Sordid Boon? : The Context of Sustainability in Historical and Contemporary Global Economics 9781936320578

Citation preview

SORDID BOON?

SORDID BOON? THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABILITY IN HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL ECONOMIES

SARAH LUMLEY

ACADEMICA PRESS BETHESDA - DUBLIN - PALO ALTO

Library of Congress Cataloguing‐in‐Publication Data  Lumley, Sarah, 1957Sordid boon? : the context of sustainability in historical and contemporary global economies / Sarah Lumley. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-936320-57-8 (alk. paper) 1. Sustainable development--History. 2. Sustainability--Economic aspects. 3. Environmental policy. 4. Social policy. I. Title. HC79.E5L857 2013 337--dc23 2012044817

    Copyright 2013 by Sarah Lumley

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.    

Academica Press, LLC  Box 60728  Cambridge Station  Palo Alto, CA. 94306    Website: www.academicapress.com    to order: 650‐329‐0685  1

 

 

DEDICATION

This book is dedicated to my daughters Serena and Clea with much love and appreciation.

 

CONTENTS Foreword

xi

Acknowledgements

xv

1

2

3

The Contexts of Economics And Sustainability Introduction

1

History and Ethics

9

A Brief Review of Sustainable Development

15

Outline of this Book

21

Endnotes

27

Eighteenth Century Ideas Introduction

35

Adam Smith’s World

37

Predecessors and Contemporaries in Political Economy

39

English and Scottish Contemporaries: Malthus, Paley and Hume

45

Summary

51

Endnotes

52

The Work of Adam Smith Introduction

55

Moral Sentiments and the Invisible Hand

58

Sordid Boom?   

ii 

4

5

6

The Wealth of Nations

62

Smith’s Role for Government and State

71

Summary

79

Endnotes

81

Darwin And the Natural Philosophers Introduction

85

Darwin’s Predecessors and Contemporaries

89

Responses to Origin of Species

95

The Descent of Man

98

Huxley’s Overview

106

Conclusion

110

Endnotes

111

The Romantics: Authoritarians And Liberals Introduction

115

Romantic Authoritarians: Carlyle and Ruskin

118

Mill, Ruskin, Carlyle and Darwin

122

John Stuart Mill: A Romantic Liberal

126

In Brief

130

Endnotes

131

Poets, Pre-Raphaelites And Conservationists Introduction

135

William Wordsworth

137

Tennyson and Arnold

142

The Pre-Raphaelites

147

Octavia Hill

150

Concluding Comments

155

Endnotes

156

iii

Contents 7

8

9

Scientists, Economists, Philosophers And Feminists Introduction

161

The Spread of New Ideas and Feminist Thought

165

The Popularisers of New Ideas

168

More Female Intellectuals and Feminist Thinkers

179

Pointers to the Present

194

Endnotes

197

Economics and Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century Introduction

203

Taxes, Subsidies and Government Policy

208

The Australian Resources Super Profits Tax

213

The Australian Carbon Price

218

Policy Instruments and Public Private Partnerships

224

PPPs

227

The Wonthaggi Desalination Plant

231

Inside a PPP

238

Summary

242

Endnotes

244

Lessons from History Introduction

257

The Ethical Dimension

260

Interdisciplinary Dialogue

262

Looking to the Future

264

Endnotes

272

Bibliography

275

Index

301

 

FOREWORD

A central theme of Sarah Lumley’s book is that the work of very influential intellectuals and thinkers from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been repeatedly misconstrued over time so that the original ideas often bear little resemblance to how they are used, taught and interpreted today. The policy effect of this misinterpretation, as discussed later in the book, is often to have unintended consequences, and revisiting the original theories, ideas and intentions of the scholars and the context in which their work was written is indeed instructive. This book makes an important contribution to the debate about public policy and economics. It is essential reading for economists and lay people trying to understand where present day economics has gone wrong. In this book, Sarah Lumley also sets out to understand the notion of sustainable development, what it is and its origin and context. As she delves into the history of ideas that have shaped modern social policy, politics, economies and societies she proposes that the sustainability concept has existed for quite some time in all but name. Her exploration of the relatively modern notion of sustainable development which so easily trips off the pages of theses, policy documents and political dictums, demonstrates that it is an amalgam of ideas drawn from the sciences, the arts, philosophy, justice and religion, many of which were first debated and published centuries ago.

Sordid Boom?    It is no wonder then that ‘sustainable development is many things to many people xii 

… and variously defined, refined and honed to suit the requirements of its users’ (p. 7). Importantly however, the notion of sustainable development is generally used to describe a commitment to social and ethical concepts and to which economics is added; a consequence of which is the concept of the triple bottom line, which (mistakenly) now takes precedence over its constituent parts. Further, Lumley’s examination of their work shows that the eighteenth and nineteenth century intellectuals and scholars were multi-disciplinary in their thinking and work. They did not view issues or concepts in isolation but rather considered them as inter-related and part of an inter-disciplinary continuum. Even though Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, published in the middle of the nineteenth century caused a sensation, as did Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, where the Invisible Hand appeared in 1759, the ideas were not necessarily new. Rather, they were a progression of thought and debate that had been around for some time prior to publication. Lumley examines the writings of a diverse range of literary and intellectual luminaries like Adam Smith, William Paley and Charles Darwin, and their subsequent contributions to the idea of sustainable development. Poets such as Wordsworth recognised and celebrated the environment and his work as an environmental activist is examined. So too is the work of feminist educators, scientists and political economists such as Lydia Becker, Catherine Spence, Arabella Buckley and John Stuart Mill. Many of their ideas focused on social justice, humanity’s relationship with rural and urban environments, and the importance of sustaining the earth. Lumley’s re-assessment of the pillars of modern economic thought and the social and historical contexts in which they were written obliges teachers and practitioners of economics to at least reconsider how we understand and use the theories in our daily work in the twenty first century. Within the context of Western society as we experience it today, it is difficult to comprehend the influence and importance of religious conviction and moral sentiment as the underpinnings of the classical economic theories. It comes as some surprise that

Foreword

xiii

Adam Smith and his contemporaries were as concerned about altruism and the ethics of efficiency as they were about human behaviour as a motivator of selfinterest and marketplace dynamics. The market was identified as an opportunity to improve the lives of those less fortunate and to create opportunities for the future of humanity, rather than quarantining opportunity and advantage for the few. The eighteenth century intellectuals understood the consequences of the French revolution and were concerned that production capacity should be harnessed to enhance morality, equity and justice whilst also nurturing the land and its resources for the future good of all humanity. As noted by Lumley (p. 80) ‘inter- and intra-generational equity, so strongly promoted in sustainable development, make an appearance in their work, as does concern for the environment and the future’. Intellectuals and scholars continue to be concerned about equitable access to resources, justice, social responsibility, enduring value and the welfare and sustainability of society. Lumley concludes this work by examining recent policy decisions in Australia and their implications in light of the ideas of the eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers, sustainable development, triple bottom line accounting and ‘good economics’. Professor Fiona Haslam McKenzie Professorial Fellow, Curtin Graduate School of Business (CGSB), Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia

Principal Research Leader Co-operative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are numerous people whose help and support allowed me to complete this book. Although there are too many to name, I’m grateful to them all. While the task took me longer than I could have envisaged, all assistance from friends, colleagues and, indeed some strangers, was invaluable. First, I am indebted to Rev. Peter Francis and the staff at Gladstone’s Library (St Deiniol’s) in Hawarden, North Wales. I began writing this book there after receiving the 2005 Dr Daisy Ronco Scholarship for research in nineteenth century studies. This residential scholarship afforded me the privilege of having access to Gladstone’s magnificent collection of nineteenth-century books and manuscripts in the beautiful, purpose-built Victorian library. As well as having access to early editions of celebrated works, I could read pamphlets and other works by lesser-known writers of the era, which helped me obtain a more authentic feel for the context of their time. I will always be grateful to my former colleagues in Geography at the University of Western Australia (UWA), whose intelligence, humour, knowledge and support was unfailing when I was beset by illness and disablement. Foremost among them are Professor Dennis Rumley, Dr Brian Shaw, Dr Marion Hercock, Dr Ian Alexander, and Adjunct Professor Patrick Armstrong, who also enlivened my interest in history and Charles Darwin. For seminars, space and discussions, my thanks are due to Professor Ben White, Professor Michael Burton, Emeritus

Sordid Boom?

xvi

Professor Bob Lindner, Dr Jo Pluske, Dr Greg Hertzler, Associate Professor Atakelty Hailu and Jan Taylor, colleagues currently, or formerly, in the School of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UWA. Special thanks are due to Lynette Abbott, Winthrop Professor in the School of Earth and Environment at UWA, who has been a mentor, inspiration and colleague for many years. Thanks are also due to Emeritus Professor Margaret Seares, AO, of the Vice Chancellery and Emeritus Professor Di Walker in the School of Plant Biology. I am much indebted to the friends and colleagues who read drafts of all or part of the manuscript, and who gave me much needed feedback and criticism. While their input is greatly appreciated, they are in no way responsible for any errors, omissions, misinterpretations or opinions expressed here. In that regard, thanks to Professor Fiona McKenzie, Associate Professor Ian Wills, Dr Charlotte Brack, Dr Kate Thornton, Bette Moore, Doris Tate, and Ian Gray. Thank you also to Catherine Watson for giving me access to her newspaper archives. I will be forever grateful to Dr Nicholas Silver, and Emeritus Prof Alex Cohen without whom this book would doubtless have remained unfinished. Finally, thank you to friends and family, variously, for their debates, discussions, affection, weekend escapes, and support over the years. They include my daughters, my sisters, my nephews and nieces, and my friends-Joan Phillips, Athena Andriotis, Leni Brockmuller, Barbara Pedersen, Margaret Raven, David Ravine, Margie Winstanley, Margaret Lumley, Bill and Ailsa Stent, Cathy and John Loughridge, Marion and Jeff Bruce, Graeme Henry, and anyone whose name I have omitted through sheer absent-mindedness.

 

CHAPTER 1 THE CONTEXTS OF ECONOMICS AND SUSTAINABILITY Increased interactions with disciplines that economists have often mocked as unscientific would greatly improve economists’ understanding of the real world and would be more truly scientific. Robert Johnson: Economists; A Profession at Sea.

Introduction This book puts economics in the context of other disciplines in order to reaffirm its ethical foundations. Such reaffirmation should help us to learn how we, and our descendants, can continue to live well on earth by balancing the consumption and conservation of our natural resources. Economic, social and environmental policies will better achieve that balance if we can appreciate the origins of those disciplines and understand the intentions of the intellectuals who developed them. Economics is the main discipline used to allocate resources, but for most people its jargon is both confusing and dull. In truth few people understand the intricacies of economic theory. Does it then make sense that politicians use economics as the justification for their preferred policies? Is it any wonder that people wishing to know the real implications of election promises and other policies feel bewildered by the web of ‘economic’ arguments? To make things even more difficult for the well-intentioned voter, many arguments, especially in

Sordid Boon?

2

the political sphere, use ideologically biased or erroneous interpretations of economics to justify exploiting natural resources and privatising public utilities and services. On top of all that, our perplexed citizen must consider the seemingly omniscient concept of sustainable development. My aim in this book is to provide general readers with a broad but basic understanding of economics and the history of related ideas as they influence important environmental and social policy issues. I will examine and critique modern applications of market economics, sometimes referred to as ‘economic rationalism’1, to shed light on some of their ideological biases. The driving force behind both economic theory and the modern concept of sustainability is essentially ethical. I will show that this ethical premise runs as a common thread through the history of eighteenth and nineteenth century thought where the origins of ‘laissez-faire’ market economics and the sustainability concept lie. The term ‘sustainable development’ first appeared in the public policy forum in the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 2 report Our Common Future in the late 1980s. But it was not until the new century began that the shorter word, sustainability, reached much wider public consciousness. Sustainability was embraced by government agencies and multinational corporations; lawyers and churches; conservation groups and small business; continental giants and tiny island nations. Sustainability was welcomed as the way of the future, a concept so wholesome yet so malleable that those of all religious, political and national allegiances could apparently engage in it without fear of recrimination3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. The main purpose of this book is to explore briefly the history of neoclassical economic theory in the context of sustainable development while keeping the history of other relevant modern day disciplines in perspective. This is important because of the predominant role of economics in policy making. The exploration of history relates particularly to the parallel evolution of theories and ideas in economics with the arts, the natural sciences, and with the rise of emancipation and feminism. It also concerns the effect of moral sentiment on the

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

3

  intellectuals who proposed and developed the ideas that so strongly influence current policy development. The book is not born of idle speculation, nor is it born of an abstract hunger for knowledge. Rather it is anchored in the ongoing quest for practicable economic, environmental and social policy that can help to stop the economically irreversible decline of the life support systems upon which humanity relies. In order to apply science and economics rigorously to the management of earth’s systems in the twenty-first century we need a basic understanding of not just the complex theories and assumptions within those disciplines, but also the intentions, contexts and motivations of the people who developed them. Consequently, I argue the ideas, beliefs and theories that contribute to the concept of sustainability are, from their inception, based on moral concerns for the wellbeing of society and the environment. Twenty-first century interpretations and applications of economics in particular are driving global policy, sometimes with disastrous consequences, as in the 2008 global financial crash. If current interpretations and applications of theory to policy are erroneous, or if the theories are wrong or used outside of their intended context, then modern policy which is strongly dependent on the paradigm of empirical, evidence based science and free market economics may be doomed to fail in the long term. While the current paradigm is by no means optimal, it is globally predominant and must, at least until we have a better paradigm, be applied consistently. Nowhere is this problem of definition, meaning and intent more evident than in the disastrous debate on human induced climate change which has raged for more than twenty years. For example, the Australian Industry Commission published a report on the ‘Costs and Benefits of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ back in 199111 in which it raised concerns about the social costs of both greenhouse and non greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Following the failure of participating nations to agree on a definitive course of action to control greenhouse gas emissions at the United Nations Climate

Sordid Boon?

4

Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009, and in Durban in 2011, the Australian Government’s proposal to introduce a carbon price was increasingly politicised. The powerful and wealthy mining and fossil fuel industries managed to convince a significant proportion of the Australian electorate that a (modest) carbon price would impose major costs on individual taxpayers, the substantial social costs mentioned above by the usually conservative Industry Commission not withstanding. On 10 July 2011, the Australian Government proposed a much weakened ‘Clean Energy Plan for Australia’ to be debated in Parliament. Although Parliament passed the Plan the powerful mining lobby and the Liberal Opposition vociferously opposed the carbon price to the extent that by early 2012 it was so unpopular with the electorate that it seemed almost inevitable that it would lose the government the 2013 federal election. Despite objective scientific evidence of the damage already taking place as a consequence of human induced climate change, ideological and self-interested arguments are frequently used to oppose economically sound policies. Such policies have often striven to internalise the large and growing costs imposed on society that are associated with fossil fuel use. According to economic theory, if the price of fossil fuel were increased to reflect such costs this would, for example, have the effect both of decreasing consumption and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These problems, which are influenced by the misinterpretation of economics in general, and of market economics in particular, will be considered briefly in chapter eight where Australian climate change policy and the reaction to a carbon tax will be reviewed as one of two succinct case studies. The rationale behind the construction of an expensive desalination plant in Wonthaggi, Victoria, being built under the auspices of a Public Private Partnership will also be briefly assessed. The plant is intended to supplement water supplies to Melbourne following depletion of purpose built dams after years of drought. The drought has been attributed to human induced climate change. The Commonwealth

5

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

  Government’s Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency12 notes that a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) study predicts reduced stream flows that would significantly reduce Melbourne’s water supply by 2050 as a result of climate change. However, compared with some of Australia’s other states, Melbourne is well off in terms of water availability because while Melbourne’s dams received more than 60 per cent of normal water inflow, Brisbane, Sydney and Perth received less than 45 per cent. As with many other nations, Australia’s much touted sustainability strategy, the 1992 National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, has not only failed to ensure sustainable use of the country’s natural resources, its influence seems to have been so negligible that the problems it was established to solve have, in many instances, significantly worsened. The consequences of this for social justice, as well as for environmental integrity are very serious. It would seem that recognising the ethical roots of economics is more cogent and urgent now than at any other time since the discipline’s inception. Ten years after the United Nations ‘Earth Summit’ on Environment and Development in Rio

13 14

where the 27 guiding principles of sustainable

development were posited in Agenda 21, Michael Decleris, the Vice President of the Hellenic Council of State 15 observed, as had others, that sustainability is a moral concept which concerns much more than the environment. Against this background

of

erudite

reflection,

mining

companies,

non-government

organisations (NGOs) and local councils mobilised their thoughts on sustainable development, with state and national governments not so many steps ahead. Multiple disciplines inform social and environmental policy in the modern world. Frequently the historical context in which influential theories were developed and popularised is lost to current practitioners within their specialised disciplines. The last two decades of the twentieth century were particularly important to the slow coalescence of interdisciplinary and pluralist thought that has led to the growing acceptance of multidisciplinary approaches to problem solving.

Globally,

sustainable

development

is

currently

the

dominant

Sordid Boon?

6

multidisciplinary approach used to develop policy agendas. Its principles have been absorbed into and made explicit in United Nations frameworks and in the legislation of a number of states and nations. The Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EP&BC Act), in which principles of ecologically sustainable development’ (ESD) are clearly outlined, is one example of such legislation. In this Act,16 the first principle of ESD is that: ‘decision making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations’. The inclusion of inter- and intra-generational equity in the legislation gives an ethical dimension to ‘decision making processes’. Sustainable development is fundamentally a moral concept, and pluralistic thought in an essentially ethical context guided the founders of the modern disciplines in economics and science. I propose that their moral persuasions led them to focus on the wellbeing of humanity while recognising the importance of environmental conservation to long-term human welfare. Some of the intellectuals discussed here wrote in detail on this matter as they developed theories in their specialist areas 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . Whether they were scientists, economists or philosophers their work frequently reflected a real desire to achieve what we now think of as sustainable development. The argument that sustainability is a pervasive moral concept that influenced eighteenth and nineteenth century thought can be furthered through examination of its historical context. Economics, science, art, poetry, feminism and conservation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries are thus briefly reviewed in support of the argument that a pluralist moral perspective motivated the development of the ideas that are translated into the economic, conservation and social justice triple bottom line25 of sustainability policy today. Another objective of this book is to argue for the need to understand the historical contexts of sustainable development in order to implement more effective applications of science and economics to social and environmental policy and to realise workable sustainable development globally. Understanding

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

7

  historical contexts and perspectives is also important if misinterpreting the basic tenets and intentions of economic and other theory is to be avoided. This is by no means a new idea26. Sustainable development is many things to many people. The term was first applied in the World Conservation Strategy that stressed the link between the conservation of biological systems and human well-being

27

. Sustainable

development has been variously defined, redefined and honed to suit the requirements of its users. However, the most widely known and accepted definition of sustainable development was the first, coined in the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future 28 . In that report, the World Commission on Environment and Development stated that sustainable development is: ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. This definition was written in the context of social and economic development and environmental conservation so it was implicit that social, environmental and economic considerations would be accommodated. However, economics may have been intended more as a means to realise sustainable development, than as an end in itself. According to the WCED29 report, sustainable development ‘… contains two key concepts: The concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which over-riding priority should be given; and, The idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs’. While the WCED report made specific reference to social justice considerations and to the environment it made no specific reference to economics, either in the definition or in the key concepts of sustainable development. Many viewed the word ‘development’ as encompassing market economics like the World Bank’s model of ‘growth centred development’30. Clarke31 states that this model ‘favours the liberal market economy, globalisation, removal of trade barriers and reducing the power and influence of government’. Sometimes the apparently interchangeable use of the terms ‘sustainable development;’ and

Sordid Boon?

8

‘sustainable growth’ within the report added to ambiguity about the role of and nature of economics. This ambiguity fuelled the notion that market economics, however it was understood, might be the foundation of the concept of sustainable development rather than a tool for its accomplishment32. Following some lively intellectual debate among people such as the former World Bank Chief Economist, Herman Daly33, the word ‘growth’ was subsequently dropped and ‘sustainable development’ became the accepted term, as apparently intended by the WCED. In fact, the WCED had continued from the delineation of the ‘key concepts’ of sustainable development to propose that the social and economic goals of all nations should be founded on ‘consensus’ about sustainable development and on a plan to attain it. Even with the best intentions, consensus about the meaning of the concept has been difficult to achieve. This has caused problems with developing workable long-term policies. The original definition of sustainable development made no assumptions about what type of economics was to be applied to development. Essentially, sustainable development appears to have been intended as an ethical or moral concept that would accommodate the needs of all people, in particular ‘the essential needs of the world’s poor’, those of the ‘global south’, while conserving and protecting the world’s environment. Another definitive book in the sustainable development debate, Blueprint for a Green Economy, was published two years after Our Common Future34. In this book, the authors proposed ways in which economics could be used to support the concepts outlined by WCED. The focus of that and many subsequent publications on sustainable development was very much in keeping with the priority identified by WCED: addressing the needs of the poor, especially in lessdeveloped nations 35 36 . The late British economist David Pearce, one of the Blueprint authors, noted the popularity of the sustainability concept in all fields of enterprise37. Pearce noted the plethora of sustainable development definitions and he made the increasingly relevant point that it is more important to realise sustainability than to define it38. Other analysts and writers like Decleris15 also

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

9

  saw the importance of ethics to the sustainability concept as well as the contribution that economics could make 39

40 41 42 43

. Indeed Elliott 44 , when

discussing whether sustainability is essentially a moral concept cites the work of a number of authors who support that contention45 46. There was thus controversy at the turn of the twenty-first century about whether sustainable development was fundamentally based upon ethical principles. In the nineteenth century, there was debate about whether economics would compromise the ethical values that were viewed by many important intellectuals as the foundation of social policy. The philosopher Thomas Carlyle was concerned that economics would render moral values into little more than a ‘cost calculus’47, while the poet William Wordsworth saw it as a ‘sordid boon’48. History and Ethics The means to develop and disseminate new theories and knowledge became available in the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Those centuries hosted both an industrial revolution and an intellectual revolution that led to a burgeoning of information and communication that subsequently helped to establish the separate disciplines that play a dominant role in modern policy making. However, one of the most powerful contexts in which the eighteenth and nineteenth-century intellectuals lived and worked was generally that of an unquestioning religious devotion inextricably associated with a belief in moral sentiment or moral justice. Today, moral sentiment and moral justice would be most closely aligned with the broad general understanding of ethics. However ethics tends to be little emphasised as a priority in modern policy, which is often dominated by commercial or financial considerations, the triple bottom line of sustainable development notwithstanding. While little emphasis is placed on the ethical underpinnings of economic theory, there is no shortage of literature in which this is discussed. After all, Adam Smith, the 'father' of market economics was a moral philosopher whose first great work was about moral sentiment49. In this regard,

Sordid Boon?

10

the work of Amartya Sen is briefly considered in this chapter, as well as later in the book. In apparent contrast to the present, the pre-eminence of moral sentiment in the ideas of eighteenth and nineteenth-century intellectuals provided for them both motivation and explanation for ethical human behaviour. Some perceived such behaviour to reflect the altruism of the divine creator who made humanity in his own image. For example Adam Smith, William Paley, Alfred Lord Tennyson and Octavia Hill saw the ethical and altruistic obligations of the human race as being determined by an omnipresent and omniscient God 50 51 . For the rare exceptions like Hume, whose atheism grieved his friend Adam Smith, ethics was still be the dominant criterion for policy making, even if God had nothing to do with it. Moral justice was the paradigm of the era, though generally established in the Christian context525354. Within the context of Western society today, it is perhaps difficult to comprehend the influence and importance of religious conviction and moral sentiment as a driving social force. Nonetheless, if the ethical/religious foundations of classical theories are not analysed in their own context relative to the modern world, there is a danger of misinterpreting and misapplying those and subsequent theories in the development of current economic, social and environmental policy. Indeed, it could be argued that the global financial crash of 2008 resulted from a combination of a fundamental misunderstanding of the work of early economists and an ideologically-driven interpretation of the ‘free market’. The ethical premises on which the natural and economic sciences are built are important to comprehending the theories and intentions of early practitioners, whether they were devoutly religious like Adam Smith, atheist like Hume, or apostate like Harriet Martineau. This point has, of course, been made many times before and it has been made often and recently by Amartya Sen55, unarguably one of the world’s best economic thinkers. Smith, for example, in Wealth of Nations suggested that while the division of labour in a factory made for efficient production, it was intellectually

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

11

  stultifying for factory workers to spend all day repeating the same task. To alleviate their mental stagnation Smith proposed that, for ethical reasons (which are not accommodated by economic efficiency because they over arch it), the government should provide free education for factory workers. In The Descent of Man 56 , first published in 1871, Darwin argued that humanity as a species had survived and evolved because of a tribal cooperative ethic that encouraged mutual support. In his view selfishness, though evident in some individuals, was not in itself responsible for the survival of the strongest. In humans as well as other species it was survival of the fittest community, not of the selfish individual, which led to evolutionary progress. For Darwin ‘the main point, on which … the whole question of the moral sense turns …’57 was cooperation and, sometimes, self-sacrifice. Darwin noted that, while he didn’t wholly agree with him, Adam Smith had also made observations about altruistic or sympathetic behaviour. Darwin’s comment on Smith’s concern about altruism is extremely important partly because of the significance of its context, but mostly because Darwin and Smith are two very influential intellectuals who are repeatedly misinterpreted by people or causes who use their names to lend gravitas to questionable activities or ideas. Darwin’s comments about Smith’s reflections on altruism relate to the difficulties that utilitarians face when asked to explain altruism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept that operates on the principle that the motivating force for people’s behaviour is one of self-gratification or personal utility. The general premise is that we each act according to what gives us greatest utility or makes us happiest. Put very simply, the premise is that if each of us acts to maximise our own utility then the utility of society will be maximised. A loose interpretation of this philosophy has been used to suggest that individual selfishness can promote social well-being. Neoclassical market economics is based on utilitarianism and although the promotion of selfishness is not really what this is about, the notion that we were primarily motivated by seeking our own happiness did not always sit comfortably

Sordid Boon?

