Sustainable Overall Social Transformation as a Path to Progress

 
PIIS207987840015615-5-1
DOI10.18254/S207987840015615-5
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Affiliation:
Institute of Economics RAS
International Research Institute for Advanced Systems
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameISTORIYA
Edition
Abstract

The discussion article is concerned with the fundamental issues of future sustainable progress. Assuming the real world challenges, it seems appropriate to turn to the universal concept of systemic stability, the property of which is inherent in one way or another to all social practices, and not only to those reflecting the interaction between society and the environment. In accordance with this concept, the realistic design of institutional changes in conjunction with the resource and organizational-behavioral changes required for sustainable development is intended to occur in the mainstream of a systemic general social transformation. As follows from the above argumentation, the transition to a sustainable general social transformation is real in the case of a synergistic implementation of achievable fundamental shifts. 

Abstract (other)Дискуссионная статья посвящена фундаментальным вопросам будущего устойчивого прогресса. Принимая во внимание настоящие мировые вызовы, представляется целесообразным обращение к универсальной концепции системной устойчивости, свойство которой присуще тем или иным образом всем социальным практикам, а не только отражающих взаимодействия между обществом и окружающей средой. В соответствии с этой концепцией, реалистичное проектирование институциональных изменений в увязке с ресурсными и организационно-поведенческими переменами, потребными для устойчивого развития, призвано происходить в русле системной обще социальной трансформации. Как следует из приведенной аргументации, переход к устойчивой обще социальной трансформации реален в случае синергетического осуществления достижимых фундаментальных сдвигов.
Keywordssteady progress, social systemic transformation, institutions, technological, demographic and climatic changes
Keywords list (other)устойчивый прогресс, социальная системная трансформация, институты, технологические, демографические и климатические изменения
AcknowledgmentThis article is a translation of: Мартынов А. Устойчивый прогресс как результат общесоциальной системной трансформации // Общество и экономика. 2021. Вып. 1. C. 100—120. DOI: 10.31857/S020736760013405-4
Received30.03.2021
Publication date25.06.2021
Number of characters42145
Cite   Download pdf
1 The current global critical situation caused by the deadly epidemic of the coronavirus cannot be ignored when addressing the problem of fundamental social progress. It has proved to be associated with the onset of a prolonged economic recession, established as a result of the stabilization measures taken, especially the reduction in interest rates. The non-economic consequences of the epidemic, manifested in the deactivation of all spheres of social life in most countries, are even more significant.
2 Undoubtedly, after the termination of the acute phase of the present world crisis, the need for an interrelated solution of the enlarged complex of social problems will intensify even more. The achievement of economic and financial stabilization is intended to be accompanied by a radical improvement in the state of social sectors in almost all countries through effective and inevitably huge investments. It should be noted, that health care in not the only one sector, requiring them.
3 It has long been proven that economic growth alone is insufficient for resolving interrelated social problems, which can be coupled with increased social inequality and anti-democratic changes. Truly general social progress due to an equal degree of economic (market) and non-economic drivers, mutually complementary to each other, is needed. This is the opinion widely recognized at the international level, in practical terms, expressed in the comprehensive integration of various indicators of the development progress of modern countries [1, 2].
4 The interrelated solution of extremely significant problems, including environmental and climatic ones, to achieve general social progress is possible only on the basis of an integrative approach. Ultimately, based on the universally recognized imperative to ensure the secure existence of our planet.
5 Based on the reformist opinion (for example, [3]), the overall sustainable progress of the society is the immanent feature of its desired development. It is characterized by economic, political, status, ecological, climatic and other quantitative and qualitative parameters, which are assumed to be sustainable in accordance with accepted ideas in the course of the development of society. First of all, it is characterized by the well-known imperatives of sustainable development (SD), presented in the UN-approved integrative framework concept of Agenda 2030 or simply the Agenda [4]. The achievement of these imperatives requires consideration of the entire range of processes of economic and other social changes associated with fundamental, long-term, structural shifts [5, 6].
6 A brief review of the existing research groundwork directly related to the topic of the work. Until now, most researchers have relied on the textbook model of the “three cushions” of sustainability — ecological, economic and social, which is presented in detail in an innumerable number of publications, including recent ones (for example, [7]). Undoubtedly, this conceptual model served as the basis for fruitful specific research in certain areas of SD and their synthesis. However, it seems insufficient in the light of modern global challenges, when the need for knowingly complex research has arisen.
7 To a certain extent, the theoretical model of social stability acts as an alternative [8—10]. The essence of this model is to substantiate social sustainability as a driver of environmental and economic sustainability. Such a holistic methodology is obviously of limited applicability, since the immanent autonomy of many important processes of economic, technological and other changes is not taken in consideration.
8 Research on socio-ecological systems (SES) is closely related to publications in the mainstream of social sustainability. Apparently, the main achievement in this direction was the formation of a framework concept [11—13]. In the expression of Elinor Ostrom [12], it allows building a bridge between biophysical and social scientific research. Moreover, the methodology based on this concept has been used for a long time in the technology of ecological design, at least in the Scandinavian countries [14]. However, the field of application of this methodology seems to be deliberately limited, since in most cases successful operation is possible under favorable external conditions, market (financial) and others.
9 The author shares the theoretical point of view, which coincides with the opinion of the supporters of the idea of universal stability [15, 16]. The conceptual approach based on it makes it possible to fully cover the interconnected processes of sustainably reproducible changes in society. It is pertinent to note that this approach is consistent with specific integrative studies of sustainable development in its main interrelated areas in the coming era of digitalization, which have recently been carried out [17—20].
10 Without the enormous role of current market changes being compromised, eventually, fundamental shifts are determined by the long-term directions of development of the economy and society as a whole. Consideration of the phenomenon of fundamental shifts in their integral unity in time and space becomes possible on the basis of the transformational paradigm. This assumption is confirmed by recent research [21, 22].

