ited Nation s offered the world busi-nessm en an irresistible offer. Koffi Annan, the UN Secretary Gen eral, proposed that the UN would support an in tern ation al trade an d in -vestm ent regim e “free” of any social and envi-ron m en tal obligatory clauses. In return , he
called the m ultin ation al corporation s to “uphold hu m an rights an d labou r an d en viron -mental standards” (Annan, 1999). The UN was basically proposing the privatization of human rights, en viron m en tal an d occupation al stan -dards at a global scale, making them a private, voluntary endeavor.
The global corporation s have sin ce oblig-ed. They have adopted the lan gu age of social an d en viron m en tal con cern s of the basic UN docum en ts – even sustain able developm en t – but only in a voluntary basis and avoiding to be called to comply even with the mild and unen-forceable UN recommendations (UNEP, 1992) They were on ly required to “uphold hum an rights, etc…” in a corporate dominated unreg-ulated world. These vague requirem en ts are easily handled by the public relations offices of global corporation s. Those sam e pu blic rela-tions offices have since m astered the language of sustainability. They learned to “talk the talk,” but they don ’t seem very m uch com m itted to “walking the walk.”
Needs for implementation of a new development model in industrialized and semi-industrialized countries
Ecua-dor, where n ewly elected govern m en ts are convinced of the destructive effects of neolib-eralism in their economies. However, the hold-ing of state power is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition for success. In addition to holdin g state power, it is n ecessary to obtain “social power.”
• Acquiring so cial po wer – To advance a model of development centered in human rights (pu blic health) where social com m u n ity an d environmental factors are considered simulta-neously and with the same priority of econom-ic factors, cultural transform ation and a rede-fin ition of values are required. Gram sci be-lieved that a generation of “organic intellectu-als” is needed to oppose the multifaceted con-sen sus un derlyin g the in stitution s that defin e “free” market economy and globalization as the only econom ic and social alternatives (Boggs, 1984). A n ew order should be defin ed that challen ges the in tellectu al an d cu ltu ral hege-mony of the “free” market/globalization ideol-ogy. The process of building an alternative so-cial and political theory and its application to a new order is what is defined as the acquisition of “social power.” The “organ ic in tellectuals” performing this task will conduct the ideologi-cal and cultural preparation for a new type of society. They would provide the principles and values to gain the n ecessary “social power.” That, in combination with state power, will be necessary for the transformation of society val-ues. H owever, the gaining of power, state and social, is n ot sufficien t to effect chan ge. The “organic intellectuals” have to develop and ap-ply successfully a concrete roadmap for actions necessary for the transform ation.
• Ro admap fo r actio n – The prem iu m that all societies place in living in a clean environ-ment is indeed global. Poor and rich countries consider it an imperative. The United Nations has u n derstood this hu m an desire an d has been able to articulate through documents and declarations this universal desire (Brundtland, 1987, UNEP, 1992).
That is the political basis of the sustainable developm en t theory an d could be the key for movements to change society. In fact,
environ-m en tal organ ization s, un ion s, other NGOs, and its allies are indeed global political m ove-ments. The avenue for “social power” seems to be m arked by the im plem en tation of the sus-tainable (human ecosystem) model of develop-m en t. What is n eeded is a clear defin ition of techn ologies that perm it the im plem en tation of such a model. The IDRC has prepared a de-tailed blu ep r in t for d evelop m en t p r ojects, fo llowin g th e su stain ability ( h u m an ecosys-tem m odel) and tested his im plem entation on real life developm en t projects in developin g n ation s. Also, the Un ited Nation s (UN), the European com m unity and som e US firm s fol-low the hum an centered m odel of sustainable industrial production that needs to be applied in industrially developed and developing coun-tries.
References
Annan K 1999. A Com pact for the N ew Century, address
to the World Economic Forum, Davos, 31 of January 1999. <www.un.org/partners/business/davos.htm> Brundtland G 1987. Our common future. Oxford
Univer-sity Press, Oxford, UK.
Boggs C 1984. The two Revolutions: Antonio Gramsci and the Dilemmas of W estern Marxism. South End Press,
Boston.
Com m ission Mixte In tern ation ale 1988. Acord de 1978 relatif a la qualité de l’eau dans les Grand Lacs, tel que m odifie par le Protocole signe le 18 N ovem ber 1987.
Remanie par la commission Mixte Internationale des Etas-Unis et du Canada.
Constanza R et al. 1998. Predictors of ecosystem health,
pp. 240-250. In D Rapport, R Constanza et al. (eds.). Ecosystem Health. Blackwell Scien ce, Malden ,
Ox-ford, London, Edinburg, Carlton, U.K.
Daly HE 1993. The Perils of Free Trade. Scientific Ameri-can, November 1993:50-57.
Elkin gton J 2001. The chrysalis econ om y: how citizen CEOs an d corporation s can fu se valu es an d valu e creation. Capstone Publishing Lim ited, John Wiley & Sons, London.
Elkington J 1999. Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom
line of 21stcentury business. Capstone Publishing
Lim-ited, John Wiley & Sons, London.
Forget G & Lebel J 2001. An Ecosystem Approach to Hu-m an H ealth. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 7.2:S3-S35.
Moure-Eraso R 1999. Avoiding the Transfer of Risk: Pol-lution Preven tion an d Occupation al H ealth. In B Levy & D Wegman (ed). Occupational Health: Recog-nizing and Preventing W ork-Related Disease. p. 124-5.
(Fourth edition). Little and Brown, New York. Rand 2003. Robert Lempert, Parry Norling, Christopher
Pernin, Susan Resetar, and Sergej Mahnovski. N ext Generation Environmental Technologies: Benefits and Barriers.
Rand Report to the U.S. Congress Office of Science and Techn ology Policy 2003. < http://www.ran d.org/ p u blication s/ MR/ MR1682/ in dex.h tm l> Ross N et al. 1997. The ecosystem health metaphor in
sci-ence and policy. Canadien Geographer 41:114-127.
UNEP 1992. The Global Partnership for Environment and Development. A Guide to Agenda 21.
Wackernagel M et al. 2002. Tracking the ecological
over-shoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the Na-tional Academ y of Sciences (PNAS). 99.14:9266-71.
2002
Artigo apresentado em 10/9/2003 Aprovado em 5/10/2003