12

with Adam Smith. Explaining altruistic behaviour has caused a few problems for utilitarians and some of them take the rather complex theory involved to the conclusion that there is no such thing as altruism58. Put very simply they argue that seemingly altruistic acts are actually motivated by self-gratification. That is, the pleasure, or utility, that people experience from doing a good deed is the reason for their action rather than to help another person without being rewarded. This, they argue, reveals the act to be selfish not altruistic. It is difficult to reconcile that position with the acts of people who die to save the lives of others, and Smith ultimately concluded that, although it’s difficult to explain, people do display an unselfish capacity for compassion. That not withstanding, utilitarian theory is sometimes used within the current economic paradigm to justify selfishness or even ruthlessness59. The value of the passage below, which quotes Darwin on Smith, is found both in its honesty and in the fact that neither Smith nor Darwin could find a satisfactory utilitarian explanation for altruistic behaviour. Mr Bain, to whom Darwin refers in this passage, is Alexander Bain a Scottish philosopher and academic like Smith, and a close colleague of John Stuart Mill. Darwin60 says of Smith on altruism: Adam Smith formerly argued, as has Mr Bain recently, that the basis of sympathy lies in our strong retentiveness of former states of pain or pleasure. Hence, ‘the sight of another person enduring hunger, cold, fatigue, revives in us some recollection of these states, which are painful even in idea’. We are thus impelled to relieve the sufferings of another, in order that our own painful feelings may be at the same time relieved. In like manner we are led to participate in the pleasures of others. But I cannot see how this view explains the fact that sympathy is excited, in an immeasurably stronger degree, by a beloved, than by an indifferent person… The explanation may lie in the fact that, with all animals, sympathy is directed solely towards members of the same community … but not to all the individuals of the same species. While Smith, like Alexander Bain, tentatively offered, though was never wholly satisfied with, a utilitarian explanation for sympathy, Darwin placed little emphasis on its significance, stating61:

13

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability  

In however complex a manner this feeling may have originated, as it is one of high importance to all those animals which aid and defend one another, it will have been increased through natural selection; for all those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring. Ultimately, regardless of its cause ‘sympathy’ was for Smith, Darwin and Bain a moral issue. Ethics and moral sentiment, in their times provided the context within which their seminal works on science, economics and society were developed. As mentioned earlier, the intellectual and political move towards multidisciplinary

policy

frameworks,

globally,

accommodates

the

social,

environmental and economic elements of sustainability. These are the three elements of triple bottom line (TBL) accounting that is an integral part of sustainable development theory where ‘ethics’ is a stated requirement. The concept of sustainable development has been rapidly popularised and embraced since the release of the United Nations Council on Environment and Development publication Our Common Future. This has resulted in a broad and sometimes controversial debate about its exact meaning, and how it might be implemented 62 . It has also led to the widespread acceptance of sustainable development as a means of achieving social justice and environmental conservation, while increasing human prosperity. There was some recognition of earlier theoretical discourse, prominent in the late 1960s and 1970s that proposed limiting economic growth and promoting environmental conservation63. However, sustainability concepts as drivers of social, environmental and economic policy are generally held to be late twentieth and early twenty-first century phenomena. It is little appreciated that both well known and lesser known nineteenthcentury intellectuals from a wide range of disciplines researched, debated and promoted ideas concerning social and environmental well-being that resemble the approaches to policy resolution now embedded in concepts of sustainability 64 . Some might assert that, apart from academic interest, recognising the early origins

Sordid Boon?

14

of sustainability is of little relevance to the twenty-first century. I argue here that given the origin and context of economics in particular, the reverse is true, and that proper understanding of eighteenth and nineteenth-century ideas in science, economics, philosophy, art and literature is of great importance to modern policy65 Historically, utilitarian classical economics emerged as a policy driver coupled with contemporaneous ideas like Darwin’s theory of evolution, Malthus’ association of economics and the natural sciences, Mill’s philosophical concern for the future of the world’s environment, and Martineau’s emphasis on the need for altruism (moral justice) to be applied in parallel with Smith’s proposal for the limited application of utilitarian economics66 . In the current free market paradigm that utilitarian economics has not only been taken well beyond its intended use and capability, but it has also been subject to quite a radical ideological misinterpretation. Twenty-first century government implementation of TBL accounting under the auspices of sustainable development, appears to accommodate the multidimensional ideas and concerns of many of the early European intellectuals1667. However, the frequent re-emergence of economic ‘growth’ as a putative goal of sustainability accounting begs the question of the equality of weighting between its social, environmental and economic elements. This is of particular concern since the word ‘development’ supplanted ‘growth’ in sustainability theory and implementation following vigorous debate on the issue in the 1990s. The former World Bank economist, Herman Daly, appeared to have had the final word on that matter when he dubbed the term sustainable growth ‘a bad oxymoron’ on the entirely sensible grounds that nothing can grow forever. Even with the best of intentions it does not seem possible to implement TBL accounting effectively without some understanding of the historical contexts of modern theories in economics and the natural sciences68.

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

15

  A Brief Review of Sustainable Development Limits to Growth Many ideas now identified with sustainable development were absorbed into global environmental policy agreements following the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 69

44

. In the same year,

Meadows et al. published The Limits to Growth 70 which discussed arguments about the down side of economic growth There was some resonance between the stated objectives of the U.N. Conference and Limits to Growth, and some of the concerns expressed in those forums were also expressed elsewhere. E.J. Mishan, the well respected British economist, had published a number of articles focusing on the negative aspects of economic growth before 1972, a theme that he continued to pursue71. Hamilton noted Mishan’s far sighted work in this area72and developing the theme of Mishan’s stance on growth, Lumley73 observes: With his incisive understanding and knowledge of economic theory, Mishan went beyond offering critiques only of the application of economics to the promotion of growth and consumption. He also penetrated to the core of what many might see as the ideological interpretation of welfare economics for political purposes. ‘Welfare economics is to be regarded as a study of the contribution economics can make to advancing the study of social welfare’. Prefacing this comment Mishan74 had stated: ‘inasmuch as current allocation economics derives its rationale from welfare economics, the socially relevant part of that subject can have no affinity with the species of sophisticated games which economists can play with any ranking device that catches their fancy’. In 1990 Herman Daly, then Chief Economist with the World Bank, published a definitive article about sustainable development’ in the new pluralist journal Ecological Economics. Daly suggested that the term sustainable growth was a ‘bad oxymoron’ and he proposed that ‘development’ should be substituted for ‘growth’75. Daly’s arguments notwithstanding, there were many who believed that economic growth was important to sustainable development and the issue, already ideologically based to some extent, became increasingly politicised. The ‘anti-

Sordid Boon?

16

growth’ proponents were labelled as left wing and the ‘pro-growth’ proponents as right wing. The association of politics and ideology with positions on economic growth and sustainable development meant that the theoretical soundness and analytical rigour of many arguments were overlooked in mainstream publications and the media. Contrary to the ‘objective’ quantitative scientific approach to economic analysis, there is always an element of ideology in democratic decision making. However, all participants in the decision making process should understand its role and these participants must include the general public76. In the 1970s, and again in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, ‘pro-growth’ proponents criticised economists who had argued against continued economic growth on social welfare and environmental grounds. In the seventies, for example, Nevile 77 when specifying the different groups opposing economic growth, singled out Mishan among the economists for particular criticism. More recently, Brittan78 reviewed the book Growth Fetish while describing its Australian author Clive Hamilton as a left-wing environmentalist. Contemporary neoclassical economics, frequently cited as the mainstay of ‘right wing’ and ‘growth’ economics, is not in fact about maximising economic growth through measures like GDP. When we look at its origins, we find that it is about all economic value, market or otherwise, quantifiable or otherwise, and its role in maximising social welfare. However it is probably correct to assume that the majority of the population believes economics to be about growth of GDP. The error, often encouraged by (self) interested parties, is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, its goals, and the assumptions embedded in its theory. This narrow perspective tends to be promoted by politicians of all persuasions when they use economic growth as the fundamental measure of social well-being. Consequently, it is one reason why understanding the role of economic growth has become embedded in many discourses about socially and environmentally sustainable development. Hamilton, like Mishan (and indeed like

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

17

  Sen) is an economist with a good understanding of economic theory and its role in social and environmental welfare. The limits to growth arguments of the twentieth century are thus strongly tied to the emergence and implementation of sustainable development, both as a concept and as a goal. Institutional Background In 1983 the United Nations formed the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Following the publication of its report Our Common Future in 1987, and the attendant interest in sustainable development, an institutional framework overseen by the United Nations emerged. Howes 79 commented on the establishment of WCED in terms of its utilitarian and human focused treatment of environmental problems. He suggested that this approach were more acceptable to the better-off countries than those, for example, that sought a non-growth alternative to market economics. In 1992 the United Nations held a Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro. At that conference, which became known as the (first) ‘Rio Earth Summit’, Agenda 21 was adopted. Intended as a global agenda for the twenty-first century, this document stated that all countries around the world should adopt national strategies for sustainable development that: ‘should build upon and harmonize the various sectoral economic, social and environmental policies and plans that are operating in the country’80. The Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly held in New York in 199781 (also known as the Rio +5 Conference) set a target date of 2002, and confirmed the approach and purpose of national sustainable development strategies as: ‘important mechanisms for enhancing and linking national capacity so as to bring together priorities in social, economic and environmental policies’. Meanwhile, following the Brundtland Report and then the Rio Earth Summit, a number of countries began working towards producing their national Sustainable Development Strategies. For example, in 1989 the UK Government

Sordid Boon?

18

issued Sustaining Our Common Future: A Progress Report by the United Kingdom on Implementing Sustainable Development and the Australian Government published Our Country, Our Future. In 1990, the UK released This Common Inheritance: A Summary of the White Paper on the Environment82 and the Canadian Government published Canada’s Green Plan83 while in 1992 the Government of Pakistan began to implement Pakistan’s National Conservation Strategy84 and Australia published its Interim National Strategy on Ecologically Sustainable Development85. The United Nations also oversaw a number of Millennium Development Goals to assist development, particularly in poorer nations, at the dawn of the twenty-first century. One millennium goal that related particularly to sustaining the environment required integration of sustainability principles into countries’ policies80 In 2002 the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) was held in Johannesburg where Millennium Development Goals, and countries’ progress with the ‘formulation and elaboration of national strategies for sustainable development’ were discussed 86 . The hope was that countries would begin to implement their strategies by 2005. In April 2004 the UN Division for Sustainable Development issued its Assessment Report on National Sustainable Development Strategies: The Global Picture 200380. The results presented in this report were, on the surface, disappointing. Of 191 participating nations, only 12 countries were implementing their National Sustainable Development Strategies (NSDSs), while a further two had government approval for their NSDSs. There should, perhaps, be a degree of encouragement, however, that another 64 countries had made some ground with progressing or facilitating their NSDSs, leaving only 23 countries that had provided no information or had taken no action. In June 2012, twenty years after the original Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, the United Nations held the Rio+20 Sustainable Development Conference. In anticipation of the Rio+20 Summit the UN Secretary General’s

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

19

  High-level Panel on Global Sustainability prepared a report 87 called Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing. The alternative World Economics Association saw the report as deficient 88 and organised an online sustainability conference to address some of its omissions. Overall, the Rio+20 summit was not generally viewed as a success. Even among optimists hopes were never high that it would result in strong by the wealthier nations. Those commitments could have included prompt action on urgent interconnected issues like ensuring food and water security for all, disease eradication, biodiversity protection, and action to mitigate the causes and effects of climate change. However the conference seemed barely to have started before the draft agreement had attracted criticism. The UK Guardian89, which is hardly a hotbed of environmental or social radicalism criticised the draft report for what it lacked which was, according to the Guardian, financial commitment, clarity of purpose, timetabling, and measures of progress. The final conference outcome, which takes the form of a 53 page document called The Future We Want90, reads like the consensus document it is. However, even taking that into account, it is a document that lacks the enthusiasm, power and commitment of the outcome of first Rio conference. The United Nations continues to participate in global sustainable development through its United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) that publishes numerous reports on its activities. One, an annual report produced by the Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE), The DTIE Activity Report, provides a summary of each year’s publications, programs and achievements. UNEP also publishes a magazine Our Planet that focuses on ‘environmentally sustainable development’. In 2003, in keeping with its World Summit commitments, UNEP initiated a process ‘to integrate environmental, social and economic considerations in public policy’. Three years later the results of this process, especially with regard to reducing poverty and increasing ‘sustainable’ trade in less developed nations, were published91. If the volume of literature produced by the institutional participants in sustainable development,

Sordid Boon?

20

especially the United Nations, were a gauge of its success the concept could be deemed to be extremely effective. However, this does not appear to be true when we look at the results. Meanwhile, the National Sustainable Development Strategy produced in response to the UN Earth Summits, and the popularity of the sustainability concept has influenced governments and utilities in Australia. A number of government departments have absorbed sustainability into their names as well as in their operations. For example the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments each established a Department of Sustainability and Environment while the state government of New South Wales formed the Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability. The word sustainability has become institutionalised and is so pervasive that privatised or corporatised profit making utilities that, strictly speaking, could be viewed as unsustainable by virtue of their functions, include sustainability and sustainable development in their publicity materials and mission statements. This is also true of the large multinational mining companies92. In this regard, there is a danger that the term will cease to have any real meaning for the public. In Australia energy providers that use electricity produced from non-renewable resources, such as brown coal and natural gas, produce annual sustainability reports. For example, Origin Energy in Victoria has ‘five year strategies, aligned to the sustainability objectives which guide our commitment to our stakeholders’

93

. In the years since sustainable development has become

mainstream in Australia, resource depletion and greenhouse gas emissions have both increased94 . While many participating nations have accommodated the United Nations Millennium Development Goal cited above ‘to integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes’80, at least in word if not in deed, it is unlikely that institutionalised use of the term has reversed ‘the loss of environmental resources’, decreased poverty or increased inter- or intragenerational equity.

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

21

  Part of the problem with realising ‘true’ sustainability is that the concept has been promoted and developed concurrently with an ideological application of free market economics and anti-interventionist policies. One of the most telling comments on the cause of the global market crash in 2008 was made by Dr Alan Greenspan, former US Federal Reserve Chairman. He confessed a touching faith in [a narrowly interpreted] utilitarianism when he admitted to being in a state of ‘shocked disbelief’ that, contrary to his expectations, the self-interest of American lending institutions had failed to protect shareholders’ equity 95 . In a dialogue between Greenspan, and Mr Henry Waxman, the Chairman of the Committee of Government Oversight and Reform to which he was called to account in October 2008, Greenspan was eloquent. After he admitted to being distressed at discovering his understanding of economics to be flawed Waxman asked him if he found that his ideology wasn’t working. Greenspan replied that Waxman was correct and this was why he was shocked96: Outline of this Book This book is structured in a way that will take the reader through a brief history of economic theory in the context of the intellectual and philosophical ideas that underpin twenty-first century foundations of market economics and sustainability policy. Those eighteenth and nineteenth-century ideas are presented according to discipline, but they show an interdisciplinary consistency that reflects recognition of humanity’s environmental impact, the need for social welfare support, and concern for the future. Such concern accommodated a moral imperative that over rode the evolving free market imperative, even perhaps in the view of the market economy’s strongest and most ideologically motivated proponents such as Smith and Martineau. Analysis of the historical contexts of the various intellectuals assessed here supports arguments by more recent analysts97 that sustainable development is an ethical concept and that modern sustainability policy should prioritise this moral perspective rather than promote economic growth.

Sordid Boon?

22

Sustainability policy, driven by the outcomes of various United Nations summits and conferences, draws together the knowledge, learning and experience of disparate disciplines in an attempt to promulgate workable policy informed by effective interdisciplinary communication22,2,69,13. To this end, it is important to outline and identify the earlier origins of sustainability concepts, and to trace the development of ideas and proposals that have come to drive current policy. The book thus begins by briefly considering the recent past and the present with an overview of the current context of market economics and sustainable development. In the next six chapters an historical overview of influential thinkers in various disciplines is presented. The inter relationships between those disciplines are examined, and their parallels with modern ideas and applications of economics and sustainability are considered. A particular focus on perceptions of economics, nature and ethics runs through the historical chapters, while the reactions of intellectuals to emergent and sometimes radical ideas, like the theory of evolution, is noted. In chapter two, we begin consideration of relevant theories developed by eighteenth and nineteenth-century intellectuals with a discussion of the work and times of the moral philosopher and classical economist Adam Smith. We also consider the work of some of Smith’s antecedents and contemporaries. These include Richard Cantillon, Francois Quesnay, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Malthus, Paley and Hume. The moral context and history of sustainability are briefly assessed within this framework by examining the ideas and intentions of the natural and moral philosophers mentioned above. In addition, interpretations of their work are considered, particularly with respect to the utilitarian versus intuitive schools of thought prominent in the intellectual debates of their era. The ways in which utilitarian economics and its ideological interpretations have come to dominate current global policy is also briefly discussed. In chapter three we examine Adam Smith’s two influential books Theory of Moral Sentiments and An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in the context of his own time. Both books are briefly analysed to

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

23

  elucidate Smith’s intentions for economics and the meaning of his work. His perceived role as ‘the father of market economics’ is briefly assessed, and some of his reflections on ethics and altruism are discussed in the light of his economic theories. His views on the role of government, the nature of land, the invisible hand and the motives of the merchant class, ‘those who live by profit’, whom Smith despised, are also considered with some surprising findings, given the way that his ideas are often portrayed by free-market proponents. Smith’s theories and policy proposals are compared and contrasted with current applications of market economic theory while the influence of market economics on conservation and sustainable development discourses is assessed. The issue of whether Smith’s work has been misinterpreted or misapplied to current free market economic policy is also examined, especially in light of his recommendations for regulation and government intervention. In chapter four there is a brief discussion of the work and context of Charles Darwin and the nineteenth-century natural philosophers. This discussion is conducted against the backdrop of the nineteenth-century intellectual revolution and its relationship to current economics and sustainability concepts. The ideas of naturalists like William Paley who preceded and influenced Darwin are also briefly assessed. The controversies that attended the publication of Darwin’s work on evolution are considered in the context of nineteenth-century thought on morality, religion, population and the environment. In chapter five, we assess the multidisciplinary nature of much of the intellectual work conducted in the nineteenth century while the overlap and interaction between the nascent disciplines is recognised and the continuity of relevant ideas and perceptions is examined. In this chapter there is a particular focus on the works of John Ruskin and Thomas Carlyle, both ‘romantic authoritarians’. Intellectuals like Ruskin and Carlyle worked across a number of present day disciplines. When referring to environmental conservation, John Ruskin used the term ‘sustained’ in a famous phrase that included reference to moral duty, and intra- and inter-generational equity: ‘Yet these are not the less of

Sordid Boon?

24

our duties; nor is our part fitly sustained upon the earth, unless the range of our intended and deliberate usefulness include, not only the companions, but the successors of our pilgrimage’98. Some of Mill’s ideas on political economy are also considered in this chapter while his feminist work is reviewed in chapter seven. In chapter six the perceptions and works of the nineteenth-century romantics, poets and conservationists are considered. These include William Wordsworth, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Matthew Arnold, the pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, and Octavia Hill whose work is reviewed in her role as an urban conservationist. The poets are recognised as early environmental activists alongside their contemporaries in other disciplines. In chapter seven we review the work of female and feminist political economists and social philosophers after a brief synopsis of the work of the popularisers of science. In this chapter there is an emphasis on nineteenth-century feminist thought, and the role of the numerous women involved in the intellectual revolution. Discussion of political economists, educators and philosophers is focused on writers such as Jane Marcet, Harriet Martineau, Lydia Becker, Catherine Spence, John Stuart Mill, and Arabella Buckley as representatives of their disciplines. Among other things, these intellectuals promoted ideas about education and social equity, and humanity’s relationship with landscapes. They linked the environment, political economy, moral sentiment and altruism, and some were much concerned with sustaining the earth for the well-being of future generations. They also tended to support an idea often, expressed in the nineteenth century, that altruism and ethics (moral sentiment) should be the over riding criteria in decision making. In chapter eight modern interpretations and applications of nineteenthcentury thought are considered briefly in light of the preceding chapters before examples of topical policy issues and the use of economics in policy determination are assessed. The role of ideology, especially in the interpretation and application of economics is considered in the twenty-first century context.

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

25

  The original polymath disciplines have separated over the years as bodies of knowledge have grown by orders of magnitude. That growth in knowledge, and the specialist language associated with it, often makes interdisciplinary dialogue difficult for later generations of scientists, economists and conservationists, as well as rendering many of the current policy debates almost incomprehensible to members of the voting public. However, with the advent of mainstream sustainability ideas, multidisciplinary dialogue became easier as frameworks were established in which to communicate knowledge and ideas across disciplines. As mentioned earlier, the economics of Australia’s controversial resources super profits tax and the politically unpopular carbon price are examined. The way in which ideological interpretations of economic theory detract from sustainability and social welfare are considered. The increasing tendency for governments to use Public Private Partnerships for social infrastructure projects is briefly considered in light of the preceding discussion and the economics of Victoria’s beleaguered Wonthaggi desalination plant is assessed. In chapter nine the major points discussed in preceding chapters are briefly summarised and an overview of the issues raised is presented in terms of what lessons we can learn from history. There is also a brief discussion of the outcome of the Rio+20 Conference, held in Rio in 2012, twenty years after the original Earth Summit, and the quest for a new economic paradigm. We can hope that armed with a better understanding of the history and context of important theories in economics, the arts and the natural sciences, readers will be better placed to recognise rigorous economics. They should also be better able to make appropriate responses to socio-economic and environmental policy proposals from all sides of politics, and from the powerful lobby groups who use our natural resources and influence politicians and public opinion about access, pricing and accountability for resource depletion, degradation and pollution, often using the media they own. Overall discussion in this book focuses on the relevance of nineteenthcentury thought to understanding economic theory and the role of ethics in

Sordid Boon?

26

developing workable sustainability policy. It is argued here that the ideas embodied in current interpretations and applications of sustainable development are not in fact new although they are usually presented as such. Rather, they reflect the whole context in which current approaches to science, economics, social reform, art and literature were developed, beginning in the eighteenth century. I argue in this book that the work of both eighteenth and nineteenthcentury intellectuals were most strongly motivated by moral sentiment which now tends to be viewed as subordinate to other considerations, economics in particular. Economics in turn has become separated from its roots that were firmly planted in maximising social welfare and allocating scarce resources rather than in profit maximisation. Modern economics is often erroneously understood to be about commerce, finance and ‘growth’, which is in itself viewed by some economists as being incompatible with sustainable development. Despite Herman Daley’s erudite article on the topic published in 1990, there are still many organisations that aim or claim to achieve sustainable growth. In summary, the ideas that occupied the intellectuals who developed the theories in science and economics that inform modern policy provide the themes for this book, which is structured according to discipline. The main purpose of those ideas was founded in ethics and stemmed from the desire to fulfil the following goals: to improve the welfare of all members of society; to generate and disseminate knowledge; to promote freedom of thought and speech; to protect and conserve the land and environment on which humanity depends; to promote government investment in social infrastructure (a view promulgated by Smith); to encourage limited use of the free market, even among the most committed utilitarian economists; and to promote ethics as the main determinant of government, corporate and individual behaviour. All of these ideas are explored here in the words and contexts of their proponents. Because so much of Smith’s work and that of subsequent writers and thinkers has often been interpreted without direct reference to the original work, possibly by those who have never read the original work, the historical chapters of

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

27

  this book contain quite sizeable quotes from the seminal works of their authors. While this can sometimes seem cumbersome, it is important for readers to have the opportunity to absorb passages relevant to the issues raised in this book in their original form and context, either quoted directly from the theorists who proposed them, or from commentaries on their work by their contemporaries. Once we possess a basic knowledge and understanding of the theories that politicians and others claim to employ in modern policy, and when we have an appreciation of their context, we will be so much better equipped to determine whether the theory is appropriately used. The current economic paradigm, which in the hands of politicians has overseen so many failures, might not be the best paradigm with which to confront and resolve the multitude of environmental and social problems facing humanity in the twenty-first century. While we anticipate a new paradigm that many competent economists are currently working to develop 99 we can, at least, recognise when the current paradigm is being ideologically or politically interpreted in a way that corrupts the basic tenets of the theory on which it claims to be based. Whether that corruption arises through our political system, through corporate interests seeking greater influence and greater profits in the public sphere, or via some other agency, it will condemn the current paradigm to greater failure. An electorate that recognises when policies are based on corrupted theory has the power to reject those policies and, ultimately, to reject the governments that attempt to impose them.                                                          Endnotes 1

For example see Amartya Sen, ‘Adam Smith and the Contemporary World’, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 3, 1 (2010), 50-67, p. 54. and, Viktor Jakupec, ‘Economic Rationalism as the Engine of Policy’, in Terry Evans and Daryl Nation (editors), Opening Education: Policies and Practices from Open and Distance Education (Milton Park: Routledge, 1996). 2 WCED, Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

Sordid Boon?