Price publication: 0

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 391

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. OECD 2015. How’s Life?: Measuring Well-being. P.: OECD Publishing, 2015.

2. Stiglitz J., Fitoussi J.-P., Durand M. Beyond GDP: Measuring What Counts for Economic and Social Performance. P.: OECD Publishing, 2018.

3. Sachs J. The Age of Sustainable Development. N. Y.: Columbia University Press, 2015.

4. Transformation of Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Final Document of the UN Summit, adopted on September 25, 2015 [Electronical source]. URL: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org

5. Bobylev S. N., Solovieva S. V. Sustainable Development Goals for the Future of Russia // Problems of Forecasting. 2017. N 3 [Electronical source]. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article

6. Bobylev S. and Grigoryev L. In search of the contours of the post-COVID Sustainable Development Goals: The case of BRICS // BRICS Journal of Economics. 2020. № 2 (1). 4-24 [Electronical source]. URL: https://doi.org/10.38050/2712-7508-2020-7

7. Purvis B., Yong M. and Robinson D. Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science. 2018. № 14 (3). P. 681—695.

8. Boström M. SSPP: A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: Introduction to the special issue. Sustainable Science Practice Policy. 2012. 8: 3—16 [Electronical source]. URL: http://search.proquest.com/openview

9. Boyer R., Peterson N., Arora P., Caldwell K. Five approaches to social sustainability and an integrated way forward. Sustainability. 2016 [Electronical source]. URL: https://www.mdpi.com

10. Eizenberg E., Jabareen Y. Social Sustainability: A New Conceptual Framework. Sustainability. 9: 68—85. 2017 [Electronical source]. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010068

11. Berkes F., Folke C. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. N. Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

12. Ostrom E. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(39): 15181—15187. 2007 [Electronical source]. URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104

13. Partelow S. A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Ecology and Society 23 (4): 36. 2018 [Electronical source]. URL: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- 10594-230436

14. Schlüter M., Orach K., Lindkvist E. and Martin. R. Toward a methodology for explaining and theorizing about social-ecological phenomena. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 39: 44—53. August: 2019 [Electronical source]. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.011

15. Giddings B., Hopwood B. & O’Brien G. Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 2002. 10: 187—196.

16. Fisher J. and Rucki K. Re-conceptualizing the Science of Sustainability: A Dynamical Systems Approach to Understanding the Nexus of Conflict, Development and the Environment. Sustainable development, 2017. 25: 267—275.

