In “The Price of Civilization“ you write about the importance of paying attention to the distant future and developing long-term plans. In the long run, what economic development model should we strive for and what should we do now to achieve it? We should strive for human wellbeing. That sounds simple, but in fact our political systems struggle for war, domination, hegemony, wealth, and many other misguided objectives. It would be enough to achieve peace, prosperity, justice, and environmental sustainability, without imperial objectives and without the unending risk of major war, even of nuclear war.
You were one of the creators of the Millennium Development Goals, which later became known around the world as Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). What can you say about the impact of this project – in your opinion, how has the world changed thanks to the emergence of the SDGs? It is important to have globally agreed goals.
They can set humanity on a proper path. Yet our political systems do not intensively pursue the goals, even when they have been globally agreed. We are still trying to surmount the realities of military competition and alliances, and harmful interstate competition. For example, in my view, NATO should have been ended at the same time that the Warsaw Pact military alliance was ended. Europe could have achieved collective security through the OSCE. Unfortunately, the US rejected that wise course of action.
One of the most pronounced trends in the last decade has been the movement toward a social economy. It seems to be a new way of looking at economics, one that fuses together developed and developing countries, left and right, liberal and conservative, private and public. In your opinion, how viable is this trend and can we say that the future is indeed bright for the social economy? The most successful political-economic system of the 20th century was Social Democracy, especially as carried out in Scandinavia. Central planning was not successful, and the Anglo-Saxon model of neoliberalism also fails in deep ways. Yet in the 21st century, the social democratic ethos is both admired and at threat. Inequality is widening, especially in the US. The US political system is in the hands of corporate lobbies. We have no accepted global model. China has had significant successes in rapid economic development, but also faces big challenges of inequality, and hence China is now experimenting with the concept of “Common Prosperity.“ I tend to favor the idea of Sustainable Development, meaning the merger of four key ideas: 1) economic wellbeing, based on the deployment of skills and technology; 2) social justice, based on universal access to public services, quality education, and fiscal redistribution; 3) environmental sustainability, especially directed at a safe climate, sharply reduced pollution, and conservation of biodiversity; and 4) global cooperation under the UN Charter, with a multipolar global politics.
Following up on the previous question, can we say that the line between for-profit and non-profit, state and non-state, will be erased in the future – and that the focus will be on the “public good“ through the “individual good“ and the good for the planet? We will have mixed economies, with distinct sectors (for-profit, not-for-profit, government, volunteer, community-based, and others). The profit motive will not and should not go away, but it should not crush the rest of the economy.
What do you see as the role of NGOs in promoting sustainable development, and how can they work effectively with governments and other stakeholders to achieve a positive impact?
NGOs, when they are truly non-governmental, can provide advocacy, engagement, education, volunteerism, culture, and human relations, in ways that the public and for-profit sectors cannot.
How far into the future, do you think, will the trend of mobilizing the individual as a subject of change in his/her territory continue – which is represented in the paradigm of initiative budgeting, rural development programs modelled after South Korea’s New Village Movement, and others that involve the mobilization of community power? Do such programs have a future?
The idea of “subsidiarity“ emphasizes that we all live in overlapping spheres of cooperation: family, neighborhood, community, metropolis, state, nation, region, and global. Different parts of our lives naturally function at different levels of engagement, some at the family or neighborhood level, and some truly at the global level. There is room for community-based action, to be sure. We live in communities. But there are many issues (e.g., global climate change, biodiversity protection, pollution, migration, war and peace) that must be addressed at levels of cooperation larger than the community.
Speaking about “Transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals,“ how do you see the role of communities in transforming cities towards sustainability?
Cities will be home to 70 % or more of humanity by 2050. We have become an urbanized species. This is a huge change for humanity, which was at least 90 % rural for all of human history before 1800[8]. Cities that work effectively – for health, education, jobs, production, culture, safety, and community – is a great task. Cities around the world are taking up the SDG Agenda, and reorienting their policies towards sustainable development. They are also calling for new methods of public finance, so that city governments have the financial means to carry out city-level investments as necessary. This is a big challenge and a big opportunity to improve the quality of life of most of humanity in the decades ahead.
What do you feel about the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship – are we taking this phenomenon into the future, and how great is its potential to drive positive change?
If we are smart, the advances in technology should enable us to devote more of our personal efforts to volunteerism, care of family and communities, and solutions of local challenges. In short, social entrepreneurship should play a larger role in society, in part because basic challenges (food, water, housing, etc.) have been solved through technological improvements and sound public policies.
In your opinion, will technological development (including artificial intelligence, which is commonly associated with a new technological revolution) become a factor in developing the economy and eliminating inequality in the world?
The digital revolution, including AI, robotics, advanced biotechnology, supercomputing, 5G (and later generations of digital connectivity), and other technologies, can lead to rapid improvements in wellbeing. They could also lead to nightmares if misused. These technologies could be weaponized, leading to new weapons, biowarfare, the end of privacy, pervasive fake news, and much more. The technologies are a lot smarter, and advancing much faster, than the political systems that must find new ways to manage them. This has been starkly true since the advent of the nuclear age. We are yet to govern advanced technologies safely. AI should be in the hands of the public, not the arms industry. Alas, we are moving farther away from our needs, not to real problem solving.
Can the world ever see The End of Poverty, and if so, when, under what conditions, and with what parties?
We have the technological and economic means to end poverty. That has been true during the past 20 years. Yet we have failed to make good on this opportunity. The rich have been too greedy and shortsighted, and the politicians have opted for war rather than sustainable development. We have set the goal (SDG 1) to end extreme poverty. If we focused on that goal, rather than on geopolitical competition and war, we would find that ending poverty is fully within reach.