28

                                                                                                                                                         3 Commonwealth of Australia, The Australian Interim National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1992). 4 Molly Harriss Olson, ‘The US President’s Council on Sustainable Development’, Global Environmental Change, 6, 1 (1996), 63-65. 5 Fabiana Perez and Luis Sanchez, ‘Assessing the Evolution of Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector’, Environmental Management, 43 (2009), 949961. 6 Colin Torrance (1998), ‘Promoting sustainable development at the community level’, European Environment, 8: 1 (1998), 22-27. 7 Government of Singapore, Singapore Agenda 21 (Singapore: Singapore Government Publishing Service, 1999). 8 Government of Western Australia, State Sustainability Strategy (Perth: WA Government Publishing Service, 2003). 9 National Strategies for Sustainable Development, Towards Earth Summit 2002, http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/national-resources/nssd.html 10 Anglo American, ‘Presentation on Anglo American’s Sustainable Development Performance’, 2006, www.angloamerican.com/aal/investorspresentation/2006. 11 IC, Costs and Benefits of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Industry Commission Inquiry Report Volume I, (Canberra: Australian Government, 1991), p. 247, http://www.pc.gov.au/ic/inquiry/15greenhouse.  12 Commonwealth of Australia, ‘Climate Change-Water Resources-Think Change’, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, (Canberra: Australian Government, 2011), p.2, http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climatechange/impacts/ 13 UNCED, ‘Rio Earth Summit’, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992, http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html 14 UNEP, ‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’, United Nations Environment Programme, 1992, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articl eid=1163 15 Michael Decleris, Sustainable Development and the Rule of Law, Global Judges, United Nations Environment Programme, 2001, p.1 my emphasis, unep.org, http://ebookbrowse.com/michael-declaris-doc-d385060311   16 Commonwealth of Australia, The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, (Canberra: The Australian Government Publishing Service, 2000), p.4.  17 See, for example, the works cited from this footnote to footnote 24 below (inclusive): Adam Smith, An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Volumes 1 and 2, (London: Henry Froude, 1908, first published 1776).   18 Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908, first published 1759, edited by D.D. Rafael and A.L. Macfie). 

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

29

                                                                                                                                                           19 Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr Godwin, M. Condorcet and other Writers, (London: J. Johnson, 1966, first published in 1798, reprinted 1926 and 1966 London: Macmillan). 20 William Paley, Natural Theology: Evidences for the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature (London: G. Cowie, 1825, First published 1802).  21 John Ruskin, The Seven lamps of Architecture (Orpington: George Allen, 1883).   22 Thomas Carlyle, Past and Present, London: Chapman and Hall, 1843).   23 Harriet Martineau, Letters on the Laws of Man’s Nature and Development, (London: Atkinson, Henry George, 1851).   24 John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism; On liberty; Essay on Bentham: Together with selected writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, In: Mary Warnock, (editor) Utilitariansim, John Stuart Mill (1861), (London: Collins (Fontana), 1962). 25 The triple bottom line is sometimes known as the TBL, or TBL accounting. 26 For example see Amartya Sen, ‘The Economist Manifesto’, New Statesman, 2010, http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2010/04/smith-market-essaysentiments .  27 IUCN, UNEP and WWF, ‘World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development’, (Galend: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1980).  28 WCED, Our Common Future, p.43, my emphasis. 29 Ibid 30 D.W. Pearce, A. Markandya, and E. Barbier, Blueprint for a Green Economy, (London: Earthscan Publications, 1989).  31 Ron Clarke, ‘Introduction’, in Colin Kirkpatrick, Ron Clarke and Charles Polidano, Handbook on Development Policy and Management, (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2002), p.2.  32 J. Dryzek, The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).  33 Herman Daly, ‘Towards some Operational Principles of Sustainable Development’, Ecological Economics, 2 (1990), 1-6 34 D.W. Pearce et al, Blueprint for a Green Economy. 35 Michael Jacobs, Sustainable Development: Greening the Economy, (London: The Fabian Society, 1990).   36 John Peet, Energy and the Ecological Economics of Sustainability, (Washington DC: Island Press, 1992). 37 Pearce, David, Economics and Environment. Essays on Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development, (Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar, 1999), p. 69.  38 David Pearce, Economics and Environment. Essays on Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development, (Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar, 1999). 39 For example see the next six citations: Michael Redclift, Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions, (London: Methuen, 1987).

Sordid Boon?

30

                                                                                                                                                         40 Lori Gruen, and Dale Jamieson, Reflecting on Nature. Readings in Environmental Philosophy, (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). 41 P. McManus, (1996), ‘Contested terrains: Politics, stories and discourses of sustainability’, Environmental Politics, 5, (1996), 48-73 42 Sarah Lumley, ‘Selfishness or Altruism? An Historical Perspective of Sustainable Development, Economics and Science’, Connections, Autumn 2003, online Journal of the Australian Society for Agricultural and Resource Economics and the Australian Agribusiness Society. 43 Sarah Lumley, ‘Losing the Lands of Plenty? Timescale and discounting in environmental governance’, In: Albert Breton, Georgio Brosio, Silvana Dalmazzone, and Giovanna Garrone, Governing the Environment. Salient Institutional Issues, (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009). 44 Lorraine Elliott, The Global Politics of the Environment, (London: Macmillan, 1998) p.190.  45 Jacobs, Sustainable Development, p.9. 46 Redclift, Sustainable Development. 47 Geoffrey Hodgson, ‘Economics, Environmental Policy and Utilitarianism’, in John Foster (editor), Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment, (London: Routledge, 1997).  48 William Wordsworth, The World is too Much with Us, in Poems, in Two Volumes (London: Longman Hurst Rees & Orme, 1807). 49 Smith, Theory Of Moral Sentiments  50 Smith, Wealth of Nations.   51 Tennyson, Alfred Lord, ‘In Memoriam’, (London, 1850). 52 David Hume, Of Miracles, (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1992. Edited by Antony Flew, first published 1748).  53 William Paley, Natural Theology.   54 Hill, Octavia, More Air for London, Nineteenth Century, 23 (1888), 181-188. 55 See for example Amartya Sen, ‘Adam Smith and the Contemporary World’, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 3: 1 (2010), 50-67, p. 54 56 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, (London: The Folio Society, 2008 [1877 edition]), p 111-112.  57 Ibid, p. 116. 58 For some discussion of this matter see the blog by Curtis Edward Clark, 'Ayn Rayn and Altruism', Journal of the Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism, March 2009, Naturalist Academy Publishing, March: http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/ayn-rand-and-altruism.html . 59 I consider this matter in a paper about 'Selfishness or Altruism?’ cited earlier, that I wrote some years ago after reflecting on this issue.  60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 62 For example see Daly, 'Operational Principles of Sustainable Development', and; Pearce, Essays on Ecological Economics.

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

31

                                                                                                                                                           63 D. Meadows, J. Randers, and D. Meadows, Limits to Growth. The 30 Year Update (London: Earthscan. 2005). D.H. Meadows, D.L. Meadows, J. Randers and W. W. Behrens, The Limits to Growth, (London: Pan Books, 1972); E.J. Mishan, Technology and Growth: The Price we Pay, (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1969), and, Clive Hamilton, Growth Fetish, (Crow’s Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2003). 64 The eight papers listed below provide interested readers with a few representative examples of nineteenth century work addressing social, economic, environmental and ethical issues that parallel today’s sustainability concept: R. R. Bowker, Of Work and Wealth. A Summary of Economics. (New York: The Society for Political Education, 1883); G. D. Campbell, The Unity of Nature, (London: Alexander Strahan, 1884); CLLSI, The Moral and Political Evils of the Taxes on Knowledge in the Speeches Delivered at the City of London Literary Institution, on the Subject of a Petition to Parliament against the Stamps on Newspapers, the Duties on Advertisements and on Printing Paper, City of London Literary and Scientific Institution, (London: Effingham Wilson, 1830); T.S. Cree, Business Men and Modern Economics: A Paper Read before the British Association at Glasgow on 16th September 1901, (Glasgow: Bell and Bain Ltd, 1903); William Graham, The Creed of Science; Religious, Moral and Social, (London: C. Kegan, 1881); John K. Ingham, The Present Position and Prospects of Political Economy: Being the Introductory Address Delivered in the Section of Economic Science and Statistics of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, at its Meeting in Dublin in 1878, (London: Longmans & Co, 1878); J. Murray Moore, Tennyson’s Nature Studies: A paper read before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool April 12 1897 by J .Murray Moore; John Russell, The Obstacles which have Retarded Moral and Political Progress: A Lecture, (London: James Nisbet & Co, 1855).  65 For example see the following articles: Lydia Becker, ‘On the Study of Science by Women.’ The Contemporary Review. 10, (1869), 386-404. Arabella Buckley, ‘Darwinism and Religion’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 24 (1871), 45-51; Carlyle, Past and Present; E.S. Dixon, ‘A Vision of Animal Existences’, Cornhill Magazine, 5 (1862), 311318, and, Thomas Henry Huxley ‘Time and Life: Mr Darwin’s Origin of Species’, Macmillan’s Magazine 1 (1860), 142-148. 66 See the following articles: Charles Darwin, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Sixth Edition, with Additions and Corrections, (London: John Murray, 1875, first edition 1859);

Sordid Boon?

32

                                                                                                                                                         John K. Ingham, The Present Position and Prospects of Political Economy; Harriet Martineau, Letters on the Laws of Man’s Nature and Development, (London: Atkinson, Henry George, 1851), and, John Stuart Mill, Collected Works: Vol I and II: Principles of Political Economy, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965).  67 U.K. Government, This Common Inheritance: A Summary of the White Paper on the Environment, (London: HMSO, 1990), and, Government of Western Australia, State of the Environment Report Western Australia, draft 2006, (Perth: WA Govt. Publishing Service, 2006).  68 Michael Kile, No Room at Nature’s Mighty Feast. Reflections on the Growth of Humankind, (East Perth: Demos Press, 1995); Lumley and Armstrong, ‘Some of the Nineteenth Century Origins of the Sustainability Concept’; Robert M.Young, Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in Victorian Culture, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).   69 Michael Howes, A Brief History of Commonwealth Sustainable Development Discourse, Policy, Organisation and Society, 19:1 (2000), 65-85, and, Lumley, Sarah, Sustainability and Degradation in Less Developed Countries: Immolating the Future? (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publications, 2002).  70 Meadow et al, The Limits to Growth. 71 E.J. Mishan, The Costs of Economic Growth, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967); E.J. Mishan, Technology and Growth: The Price We Pay, (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1969); E.J. Mishan, The Economic Growth Debate: An Assessment, (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1977); E.J. Mishan, Cost-Benefit Analysis, (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1975), and, E.J. Mishan, Economic Myths and the Mythology of Economics, (Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1986).  72 Clive Hamilton, Growth Fetish, (Crow’s Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2003).  73 Lumley and Armstrong, ‘Some of the Nineteenth Century Origins’.  74 Mishan, E.J. (1975), Cost-Benefit Analysis, (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1975), p.389. 75 Herman Daly, ‘Towards some operational principles of sustainable development’, Ecological Economics, 2: (1990) 1-6, p.1. 76 Peter Soderbaum, ‘Politics and Ideology in Ecological Economics’, Internet Encyclopedia of Ecological Economics, (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004) www.ecoeco.org/education_encyclopedia.php   77 J.W Nevile, ‘Economic Growth-Blessing or Curse?’ in J.J. Ray (editor), Conservatism as Heresy, (Sydney: ANZ Book Company, 1974), p. 6.  78 Samuel Brittan, ‘The Growth Fetish Exposed Again’, Financial Times, 26 March 2004, http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/text.html 79 Michael Howes, ‘A Brief History', p.66. 

Chapter 1: The Contexts of Economics and Sustainability

33

                                                                                                                                                           80 UNDESA, ‘National Sustainable Development Strategies’, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2004 http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/nsds/nsds.htm  81 United Nations, Earth Summit+5, Clause 24, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, Special Session of the General Assembly to Review and Appraise the Implementation of Agenda 21, New York, 23-27 June 1997 http://www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/coverage.html 82 U.K. Government, This Common Inheritance: A summary of the White Paper on the Environment, (London: HMSO, 1990); 83 Government of Canada, ‘SD info: Historical Path’, 2003, www.ec.gc.ca/  84 NSSD, ‘NSSD Country Dialogues in Pakistan: National Strategies for Sustainable Development’, 2003, http://www.nssd.net/pakistan.html  85 Commonwealth of Australia, The Australian Interim National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1992). 86 WSSD, ‘The World Summit on Sustainable Development’, Johannesburg, 2002, http://www.worldsummit2002.org/ 87 The report Resilient People, Resilient Planet can be downloaded from http://www.un.org/gsp/report 88 See the WEA website for details of its online Sustainability Conference http://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/ 89 The Guardian's article can found at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/19/rio-earth-summitsustainability-conference 90 The outcome document adopted at Rio+20, ‘The Future we Want’ can be accessed on the United Nations website at http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/ 91 UNEP, Sustainable Trade and Poverty Reduction, (Washington: United  Nations Environment Programme, 2006).  92 BHP, Our Sustainability Framework, BHP‐Billiton, 2010,  http://www.bhpbilliton.com/bb/SustainableDevelopment.asp and,   Alcoa, Sustainable Development. The Basis for Alcoa’s Future, 2010  http://www.alcoa.com/bcs/en/about/sustainability.asp   93 Origin Energy, 5 Year Strategies, 2011, http://reports.originenergy.com.au/2010/sustainability/our_communities/5-yearstrategies/ 94 CSIRO, ‘Climate Variability, Climate Change and Drought in Eastern  Australia’, 2011, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research  Organisation, http://csiro.au/science/climate‐and‐drought‐in‐eastern‐ australia/    Melbourne Water, ‘Climate Change’, Melbourne Water, 2011,  http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/sustainability/climate_chang e/climate_change.asp?bhcp=1  

Sordid Boon?

34

                                                                                                                                                         95 Alan Greenspan, Testimony to the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, 23 October 2008, Chair, Mr Henry Waxman, http://www.clipsandcomment.com/?s=Greenspan%27s+testimony 96 Permalink, ‘Collapse of Debt: Events Change Alan Greenspan’s World View’, 2008, http://www.collapseofdebt.com/2008/10/events-change-alan-greenspansworld-view.html 97 For example, see Elliott, Global Politics. 98 John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, (Orpington: George Allen, 1883) p.185, my emphasis 99 For example see The International Society for Ecological Economics 2012 conference website http://www.isee2012.org/ , The New Economics Institute Global Transition Project, 2012, http://neweconomicsinstitute.org/content/global-transition, and, The World Economics Association website, 2012, http://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/

 

CHAPTER 2 EIGHTEENTH CENTURY IDEAS We can multiply all sorts of animals in such numbers that we could have them even to infinity, if we could find lands to infinity proper to nourish them.’ Richard Cantillon: Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en General.

Introduction Eighteenth-century figures such as the moral philosopher-economist Adam Smith are still well known today as evidenced, for example, by the existence of various clubs named after him. However, current interpretations of Smith’s work often appear at first glance to be inconsistent with both his context and his motives. This inconsistency sometimes, becomes more apparent when Smith’s work is subjected to informed analysis, and his words and ideas are compared and contrasted with popular modern perceptions of them. This is especially true if the moral context of Smith’s work and that of his nineteenth-century successors is considered. Of course Smith did not work in isolation, he was influenced by the ideas of his contemporaries as well as those of earlier generations1. However, the strong influence of Smith’s ideas in a range of disciplines, and the modern invocation of his name in relation to market economics, global politics and policy, makes his work, and that of some of his contemporaries, a good place to begin an exploration of this history of ideas.

36 

Sordid Boon?

Before we consider the work of Smith, his predecessors, his contemporaries and subsequent thinkers and theorists, it is worth bearing in mind the following comments about Smith’s work. Apart from the fact that Smith lived in a different context to that of our modern world, much of his work has been misunderstood or misinterpreted in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Some of this misunderstanding may have come about because his work is rarely read directly, but rather interpretations of it have been passed down through generations of politicians, economists and corporate managers. However, current understandings of Smith’s work often suit policy makers who tend towards particular ideological directions that conform with the political climate, especially with respect to economic rationalism, without due regard for the origins of economics and the assumptions and caveats plainly stated in both classical and neoclassical economic theory. This is true of many current financial and commercial applications of economics, especially when they conflict with the spirit of sustainability where intangible, non-market economic values prove elusive with respect to quantification. The valuation of intangibles will be examined in more detail in chapter eight but for the moment it is worth considering some important points regarding Smith’s work. These need to be understood when we apply economics to modern problems especially when they concern sustainability, These points can be summarised as follows: -Smith’s major works were written before the full impacts of the industrial evolution were realised. In Smith’s time the nature and context of industry, commerce and labour were very different to those of modern times; -Smith’s use of ‘savage’ and hunter-gatherer cultures with which to compare and contrast more ‘civilised’ cultures was based on contemporary knowledge and understanding of those cultures, and was by no means accurate; -Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ was arguably the hand of God, not the hand of the market; -Religion pervaded all facets of life in Smith’s time and played a major role as the backdrop to all his work;

Chapter 2: Eighteenth Century Ideas

37

-The theory of Moral Sentiments2, which preceded and informed the ideas in Wealth of Nations3, was a substantial work in moral philosophy that recognised and analysed aspects of human altruism and ethics; -A role for government was central to Smith’s theories in economics. He set out plainly the nature of that role which was pivotal in education, public works, defence and justice; -Without government intervention, ‘material progress’ would lead to ‘moral decay’; -Smith did not believe that economic growth was sustainable. Prosperity from the free market could not be endless; -Smith was not optimistic about the future of the human race and his Wealth of Nations was, ultimately, a bleak work. These points are by way of introduction and should be kept in mind while reading the rest of the book. They will be discussed in more detail in this chapter and in chapter three. Adam Smith’s World Adam Smith became professor of moral philosophy at Glasgow University in 1752 at the age of twenty eight, after holding the chair in logic for a year. He was born in Kirkaldy in Scotland 1723, and died in Edinburgh in 1790. He lived in an era that was both turbulent and changing. Europe was politically unstable and violent; technology was developing rapidly, and the enlightenment was underway, which meant that communication between intellectuals, both at home and abroad, was open and reciprocal. For much of Smith’s life political relations with France were tense, despite ongoing communication between French and British intellectuals, and from 1756 to 1763 Britain and France fought the seven years war that ended with the peace of Paris in 17634. The enlightenment began with the revolution in England in 1688 and ended with the storming of the Bastille and the French revolution in 1787. In the later years of Smith’s life the American war of independence from Great Britain raged, and in 1793, soon after Smith’s death,

38 

Sordid Boon?

King Louis XVI of France was sent to the guillotine. The industrial revolution, which had begun in earnest around 1750 and progressed for at least one hundred years, was gathering momentum5. Over this period Smith engaged in producing his first great work, Theory of Moral Sentiments2. Between publishing Moral Sentiments in 1759 and his most famous work, Wealth of Nations, in 17763, the French physiocratic school of political economy led by Francois Quesnay (1694– 1774), had gained considerable prominence. While there had been much activity in political economy across Europe, for example among the Italians such as Giovannis Ceva (1647–1743), Antonio Genovesi (1712–1769), Giammaria Ortes (1713–1790), and Fernando Galiani (1728–1787) who represented a diverse range of ideas, Smith’s influences and contacts mainly involved the physiocrats in France6. Francois Quesnay, leader of the physiocrats, was physician to King Louis XV. Quesnay ‘…in his dual role as doctor and political economist, saw a link between the body politic and the human body, between the health of nature and of society’7 thus possibly establishing an early recognition of the importance of the natural environment to the well-being of the human race. In 1758 Quesnay published the Tableau Economique which was one of the earliest treatises on utilitarian political economy, and which identified land as the source of all wealth in a liberal, free market context8. In this respect there was a commonality of ideas between Smith’s and Quesnay’s schools of political economy since the physiocratic and Scottish schools followed a similar philosophy. There were other related schools of thought working in parallel in France and Italy and Turgot (1727-1781) was one of the most important French intellectuals in this field. Turgot worked closely with Quesnay, and both he and Quesnay were familiar to Smith 9 . However, philosophically, Turgot’s work was nearer to that of the Neopolitan, Ferdinando Galiani. The development of ideas in political economy was conducted in most European nations of the time. The phenomenon was multilingual and transcended many educational and cultural boundaries10.

Chapter 2: Eighteenth Century Ideas

39

The enlightenment period was by no means restricted to a burgeoning of thought in political economy. All over Europe ideas in art, poetry, literature, philosophy, history, and sociology were being debated, discussed and published. Well known intellectuals of that period, from France, Germany, Italy, England, America and Scotland, included Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, Kant, Vico, Beccaria, Locke, Gibbon, Burke, Franklin and Hume11. Ideas and information were disseminated around the world and, in keeping with the subsequent nineteenth-century intellectual revolution, the participants in the early enlightenment period were familiar with the work of their contemporaries across the full range of disciplines. As suggested above, it was during the early enlightenment that the connection between human well-being and environmental well-being began to be made explicit. As well as coinciding with the rise of nature poetry in England, as expressed by Crabbe, the political economists such as Quesnay, Turgot and Smith had a very strong focus on the land as the wellspring of social benefits. In England, meanwhile, the theologian and natural scientist, William Paley (1743– 1803) and the parson Thomas Malthus (1766–1834) were observing facets of the natural environment. In Paley’s12 case these observations related to the behaviour of animals, and in Malthus’ case to the impact of a growing human population on the natural world13. However, before we consider their ideas, we need to examine the work of the early political economists who in many ways pre empted Smith. Predecessors and Contemporaries in Political Economy Richard Cantillon was one of the most important and generally lesser known pre emptors of Smith’s work. Cantillon was born around 1680 and died in 1734. As Lumley and Armstrong state14: ‘Cantillon is considered by many to be the first great economic theorist. He proposed the ‘Land Theory of Value’ and his work was first published in England in 1759, but was originally published in France much earlier, probably in 1725’. Cantillon was allegedly an Anglo-IrishFrenchman and it is thus no surprise to find that both Quesnay and Smith

40 

Sordid Boon?

acknowledged and drew on his work. Smith refers to Cantillon in Chapter VIII, Volume I of Wealth of Nations saying15 Mr Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that, one with another, they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being no more than sufficient to provide for herself. But one half of the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. According to the nineteenth-century economics professor, W. S. Jevons16: Diligent readers of the Wealth of Nations will probably remember that Adam Smith once in a way quotes a certain Mr Cantillon. Hereby hangs a tale, and a tale full of errors, mysteries and enigmas. Adam Smith quoted so few previous authors that to be mentioned in his pages ensures a kind of immortality. Nevertheless Cantillon has been very unfortunate. Not only was his life prematurely ended by fire and knife, but a series of adverse literary accidents has almost entirely obscured his name and fame. Jevons, on analysing Cantillon’s book, Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en General, heaps praise upon the sophistication of the arguments presented in it. He is particularly taken with the third part of the book, which examines foreign commerce, foreign exchanges, banking and refinements of credit. The works of other, well-known intellectuals do not, in Jevon’s view compare favourably with Cantillon: ‘Judged by the knowledge and experience of the time, this third part especially is almost beyond praise, and shows that Richard Cantillon had a sound and pretty complete comprehension of many questions about which pamphleteers are still wrangling and blundering, and perplexing themselves and other people’17. And further18: The Essai is far more than a mere essay or even a collection of disconnected essays like those of Hume. It is a systematic and connected treatise, going over in a concise manner nearly the whole field of economics, with the exception of taxation. It is thus, more than any other book I know, the first treatise on economics. Sir William Petty’s Political Arithmetic and his

Chapter 2: Eighteenth Century Ideas

41

Treatise of Taxes and Contributions are wonderful books in their way, and at their time, but, compared with Cantillon’s Essai they are mere collections of casual hints. There were earlier English works of great merit, such as those of Vaughan, Locke, Child, Mun etc, but these were either occasional essays and pamphlets, or else fragmentary treatises. Cantillon’s essay is, more emphatically than any other single work, “the Cradle of Political Economy”. The opening sentence of the first chapter, “De la Richesse” is especially remarkable, and is as follows: “La Terre est la source ou la matiere d’ou l’on tire la Richesse; le traveil de l’Homme est la forme qui la produit: et la Richesse en elle-meme n’est autre chose que la nourriture, les commodities et les agreements de la vie” [‘The Earth is the source or the matter from which we derive our wealth; Man’s labour is the form which it produces: and wealth itself is no more than food, basic commodities and pleasures of life’]. This sentence strikes the keynote, or rather the leading chord of the science of economics. It reminds us at once of the phrase “land and labour of the country” upon which Adam Smith is so frequently harping. While Quesnay is widely accepted to have influenced Smith, Turgot’s influence is less well-known. Turgot was effectively a pupil of Quesnay and like him worked for the French government19. According to Hodgson20 Turgot was, like many of his contemporaries and successors, a polymath, well versed in physical science, metaphysics, philology, astronomy, philosophy, theology, economics, politics and literature. Like Quesnay and Smith, Turgot placed great emphasis on a farreaching morality. As Hodgson, a Scottish political economist and Victorian biographer of Turgot, states: ‘… his economic and political writings do something more than illustrate the continual co-operation of the moral and intellectual faculties in his finely balanced nature’21. Significantly, he compares the different schools of thought in eighteenth-century political economy. These can be loosely divided into the physiocrats and the utilitarians, though it is often difficult to distinguish between the two, both having something of a free-market approach and both being concerned with justice and the distribution and definition of wealth. In early work, such as that by the Italian political economist Galiani, a utilitarian, the government state was of great importance, while the ‘cost’ theories of value embraced by the physiocrats was seen to be wrong22.