17. TWI2050 — the World in 2050. 2018. Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

18. TWI2050 — The World in 2050. 2019. The Digital Revolution and Sustainable Development: Opportunities and Challenges. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

19. WBGU — German Advisory Council on Global Change. 2019. Towards our Common Digital Future. Summary. Berlin: WBGU.

20. Sachs J., Schmidt-Traub G., Kroll C., Lafortune G. and Fuller G. Sustainable Development Report 2019. N. Y.: Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2019.

21. Islam N. and Iversen K. From “Structural Change” to “Transformative Change”: Rationale and Implications. DESA Working Paper. No. 155. 2018 [Electronical source]. URL: https://un.org/development/desa/publications/working-paper/wp155

22. Transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies in Asia and in the Pacific. 2018. United Nations, Asian Development Bank, United Nations Development Program [Electronical source]. URL: http://sdgasiapacific.net/download/SDG_Resilience_Report.pdf

23. Polanyi K. The Great Transformation // SPb.: Aletheia, 2002.

24. Parsons T. On social systems. M.: Academic Project, 2002.

25. Giddens E. Organization of society. Essay on the theory of structuration. M.: Academic Project, 2003.

26. Luhmann N. Social systems. SPb.: Science, 2007.

27. Martynov A. On the ideology of future world progress // Society and Economy. 2018. № 11. P. 5—24 [Electronical source]. URL: https://oie.jes.su

28. Gallopin G. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 2006. 16: 293—303.

29. Global Sustainable Development Report. 2019. United Nations [Electronical source]. URL: https://unstats.un.org>sdgs>The- Sustainable- Development

30. Körner K., Schattenberg M. and Heymann E. Digital economics. How AI and robotics are changing our work and our lives. Frankfurt am Main. Deutsche Bank Research. 2018 [Electronical source]. URL: http://dbresearch.com/.../Digital_economics%3A_How

31. Korinek A., Stiglitz J. E. Artificial Intelligence, Worker-Replacing Technological Change, and Income Distribution. NBER working paper 24174. 2017 [Electronical source]. URL: www.nber.org/papers/w24174

32. Acemoglu D., Restrepo, P. Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Work. NBER Working Paper No. 24196. 2018 [Electronical source]. URL: http:// www.nber.org/papers/w24196

33. Greening with jobs. 2018. World employment and social outlook. Geneva: ILO [Electronical source]. URL: https://ilo.org/weso-greening/documents/WESO_Greening_EN_web2.pdf

34. The Inclusive Growth and Development Report. 2017. Geneva: World Economic Forum [Electronical source]. URL: http://www3 .weforum. org/docs/WEF_Forum_IncGrwth_2017.pdf

35. Sustainable Business Transformation Barometer. Effie Russia. 2019 [Electronical source]. URL: https://home.kpmg/ru/ru/home/insights/2019/10/barometer

36. OECD 2019. Measuring Distance to the SDG Targets 2019: An Assessment of Where OECD Countries Stand, OECD Publishing. Paris [Electronical source]. URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/a8caf3fa-en

37. The UN Sustainable Development Goals and Russia: a report on human development in the Russian Federation. Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation, 2016 [Electronical source]. URL: http://ac.gov.ru/files/publication/a/11068.pdf

38. Voluntary National Review of the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation, 2020.

39. Global economic prospects. June 2020. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2020. DOI: 10.1596/978-1-4648-1553-9.

40. Global economic prospects. June 2019: Heightened Tensions, Subdued Investment. Washington, DC: World Bank. DOI: 10.1596/978-1-4648-1398-6.

41. Martynov A. V. The future of economies with emerging markets // International Economics, 2020. No. 9. P. 27—34. DOI: 10.33920/vve-04-2009-05.

42. McKinsey Global Institute. 2018. Outperformers: High-growth emerging economies and the companies that propel them [Electronical source]. URL: http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi.

43. The Global Competiveness Report 2019. 2019. Geneva, Switzerland. World Economic Forum [Electronical source]. URL: https://www.weforum.org/gcr

44. Mazarr M. (2018). Summary of the Building a Sustainable International Order Project. RAND Corporation [Electronical source]. URL: https://rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2397.html

45. Anvari V., Ehlers N., Steinbach R. A semi-structural approach to estimate South Africa’s potential output, South African Reserve Bank. 2014.

46. Shackleton R. Estimating and projecting potential output using CBO’s forecasting growth model. Working paper 2018-3. 2018 [Electronical source]. URL: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/53558

47. Global economic prospects. January 2018: Broad-Based Upturn, but for How Long? Washington, DC: World Bank. DOI:10.1596/978-1-4648-1163-0.

48. Andersson M., Szörfi, B., Tóth, M. andZorellN. Potential output in the post-crisis period. ECB. Economic Bulletin, 7:49—70. 2018 [Electronical source]. URL: http://www.ecb.europa.eu>pub >html>eb201807.en.html

49. Alberola E., Estrada A. and Santabárbara D. Growth and imbalances in Spain: a reassessment of the output gap. Journal of Spanish economic association. 2014.5 (2-3). P. 333—356. DOI: 10.1007/s 13209-014-0112-z

50. Berger H., Dowling T., Lunan S., Mrkair M., Rabanal D., Sanjani T. Steady as she goes: estimating potential output during financial “Booms and Busts”. IMF. Working Paper 15/233. 2015 [Electronical source]. URL: https://ideas.repec.org/p/imf/imfwpa/15-233.html

51. Coibion O., Gorodnichenko Y. and Ulate M. “The Cyclical Sensitivity in Estimates of Potential Output”. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, 2018. Vol. 49 (2 (Fall)). P. 343—441.

52. Vo D., Nguyen T., Tran N. and Vo A. What Factors Affect Income Inequality and Economic Growth in Middle-Income Countries? Journal of Risk and Financial Management. № 12 (1). 2019 [Electronical source]. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12010040

53. Cingano F. Trends in Income Inequality and its Impact on Economic Growth. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers. No. 163. OECD Publishing. 2014 [Electronical source]. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxrjncwxv6j-en

54. Dabla-Norris E., Kochhar K., Ricka F., Suphaphiphat N. and Tsounta E. Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective. International Monetary Fund. 2015 [Electronical source]. URL: https://ideas.repec.org/p/imf/imfsdn/15-13.html

55. Bernardo G. and D’Alessandro S. 2016. System-dynamic analysis of employment and inequality impacts of low-carbon investment in Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. DOI: 10.1016/j. eist .2016.04.006

56. Taylor L., Foley D. and Rezai A. An Integrated Approach to Climate Change, Income Distribution, Employment, and Economic Growth. Ecological economics, 2016. 121(C): 196—205.

57. Hardt L. and O'NeillD. Ecological Macroeconomic Models: Assessing Current Developments. Ecological Economics. 2017. 134. P. 198—211 [Electronical source]. URL: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

58. Congress Budget Office. 2019. An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2019 to 2029. [Electronical source]. URL: http:// www.cbo.gov/publication/55551

59. David H., Gatti D. 2018. Agent-based macroeconomics. Bielefeld working papers in Economics and Management. 2. DOI: 10.4119/unibi/2916999

60. Dosi G., RoventiniA. More is Different ... and Complex! The Case for Agent-Based Macroeconomics. LEM. Working paper series, 2019/01. 2019 [Electronical source]. URL: lemwps/2019-01.html

61. Hodgson G. Conceptualizing Capitalism: Institutions, Evolution, Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up