42 

Sordid Boon?

The distinctions between schools of thought in early political economy are frequently blurred however, and Turgot has been identified with the physiocrat, the intuitive and the utilitarian schools of thought. Hodgson 23 draws a subtle distinction between the different schools in Turgot’s time, seeing little to distinguish them apart from the priority they to give justice over expedience .as follows: The difference is less in the goal than in the starting-point. To the former [intuitive] the just is the expedient; to the latter [utilitarian] the expedient is the just. Of the latter school, Bentham may be taken as the type; of the former Turgot is a representative. We shall see throughout that his first question commonly, if not always, is — What is just, what is right? And that then only does he investigate its practical result. It is not for us here to balance the respective merits of the utilitarian and what may be called the intuitive, or a priori schools of morals. Any casual reading of eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century political economy will reveal that this distinction continued to apply. Some like Bentham, Smith and Harriet Martineau (1802–1876), whose work is discussed in chapter seven, are strongly utilitarian in their outlook, yet they emphasise moral sentiment, ‘moral justice’ and altruism. In assessing these political economists in the context of sustainability and in later interpretations of their work it is apparent that moral sentiment and ‘justice’, which today would be viewed as being aligned with ethics, were clearly the guiding principles for appropriate behaviour. This applied to individuals, governments, ‘capitalists’, and society as we shall discuss later. The idea of morality being the ‘bottom line’ for human economic systems and human behaviour seems to have become dissociated from both the roots and the context of economic theory and its modern applications, sustainable development and its triple bottom line of environment, economics, and society notwithstanding. This omission is now viewed by many academics as having potentially damaging consequences for both human society and the natural environment.

While

definitions

of

sustainable

development,

and

the

implementation of sustainable development policy, accommodate social and

Chapter 2: Eighteenth Century Ideas

43

environmental justice, the emphasis placed on financial and commercial aspects of economics is often perceived to over ride the less tangible aspects of economics incorporated into political economy by its original thinkers. Hodgson is keen to emphasise the point that Turgot’s and Quesnay’s work preceded that of Smith, though he also recognises the original and important contribution that Smith made to political economy. Since Smith had the stronger influence on subsequent generations of political economists, more of this chapter will be dedicated to examining his work. However, acknowledgement of and reference to the work of others such as Turgot is important in establishing the context and motivation of the eighteenth and nineteenth-century intellectuals. While the political economists from a range of ideological backgrounds tended to support similar intellectual approaches, the differences between them, as well as their similarities, particularly with respect to the role of morality, are important to an understanding of their theories and intentions for human society. A focus on the moral origins of economics, and the ranking of ethical considerations above all others by the original authors of economic theory, might help to enhance the application of sustainability in modern policy making, and to resolve many of the arguments that relate to the development and ranking of qualitative sustainability indicators. Turgot, unlike the utilitarians, believed that altruism and ‘love’, rather than self-interest, were the greatest motivators of human action. Hodgson cites Turgot’s letter to the French mathematician and social reformer Condorcet, written in December 177324 to demonstrate this point: In various parts of his works, Turgot protests eloquently against the notion that self-interest is the spring of all human actions, and nowhere more eloquently than in his letters to Condorcet upon Helvetius, whose teaching exercised no small influence at that time. Of the well known work Sur l’Esprit he says (p.40): “in no place does he show a profound knowledge of the human heart; nowhere does he analyse the true needs of man; nowhere does he seem to suspect that man is under a necessity to love. One who had ever felt this need would not have said that self-interest is the only principle that makes men act. He would have understood that, in the sense of which

44 

Sordid Boon? this proposition is true, it is a puerility, or a metaphysical abstraction, from which no practical consequence can be drawn, since it is, in fact, equivalent to saying that man desires only what he desires”. and25 “It is false” he writes to Condorcet “that the moral sentiments do not influence men’s actions, men’s affections. The proof is that men need an effort to overcome their sentiment, when it is opposed to their interest. The proof is that they feel remorse. The proof is that the very interest which they pursue at the cost of honesty is often founded on a sentiment in itself honest and only ill-regulated. The proof is that they are moved by romances and by tragedies, and that a romance in which the hero should act in conformity with the principles of Helvetius would displease them greatly”.

Turgot was assured of a sympathetic reader in Condorcet, who was later his biographer26. Apart from his original ideas in integral calculus and his general brilliance in mathematics, Cordorcet, a politician under the monarchy, and a victim of the French revolution, was one of the first public opponents of slavery24. Turgot, however, was not the only philosopher-economist to be concerned with moral sentiment. In 1759, twenty-four years before Turgot wrote on moral sentiment to Condorcet, Smith had published a very large volume on the topic, and in that he considered in great detail the apparent conflicts between altruism and self-interest as motivators of human behaviour2. As we shall discuss later, Smith too saw moral sentiment as the most important motivator of human behaviour. It was for the market that he tended to reserve the impacts of selfinterest but, even there, he believed, justice should come first. While Turgot is less well known in economic circles now, there was still a strong awareness of his ideas towards the end of the nineteenth century. That he and Smith worked in parallel was well recognised. While their theories were similar, there was a subtle difference in their philosophies of morality, but it was respect for ethics overall which ultimately drove both their works on political economy. In 1876 the Societe d’Economie Politique in Paris issued a joint medal

Chapter 2: Eighteenth Century Ideas

45

in honour of Jacques Turgot and Smith24. According to Stephens27 Turgot and Smith met in 1765 and: The intercourse of Turgot with Adam Smith, and at the date mentioned, is of almost historical importance, taken in connection with the fact that it was in 1776 that Turgot published his ‘Reflections sur la Formation et la Distribution des Richesses’. Others viewed the relationship between Smith, Quesnay and Turgot as significant. Hodgson 28 comments: ‘On occasion of Adam Smith’s second visit to Paris, in 1765, he associated much with Quesnay, as well as with Turgot … he intended to dedicate to Quesnay his “Wealth of Nations” but was prevented by Quesnay’s death, in his eightieth year’. As with Smith and the nineteenth-century intellectuals, education, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and religious and political tolerance were also of great importance to Turgot. All of these considerations were to most intellectuals part of the ‘justice’ for which they strove. All are in keeping with sustainability’s requirements for both social and environmental justice. Equity is one particular value that is emphasised in modern definitions of sustainable development. For Turgot, equity ‘is the very order of the plans of Providence for the happiness of all individual men’ 29. English and Scottish Contemporaries: Malthus, Paley and Hume As discussed above, the era of Smith’s lifespan was one of massive intellectual progress, and social and political upheaval. There were many influential thinkers who were active during that period and it is only possible to consider here those most relevant to modern interpretations of economics for environmental and social policy, and to Smith’s work. In this brief discussion particular reference will be made to Malthus, Paley and Hume because they dealt with issues of direct importance both to Smith, and to the nineteenth-century intellectuals who followed him. Hume was said to have been Smith’s closest friend, and many letters between the two men have survived30. Malsthus and Malsthus had a very strong influence on Charles Darwin, Richard Cantillon is said to have influenced

46 

Sordid Boon?

Smith, Paley, Malthus and Darwin31, and Malthus certainly influenced Paley, for Paley13 added a note to his Natural Theology ‘See this subject stated in a late treatise upon Population’. Malthus, in turn, claimed to have been influenced by Hume and Smith. All of these writers were concerned with matters that define sustainable development as it is currently understood. Returning to the original twentiethcentury definition of sustainable development, ‘… development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’32 it is clear that the future of society is one of the major concerns embedded in the concept. In 1992 the Australian Commonwealth Government, like many other national governments, produced a strategy for [Ecologically] Sustainable Development (ESD) following the United Nations ‘Rio Earth Summit’. That document, which was the precursor of much government policy and legislation on environmental and social matters, described ESD as: ‘the way we use, conserve and enhance the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, is secured’ 33. Later and more detailed refinements of this policy led to the promulgation of an Act of Parliament in 2000, in which ‘principles of sustainable development’ were enshrined in Australian statute34. Those principles include inter-generational equity; intra-generational equity; conservation of the environment; recognition of cultural heritage, cultural difference and Indigenous rights; recognition of intangible economic values, and the promotion of a sustainable economy. This is very much in keeping with current United Nations programs in sustainable development, and is completely consistent with the concerns of Smith and his contemporaries. Malthus was particularly worried about the ability of the human race to survive should the population exceed what we would now refer to as ‘the carrying capacity’ of the earth. For all of the eighteenth and nineteenth-century intellectuals, no matter where their philosophical, ideological or political biases

Chapter 2: Eighteenth Century Ideas

47

lay, the main motivation for their concerns, as discussed above, was related to what was then referred to as moral sentiment, justice or equity. In the preface to the first anonymous publication of his essay Malthus states: ‘The following Essay owes its origin to a conversation with a friend, on the subject of Mr Godwin’s35 essay on ‘Avarice and Profusion’ in his Enquirer. The discussion started the general question of the future improvement of society’36. Despite the first edition including reference to M. Condorcet and Mr Godwin in its title, Malthus advised in the introduction to the 1803 edition that he had derived his principle from the work of other thinkers including Hume, Robert Wallace, Smith and Richard Price, but that Hume and Smith had wider concerns than Robert Wallace and William Godwin37. Hume’s work that so influenced Malthus was Political Discourse ‘of the populousness of Antient Nations’, while Wallace’s, in response to Hume, were A dissertation on the numbers of Mankind … in which the Superior Populousness of Antiquity is maintained (1753) and Various Prospects of Mankind, Nature and Providence (1761) 38 . Malthus’ work was always controversial and so it has remained39. In 1818, one critic, George Ensor, wrote a book of around 500 pages, even tracing philosophy back to ancient civilisations, to refute Malthus’ work. Having dealt with previous philosophers, his headings in chapter five begin with: ‘No cause of fearing over-populousness — Should people exceed, why not migrate?’40. Clearly, the idea that migration could work in several directions was not at the forefront of his mind. The purpose of the population essay was cause for speculation and Wrigley 41 suggests that one of its goals was to disagree with Godwin and Condorcet on the topic of human perfectibility. On the topic of population growth and its implications for the human race, the words of Malthus, Paley and Cantillon, who was mentioned earlier as a political economist, are remarkably similar. In chronological order they are as follows: Cantillon42 states: ‘… In a word, we can multiply all sorts of animals in such numbers that we could have them even to infinity, if we could find lands to infinity proper to nourish them; and the multiplication of animals has no other

48 

Sordid Boon?

bounds than the greater or less means remaining for their subsistence’, and; ‘Men multiply like mice in a barn, if they have the means of subsistence without limit’. Malthus13(1798) comments: ‘Population, when unchecked, increases in geometrical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison with the second … This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence’. Paley43 (1802) says: ‘The order of generation proceeds by … geometrical progression. The increase of provision … can only assume the form of an arithmetic series. Whence it follows, that the population will always overtake the provision … and will continue to increase till checked by the difficulty of procuring subsistence’. The main issue addressed by these writers concerns the fate of the human race should our numbers become too great for the earth to sustain us, both in terms of the availability of food, and in terms of the other resources that we need for shelter and housing, as well the spatial limitations imposed by the dimensions of the earth. Wallace had clearly given this matter some thought and he mused: ‘yet in general, mankind would encrease so prodigiously, that the earth would at last be overstocked, and become unable to support its numerous inhabitants … There would not even be sufficient room for containing their bodies upon the surface of the earth’44. Paley, while a churchman, was also a natural scientist and he had made very close studies of the environment, as well as the anatomy, physiology and ecology of many species around him. In Natural Theology, written to demonstrate the existence of God through evidence in the wonders of nature, Paley described the vessels of animal bodies, comparative anatomy, internal organs, instincts, insects and plants in minute detail. His understanding of reproductive physiology in the context of over-population, and the effects this might have had on the rest of the natural world, would have surpassed that of most other intellectuals of his era. As with Darwin and many nineteenth-century intellectuals, including Harriet Martineau and John Stuart Mill, we see in Paley’s work concern for human

Chapter 2: Eighteenth Century Ideas

49

impacts on the environment and a great respect for nature, as well as concern for the welfare of the human race. In the first chapter of Natural Theology, after Paley has introduced his work using the mechanical watch to demonstrate existence with a design and purpose, and hence an agent of design, he turns his attention to the use of the term ‘the law of nature’. He states45: It is a perversion of language to assign any law as the efficient, operative cause of anything. A law presupposes an agent; for it is only the mode according to which an agent proceeds: it implies a power; for it is the order according to which that power acts. For Paley the agent at work in the world was the invisible hand of God, just as it was for Smith. In his chapter on instincts, Paley 46 comments lyrically on the action of a brooding bird: An animal formed for liberty, submits to confinement, in the very season when every thing invites her abroad: what is more, an animal delighting in motion, made for motion, all whose motions are so easy and so free, hardly a moment, at other times, at rest, is, for many hours of many days together, fixed to her nest, as close as if her limbs were tied down by pins and wires. For my part I never see a bird in that situation but I recognise an invisible hand, detaining the contented prisoner from her fields and groves, for the purpose, as the event proves, the most worthy of the sacrifice, the most important, the most beneficial. While Paley and Smith used the metaphor of the invisible hand of God to explain the working of the world in an era when belief in divine agency was almost universal, Hume’s more sceptical work in the Treatise of Human Nature, initially published anonymously in 1740, was branded as heresy. According to Passmore47, Hume’s intentions in the Treatise, considered by many to be sloppy as a philosophical work, were to assess ‘moral subjects’ (as opposed to physical subjects), and that for Hume, moral subjects made up what he called ‘the science of man’. The subjects defining this were ethics, politics, criticism and logic. Flew 48 asserts that Hume viewed the Treatise more as a contribution to psychology (though not a discipline then) and other empirical human studies, than

50 

Sordid Boon?

as a work in philosophy. He comments on Hume’s Of Miracles (1748) that Hume was wondering (even if it were possible) how we would actually know that a miracle had taken place. On miracles Hume49 himself states: Our evidence then, for the truth of the Christian religion is less than the evidence for the truth of our senses; because, even in the first authors of our religion it was no greater; and it must diminish in passing from them to their disciples; nor can anyone rest such confidence in their testimony, as the immediate object of his senses. Braham50 says of Hume: The three great philosophical interests of the day were those which concerned themselves with knowledge, morality and, religion; and to the study of all these problems Hume made his contribution, however that contribution is viewed. While Hume is widely held to have been Britain’s most significant philosopher, his interest in philosophy relates more to psychology in the modern world. As stated above, morality and religion were important philosophical interests of Hume’s time and he tackled them with enthusiasm. Justice, which was seen as closely allied with morality (as it is today) was something that Hume approached with great enjoyment. In an essay that he later wanted to suppress, Hume, apart from challenging the ‘Justice of God’, or indeed the existence of God himself, challenged Christian perceptions of immortality in the context of the ‘Justice of God’’51. While many of Hume’s arguments certainly confronted the accepted wisdom of his day, his concerns for the welfare of humanity were cogent. Hume’s focus on morality, justice, over population and death, particularly of the young, gives Smith’s work a stark context. As Hume’s closest friend, Smith would have been profoundly familiar with Hume’s arguments and his belief system. While Hume did not claim to disprove immortality, he argued that it could not be proven. He also noticed, as have most subsequent atheists, that a just creator would not have created such an unjust world. Like Tennyson52, whose famous words ‘Tho’

Chapter 2: Eighteenth Century Ideas

51

Nature, red in tooth and claw’. were written in the context of his incipient apostasis, Hume saw humanity as a part of nature. Tennyson’s response to evolutionary theory, as elicited by Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation published anonymously in 1844, was similar to that of many other nineteenth-century intellectuals on reading evolutionary theory. The influence of evolutionary theory, and of the theories in political economy that preceded it, on the ideas of nineteenth-century poets, political economists and social philosophers is considered in chapters six and seven. Those ideas strengthen the historical links between ethics, economics and the natural sciences to the stated principles of modern sustainability concepts. Summary It is evident from the preceding discussion that ethics was one of the most fundamental issues driving the development of new ideas in major eighteenth century intellectual debates. Those debates ultimately spawned both economic theory and evolutionary theory. Classical economic theory was developed by moral philosophers and as a discipline it emerged from moral philosophy. The greatest concern of moral philosophers was the fragile human condition and the absolute dependence of people upon the natural world. This dependence was recognised during the early years of the eighteenth century between the start of the enlightenment period and the industrial revolution. As the industrial revolution took hold, people left the countryside for the cities, teeming into unsanitary, overpopulated slums. This influenced Cantillon, Mathus and Paley to observe that the earth had a limited capacity to support human populations. At that point our dependence and destructive impact on the environment must have seemed stark. As a moral philosopher Smith was motivated by the need to resolve the injustice and poverty experienced by a large proportion of humanity and he set out to suggest ways in which the ‘wealth of nations’ could be generated and shared efficiently and equitably.

52 

Sordid Boon?

Having established the ethical credentials of Adam Smith and the early economists in this chapter, in the next we will look at some of the specific theories and ideas that Smith proposed to harness and share the nations’ wealth. These included roles and responsibilities for different ‘orders’ of society that included labourers, the merchant classes and the landowners, as well as very detailed proposals for the role of the government and approaches to taxation. As we shall see, Smith did not envisage a particularly minimalist role for government (the sovereign or the Commonwealth) and nor was he opposed to taxation, levied according to ability to pay, which he viewed as the fairest way of providing public infrastructure and social services which, he suggested, should be subsidised when there is a ‘deficiency’.                                                          Endnotes 1

Robert L. Heilbroner and Laurence J. Malone, The Essential Adam Smith, (New Eork and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 1986). 2 Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, edited by D.D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976, first published 1759). 3 Adam Smith, An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Volumes 1 and 2, (London: Henry Froude, 1908, first published 1776); 4 Patricia James, Population Malthus. His Life and Times, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979). 5 H.L Beales, The Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850: An Introductory Essay, (London: Longmans, Green & Co, 1958). 6 See  CEPA, ‘Economics -The Italian Tradition’, Fonte: sito web di History of Economic Thought, 2002, http://www.terni.unipg.it/uploads/dati/scienzepolitiche/tutoronline//Economics_the_Italian_tradition.doc [viewed 17 November 2012], Beales, The Industrial Revolution, and, Heilbroner and Malone, The Essential Adam Smith. 7 F. Quesnay, Tableau Economique, (Paris, 1758). 8 Ibid  9 W.B. Hodgson, Turgot: His Life, Times, and Opinions. Two Lectures. (London: Trubner and Co,1870).  10 Daniela Parisi, ‘About the Dissemination of Ideas in HET: The Case of the ‘German’ Economists and their Reception in Italy’, Storia del Pensiero Economico, 2000, p.7 http://www.dse.unifi.it/spe/indici/numero37/parisi.htm 11 Helibroner and Malone, The Essential Adam Smith.

Chapter 2: Eighteenth Century Ideas

53

                                                                                                                                                        12 William Paley, Natural Theology: Evidences for the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature, (London. 1825, First published 1802). 13 Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr Godwin, M. Condorcet and Other Writers, (London: J. Johnson, 1966, first published 1798, reprinted 1926 and 1966 by Macmillan, London). 14 Sarah Lumley and Patrick Armstrong, ‘Some of the Nineteenth Century Origins of the Sustainability Concept’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6 (2004), 357-378. 15 Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, p.75. 16 W.S. Jevons, ‘Richard Cantillon and the Nationality of Political Economy’, Contemporary Review, 1881, reprinted in W.S. Jevons, Principles of Economics, (London; The Library of Economics and Liberty, 1905) p.1, http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Cantillon/cntNT8.html  17 Ibid, p.5 18 Ibid, my emphasis 19 See Hodgson, Turgot Constantia Maxwell, Constantia, ‘The Life and Work of Turgot’, J. Historical Assn, 18: 71 (1993), 216-229; and W.W. Stephens, Life and Writings of Turgot, (London: Longman, 1895).  20 Hodgson, Turgot. 21 Hodgson, Ibid, p.38; 22 CEPA, ‘Economics -The Italian Tradition’.  23 Hodgson, Turgot, p. 38-39, my emphasis; 24 Ibid, p.40; 25 Ibid, p.41; 26 Marie J.A.N. Condorcet, Life of Turgot, (Paris: Londres, 1786)  27 Stephens, Life and Writings of Turgot, p.60. 28 Hodgson, Turgot, p.66. 29 Ibid, p. 43. 30 Heilbroner and Malone, The Essential Adam Smith. 31 See, for example, Jevons, ‘Richard Cantillon’, and, Lumley and Armstrong ‘Some of the Nineteenth Century Origins’, p.369; 32 WCED, Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and Development, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p.43. 33 Commonwealth of Australia, Interim National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service), p.3. 34 Commonwealth of Australia, The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, (Canberra: The Australian Government Publishing Service, 2000).  35 Godwin was Mary Shelley’s father. 36 Malthus, Population, my emphasis.

54 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                        37 James, Population Malthus, p. 58. 38 Ibid 39 Michael Kile, No Room at Nature’s Mighty Feast. Reflections on the Growth of Humankind, (East Perth: Demos Press, 1995). 40 George Ensor, An Inquiry Concerning the Population of Nations Containing a Refutation of Mr Malthus’s Essay on Population by George Ensor 1818, (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1967).  41 E.A. Wrigley, ‘Malthus’ Model of a Pre-industrial Economy’, in: Turner, Michael (editor) Malthus and His Time, (London: Macmillan, 1986) p.3; 42 Cantillon cited in Jevons p.7.  43 Paley, Natural Theology. 44 Wallace, (1761), p. iv, cited in James, Population Malthus, p. 59 45 Paley (1802) cited in Henry Brougham and Charles Bell (editors), Paley’s Natural Theology with Illustrative Notes: To which are appended supplementary dissertations and numerous woodcuts, (London: Charles Knight, 1886), p.9.  46 Paley cited in Brougham and Bell, pp. 389–90, my emphasis 47 John Passmore, Hume’s Intentions, (New York: Basic Books Inc, 1968), 164p;  48 David Hume, Of Miracles, (La Salle, Illinois :Open Court, 1992, edited by Antony Flew, first published 1748), p 4.  49 Hume, Ibid, p 24. 50 E.G. Braham, The Life of David Hume (The Terrible David), (Altringham: Stafford, 1987, first published 1931), p 20.  51 Braham, Ibid, p. 96. 52 Tennyson, Alfred Lord, In Memoriam, (London, 1850), canto 56.  

 

CHAPTER 3 THE WORK OF ADAM SMITH While some men are born small and some achieve smallness, it is clear that Adam Smith had much smallness thrust upon him Amartya Sen: Adam Smith and the Contemporary World1. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations5.

Introduction There are many misconceptions about the work of Adam Smith. There is no doubt that he was a utilitarian and that he was, in some ways, a conservative economist. However, as outlined earlier, there were always several concurrent schools of thought in political economy. The predominant philosophies from early in the eighteenth century tended to disagree in the main about whether expedience follows justice, or whether justice follows expedience 2 , a matter that also concerned Mill 3 . As shown in the preceding discussion eighteenth-century intellectuals were motivated above all by trying to find ethical (moral; just) solutions to the problems of humanity. Ethics is the over-riding context in which the discipline of economics, as we know it today, was developed and intended.

56 

Sordid Boon?

The theme of justice is dominant in the further refinements to political economy that took place in the nineteenth century, among utilitarians and others. Smith’s first book Theory of Moral Sentiments, which was published in 1759, concerns his attempts to explain morality. In this book Smith recognises the apparent duplicity of human nature in the sense that we are both self-interested and altruistic. Smith introduces chapter one, ‘Of Sympathy’, as follows4. How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion which we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That we often derive sorrow from the sorrow of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the virtuous and humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of society, is not altogether without it. This paragraph, perhaps, provides the context in which all of Smith’s work, including Wealth of Nations5 (first published 1776), should be read. Smith never resiled from his work in Moral Sentiments. He was, after all, firstly a moral philosopher and then a political economist. Even after publishing Wealth of Nations Smith continued to revise Moral Sentiments. Smith’s sixth and final edition was published in 1790, the year he died. While earlier editions of the book were little changed, he extensively revised and augmented the sixth edition, demonstrating that he valued the work greatly and did not see it as being eclipsed by Wealth of Nations6 7. If we review a few paragraphs from Wealth of Nations in the light of the above quote from Theory of Moral Sentiments, we can discern a common thread in the two works. This thread relates both to pity or compassion, and to emotional equity. Reading Smith’s views on the common human emotions that foster altruism, it is possible to see that these might have been among his motivations

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

57

for writing Wealth of Nations. As we shall see later in this chapter, Smith particularly disdains the merchant order referring to their profits, as Smith8 states: No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the production of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged. Smith uses the word ‘equity’ here in much the same sense as it is invoked in the twenty-first century literature on sustainable development and, indeed, in at least one Australian Act of Parliament 9 . Smith is talking about the distribution of wealth as well as the generation of wealth. He continues his narrative on the wages of labour by referring to poverty and childhood mortality10 : A half-starved Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally exhausted by two or three. Barrenness, so frequent among women of fashion, is very rare among those of inferior station. Luxury, in the fair sex, while it inflames, perhaps, the passion for enjoyment, seems always to weaken, and frequently to destroy altogether, the powers of generation. But poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely unfavourable to the rearing of children. The tender plant is produced; but in so cold a soil, and so severe a climate, soon withers and dies. It is not uncommon, I have frequently been told, in the Highlands of Scotland, for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive. The importance of Smith’s earlier work to the interpretation of Wealth of Nations cannot be sufficiently emphasised. The connection between his two books, and the way in which the ideas of the second build upon those in the first, is also strongly influenced by the context in which they were written. That context needs to be fully appreciated if Smith’s work is to be used in the manner that he intended. While many policy makers, economists, politicians and industrial leaders have not read Smith’s books but cite his work for ideological purposes, some of the world’s most talented and best known economists do their best to

58 

Sordid Boon?

help improve public understanding of economics in general and Smith’s work in particular. In the wake of the global financial crisis one such economist, Amartya Sen, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1998, wrote an erudite, deeply relevant and refreshingly readable article for the New Statesman11. Sen points out that Smith was far from being a ‘free market fundamentalist’, and that he recognised that the market could not address all of society’s needs. Smith’s main goals for a nation’s economy were twofold: one was to facilitate the generation of revenue to the extent that members of society could support themselves, and the other was to give the government enough income to provide the public services needed by society. Sen12 notes: He defended such public services as free education and poverty relief, while demanding greater freedom for the indigent who receives support than the rather punitive Poor Laws of his day permitted. Sen observes, and we shall no doubt concur when we examine Smith’s work in more detail, that Smith tended to view people as equals in terms of their innate capabilities, regardless of their gender, class or nationality. Moral Sentiments and the Invisible Hand Before appearing in Wealth of Nations the Invisible Hand makes an appearance in Moral Sentiments where, possibly, the misunderstanding of Smith’s words and intentions

begins.

Because

of

the

far-reaching

implications

of

this

misunderstanding the entire passage, containing Smith’s reference to the hand in its proper context, is reproduced below. Smith describes the role of the earth in providing for mankind through the transformation of labour into subsistence. He comments on the selfishness of the rich landlord (who seems to be deficient in moral sentiment) and 13 states: The earth by these labours of mankind has been obliged to redouble her natural fertility, and to maintain a greater multitude of inhabitants. It is to no

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

59

purpose, that the proud and unfeeling landlord views his extensive fields, and without a thought for the wants of his brethren, in imagination consumes himself the whole harvest that grows upon them. The homely and vulgar proverb, that the eye is larger than the belly, never was more fully verified than with regard to him. The capacity of his stomach bears no proportion to the immensity of his desires, and will receive no more than the meanest peasant. The rest he is obliged to distribute among those, who prepare, in the nicest manner, that little which he himself makes use of, among those who fit up the palace in which this little is to be consumed, among those who provide and keep in order all the different baubles and trinkets, which are employed in the economy of greatness; all of whom thus derive from his luxury and caprice, that share of the necessities of life, which they could have expected from his humanity or his justice. The produce of the soil maintains at all times nearly the number of inhabitants which it is capable of maintaining. The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessities of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus, without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford the means to the multiplication of the species. It seems difficult to imagine how the invisible hand in this particular narrative could be interpreted to mean the free market. Put simply, Smith is saying that, despite the absolute greed and selfishness of the ‘proud and unfeeling landlord’, he is unable to consume much more than each of the peasants who produced the food from his land, even though he’d like to consume it all. Instead of disposing of it by some other means, the Invisible Hand compels him to share it with the labourers who produced the bounty and who benefit from what remains. This is not because of any generosity on the part of the landlord, rather it is in spite of his selfishness that the invisible hand leads him. That notwithstanding the landlord appears to be more selfish and avaricious than most other members of the human race. There are some other features of the above passage that are worthy of a brief comment. First, the selfish landlord had no way of storing his left over food

60 

Sordid Boon?

indefinitely, but in the modern era, technology would have permitted him to save it for later. Second, Smith’s contempt for the selfish landlord is almost palpable. His own moral sentiments appear to be more in favour of the poor than the landed gentry. The way in which Smith states: ‘had the earth been divided into equal portions’, strongly suggests that he thought it should have been. As the invisible hand leads the rich landlord (with ‘vain and insatiable desires’) to distribute his leftovers in almost the same way as if the earth had been shared equally it appears to be redressing both material and moral imbalances. Smith states clearly at the end of the passage that this more equal distribution of wealth is in the interests of society in general, and human reproduction in particular, as it gives people the means to multiply. To understand this passage properly and in context it should be cross referenced with Smith’s passage10 (cited earlier) from Wealth of Nations about the ‘half-starved Highland woman’ whose numerous children die from lack of sustenance while the ‘pampered fine lady’ is often barren, apparently from too much of the good life. A more equal redistribution of wealth thus improves the chances of rich and poor women alike to raise children to adulthood, though unfortunately, now as then, the invisible hand fails to intervene more often than not. That not withstanding, through his argument about the effects of poverty on reproduction and child mortality, Smith reinforces the link between Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations. Smith’s general dislike of the wealthy classes, evident in both Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, should be borne in mind when applying his work in our modern context. Helibroner and Malone14 state that the purpose of Smith’s Moral Sentiments is to offer ‘… a reasoned explanation of the manner in which we form moral judgements’. They too interpret the invisible hand as the hand of God, and they view it as being much more significant and far reaching than if it were just relating to the market, stating15:

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

61

Connected with this central problem is a discussion of the Invisible Hand, the name that Smith gives to the covert intervention of the Deity into the affairs of humankind. We are used to thinking of the Invisible Hand as a term that describes the manner in which a free market economy is kept on an even course despite the absence of any steersman. But, as we shall see the Invisible Hand plays a far more important role than that of a ghostly economic planner. Without it, neither morality nor social order would be possible. According to Raphael and Macfie16, Smith tended to follow the Stoic position in philosophy, mainly drawn from Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, which influenced his approach to economic theory. They argue that while he also drew on the ancient philosophy of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, he coupled this, and Stoicism, with the Christian philosophy of Francis Hutcheson whose pupil he had been. They comment 17 … ‘According to Smith, conscience is a product of social relationship. Our first moral sentiments are concerned with the actions of other people. Each of us judges as a spectator and finds himself judged by spectators’. Hume and Hutcheson had also used the idea of a spectator in their ethical theories. Like his close friend Hume, Smith found the spectator viewpoint useful, but unlike him, Smith did not adopt scepticism. While Hume the atheist died bravely in 1776, the year of the American declaration of independence, with no expectation of immortality, Smith, like Paley, adhered to a philosophy of natural theology. In Paley’s case the invisible hand ordered the behaviour of the natural world, while in Smith’s case it ordered human behaviour. Their difference in belief notwithstanding, Smith held Hume in the highest regard and mourned his death. He wrote to William Strahan, who published both their works:18 Thus died our most excellent, and never to be forgotten friend; concerning whose philosophical opinions men will no doubt, judge variously, every one approving or condemning them, according as they happen to coincide or disagree with his own; but concerning whose character and conduct there can scarcely be a difference of opinion. … Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as

62 

Sordid Boon? nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit.

There is little doubt that Smith believed in the free market as the best means of allocating resources, including labour, and other services and commodities. There is no doubt that he was a utilitarian political economist and philosopher, with whom many of his contemporaries, as well as intellectuals in the nineteenth century and later, would take issue. However, he was not anti-government and in his system of economics he envisaged a strong and important role for the State. He did not promote economic growth for the sake of it and, importantly, he did not see such growth as being sustainable. He also envisaged a state of ‘moral decay’ should ‘material progress’ be allowed to continue without government intervention. Smith was, on the whole, pessimistic about the future of humanity. He showed scathing contempt for the landed gentry and the merchant classes generally, and was less than complimentary about the working class. Having established a context for Smith’s work from the political and intellectual climate in which he lived, and from the work of his contemporaries, it is now easier to understand his economic philosophy, both from his own work in Theory of Moral Sentiments, particularly with respect to the invisible hand, and from that of his friends, like Hume. Above all his work, like that of other intellectuals at the time, was motivated by an ethical desire to see an improvement of the human condition. An understanding of his motives and his context can help to appreciate the work of Smith’s nineteenth century followers and detractors, and to apply economic theory in the way it was intended, to environmental, social and economic policy, presided over by with ethics and equity, under the modern banner of sustainable development. The Wealth of Nations An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was first published in 1776, seventeen years after the publication of Theory of Moral Sentiments. The invisible hand, having made one appearance in Theory of Moral

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

63

Sentiments, also appears only once in Wealth of Nations – there is no ‘theory of the invisible hand’. Having already clarified the moral context of Smith’s hand we can now better understand its role in Wealth of Nations. In this instance, the Deity’s hand is guiding a merchant who is engaged in trade. This is central to Smith’s meaning because, as we shall see later in this chapter, he particularly despised merchants, accusing them of raising profits too high ‘to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon their fellow citizens’19. Clearly in Smith’s view the merchant was not only untrustworthy, he was also ruthless, and definitely not the sort of person to benefit another deliberately. Like the avaricious landlord he needed to be led into benefitting others. He did this by supporting domestic industry, rather than foreign industry, which happened to be good for his own countrymen. In essence he made that choice for selfish reasons, but he could have made other selfish choices that would benefit him alone. Arguably, the invisible hand led the merchant to make that particular (selfish) choice so that others could also benefit. Smith’s words below should thus be read with Smith’s disdain for the greed of merchants, as well as the moral context, in mind20: By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. The wealth of nations, according to Smith, is vested in its labour resources. In the introduction to the first volume he states: ‘The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes, and which consist always of either the immediate produce of that labour, or in what is purchased with that produce from other nations’21. It must be noted that these words were written before the full impact of the industrial revolution had been felt and long before the technological

64 

Sordid Boon?

automation of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries was to affect the demand for labour in industrialised economies of the world. Smith (1908) goes on to say: ‘According, therefore, as this produce, or what is purchased with it, bears a greater or smaller proportion to the number of those who are to consume it, the nation will be better or worse supplied with all the necessaries and conveniences for which it has occasion’. Thus, the products of labour and the trade in goods purchased with the products of labour will supply the needs of the nation. If labour and its products are in short supply, the nation may have less than its needs. If in good supply it may have more than it needs. The quantity of goods available for any nation to consume, Smith goes on to say, is directly related to the skill and the efficiency of its labour force and the ratio of those usefully employed, to those not usefully employed, and; ‘Whatever be the soil, climate, or extent of territory of any particular nation, the abundance or scantiness of its annual supply must, in that particular situation, depend upon these two circumstances’22. Smith placed a strong emphasis on using the value of labour as a yardstick for measuring value in general. Sometimes, however, he vacillated, and sought other ways of measuring value. Later in the Wealth of Nations he pondered over real and nominal values, stating: ‘Equal quantities of corn, therefore, will, at distant times, be more nearly of the same real value, or enable the possessor to purchase or command more nearly of the same real quantity of the labour of other people’23. The problem of quantifying economic value is one that still poses serious theoretical problems, especially for economic intangibles such as human health, the environment, conservation and externalities. The valuation of intangibles and attributing price as a yardstick of value for commodities that people view as noncommensurable is one of the most difficult problems for twenty-first century economists. It was not without controversy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Smith, Malthus and subsequent economists grappled with price and value problems even when they were dealing with commodities for which there

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

65

was a market. Malthus was still attempting to resolve the question, analysing Smith’s approach, in 1808. He wrote to Henry Parnell:24 Adam Smith has certainly fallen into some decided errors by taking corn alone. According to his own principle he ought to have preferred labour; and though I by no means agree with him in thinking that labour may be considered as a standard measure of value, yet it enters into the composition of such a vast proportion of commodities, I should prefer taking labour to any one criterion that could be named. Perhaps a mean between country labour and corn would be the best practical measure. The passage above relates to Malthus’s attempts to reconcile tithes with a proportion of rents being paid to landlords. He appreciated the importance of quantifying value and recognised some of the problems that could arise if there were no agreed measure of it. While measuring value has clearly always posed a problem, the predominant issues are now somewhat different from those in Smith’s and Malthus’ time. One of the difficulties facing economists and policy makers today is that of assigning a value to numerous environmental intangibles — those assets and ‘goods’ for which there is no market price — nature and the natural environment being pre-eminent among them. As will be discussed in chapter six, Malthus and his contemporary, the nature poet Wordsworth, had different views about the relationship between people and nature. As Becker et al 25 observe, Malthus perceived an opposition between people and nature while Wordsworth believed that people and nature were not naturally opposed but that the new economic system (commerce) pitted man against nature. Since their time, the world has changed out of all recognition. However, the problem itself remains much the same. How can one deduce a quantified price that accurately reflects the value of a commodity, service or resource, especially one as unique and fragile as a threatened ecosystem? With respect to other aspects of the context in which Smith was working when he wrote the Wealth of Nations, his comparison of ‘savage’ nations with that of more sophisticated nations (in his view) like Britain, is drawn from a very limited knowledge base of such cultures.

66 

Sordid Boon?

His egalitarian credentials notwithstanding, Smith bestows a nihilistic and desperate homogeneity on some countries. Continuing his introduction to Wealth of Nations, he states26: Among the savage nations of hunters and fishers, every individual who is able to work is more or less employed in useful labour, and endeavours to provide, as well as he can, the necessaries and conveniences of life, for himself, and such of his family or tribes as are either too old, or too young, or too infirm, to go a-hunting and fishing. Some nations, however, are so miserably poor, that from mere want, they are frequently reduced, or at least think themselves reduced, to the necessity sometimes of directly destroying, and sometimes of abandoning their infants, their old people, and those afflicted with lingering diseases, to perish with hunger, or to be devoured by wild beasts. Among civilised and thriving nations, on the contrary, though a great number of people do not labour at all, many of whom consume the produce of ten times, frequently of a hundred times, more labour than the greater part of those who work, yet the produce of the whole labour of the society is so great, that all are often abundantly supplied; and a workman, even of the lowest and poorest order, if he is frugal and industrious, may enjoy a greater share of the necessaries and conveniences of life than it is possible for any savage to acquire. It is clear from Smith’s work that the ultimate goal of political economy was to improve social well-being as a whole, and to distribute wealth as evenly as possible across the nation. His analysis of the economy was perspicacious, and his observations of human motivations were both biting and accurate, their parallels in modern times being obvious. In his conclusion to ‘of the rent on land’27 he states: … every improvement in the circumstances of the society tends, either directly or indirectly, to raise the real rent of land, to increase the real wealth of the landlord, his power of purchasing the labour, or the produce of the labour of the people. The extension of improvement and cultivation tends to raise it directly. The landlord’s share of the produce necessarily increases with the increase of the produce. … Every increase in the real wealth of the society, every increase in the quantity of useful labour employed within it, tends indirectly to raise the real rent of land. A certain proportion of this labour naturally goes to the

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

67

land. A greater number of men and cattle are employed in its cultivation, the produce increases with the increase of the stock which is thus employed in raising it, and the rent increases with the produce. The whole annual produce of the land and labour of every country, or, what comes to the same thing, the whole price of the annual produce, naturally divides itself, it has already been observed, into three parts; the rent of the land, the wages of labour; and the profits of stock; and constitutes a revenue to three different orders of people: to those who live by rent, to those who live by wages, and to those who live by profit. These are the three great, original, and constituent, orders of every civilised society, from whose revenue that of every other order is ultimately derived. What Smith is saying here is, essentially, that each ‘order’ of society needs the others and that, without this complementary system of production none could survive. He may well have envisaged the way that the land, on which all production was based, could itself become exhausted from overuse, and he may also have imagined the manner in which externalities might flow from large scale industrialisation and the diversification of markets. He recognised, as discussed briefly later, that this system of generating wealth could not be sustainable. Having outlined the way in which society supports itself, Smith then goes on to examine the role of each of the interdependent ‘orders’ of society28: The interest of the first of those three great orders, it appears from what has been just now said, is strictly and inseparably connected with the general interest of the society. Whatever either promotes or obstructs one, necessarily promotes or obstructs the other. Of the landlord ‘order’ Smith states, in a somewhat uncomplimentary manner29: They are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application of mind, which is necessary in order to foresee and understand the consequence of any public regulation. Of the second order, ‘those who live by wages’, he says30:

68 

Sordid Boon?

The interest of the second order … is as strictly connected with the interest of the society as the first. The wages of the labourer, it has already been shewn, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may perhaps gain more by the prosperity of society than that of labourers; but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labour is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest, or of understanding its connexion with his own. Lest we think that Smith is disproportionately unkind about the intelligence and motivations of the first two orders, we can be reassured that he retains some balance in his narrative by being possibly more scathing about the order of merchants. It is perhaps for this class that he reserves his most stinging rebuke. These employers of the labourers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit31: It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit that puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important parts of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all these plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connexion with the general interest of the society, as that of the other two. Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration … To widen the market and narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an tax upon their fellow citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

69

listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. What Smith appears to be saying about the different orders of society in the above passages is that, while the landowner is indolent and the labourer is ignorant, both work unconsciously, and perhaps selfishly, in the public interest. The merchant however, unless watched very carefully, will get out of step with the public interest by the relentless pursuit of profit. Monopolistic behaviour was anathema to Smith and he argues here that those who live by profit will attempt to engage an ever wider market while reducing competition in order to increase profits. This is something that we can easily understand in our own context, but an issue that is not widely recognised as being a major concern of Smith’s. He supported the free market but understood that the natural outcome of unfettered competition would indeed be monopoly as the most successful competitors drove others out of the marketplace. Smith believed in a system of checks and balances to monitor competition and profit. In this context we can understand his observations about countries with the highest profits going fastest to ruin. The invisible hand of God might be able to direct human’s more selfish behaviours towards benefiting society, but something more was required to prevent the merchant order from exploiting a free market. Then, as now, scrupulous and suspicious attention to the merchants’ activities from the government and the public was required. Smith had other concerns about the wealth and benefits that might flow from the prosperity afforded by the workings of the market. One of the focal points of the system Smith that outlined was specialisation and the division of labour. In Chapter I of Wealth of Nations, following his well-known example of pin manufacturing, Smith uses the cases of France, England and Poland to compare how different nations can be better suited to doing different things and producing different commodities. France is better at producing silk32:

70 

Sordid Boon? The silks of France are better and cheaper than those of England, because the silk manufacturer, at least under the present high duties upon the importation of raw silk, does not so well suit the climate of England as that of France. But the hardware and coarse woollens of England are beyond all comparison superior to those of France, and much cheaper, too, in the same degree of goodness. In Poland there are said to be scarce any manufactures of any kind, a few of those coarser household manufactures excepted, without which no country can well subsist. This great increase in the quantity of work which, in consequence of the division of labour, the same number of people are capable of performing, is owing to three different circumstances: first, the increase of dexterity in every particular workman; secondly, to the saving of time which is commonly lost in passing from one species of work to another; and lastly, to the invention of a great number of machines which facilitate and abridge labour, and enable one man to do the work of many.

However, there is a downside to the division of labour. Towards the end of Chapter XI in Book I, Smith discusses Different Effects of the Progress of Improvement upon three different sorts of rude Produce.33 It is clear that he is acutely aware that while production is far more efficient under this regime, the workers suffer from mental stagnation. The progress resulting from the division of labour is only material, for the workers it is a backwards step. As Smith33 states of such a hapless worker: He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such [mental] exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become … In every improved and civilised society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it. Heilbroner and Malone34 summarise this as ‘Material progress, in other words, brings moral decay’. As we shall see later, Smith had identified a number of other roles for government, apart from preventing the labouring poor from losing the habit of mental exertion. However, Smith was also concerned with another potentially negative impact of having a system that could generate wealth in the way he was describing: It would not be sustainable. Smith35 states:

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

71

In a country which had acquired that full complement of riches which the nature of its soil and climate, and its situation with respect to other countries, allowed it to acquire, which could, therefore, advance no further, and which was not going backwards, both the wages of labour and the profits of stock [capital], would probably be very low. In a country fully peopled in proportion to what either its territory could maintain, or its stock employ, the competition for employment would necessarily be so great as to reduce the wages of labour to what was barely sufficient to keep up the number of labourers, and the country already being fully peopled, that number could never be augmented. In a country fully stocked in proportion to all the business it had to transact, as great a quantity of stock would be employed in every particular branch as the nature and extent of the trade would admit. The competition, therefore, would everywhere be as great, and, consequently, the ordinary profit as low as possible. Without some form of regulation, material progress via the free market is finite and self-limiting-it must end. Without intervention, the picture Smith draws of following it to its logical conclusion is pessimistic. Smith thus devised a system of checks and balances to ensure that his limited proposals for ‘material progress’ via a free market would not have too bleak an outcome: he identified a strong regulatory role for the government. Smith’s Role for Government and State In volume two of Wealth of Nations Smith clearly sets out his views on the role of government and the state. Bearing in mind that Smith’s context was somewhat different to our own it is, nonetheless, not difficult to understand and apply his thoughts to current systems of national government, especially in states committed to free trade and competition. Chapter I of Book V is devoted to ‘… the Expenses of the Sovereign or Commonwealth’36. The rest of Book V deals with other matters of public interest and accountability — Chapter II, Part I being ‘Of the Funds or Sources of Revenue which may particularly belong to the Sovereign or Commonwealth’37, and Part II being ‘Of Taxes’37. Chapter III is entirely committed to ‘Of Public Debt’38. In addition to examining the nation’s economy at home, Smith was also concerned with the economy and welfare of the nation’s colonies. Chapter VII of

72 

Sordid Boon?

Book IV, ‘Of Systems of Political Economy’, is ‘Of Colonies’, and Smith examines the matter with his usual attention to detail. In Part III, Chapter I of Book V he analyses some aspects of colonial rule and its implications for those unfortunate enough to be ‘colonised’. Smith delivers a damning assessment of the activities of the mercantile British East India Company and some of its impacts on India for he is concerned with the well-being of India’s people as well as those of Britain. The different contexts of the eighteenth and twenty-first centuries notwithstanding, drawing parallels between the interactions of the world’s rich and poor, the global north and global south, then and now, is inescapable. Some of Smith’s views on commerce, colonialism and government will be briefly considered later in this chapter. It is beyond the scope of this book to examine all of Smith’s ideas concerning government in detail, since he gives the topic a fairly comprehensive treatment. Interested readers should refer to one of the many editions of Wealth of Nations in order to read Smith’s work first hand. In Smith’s view the role of government was to guide and oversee the workings of the economy so that all outcomes were in the best interests of society. For this reason there were several areas of activity in which the free market had no role, or a limited role and, indeed, where attempts to establish a market, or private activity, might be undesirable. These areas were: Defence; Justice; Public Works and Public Institutions; Educational Institutions; and, ‘the Expense of supporting the Dignity of the Sovereign’. Each of these will be very briefly assessed below. Smith discusses his propositions for each of the above areas of activity under its own heading. He views responsibility for the first three as being part of ‘the duty of the sovereign’ or Commonwealth. It is apparent that financing the two types of educational institutions that he mentions (for youth, and for those of all ages) is to be considered as part of ‘public works and public institutions’. ‘Of the Expense of Defence’ he says39: The first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

73

by means of a military force. But the expense both of preparing this military force in time of peace, and of employing it in time of war, is very different in the different states of society, in the different periods of improvement. And, ‘Of the Expense of Justice’ 40, he says: The second duty of the sovereign, that of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, requires two very different degrees of expense in the different periods of society. With regard to the ‘… Expense of public Works and public Institutions’, Smith clearly identifies the need for governments to subsidise services which increase (sometimes intangible) public benefits41: The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth, is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature, that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual, or small number of individuals; and which it, therefore, cannot be expected that any individual, or small number of individuals should erect or maintain. … After the public institutions and public works necessary for the defence of the society, and for the administration of justice, both of which have already been mentioned, the other works and institutions of this kind are chiefly for facilitating the commerce of the society, and those for promoting the instruction of the people. The institutions for instruction are of two kinds: those for the education of the youth, and those for the instruction of people of all ages. The consideration of the manner in which the expense of those different sorts of public works and institutions may be most properly defrayed will divide this third part of the present chapter into three different articles. We should recall from our earlier discussion that one of the reasons that Smith wanted the government to provide educational institutions for people of all ages was because he was concerned about the ‘moral decay’ that would follow if workers were dedicated to only one task under a more economically efficient division of labour in producing goods and services. This would result in

74 

Sordid Boon?

individual members of the specialised workforce being involved in mind-numbing repetition, day after day. In fact, in the eighteenth century, among Smith and his contemporaries and, more strenuously, among nineteenth-century intellectuals and social reformers, free, government provided education for all ages was the cornerstone of a sound economy and a healthy society. This idea was promoted by utilitarian political economists like Harriet Martineau, as well as by philosophers and scientists like Mill, Darwin and others42. With respect to public works and institutions for ‘facilitating commerce in general’ Smith paid particular attention to what we would now call public infrastructure. Following the industrial revolution, the number of works that could be included under Smith’s original heading expanded quite significantly, given his rationale for developing, building and retaining these works in public ownership. In addition to Smith’s original list of ‘good roads, bridges, navigable canals, harbours, &c’, we would have to add infrastructure and works that have been invented since Smith’s time. These would include railways, railway stations, trains, bus stations, buses and airports, and probably also power stations, the electricity utilities delivering the user’s power, and desalination plants. All of these are currently undergoing or have undergone ‘privatisation’ and ‘corporatisation’ in many countries. This removal of facilities from public ownership is being conducted under the auspices of the free market and economic efficiency. Ports (harbours) are also being privatised — and this includes airports as well as seaports. In Part III of chapter I (Book V), Smith goes into considerable detail to explain his reasoning43. His rationale remains unchanged and, it could be argued, has considerably expanded in education as well as in public works given the level of technology and automation that has occurred in all sectors that he mentions in the past two hundred years. Yet it is only in defence and aspects of justice (law and order) where those ideologically committed to the free market usually demand a strong role for government. The other exception is when the market crashes, often as a consequence of the misdemeanours of its supporters who then

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

75

ask governments for massive amounts of money to bail them out, as happened in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis. In other areas, there is now a very muddled approach to legislation and privatisation, particularly of previously ‘nationalised’ sectors, such as transport, where large government subsidies are often required to maintain ‘free market’ operation of the ‘public’ infrastructure. This is particularly true of ‘public’ transport in Great Britain where railway lines are owned by one private company and the trains that run on them by another, effectively generating the sort of monopoly so scorned by Smith. In fact the British economist David Pearce made public transport the topic of one of his chapters in a book on cost-benefit analysis, where he demonstrated the need for government-owned public transport as a social benefit44. In places such as Britain and Australia, publicly owned energy utilities have been privatised arguably in keeping with an ideological approach to the ‘free market’. Some of these have also resulted in effective monopolies. While discussing the matter in much detail, and according to different scenarios, in Wealth of Nations, Smith introduces the topic as follows: … The expense of making and maintaining the public roads of any country must evidently increase with the annual produce of the land and labour of that country, or with the quantity and weight of the goods which it becomes necessary to fetch and carry upon those roads. The strength of a bridge must be suited to the number and weight of the carriages which are likely to pass over it. The depth and the supply of water for a navigable canal must be proportioned to the number and tonnage of the lighters which are likely to carry goods upon it; the extent of a harbour, to the number of the shipping which are likely to take shelter in it. It does not seem necessary that the expense of those public works should be defrayed from that public revenue, as it is commonly called, of which the collection and application of it are in most countries, assigned to the executive power. The greater part of such public works may easily be managed, as to afford a particular revenue, sufficient for defraying their own expense, without bringing any burden upon the revenue of the society. … When the carriages which pass over a highway or a bridge, and the lighters which sail upon a navigable canal, pay toll in proportion to their weight or their tonnage, they pay for the maintenance of those public works exactly in proportion to the wear and tear which they occasion of them. It seems scarce possible to invent a more equitable way of maintaining such

76 

Sordid Boon? works. This tax or toll, too, though it is advanced by the carrier, is finally paid by the consumer, to whom it is always charged in the price of the goods45.

In this passage Smith is clearly expounding what is now referred to as the ‘user pays principle’ in economics. However, if we consider the use of public roads, as he is suggesting, we can see very quickly that the large semi trailers which ply our highways in ever greater numbers are not paying tolls ‘in proportion to their weight or their tonnage’ … ‘for the maintenance of those public works exactly in proportion to the wear and tear which they occasion of them’. As an exercise in ‘equity’, compare the fee for cars with that of large trucks and lorries next time you use a tollway. If there is no tollway, try to compare the annual amount of motor registration or road tax you pay, in proportion to the weight of your vehicle and the distance you travel each year, with the same proportions for large lorries and trucks. The fee or tax is likely to be different by a small multiple, while the latter, weight and distance travelled is likely to be orders of magnitude different. If we were to market principles consistently, in the way that Smith intended, and these days that would include the external costs of pollution and global warming, accidents, petrol spills and so on, as well as the proportional tolls and taxes paid by different road users, then the price of the goods that semi trailers carry up and down on our roads would be much higher. Thus, according to market theory, not accommodating the full costs of the transport, which includes wear and tear on public roads and so on, means that we are paying far too little for the goods that are transported in this manner. In turn, this suggests that inappropriate charging for private (commercial) use of public roads actually interferes with market price signals. This is true of many aspects of ‘facilitating the Commerce of the Society’, and has particular implications for social and environmental justice. Smith concludes his discussion of ‘Expenses of the Sovereign’ with the following summary46: The expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

77

general contribution of the whole society; all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities. The expense of the administration of justice, too; may no doubt be considered as laid out for the benefit of the whole society. There is no impropriety, therefore, in its being defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society … Those local or provincial expenses, of which the benefit is local or provincial (what is laid out, for example, upon the police of a particular town or district), ought to be defrayed by a local or provincial revenue, and ought to be no burden upon the general revenue of the society … The expense of maintaining good roads and communications is, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without any injustice, be defrayed by the general contributions of the whole society. This expense, however, is most immediately and directly beneficial to those who travel or carry goods from one place to another, and to those who consume such goods. The turnpike tolls in England, and the duties called peages in other countries, lay it altogether upon two different sets of people, and thereby discharge the general revenue of the society from a very considerable burden. The expense of the institutions for education … is likewise, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without injustice, be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society … When the institutions, or public works, which are beneficial to the whole society, either cannot be maintained altogether, or are not maintained altogether, by the contribution of such members of the society as are most immediately benefited by them; the deficiency must, in most cases, be made up by the general contribution of the whole society … Smith’s intentions are clear. He is interested in the well-being of all the members of society and he is trying to devise a system which is equitable. He has identified a range of services that should always be paid for from general revenue. However, if such services or public infrastructure are used disproportionately by certain members of society, like those involved in commerce, then they must pay an extra contribution, proportional to their use and wear and tear, for the upkeep of the publicly owned resources which help them realise their profits. They must not impose on the public purse at the expense of other members of society. Smith is never reticent about identifying what he views as unreasonable behaviour. As we have already seen he has little respect for the ‘indolent’ order of landlords, he is disdainful about those in politics referring to ‘that insidious and

78 

Sordid Boon?

crafty animal vulgarly called a statesman or politician’47, but he seems to reserve his most intense dislike for the order of merchants, ‘those who live by profit’. In ‘Of Colonies’48 Smith has much to say about the behavior of the merchant East India Company which gives pause for thought, and he says it in his usual witty and acerbic style. This is really worth reading, not just for those who are keen to see Smith’s own words, but also for anyone who would like to compare and contrast commercial interactions between the global north and south in Smith’s time and in ours. While Smith considers colonies other than India, and colonisers other than Britain or merchants, in ‘Of Colonies’ he concludes the chapter with a brief summary of his view of organisations like the British East India Company saying:49 ‘Such exclusive companies, therefore, are nuisances in every respect; always more or less inconvenient to the countries in which they are established, and destructive to those which have the misfortune to fall under their government’. Lest we think that for all their flaws the merchant colonisers generated sufficient wealth as ‘the plunderers of India’50 to avoid an impost on the public purse, this was not the case. Much to Smith’s chagrin the British government was forced to fund a public bailout of the Company because51 The regulations of 1773, accordingly, did not put an end to the disorder of the company’s government in India. Notwithstanding that, during a momentary fit of good conduct, they had at one time collected into the treasury of Calcutta more than £3,000,000 sterling; notwithstanding that they had afterwards extended either their dominion or their depredations over a vast accession of some of the richest and most fertile countries in India, all was wasted and destroyed. They found themselves altogether unprepared to stop or resist the incursion of Hyder Ali; and in consequence of those disorders, the company is now (1784) in greater distress than ever; and, in order to prevent immediate bankruptcy, is once more reduced to supplicate the assistance of government. Today’s application of the free market economy often does not adhere to the provisions carefully enunciated by Adam Smith, to avoid unjust or unequitable impositions upon members of society. When we expand this analysis to examine

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

79

the implications of the private use for profit from a wider range of public assets, such as forests and fisheries, and private leasing arrangements of public lands, such as pastoral leases in Australia, we can see that many of these activities not only impose massive intangible costs on the environment, and thus on society, but they are also socially inequitable. This is contrary to Smith’s intentions and theories for he was motivated, like other intellectuals who developed and promulgated theories of political economy, by principles of morality and equity which were placed above all other considerations. Summary In this chapter the philosophy and ideas of some eighteenth-century intellectuals have been briefly assessed. This has been done to establish the context of their era, and also to examine their ideas and intentions in the light of their nineteenthcentury intellectual descendents and the origins of the modern day concept of sustainable development. The eighteenth-century thinkers worked against the backdrop of the enlightenment, the French revolution, the early industrial revolution and the American war of independence 52 . Despite differences in opinion, ideology and perception they were, almost without exception, motivated by concern for the plight of humanity and for the future of society. Paley, Smith, Hume, Malthus, and the French physiocrats and their peers across continental Europe were the heirs to an earlier generation of political economists, theologists and philosophers. These included Quesnay, Condorcet and Cantillon. Morality, equity and justice were words that they all used frequently to describe the motivation for their work. While there were some philosophical differences between them, especially depending on whether they were viewed as utilitarian like Smith, or ‘intuitive’ like Turgot; profoundly religious like Paley or sceptic, like Hume, they had a common belief, of varying degrees, in ethics and justice. In the work of many of them there is, at least, a glimmer of concern about human impacts on the environment coupled with a respect for the environment itself. This is strongly the case for Paley who used his knowledge of the intricacies of

80 

Sordid Boon?

nature to demonstrate the presence of God as the designer of it all, and the owner of the invisible hand that drove animal behaviour. Malthus’ controversial work on the growth of the human population, and his fear that it might exceed the carrying capacity of the earth, demonstrated a concern for both the earth and the people who depended on it for their survival. His work was very influential in the nineteenth century and continues to be influential and controversial in the twentyfirst century. The early political economists like Cantillon, Turgot and Smith make frequent reference to the role of the earth in enabling people to transform their labour into produce, and Smith makes much reference to the production capacity of the land, climate and resources in terms of their limiting effects on human productivity. While Paley and Smith arguably both saw the invisible hand of God at work in directing human and animal behaviour towards the best outcomes for their species, Hume was an atheist who questioned the existence of God and who saw no justice in the universe that God was held to have created. Given this context in which to read and appraise Smith’s work and that of his polymath friends and peers, we can see that the motivation for their ideas, which so strongly influenced the nineteenth-century generation of intellectuals, was, above all, a moral concern for the human condition. Inter- and intragenerational equity, so strongly promoted in sustainable development, make an appearance in their work, as does concern for the environment and for the future. Current concepts in economics, one of the three mainstays of sustainable development, along with social justice and conservation, were also part of the basis for political economy, which accommodated justice and the environment in the nineteenth century. In the short analysis of Smith’s work discussed above we can see that, although his name is frequently invoked in ideological applications of free market economics, much of this application is inconsistent with Smith’s theories and intentions. This misinterpretation of the theory and the context of classical utilitarian economics sometimes results in policy that is contrary to Smith’s

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

81

purpose and to the elements of sustainable development, both in its current context, and in the manner in which ideas embodied in it were developed. As discussed in chapter one, the concept of sustainable development has become popular for determining policy for socio-economic and environmental management. Examination of the works of the nineteenth-century intellectuals who followed Smith will also elucidate the policy making process. A brief reading of their ideas, which have significantly influenced the direction and progress of thought in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, strongly suggests that a notion very similar to the concept of sustainability underlay the many of the theories to emerge from that time. These theories are explored in chapters four to seven, according to discipline and theorist. In the next chapter, our consideration of nineteenth-century ideas begins with the work of Charles Darwin, one of the most influential thinkers of the last millennium. The controversy that erupted after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, and the parallels between his work, and that of Smith, Paley and their contemporaries are considered. This is done in the context of utilitarianism, ethics and sustainability in order to gauge a clearer understanding of Darwin’s motives and intentions. Darwin was aware of Smith’s work and related it directly to his own. The links between Smith’s ideas and Darwin’s theories are explored, especially those relating to ethics, utility, cooperation and compassion where, perhaps surprisingly, a lot of common ground is revealed.                                                          Endnotes 1

Amartya Sen, ‘Adam Smith and the Contemporary World’, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 3: 1, (2010), 50-67. 2 W.B. Hodgson, Turgot: His Life, Times, and Opinions. Two lectures, (London: Trubner and Co, 1870). 3 See chapters five and seven for more detailed discussion of Mill and his work. 4 Adam Smith, Adam, Theory of Moral Sentiments. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976, edited by D.D. Rafael and A.L. Mcfie, first published 1759), p.9. 5 Adam Smith, An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Volumes 1 and 2, (London: Henry Froude, 1908, first published 1776).

82 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                        6 D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie, editors, Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiment, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976).  7 Robert L.Heilbroner and Laurence J. Malone, The Essential Adam Smith, (New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 1986). 8 Smith, Wealth of Nations p.87. 9 Commonwealth of Australia, The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, (Canberra: The Australian Government Publishing Service, 2000).  10 Smith, Wealth of Nations, p. 87-88. 11 Amartya Sen, ‘The Economist Manifesto’, New Statesman, 23 April 2010, http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2010/04/smith-market-essay-sentiments   12 Sen, ibid, p.2. 13 Smith, Moral Sentiments, pp.184–185, my emphasis. 14 Heilbroner and Malone, Essential Smith, p. 57. 15 Ibid 16 Raphael and Macfie, in Smith, Moral Sentiments, p. 15. 17 ibid 18 Smith cited in Heilbroner and Malone, Essential Smith, p. 332. 19 Smith, Wealth of Nations, p.290. 20 Smith, ibid, p. 342, my emphasis; note also that the invisible hand appears after Smith has vented his dislike of merchants so the reader will be in no doubt about his view of their greed. 21 Smith, Ibid, p. 1. 22 Smith, Ibid. 23 Smith, cited in Heilbroner and Malone, Essential Smith, p. 179. 24 Malthus cited in Patricia James, Population Malthus. His Life and Times, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979), pp. 318–9. 25 C. Becker, M. Faber, K.Hertel and R. Manstetten, R, ‘Malthus vs Wordsworth: Perspectives on Humankind, Nature and Economy. A Contribution to the History and the Foundations of Ecological Economics’, Ecological Economics, 53: 3 (2005), 299-310. 26 Smith, Wealth of Nations, p.2. 27 Smith, ibid, Chapter XI, Book I, Volume I. pp. 286–287. 28 Smith ibid, p. 287. 29 Smith ibid, pp. 287–8. 30 Smith ibid, p.288 31 Smith ibid, p. 289-290, my emphasis. 32 Smith ibid, p.9. 33 Smith ibid, p. 248. 34 Helibroner and Malone, Essential Smith, p.155. 35 Smith Wealth of Nations, p. 105, my emphasis. 36 Smith ibid, p. 314. 37 Smith ibid, p. 461. 38 Smith ibid, p. 575.

Chapter 3: The Work of Adam Smith

83

                                                                                                                                                        Smith ibid, p.314. 40 Smith ibid, p. 335. 41 Smith ibid, p. 350. 42 For example see Wendy Donner, The Liberal Self: John Stuart Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1991), Rowland Detrosier, An Address On The Necessity Of An Extension Of Moral And Political Instruction Among The Working Classes: With A Memoir Of The Author, (London: Cleave, 1834?), Frederick William Roe, The Social Philosophy of Carlyle and Ruskin, (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1969, first published 1921), and, Henry Travis, A Manual Of Social Sciences For The Working Classes, Explanatory Of The Means To Provide For The Population A Really Good Education And Beneficial Well-Regulated Employment in Highly Favourable New Social Arrangements, (London: George Potter, 1877).  43 Smith, Wealth of Nations, pp. 351–393. 44 David Pearce, Cost-Benefit Analysis, (London: Macmillan, 1971).  45 Smith, Wealth of Nations, p.351-352, my emphasis. 46 Ibid, p. 459-460. 47 Adam Smith, An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1784 (second edition), pdf, Penn State Electronic Classics Series Publication, 2005, first published 1776, http://freedownload.is/pdf/the-wealth-of-nations7591189.html, p. 374. 48 Ibid, Part II, Chapter VII of Book IV, p. 447. See also Chapter VII, Conclusions of the Mercantile System, p. 522. 49 Ibid, p. 522. 50 Ibid, p. 615, Smith disliked exploitation of any kind. 51 Ibid, p. 616, my emphasis. The second edition of Wealth of Nations was published in 1784, the year referred to in this passage. 52 See for example, the following works: Preserved Smith, A History of Modern Culture: Volume Two: The Enlightenment: 1687-1776, (London: George Routledge & Sons, 1934). G.W. Gough, Half-Hour Studies in Economics, (Manchester: W. Haugh and Sons, 1913). R.W. Harris, Reason and Nature in the Eighteenth Century, (London: Blandford, 1968). 39

 

 

CHAPTER 4 DARWIN AND THE NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS If ignorance of nature gave birth to the Gods, Knowledge of nature is destined to destroy them. Paul Henri, Baron d’Holbach: Systeme de La Nature Our hope of immortality stands on precisely the same basis on the hypothesis of evolution as on that of a separate creation. Arabella Buckley: Darwinism and Religion.

Introduction The intellectuals discussed in the previous chapter had a great influence on those who followed. During the eighteenth and nineteenth century all intellectuals were polymaths. The disciplines had not become separated into areas of specialisation so researchers and analysts in one particular field were well versed in most other areas of intellectual pursuit. This was true of Smith, Malthus, Paley, Turgot and Hume. The multidisciplinary tradition continued into the nineteenth century and, as with the preceding century, the influential thinkers of the day also tended to know each other and in most cases they were familiar with the work of their peers. These intellectual and social connections are important both to understanding the

86 

Sordid Boon?

work of the classical scientists and economists and to understanding their context, and hence their intentions. Many modern analysts have recognised this importance, yet there is a continued failure to accommodate its significance in modern policy. James1, Young2 and Kile3, among others, have brought attention to this issue. Young4 contrasts the clear pathway from Malthusian to Darwinian thinking with the disconnection of subsequent ideas from their shared intellectual background and context, stating ‘I remain certain that it is not right to separate the Darwinian debate from broader cultural, ideological, political, and economic issues’. It is not just Darwinian debate, however, that has been separated from broader cultural, ideological, political and economic issues. It is also the debate of a large group of nineteenth-century intellectuals, now claimed by a range of disciplines, who engaged in analysis of many issues that are relevant to modern policy, especially those relating to sustainable development. These issues are important to current and future generations who have been left to resolve the growing environmental and social inequities of the twenty-first century. Nineteenth-century intellectual dialogue was intense and involved individuals from a range of interest areas embracing art, literature, architecture, science, philosophy, economics and theology. Unfortunately, partly because of the sheer amount of knowledge we possess, there is now less interdisciplinary dialogue. Because this chapter involves discussion that takes a necessarily broad approach to intellectual activity and socio-political views from the nineteenth century, it is not possible to assess the work of all the people who contributed. However, some effort will be made to identify connections between influential people and their way of thinking, to try and reunite all aspects of the debate. In this way the basis for asserting that it was primarily nineteenth-century thinkers who identified and argued for the elements that we see in sustainability discourse today will be more cogent.

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

87

Today’s separated disciplines also draw strongly on the theories and arguments of nineteenth-century scientists and economists who established the foundations of modern thought. These people were, in turn influenced by the eighteenth-century thinkers discussed in chapters two and three, whose ideas and perceptions were a product of their own context. The long list of thinkers who engaged in the broader intellectual debate of the era includes: Darwin, Martineau, Ricardo, Ruskin, Carlyle, Wordsworth, Dickens, Byron, Tennyson, Mill, Gladstone and the pre-Raphaelite artists, to name but a few. Like their eighteenth-century predecessors, these thinkers often participated in lively disagreement and argument about the theories and ideas promoted within their wider intellectual circle. But also, like their predecessors, their main concerns were about the long-term wellbeing of society. Ideas promoting conservation and preservation of the environment became far more prominent in the nineteenth century, and it is not difficult to discern the beginnings of a conservation movement. Again, like their eighteenth-century intellectual forebears, concepts of morality and ethics drove both their intellectual pursuits and their development of new ideas. They were looking for solutions for the ‘human condition’ and, above all, most of them wanted to make things better for the generations to follow. It is this concern for the future, which was also expressed by utilitarian political economists like Martineau 5 that leads to such close parallels with twentiethcentury ideas in sustainable development. While John Ruskin is generally better known for his interest in the built environment and for social criticism, he was also interested in the natural environment, and is seen by some today as an early conservationist. For this reason, it is apposite to use his words to introduce the content of this chapter. In The Seven Lamps of Architecture, first published in 1849, Ruskin6 wrote: The idea of self-denial for the sake of posterity, of practicing present economy for the sake of debtors yet unborn, of planting forests that our descendants may live under their shade, or of raising cities for future

 

88 

Sordid Boon? nations to inhabit, never, I suppose efficiently takes place among publicly recognized motives of exertion. Yet these are not the less of our duties; nor is our part fitly sustained upon the earth, unless the range of our intended and deliberate usefulness include, not only the comparisons, but the successes of our pilgrimage. God has lent us the earth for our life; it is a great entail. It belongs as much to those who are to come after us and whose names are already written in the book of creation as to us; and we have no right by anything that we do or neglect to involve them in unnecessary penalties, or deprive them of benefits which it was in our power to bequeath. And this the more, because it is one of the appointed conditions of the labour of men that, in proportion to the time between the seed-sowing and the harvest, is the fullness of the fruit; and that generally, therefore, the farther off we place our aim, and the less we desire to be ourselves the witnesses of what we have laboured for, the more wide and rich will be the measure of our success. Men cannot benefit those that are with them as they can benefit those who come after them; and of all the pulpits from which the human voice is ever sent forth, there is none from which it teaches so far as from the grave.

These words are powerful in any context, but probably have more meaning now than when Ruskin wrote them as his concern is so patently for the future, for the sustainability of the earth and for the way in which we use it. Ruskin is cautioning us against instant gratification when the rewards of delayed gratification could be so much greater — perhaps not for us, but certainly for our descendants. Ruskin’s message is a moral one, similar to that of many other nineteenth-century writers. A number of these writers, drawn from a range of current disciplines, will be considered briefly below. The interconnected trains of thought that link these thinkers relate, like those of the eighteenth century, to social justice, morality, the environment and economics. As with their predecessors, the political economists were by no means all of a utilitarian persuasion, although this was the dominant train of economic thought. However, where utilitarianism prevailed, it was always coupled with ethics and justice. While religious belief was still very strong, the language of these writers makes more allowance for a broader spirituality. Even though the Christian message was always close at hand, thinkers like Darwin began to

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

89

suggest that the earth might not be here just for the benefit of humanity but, rather, for all of the life upon it. Darwin’s Predecessors and Contemporaries The publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection7 in the middle of the nineteenth century caused quite a sensation, and was the subject of considerable debate. People were affronted by the idea that we had evolved as a species, rather than being created in seven days by God, in his own image, along with a well-stocked planet provided for our exclusive use8. However, just as Smith, in his own time had built and developed his ideas upon the foundations of contemporary intellectual dialogue, so Darwin pursued the ideas of his antecedents and contemporaries to what he saw as their logical conclusion. Young

9

when discussing Charles Lyell’s controversial work

Principles of Geology (1830–1833) notes that Lyell complained about the impact of religious belief on his work in geology as the so called laws of nature could be suspended at any time to accommodate a miracle or other phenomena not accounted for by science. In this respect Lyell’s position on this was not dissimilar to Hume’s. As in the case with Smith’s ‘Invisible Hand’ it cannot be stressed enough that in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, Christian religion and the divine power of God were almost universally accepted as the motivating force behind human existence, and that of the earth and nature, on which humanity relied. Belief was fervent and almost absolute. New ideas and patterns of thought, even if only developed to explain what could be observed, as in Darwin’s case, or to find a theory to effect a better generation and fairer distribution of wealth in society, as in Smith’s case, were often scrutinised or interpreted as challenging Christian doctrine. It is thus not surprising that Darwin’s Origin of Species was seen as a challenge10. The natural philosophers involved in developing evolutionary theories used Charles Lyell’s ideas to support some of their own, but disagreed with his

 

90 

Sordid Boon?

rejection of the notion of evolution. The anonymous author of a work published in 1844, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, had also clearly disagreed with some of Lyell’s assertions. He took particular exception to Lyell’s exclusion of life from his application of ‘uniform natural laws’ to earth’s history, claiming that what applied to the earth must also apply to the life upon it. It was not until 1884, more than twelve years after his death, that this work’s author was revealed as Robert Chambers. By the standard of the day Chamber’s publication was a great success, selling 25,000 copies by 1860, and demonstrating that the subject, while fraught with theological controversy, was of immense public interest 11 . Darwin believed that Chamber’s work had helped to make people more ready to accept his own ideas about evolution since it had preceded his Origin of Species by 15 years. So popular was Vestiges, that Chambers published its sequel, Explanations, in 1845. Charles Darwin himself was more than ready to acknowledge that his ideas were not new, but built upon a progression of thought and debate, which began long before the first publication of Origin of Species12. In the 1875 edition of the book he opened with ‘An Historical Sketch’ in which he began: I will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre-existing forms. Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical writers, * the first author who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon. But his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as he does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species, I need not here enter on details. Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801 he much enlarged them in 1809 in his ‘Philosophie Zoologique’, and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his ‘Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres’. In these works he upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species…

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

91

Geoffroy Saint Hillaire, as is stated in his ‘Life’, written by his son, suspected, as early as 1795, that what we call species are various degenerations of the same type. It was not until 1828 that he published his conviction that the same forms have not been perpetuated since the origin of all things … Darwin’s * above leads the reader to a footnote which cites Aristotle in Physicae Auscultationes musing about the purpose of rain and, perhaps more cogently, about specialisation in parts of the body, which serve a useful purpose but seem to result from accident. On reflection Aristotle concludes, ‘there appears to exist an adaptation to an end’. In another footnote, relating to Lemarck 13 , Darwin discusses his grandfather’s role in the development of evolutionary theory, and he also introduces the role of another eighteenth-century polymath —the German intellectual Goethe — to the conceptualisation of the theory of natural selection13: It is curious how largely my own grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, anticipated the views and erroneous grounds of opinion of Lamarck in his ‘Zoonomia’ (vol.i. pp. 500-510), published in 1794. According to Isid. Geoffroy there is no doubt that Goethe was an extreme partisan of similar views, as shown in the Introduction to a work written in 1794 and 1795, but not published till long after wards: he has pointedly remarked (‘Goethe als Naturforscher’, von Dr. Karl Meding, s.34) that the future question for naturalists will be how, for instance, cattle got their horns, and not for what they are used. It is rather a singular instance of the manner in which similar views arise at about the same time, that Goethe in Germany, Dr. Darwin in England, and Geoffroy Sainte Hilaire … in France, came to the same conclusion on the origin of species, in the years 1794-5. In his sketch, Darwin then writes an overview of ideas about evolution starting after the turn of the nineteenth century and progressing to the first publication of Origin of Species. He states14: In 1813, Dr. W.C. Wells read before the Royal Society ‘An Account of a White Female, part of whose skin resembles that of a Negro’; but his paper was not published until his famous ‘Two Essays upon Dew and Single Vision’ appeared in 1818. In this paper he distinctly recognises the principle of natural selection, and this is the first recognition that has been indicated; but he applies it only to races of man, and to certain characters alone. After remarking that negroes and mulattoes enjoy an immunity from certain

 

92 

Sordid Boon? tropical diseases, he observes, firstly, that all animals tend to vary in some degree, and secondly, that agriculturalists improve their domesticated animals by selection; and then he adds, but what is done in this latter case “by art, seems to be done with equal efficacy, though more slowly, by nature, in formation of varieties of mankind, fitted for the country which they inhabit. Of the accidental varieties of man, which would occur among the first few and scattered inhabitants of the middle regions of Africa, some one would be better fitted than the others to bear the diseases of the country. This race would consequently multiply, while the others would decrease; not only from their inability to sustain the attacks of disease, but from their incapacity of contending with their more vigorous neighbours. The colour of the vigorous race I take for granted, would be dark. But the same disposition to form varieties still existing, a darker and a darker race would in the course of time occur: and as the darkest would be the best fitted for the climate, this would at length become the most prevalent, if not the only race, in the particular country in which it had originated”. He then extends these same views to the white inhabitants of colder climates.

The passage above is interesting for a number of reasons. One might begin reading it while wondering quite what relevance the title Wells’ paper for the Royal Society could have to Darwin’s arguments. However, although the meaning of the title is never strictly clarified by Darwin, the importance of Wells’ earlier work to his theory of evolution becomes clear as Darwin proceeds. Wells’ example would not only be completely comprehensible to anyone living in the twenty-first century but, aside from the out-dated and rather offensive terminology, it is surprisingly enlightened for his era. He reasons that the ability to survive particular diseases is likely to be passed on to one’s offspring, thus causing the evolution of people who are able to survive locally prevalent infections. This rationale is accepted wisdom in the twenty-first century, and of great importance in a world where ecosystem damage is causing the emergence of dangerous new diseases15 for which very few people have effective immunity. But Wells, in regard to his use of skin colour as an example of a simple evolutionary adaptation to climatic conditions, is putting everyone on an equal footing: as an adaptive mechanism to enhance survival, those in hotter, sunnier climates have darker skin, while those in cooler, gloomier climates have lighter skin. Wells

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

93

seems to be stating the unarguable fact that, from an evolutionary perspective, skin colour and indeed, appearance, has absolutely nothing to do with superiority or inferiority, and everything to do with passing on the ability to live with minimal stress in the environment to which one is born. The incidence of skin cancers among people of European origin in Australia supports Wells’ observations. According to the Cancer Council of Australia, New Zealand and Australia have the unenviable statistic of the highest rate of melanoma in the world. Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer and Australian men have a one in fifteen chance of being diagnosed with it by the age of 8516. If non-melanoma skin cancers are excluded, melanoma is the fourth most common cancer in Australia suggesting that pale-skinned people of European origin are ill adapted to the Australian climate. In the next six pages of his historical sketch Darwin provides a useful summary of work in this field that preceded, or was contemporaneous with, his work and Wallace’s work. According to Darwin, The Hon and Rev. W. Herbert, later the Dean of Manchester, published his fourth volume of Horticultural Transactions in 1822, and his work on the ‘Amaryllidaceae’ in 1837 declaring17 ‘horticultural experiments have established, beyond the possibility of refutation, that botanical species are only a higher and more permanent class of varieties’. And, according to Darwin; ‘He extends the same view to animals. The Dean believes that single species of each genus were created in an originally highly plastic condition, and that these have produced, chiefly by intercrossing, but likewise by variation, all our existing species’. The fact of a devout Church leader developing a similar theory to Darwin’s own, by virtue of his botanical studies, well before the publication of Origin of Species must have seemed like a great irony to Darwin, given the theological storm that his work and that of other naturalists created. Herbert clearly saw no conflict between a belief in God’s creation and a theory of evolution, yet the conviction among some individuals that the two concepts were incompatible was the most controversial aspect of the theory of natural selection.

 

94 

Sordid Boon?

It is a point of historical interest that the theological world should be so shaken by Darwin’s work, given that the debate had been progressing slowly, though perhaps not so publicly, for over sixty years, sometimes facilitated by members of the clergy. It is also interesting to note that some interpretations of the theory of natural selection saw it as being consistent with utilitarian economic theories — the political economy of Smith and later Martineau, for example. The utilitarian political economists of the eighteenth century, as already discussed, were motivated by concepts of moral duty. This ethical motivation, which provided a context for the development of political economy, still held for the nineteenthcentury intellectuals, who made it clear that altruism and moral duty must not come below political economy as a determinant of policy. This issue will be discussed in more detail later. As Darwin continued his acknowledgements of others who had contributed to the field of evolutionary theory the names of a few eminent professors are mentioned along with other individuals who have little lasting recognition in modern science. What is obvious from Darwin’s list is that the debate, if not at the forefront of public thought before Origin of Species was published, was certainly lively and well populated. In addition to those already discussed, Darwin named the following individuals and their works as preceding the Origin of Species: Professor Grant (1826, 1834); Mr Patrick Matthew (1831); Von Buch (1836); Rafinesque (1836); Professor Haldeman (USA, 1843-44); Anon – The Vestiges of Creation (1844); M. J. d’Omalius d’Halloy (1846); Professor Owen (1849); M. Isidore Geoffroy Saint Hilaire (1850); Dr Freake (1851); Mr Herbert Spencer (1852); M. Naudin (1852); Count Keyserling (1854); Dr Schaaffhausen; M. Lecoq (1854); Rev. Baden Powell (1855); Darwin and Wallace (1858); Von Baer (1859); Prof Huxley (1859); and Dr Hooker (Australia, 1859). Finally, on the page facing the title page in the 1875 edition of Origin of Species Darwin included three short quotes that he clearly saw as relevant to the content and context of the book. It is worth reproducing them here:

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

95

But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this—we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws. WHEWELL: Bridgewater Treatise. The only direct meaning of the word ‘natural’ is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, ie, to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once. BUTLER: Analogy of Revealed Religion. To conclude, therefore, let no man out of weak conceit of sobriety, or an illapplied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both. BACON: Advancement of Learning. Responses to Origin of Species Darwin published two further controversial books after Origin of Species. In 1871 The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex was first released18. This book was something of a departure from the Origin of Species in the sense that it focused specifically on the evolution of humanity and humanity’s evolutionary relationship to other species. However, at the same time, it was also a logical progression from Origin as much of its controversy concerned Darwin’s analysis of the human relationship to apes. The other book, Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals 19 dealt with a comparative psychology of man and other animals. Following the publication of Origin of Species Darwin’s name became well known in the public forum. Fawcett20 comments: No scientific work that has been published within this century has excited so much general curiosity as the treatise of Mr. Darwin. It has for a time divided the scientific world into two great contending sections. A Darwinite and an anti-Darwinite are now the badges of opposed scientific parties. Each side is ably represented. In the foremost ranks of the opposition against

 

96 

Sordid Boon? Darwin have already appeared Professor Owen, Mr. Hopkins, Sir B. Brodie, and Professor Sedgwick; whilst Professor Huxley, Professor Henslowe, Dr. Hooker, and Sir Charles Lyell, have given the new theory a support more or less decided.

In response to criticism of Darwin’s work, Fawcett21 added: ‘In reply to all this, it should at once be distinctly stated that Mr. Darwin does not pretend that his work contains a proved theory, but merely an extremely probable hypothesis’. Furthermore, Fawcett21 links Darwin with Malthus saying: There are those who dispute whether the struggle for existence is capable of effecting all that Mr. Darwin attributes to it; but the reality of this struggle for existence throughout the whole of nature is a demonstrated truth. Mr. Darwin remarks: “This struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of the increase of all organic beings throughout the world.” This is the doctrine of Malthus applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. The mention of Mr. Malthus will, we fear, not induce conviction; for our leading public journal, no doubt very accurately, reechoed the popular ignorance and prejudice with regard to Mr. Malthus, when he was lately described as that “morose, hard-hearted old man, whose theories now are entirely exploded”. But the intensity of the struggle for existence, necessitated by the laws of propagation which regulate the increase of animals and plants, can be abundantly illustrated by a few facts22. Public opinion was still very sensitive about Malthus and his views on population. Martineau, a political economist, contemporary of Darwin and friend of his brother Erasmus, also fell foul of the popular press by interpreting the work of Malthus (and others) for the literate working class in order to help with the dissemination of education and knowledge. Having published her interpretation of Malthus she was linked with another of Smith’s and Malthus’ contemporaries; Mary Wollstonecraft. Because she discussed Malthus’ work and considered reproduction and population growth Martineau was accused of dealing with 'mischievous and unfeminine doctrines’. Both Wollstonecraft and Martineau were perceived as undermining the subordinate role of women23. Thomas Huxley, philosopher and natural scientist was, like Fawcett, quick to call for reasoned debate on the Origin of Species. He saw the divisions that opened up in the community over the book as being destructive. In a short article

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

97

published in Macmillan’s Magazine the year after Origin was released, he called for a balanced debate24. I believe I have stated fairly the position upon which his whole theory must stand or fall; and it is not my purpose to anticipate a full review of his work. If it can be proved that the process of natural selection, operating upon any species, can give rise to varieties of species so different from one another that none of our tests will distinguish them from true species, Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis of the origin of species will take its place among the established theories of science, be its consequences whatever they may. If, on the other hand, Mr. Darwin has erred, either in fact or reasoning, his fellow-workers will soon find out the weak points in his doctrines, and their extinction by some nearer approximation to the truth will exemplify his own principle of natural selection. And; In either case the question is one to be settled only by the painstaking, truthloving investigation of skilled naturalists. It is the duty of the general public to await the result in patience; and, above all things, to discourage, as they would any other crimes, the attempt to enlist the prejudices of the ignorant, or the uncharitableness of the bigoted, on either side of the controversy. Both Fawcett and Huxley tried the reasoned approach to still public fears about the threat to conventional thinking that was perceived in Darwin’s work. As discussed above, the debate about the origin of species had been underway for more than half a century, but the perception of such a radical change in mainstream thinking frightened the general population. Those who attempted to instil a negative response were, then as now, those who had the most to lose from a change in the direction of accepted thought. The perceptions of ordinary members of the public are important, not only for gaining acceptance of progressive thought, but for changing the policies promoted by governments via the public ballot. It would probably be as difficult today to persuade the voting public that economic growth is but one somewhat flawed measure of social well-being, given the focus placed upon it, for example, at election time by politicians. Some economists have long argued for a more appropriate interpretation and application of economics that is consistent with our current context as part of sustainable development’s triple bottom line25.

 

98 

Sordid Boon?

Dixon26 tried a slightly different approach to enlisting a more open-minded public view of Darwin’s work. Like Martineau and Marcet he presented and interpreted the theory in a rather entertaining story published in Cornhill Magazine. In this piece the narrator is visiting the London zoo when his attention is caught by a: ‘middle aged lady of thoughtful aspect, in a dark-blue dress and sober bonnet’ who is accompanied by a ‘curly pated urchin, six or seven years of age’27. The narrator and the woman fall into conversation about Darwin’s Origin of Species. The story has become dreamlike when the woman hands over her card ‘… inscribed with my name and official title’ which transpires to be ‘Natural Selection’, ‘Originator of Species’. Her son passes his own card over and his name is ‘Struggle-for-Life’. The pair takes the narrator on a tour of the zoo while the woman explains and illustrates Darwin’s ideas, using the zoo animals as examples. Dixon, having woken the narrator from a dream and placed him next to a woman who is reading Darwin’s book concludes 28 in the words of this knowledgeable woman: I am far from competent to offer any conclusive criticism on so difficult a topic as that discussed by Mr. Darwin: I believe that no living person is. An infallible judgement can only be given by an Intelligence that is capable of tracing the workings of nature throughout all past time as clearly as, or more clearly than, we are able to observe her operations during our own short span of life. Still, the book has given me more comprehensive views than I had before. But I have no fixed creed in natural philosophy; I accept provisionally everything worthy of credit that is presented up to my understanding, until something more credible still turns up. Here we are offered a rational and logical explanation of many things which hitherto have been explained unsatisfactorily, or not at all. It is conscientiously reasoned and has been proficiently written. If it be not the truth, I cannot help respecting it as a sincere effort after truth. The Descent of Man By the time that Darwin published Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex in 1871, the controversy over Origin of Species had settled. However, Descent of Man, focusing as it did on humanity’s evolution and relationship to

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

99

other animals, brought renewed controversy and doubt, particularly, once again, about humankind’s relationship with God. Morality and ethics continued to be the main motivation for debate and policy development, and it was the fear that this special human attribute might be compromised by being like other animals, particularly the great apes, that fuelled continued resistance to Darwin and his ‘evolutionist’ peers. In his introduction to the book, Darwin explains that he wrote it after piecing together the notes that he had collected over many years in order to see whether the ‘general conclusions arrived at’ in his ‘former works’ would be applicable to the human race. In doing so he expresses some sensitivity to the negative responses to the theory of evolution evoked by his earlier work. He states29: During many years I collected notes on the origin or descent of man, without any intention of publishing on the subject, but rather with the determination not to publish, as I thought that I should thus only add to the prejudices against my views. It seemed to me sufficient to indicate, in my first edition of my ‘Origin of Species,’ that by this work “light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history;” and this implies that man must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth. Now the case wears a wholly different aspect. When a naturalist like Carl Vogt ventures to say in his address as President of the National Institution of Geneva (1869), “personne, en Europe au moins, n’ose plus soutenir la creation independante et de toutes pieces, des especes,” it is manifest that at least a large number of naturalists must admit that species are the modified descendants of other species; and this especially holds good with the younger and rising naturalists. Descent of Man ran to over 600 pages in the 1873 edition and contained very detailed comparisons of the human race with other species. The book embraced many aspects of human behaviour except for the matter of emotions which Darwin believed needed to be addressed separately. Subsequently his Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, a volume of nearly 400 pages was published in 1872.

 

100 

Sordid Boon?

An early review of Descent of Man published in Macmillan’s Magazine gave quite an objective and detailed assessment of the moral aspects of the book30. It begins: At last Mr Darwin’s long-promised work on “Man” is given to the world, and there is no longer any question as to the views which he entertains concerning lineal descent of our race from the lower animals. To some who have always “hoped against hope”, from the previous silence maintained on this subject in successive editions of the “Origin of Species,” this may come as a startling blow: but to the majority it will be nothing more than a direct statement of a conclusion which followed necessarily from the Darwinian theory. …But he had already hinted at another subject of enquiry, when in the last edition of the “Origin” (p. 577) he said, “In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of mental power and capacity by gradation.” Into these fields of speculation he enters boldly in the present work, and arrives at the conclusion that the mental powers of man, though so different in degree to those of the higher animals, are yet the same in kind; while in the social instincts existing so strongly in many animals, he finds a basis for the moral sense or conscience of the human race [my emphasis]. Bain’s review, entitled ‘Darwinism and Religion’ sought in part to reassure the public that evolutionary theory did not pose a threat to the accepted notion of creation nor to the idea that we were ultimately guided by our morality (conscience). He comments, demonstrating again the inter-disciplinary nature of nineteenth-century intellectual thought31: [Mr Darwin] …takes for his text the soul stirring words of Kant, and elevates the unselfish virtues to the highest rank to which moralists have ever assigned them. Yet many who would concede without hesitation the evolutionary origin of their bodily frame, shrink with great pain from such a derivation of their mental and moral nature. They fear that if the noble gift of conscience can be traced back in all its gradations to the humbler instincts, the human race will become the victims of gross Materialism, and that all communion with God and all hope of immortality will be blotted out of our existence. I believe that this fear, if it be founded upon the theory of the moral sense, as set forth in the “Descent of Man,” is a groundless one; and the object of the present essay is to attempt to show -

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

101

Firstly: That the nobility of our conscience as a gift from God, and our power of communion with Him, are in no way impugned by this theory. Secondly: That our hope of immortality stands on precisely the same basis on the hypothesis of evolution as on that of separate creation. Lastly: That Mr Darwin, if his theory be even approximately true, has given a new impulse to the Utilitarian philosophy, in enunciating a proposition by which, as he says, “the reproach of laying the foundation of the most noble part of our nature in the base principle of selfishness is removed”. Bain’s assessment is interesting for several reasons and it gives us some insight into the fears of the many conventional religious thinkers of that time. Quite apart from the fear that our conscience, and thus our morality, is compromised by the notion of evolution, there was also the fear that if we were not a first-instance creation of God, then the almost universal belief in the soul’s immortality might also be challenged. Even among intellectuals the potential loss of immortality was frightening. Tennyson’s long poem, In Memorium, written after the death of his closest friend, expresses anguish, and grief, not just for the loss of a friend, but for the fear that if there is no immortality then there is nothing at all after death and thus, perhaps, no real point in having lived. The confusion and distress in Tennyson’s work is palpable, especially in verses XLI to XLIII and LVI. Bain, like others, also directly linked the theory of evolution with utilitarianism, but felt that evolutionary theory actually exonerated the latter from the charge of selfishness. The association of utilitarianism with the justification of selfishness is widespread today, and even more thoroughly misunderstood. The earliest debates on political economy were over two hundred years ago and more than one hundred years removed from the nineteenth-century political economists who advocated its limited use, for moral reasons. This makes today’s public debate on sustainable development and economics, as well as untangling the modern understanding of classical and neoclassical economics more difficult. Assessment of evolutionary theory and utilitarian theory in the nineteenth century inter-disciplinary context gives a great deal of insight into how the social and

 

102 

Sordid Boon?

environmental policy debate for the application of sustainable development’s triple bottom line might be resolved. Clearly nineteenth-century analysts like Bain saw no conflict between moral justice, conscience and utilitarian economics, any more than nineteenth-century political economists saw a real conflict. However, as Hodgson32 points out the intuitive or a-priori political economists like Turgot, and the utilitarian economists like Smith, were in conflict over some minor points, as discussed earlier. According to Hodgson, the former started with the question ‘what is just, what is right’? before proceeding to postulate a practical solution, while the latter postulated a practical solution and then asked ‘is this just, is it right?’. That is not to say that utilitarianism was not vigorously debated in the nineteenth century. The philosopher Thomas Carlyle saw the scope for its misapplication and misinterpretation, and vehemently opposed the application of ‘laissez-faire’ economics. Bain 33 however, saw the theory of evolution as smoothing over the differences between the intuitive and utilitarian schools of economics, saying: Having now endeavoured to remove any feelings of pain and distrust awakened by a hasty consideration of Mr. Darwin’s theory of evolution of the moral sense, it only remains to point out in what way I believe it to be an immense advance beyond the former theory of morals. In the first place, by approaching the subject from the side of natural history, it gives us the means of testing metaphysical arguments by the touchstone of physical facts; and in doing this Mr. Darwin seems to me to unite in a remarkable degree the rival claims of intuitive and utilitarian moralists. [My emphasis.] The intuitive school have always insisted that the highest moral virtues could never be derived from mere utility, or from the principle of the “greatest happiness”. Duty, they say, has a value of its own which could never have arisen from seeking our own happiness, or even the happiness of others merely as re-acting upon ourselves. Hence the intuitional theory presupposes a feeling, a sense of right and wrong, in our nature, “antecedent to and independent of, experiences of utility”. The derivative or utilitarian school, on the contrary, have maintained that we have no proof of such an intuitional sense; that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. But since they have never assigned any other reason for the desire to produce general happiness than this — that it first of all produces the happiness of

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

103

the individual — they have never, in spite of the endeavours of their noblest advocates (especially Mr. John Stuart Mill), to purge entirely from their theory the spirit of calculation, the base dross of selfishness, which they yet disclaim at every step. Smith would most likely have agreed with Bain. Although he was essentially utilitarian in his outlook, he pondered over the very question that Bain considered: What is the force within that drives people to empathise [sympathise], and to make choices determined by altruism and not their own happiness, nor even that of others? This question puzzled Smith to the extent that he pursued it in both Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and in the Wealth of Nations (1776), as discussed in the previous chapter. Among the many natural philosophers acknowledged by Darwin as having presented ideas on evolution that preceded Origin of Species, Herbert Spencer was well-known for his continued pursuit of the ideas embodied in evolutionary theory. It was Spencer who coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’. Discussion of the issue continued in the public forum for many years after the first, controversial publication of Origin. Then, as now, public perception of thought and ideas held the key not just to the acceptance of ideas, but also to how they might be used in frameworks for policy development and implementation. Journals like The Nineteenth Century, Macmillan’s Magazine and Cornhill Magazine gave a wide readership access to contemporary debates and opinions and helped to fulfil an educational role. In 1888 H. Campbell, Lord Argyle published a rather cutting, heavily ironic piece concerning Herbert Spencer in The Nineteenth Century beginning34 Among the many distinguished men who have contributed to the world’s plebiscite in favour of the Darwinian hypothesis on the origin of species, there is no one name more distinguished than that of Mr. Herbert Spencer. He has pursued the idea of development with wonderful ingenuity through not a few of its thousand ramifications. He has carried it into philosophy and metaphysics. He has clothed it in numerous and subtle forms of speech, appealing to various faculties, and offering to each its appropriate objects of recognition. He is the author of that other phrase, ‘the survival of the fittest,’ which has almost superseded Darwin’s own original phrase of ‘natural

 

104 

Sordid Boon? selection’ … It may perhaps be suspected sometimes of being a perfect specimen of the knowledge puffeth up, because there is a suggestion about it — not easily dismissed — that it is tautological. The survival of the fittest may be translated into the survival of that which does actually survive. But the special power of it lies in this; that it sounds as if it expressed a true physical cause. It gets rid of that detestable reference to the analogies of mind which are inseparably associated with the phrase of natural selection. It is the great object of all true science — as some think it — to eliminate these, and if possible to abolish them. Survival of the fittest seems to tell us not only of that which is, but that which must be.

Campbell is somewhat vitriolic about Spencer throughout his article. He perceived, rightly or wrongly, that Spencer had distorted Darwin’s theory of natural selection by translating it into ‘the survival of the fittest’. Thus, nearly thirty years after Origin was published, the theory of evolution was a topic of considerable debate and interpretation and one of its most troubling aspects, Darwin’s Descent of Man notwithstanding, was ‘analogies of mind’. According to Campbell35, Spencer made a confession that: Among biologists the beliefs concerning the origin of species have assumed too much the character of a creed, and that while becoming settled they have been narrowed. So far from further broadening the broader view which Darwin reached as he grew older, his followers appear to have retrograded towards a more restricted view than he ever expressed. The narrowing of intellectual perspective seems to be something that the work of many nineteenth-century intellectuals has suffered and, taken out of the original context, this potentially leads to significant misunderstanding, not just of the theory, but of the application of such work. It is that issue appears to have so galled Campbell, although Spencer is perhaps undeserving of the severity of the reprimand meted out to him. Campbell36 concludes: I hope it [the confession] will tend to redeem the work of the greatest natural observer who has ever lived from the great misuse which has often been made of it. There is no real disparagement of that work in saying that the phrase which embalmed it is metaphorical. The very highest truths are conveyed in metaphor. The confession of Mr. Spencer is fatal only to claims which never ought to have been made. Natural selection represents no

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

105

physical causation whatever except that connected with heredity. Physically it explains the origin of nothing. But the metaphorical elements which Mr. Spencer wishes to eliminate are of the highest value. They refer us directly to those supreme causes to which the physical forces are ‘under subjection’. They express in some small degree that inexhaustible wealth of primordial inception, of subsequent development, and of continuous adjustment, upon which alone selection can begin to operate. These are the supreme facts in nature. When this is clearly seen and thoroughly understood, Darwin’s researches and speculations will no longer act as a barrier to further enquiry, as Mr. Spencer complains they do now. They will, on the contrary, be the most powerful stimulus to deeper inquiry, and to more healthy reasoning. While Campbell’s criticism seems harsh, the spirit and intent of his message still resonates with those who would like to see ‘deeper inquiry’ and ‘more healthy reasoning’ applied to the problems caused by and afflicting humanity today. It seems as though metaphors can be risky if the meaning bestowed by the originators becomes lost or distorted. Just as Campbell believed that the meaning of Darwin’s metaphor had become distorted, so the metaphor employed by Smith and Malsthus — that of the Invisible Hand (of God) — as discussed earlier is now often translated as the invisible hand of the market.37. Given the impending global financial crisis of 2008, the impact of this misunderstanding is cogent in a 2005 Times newspaper report38 on a lecture given at Smith’s birthplace in Kirkcaldy Scotland by Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Board. According to the report the lecture was given to a predominantly business audience where Greenspan, ‘spoke about the impact of free-market ideas on the world’s economies’39. On referring to Smith’s work on markets, Greenspan is quoted as saying that ‘more than two centuries of economic thought have added little to those insights 40 ‘ perhaps fulfilling Campbell’s fears that as ideas become settled they become narrowed when they ‘assume too much the character of a creed’. … The Times report on Greenspan’s speech continues: ‘And he paid tribute to one of Smith’s more famous phrases — his reference to the ‘invisible hand’ that regulates economies despite the selfishness of competition’41.

 

106 

Sordid Boon?

Bain, as he closed his reassuring paper on ‘Darwinism and Religion’ sought, like Campbell, to encourage an open mind about research, theories and their outcomes. He42 concludes: I have endeavoured in this short essay to keep strictly and logically to facts, allowing little scope to heart and imagination, that no preconceived prejudice might creep in. But if calmly reasoning upon the evolution theory, we can establish that it neither shuts out God, degrades our conscience, checks our belief in the power of communion with the Divine mind as far as our faculties will permit, nor diminishes our hope of immortality, may we not then even while allowing the theory as probable, give rein to the glorious conceptions and inspirations which flash upon us in happy moments of thought, and feel that all things are possible to us — that we have a never ending future, and a hope of drawing nearer to the Almighty Being from whom we derive all and hope for all. Bain’s reassurances were clearly focused on the issues identified by some conventional thinkers as those compromised by evolutionary theory, and troubling to the general population. While most of his reassurances still hold good, if not with fundamentalist creationists, then at least within established religions, his optimism about a ‘never ending future’, unless this is taken purely as reference to immortality, might certainly be compromised in the twenty-first century. Huxley’s Overview One of the greatest multidisciplinary thinkers of the nineteenth century43, Thomas Huxley, provides a fitting end to this brief summary of the work of Darwin and the natural philosophers. In 1888 Huxley published an article in the journal The Nineteenth Century that ties together most of the significant issues considered so far in this book. In ‘The struggle for existence: A programme’ Huxley, expressing the sort of scepticism associated with Hume, considers the implications of evolutionary theory, Malthus’ population theory, and utilitarian political economy in a common context, while proposing a program to alleviate human suffering and improve social welfare. This paper is particularly helpful in understanding the nineteenth-century world that adapted and developed Smith’s and Malthus’ ideas

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

107

in order to improve society while using strict moral guidelines informed mainly by conscience. Huxley sets his analysis against a background of de-romanticised ‘Nature’. He commences44: The vast and varied procession of events which we call Nature affords a sublime spectacle and an inexhaustible wealth of attractive problems to the speculative observer. If we confine our attention to that aspect which engages the attention of the intellect, nature appears a beautiful and harmonious whole, the incarnation of a faultless logical process, from certain premises in the past to an inevitable conclusion in the future. But if she be regarded from a less elevated, but more human point of view; if our moral sympathies are allowed to influence our judgement, and we permit ourselves to criticise our great mother as we criticise one another;-then our verdict, at least so far as sentient nature is concerned, can hardly be so favourable. Appearing to echo Hume’s comments about a just God, Huxley45 continues: It is really only another instance to be added to the many extant, of the audacity of a priori spectators who, having created God in their own image, find no difficulty in assuming that the Almighty must have been actuated by the same motives as themselves. They are quite sure that, had any other course been practicable, He would no more have made infinite suffering a necessary ingredient of His handiwork than a respectable philosopher would have done the like. Huxley then begins a narrative about whether the sentient world is regulated by ‘principles of benevolence’ or whether, in fact, malevolence is principally in evidence as the world’s regulator. He illustrates his comments by discussing the relative sufferings of the hungry wolf and its prey, the deer, which must die to assuage the wolf’s hunger. If the deer were to be saved from suffering by the wolf foregoing its food, the wolf in turn would suffer and die. Huxley concludes from this analogy that ‘the goodness of the right hand which helps the deer, and wickedness of the left hand which eggs on the wolf, will neutralise one another: and the course of nature will appear to be neither moral nor immoral, but non moral. While Paley’s invisible hand of God that pinned the brooding bird to her nest has transmuted into Huxley’s presumably

 

108 

Sordid Boon?

invisible hands of nature, his argument is still driven by the question of morality46: From the theological side, we are told that this is a state of probation, and that the seeming injustices and immoralities of nature will be compensated by-and-by. … On the evolutionist side, on the other hand, we are told to take comfort from the reflection that the terrible struggle for existence tends to a final good, and that the suffering of the ancestor is paid for by the increased perfection of the progeny. There would be something in this argument if, in Chinese fashion, the present generation could pay its debts to its ancestors; otherwise it is not clear what compensation the Eohippus gets for his sorrows in the fact that, one million years afterwards, one of his descendants wins the Derby. And then he says47: In the strict sense of the word ‘nature,’ it denotes the sum of the phenomenal world, of that which has been, is, and will be; and society, like art, is therefore a part of nature… The human species, like others, splashed and floundered amid the general stream of evolution, keepings its head above water as best it might, and thinking neither of whence nor wither. The history of civilisation — that is of society — on the other hand, is the record of the attempts which the human race has made to escape from this position. So Huxley, as a naturalist, saw humanity as part of nature and, like so many of his contemporaries, was concerned about the well-being of human society 48 . He continues: [Ethical man] tries to escape from his place in the animal kingdom, founded on the free development of the principle of non-moral evolution, and to found a kingdom of Man, governed upon the principle of moral evolution. For society not only has a moral end, but in its perfection, social life, is embodied morality. Huxley is now moving towards the crux of his argument in which he interconnects evolution, morality, humanity as part of nature, and Malthusian population theory, with political economy: the proper context in which it was developed and applied. He is also, having mentioned it several times already,

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

109

greatly concerned about the future of the human race. Thus on population, and echoing Cantillon, Paley and Malthus, he states49: One of the most essential conditions, if not the chief cause, of the struggle for existence, is the tendency to multiply without limit, which man shares with all living things. It is notable that ‘increase and multiply’ is a commandment traditionally much older than the ten, and that it is, perhaps, the only one which has been spontaneously and ex animo obeyed by the great majority of the human race. But in civilised society, the inevitable result of such obedience is the re-establishment, in all its intensity, of that struggle for existence — the war of each against all — the mitigation or abolition of which was the chief end of social organization. Huxley, having created the imaginary world of Atlantis where all were ethical and virtuous and provisions were exactly sufficient for everyone, goes on ‘… it is obvious that this state of things could have been permanent only with a stationary population. Add ten fresh mouths; and as, by the supposition, there was only exactly enough before, somebody must go short on rations. The Atlantis society might have been a heaven upon earth, the whole nation might have consisted of just men, needing no repentance, and yet somebody must starve’50 (pp. 166–7). Huxley then moves from fantasy to fact. Having established that he views population increase to be a threat to society’s survival, he begins to draw ideas from market and trade theories of political economy51: Let us look at home. For seventy years, peace and industry have had their way among us with less interruption and under more favourable conditions than in any other country on the face of the earth … There are now 36,000,000 of people in our island, and every year considerably more than 300,000 are added to our numbers… At the present time, the produce of the soil does not suffice to feed half of its population. The other moiety has to be supplied with food which must be bought from the people of food producing countries. That is to say, we have to offer them the things they want in exchange for the things they do not want. And the things they want and which we can produce better than they can are mainly manufactures — industrial products. Judged by an ethical standard, nothing can be less satisfactory than the position in which we find ourselves. In a real, though incomplete, degree we have attained the condition of peace which is the main object of social

 

110 

Sordid Boon? organisation; and it may, for argument’s sake, be assumed that we desire nothing but that which is itself innocent and praiseworthy — namely the fruits of honest industry … Let us be under no illusions then. So long as unlimited multiplication goes on, no social organisation which has ever been devised, or is likely to be devised; no fiddle-faddling with the distribution of wealth, will deliver society from the tendency to be destroyed by the reproduction within itself, in its intensest form, of that struggle for existence, the limitation of which is the object of society. And however shocking to the moral sense this eternal competition of man against man and of nation against nation may be; however revolting may be the accumulation of misery at the negative pole of society, in contrast with that of monstrous wealth at the positive pole; this state of things must abide and grow continually worse … The practical and pressing question for us just now seems to me to be how to gain time. ‘Time brings counsel,’ as the Teutonic proverb has it; and wiser folk among our posterity may see their way out of that which at present looks like an impasse.

Huxley’s posterity has not yet seen its way out of the impasse that he identified. Rather, the impasse now brings an immediate threat. Britain was perhaps able to gain time by importing large amounts of food, grown for that purpose, from its colonies, which were to bear much of the burden of land and water degradation which resulted from intensive cropping to feed the growing populations of Britain and the colonies themselves. Huxley, like Malthus, was concerned for the future of both humanity and nature, of which humanity was a part. Huxley was not the first natural scientist to be influenced by Malthusian ideas. Darwin and Paley before him were also concerned about population growth, and Malthus was not the first political economist to be concerned about population growth, for Cantillon had expressed the same concerns as Malthus. Conclusion The continuity of thought between the eighteenth-century naturalist philosophers and political economists, and the nineteenth-century natural scientists like Darwin and Huxley, can be seen from the discussion in the preceding chapters. It is also clear that there was significant communication among the disciplines. Because of the scope for misinterpreting important theories, or for their misappropriation by

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

111

reprehensible quasi-political groups (for example the ‘Social Darwinism’ and eugenics used to support Hitler’s or Stalin’s propaganda) it is useful, indeed imperative, to give readers direct access to the original words of the theorists and their critics. For this reason much of the discussion presented in the chapter has been focused on quotes from Darwin’s work and that of his contemporaries. It has been valuable to examine not only what Darwin actually said about his theories and the process by which he arrived at his conclusions, but it is also important to set in context the reactions of his peers. This helps us to gain perspective about the circumstances in which such theories were developed and should help us to understand better how they might be properly applied to the significant issues now facing humanity. That could be done either by improving the current paradigm or by finding s new paradigm to resolve our current impasse. In the next chapter the work of some of Darwin’s ‘Romantic’ colleagues, including Ruskin, Carlyle and Mill will be reviewed in light of their perceptions of economics and commerce, ethics, evolution, the environment and other important contextual issues, including the current concept of sustainability.                                                          Endnotes 1

Patricia James, Population Malthus. His Life and Times, (London: Routledge & Kegan . Paul, 1979).  2 Robert M. Young, Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in Victorian Culture, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).  3 Michael Kile, No Room at Nature’s Mighty Feast. Reflections on the Growth of Humankind, (East Perth: Demos Press, 1995).  4 Young, Darwin’s Metaphor, p. xiii. 5 See chapter seven of this book 6 John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, (Orpington: George Allen, 1883), p. 185–186, my emphasis.  7 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, sixth edition, with additions and corrections, (London: John Murray, 1875, first edition 1859).  8 The following articles will give the reader a good overview of the issues and controversies relating to the debate: Thomas Henry Huxley, ‘Time and Life: Mr Darwin’s Origin of Species’, Macmillan’s Magazine 1 (1860), 142-148;

 

112 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         Henry Fawcett, ‘A Popular Exposition of Mr Darwin ‘On the Origin of the Species’’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 3 (1860), 81-92; E.S. Dixon, ‘A Vision of Animal Existences, Cornhill Magazine, 5 (1862) 311318, London; Alexander Bain, ‘Darwinism and Religion’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 24 (1871) 45-51, Cambridge; and, Cyril Bibby, ‘Huxley and the Reception of the Origin’, Victorian Studies, 3 (1959) 76-86.  9 Young, Darwin’s Metaphor p. 3. 10 Young, ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Darwin, Origin of Species, pp. xiii–xiv.  13 Ibid, p. xiv. 14 Ibid, p. xv. 15 For example, details about a number of diseases infecting humans that are related to environmental damage are discussed in UNEP, ‘UNEP launches 2004/5 GEO Yearbook’, United Nations Environment Programme, 2005, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=424&Ar ticleID=4728&l=en see also http://www.unep.org/gc/gc23/ 16 Cancel Council of Australia, Melanoma, 2012, http://www.cancer.org.au/aboutcancer/types-of-cancer/skin-cancer/melanoma.html 17 Darwin, Origin of Species, p. 19. 18 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex; second edition, (London: John Murray, 1873, first edition 1871).  19 Charles Darwin, Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, (London: John Murray, 1872).  20 Fawcett, A Popular Exposition, p.81. 21 Ibid, p. 83. 22 Ibid, pp.85–86.  23 Deidre David, Intellectual women and the Victorian Patriarchy: Harriet Martineau, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, George Eliot, (London: Macmillan, 1987).  24 Huxley, ‘Time and Life’, pp. 147–8.  25 Some examples include the following: Herman Daly, ‘Towards some operational principles of sustainable development’, Ecological Economics, 2 (1990),1-6; Michael Jacobs, Sustainable Development: Greening the Economy, (London: The Fabian Society, 1990), and, David Pearce, Economics and Environment. Essays on Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development, (Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar, 1999).  26 Dixon, ‘A vision of Animal Existences’. Cornhill Magazine, 5: 311-318, London; 27 Ibid, p.311. 28 Ibid, p.318.

 

Chapter 4: Darwin and the Natural Philosophers

113

                                                                                                                                                         29 Darwin, The Descent of Man, p.1.  30 Bain, ‘Darwinism and Religion’.  31 Ibid, p.46. 32 W.B. Hodgson, Turgot: His Life, Times, and Opinions. Two lectures. (London: Trubner and Co, 1870). 33 Bain, ‘Darwinism and Religion’, p. 50. 34 H. Campbell, ‘A Great Confession’, The Nineteenth Century, 23 (1888), 142160, London, p. 142.  35 Ibid, p. 159. 36 Ibid, pp. 159–60. 37 In certain circles some might argue that the market is God. 38 Magnus Linklater, ‘Greenspan delivers gospel according to Adam Smith’, London: The Times, Monday February 7 2005, p. 13. 39 Ibid 40 Ibid.  41 Ibid. 42 Bain, ‘Darwinism and Religion’, p.51, my emphasis. 43 But one who nonetheless strongly opposed women’s emancipation, and especially women’s participation in science, as mentioned in chapter seven. 44 Thomas Huxley, ‘The Struggle for Existence, Nineteenth Century, 23 (1888), 161-180, p. 161, my emphasis.   45 Ibid. 46 Ibid, pp. 162, 163. 47 Ibid, p. 165, my emphasis. 48 Apart from women, presumably. 49 Ibid, p. 166. 50 Ibid, pp 166-7. 51 Ibid, pp. 168, 169.

 

 

CHAPTER 5 THE ROMANTICS: AUTHORITARIANS AND LIBERALS The idea of self-denial for the sake of posterity, of practising present economy for the sake of debtors yet unborn, of planting forests that our descendants may live under the shade, or of raising cities for future nations to inhabit, never, I suppose efficiently takes place among publicly recognised motives of exertion … John Ruskin: The Seven Lamps of Architecture.

Introduction When examining the history of socio-economic and scientific thought that led to the defining ideas informing the concept of sustainability, some names recur across the disciplinary divides between the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries. While numerous nineteenth-century intellectuals worked with ideas that can be accommodated by the notion of sustainable development there is only space here to discuss the perceptions, motivations and contexts of a few of them. Some of the polymaths whose names appear in various chapters of this book are identified with the values of ‘Romanticism’ and the ideas of the ‘Romantic Era’. The names of John Ruskin, Thomas Carlyle and John Stuart Mill are prominent among them, while ‘scientific progressives’ like Darwin who was discussed in the last chapter, and social reformers like Martineau, whose work will be discussed in chapter seven, can be viewed as associated thinkers of the era.

116 

Sordid Boon?

The words and ideas of prominent intellectuals like those mentioned here were often reflected in the thoughts of lesser-known writers and thinkers of their time. Some of these are briefly assessed to indicate the prevalence of sustainabilityrelated thought during the nineteenth-century intellectual revolution, but many will remain unnamed. The rather loosely identified Romantics, and the poets, artists and conservationists to be discussed in chapter six, were perhaps more numerous and more disparate than the natural scientists, philosophers and political economists. However, the nineteenth-century focus on both nature and conservation is well recognised in disciplines like English literature, art history and the philosophy of science. Unfortunately this knowledge spills too infrequently into the mainstream disciplines of science and economics. Consequently, the existence and influence of nineteenth century environmental and conservation movements is often unknown among many modern policy makers whose work could benefit from such knowledge. Writers on art, English and environmental history have consequently contributed much to the rich literature available to those who know where to look1. In her excellent review of the history of thought in ‘laissez-faire’ economics, Paul 2 considers in some detail aspects of free-market philosophy from various perspectives. She views the Romantics, including some of those considered here, as having a generally anti laissez-faire effect caused by the negative view portrayed by a number of influential people across a range of disciplines. She cites some of the prominent thinkers discussed in this book including Carlyle, Ruskin, and Wordsworth. Historically, like many ideas relevant to current concepts in sustainability, defining ideas in Romanticism are not easy to pin down in time, place or discipline. As mentioned earlier, there was a constant exchange of intellectual thought between the polymath moral philosophers, natural philosophers and political economists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Ideas were often shared across national boundaries and it is important to view intellectual

 

Chapter 5: The Romantics: Authoritarians and Liberals

117

associations with the retrospectively named ‘Romantic Movement’ in a continuum of evolving ideas and knowledge. There was often little homogeneity of thought beyond an interest in the relationship between nature and the human condition. The ‘Romantic Movement’ per se is usually identified by a group of six English poets: Blake; Wordsworth; Coleridge; Byron; Shelley and Keats 3 . However, the somewhat amorphous philosophy behind romanticism ran like a thread through the development of intellectual thought from early in the eighteenth century to the end of the nineteenth century. In a broad sense this period covers the so called Romantic Era, and Romanticism’s early roots can be traced to the exchange of ideas between continental Europe and the British Isles, as described in Chapter Two. Romanticism and utilitarianism not only overlap significantly, but they are equally slippery in the sense that both encompass a vast range of ideas that are not entirely consistent from one proponent to another. The original ideas in Romanticism were mainly the province of moral philosophers like Smith, natural philosophers like Paley, and political economists like Malthus. For that reason, Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin, who are sometimes identified as ‘romantic authoritarians’ 4 , and the ‘romantic liberal’ philosopher/economist Mill make reasonably good representatives of Romanticism. All were contemporaries of Darwin whose theories they were aware of and understood. To accommodate the structure of this book, consideration of Mill’s work has been split between two chapters. While his work on utilitarianism and economics is briefly assessed here, his feminist work is reviewed in chapter seven. The current chapter focuses mainly on the work of John Ruskin and Carlyle with some reference to Darwin and Mill. Their perspectives on the environment will be examined briefly, before moving on to explore the ideas of members of the pre-Raphaelite movement, the ‘nature’ poets, and urban conservationists like Octavia Hill in chapter six. In this chapter, using substantive quotes from their seminal works, Ruskin’s and Carlyle’s observations will be considered both

 

118 

Sordid Boon?

conceptually and practically, to help elucidate our current understanding and interpretation of economic, scientific and philosophical concepts that inform policy development and sustainability in the modern world. Romantic Authoritarians: Carlyle and Ruskin Thomas Carlyle, a well-known nineteenth-century thinker was, like his eighteenth-century predecessors, almost painfully aware of the importance of land to the survival of the human race. While he clearly disliked utilitarianism, he was in accord with Smith about land. Carlyle wrote poetically and passionately about its sustaining role: The Land is Mother of us all; nourishes, shelters, gladdens, lovingly enriches us all; in how many ways, from our first wakening to our last sleep on her blessed mother bosom, does she, as with blessed mother-arms, enfold us all!5 John Ruskin is perhaps best known for his art criticism, his patronage of the PreRaphaelites, and his attempts to conserve architectural heritage. However he was also interested in the natural environment and wrote of the way he perceived it in one of his best known works, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, first published in 1849. He writes of a walk near the Ain River, above the village of Champagnole in the Jura6: I came out presently on the edge of the ravine: the solemn murmer of its waters rose suddenly from beneath, mixed with the singing of the thrushes among the pine boughs; and, on the opposite side of the valley, walled all along as it was by grey cliffs of limestone, there was a hawk sailing slowly off their brow, touching them nearly with his wings, and with the shadows of the pines flickering upon his plumage from above; but with a fall of a hundred fathoms under his breast, and the curling pools of the green river gliding and glittering dizzily beneath him, their foam globes moving with him as he flew. Ruskin recognises both the intangible values embedded in nature and the sense that nature does not exist just for humanity’s use. He also observes that the

 

Chapter 5: The Romantics: Authoritarians and Liberals

119

perception of beauty draws as much upon the observer as on the perceived scene, stating7: It would be difficult to conceive a scene less dependent upon any other interest than that of its own secluded and serious beauty; but the writer well remembers the sudden blankness and chill which were cast upon it when he endeavoured, in order more strictly to arrive at the sources of its impressiveness, to imagine it, for a moment, a scene in some aboriginal forest of the New Continent. The flowers in an instant lost their light, the river its music; the hills became oppressively desolate; a heaviness in the boughs of the darkened forest showed how much of their former power had been dependent upon a life which was not theirs, how much of the glory of the imperishable, or continually renewed, creation is reflected from things more precious in their memories than it, in its renewing Ruskin is commenting on the importance of the way we perceive the natural environment to our interpretations and feelings about it. He also recognised that the scene that he so appreciated for its beauty was not there for his appreciation, but rather, was part of a system that existed in its own right, coincidental to the way in which people might use or abuse it. When he tries to place this landscape of European beauty in another context, that of a place he has not seen but can only imagine, in a landscape that is utterly alien to him, the beauty becomes dark and frightening. He has observed that the power of nature to evoke such human emotion as he experienced is due to human consciousness, which has no part in manifesting nature, and that the metaphorical precious memories of creation, reflected in ‘the boughs of the darkened forest’ lead to its renewal. Renewal is not due to the presence of an incidental observer. The idea that our perceptions of nature and the environment are crucial to the way in which we value it, regardless of the markets and market prices for natural resources, is central to the proper application of sustainable development. The recognition of economic intangibles — those services, resources, experiences and values for which there is no price, but which have an economic value in any interpretation of ‘economics’— is embedded in the triple bottom line. However, the use of human perceptions as a means of developing qualitative indicators of

 

120 

Sordid Boon?

sustainability and environmental value has been neglected. The imposition of quantification as a means of measuring objective values according to a pseudo ‘scientific’ model has cost much progress in the application of sustainable development to environmental and social policy. This is but one aspect of sustainability that can be better adapted and applied if the nineteenth-century context of the development of social, economic and scientific theory is properly understood. Carlyle, who is generally known for different interests and expertise to Ruskin, was also eloquent about the environment. He was aware of the problem of recognising intangible values and felt sufficiently strongly about the value of land, beyond its productive value, that he powerfully asserted his thoughts on the matter. In Past and Present, which was also very much about the future, he continued his narrative about the land as Mother, quoted in the introduction to this chapter8 as follows: The Hill I first saw the Sun rise over, when the Sun and I and all things were yet in their auroral hour, who can divorce me from it? Mystic, deep as the world’s centre, are the roots I have stuck into my Native Soil; no tree that grows is rooted so. From noblest Patriotism to humblest industrial Mechanism; from highest dying for your country, to lowest quarrying and coal-boring for it, a Nation’s Life depends upon its Land… Dependence upon the land, while thoroughly recognised for its productive value (but in the present rather than the future) in mainstream ‘developed’ society is rarely acknowledged for its non-use values. This is different from the communal land ownership systems, such as usufruct, that were used by many Indigenous communities like the original inhabitants of the Philippines, or Mexico9. Crazy Horse, a Sioux leader, who witnessed the greed for land during the colonisation of North America by Europeans objected, like Carlyle, to the notion of selling land when he said10 ‘One does not sell the land on which the people walk’. Carlyle, who did not support market economics and disliked utilitarianism,

 

Chapter 5: The Romantics: Authoritarians and Liberals

121

and was concerned for the future, disapproved of buying and selling land which he felt belonged to the whole of society, comments scornfully11 : Men talk of ‘selling’ land. Land, it is true, like Epic Poems and even higher things, in such a trading world, has to be presented in the market for what it will bring, and as we say be ‘sold’: but the notion of ‘selling’, for certain bits of metal, the Iliad of Homer, how much more the Land of the WorldCreator, is a ridiculous impossibility! We buy what is saleable of it; nothing more was ever buyable. Who can, or could, sell it to us? Properly speaking, the Land belongs to these two: To the Almighty God; and to all His Children of Men that have ever worked well on it, or that shall ever work well on it. No generation of men can or could, with never such solemnity and effort, sell Land on any other principle: it is not the property of any one generation, we say, but that of all the past generations that have worked on it, and of all the future ones that shall work on it. Pouring scorn upon the ‘labour value of land’ argument, Carlyle’s commentary on land takes on a mocking tone. Enumerating the myriad tangible uses of land, including perhaps the most obvious of all, as a dwelling place, Carlyle ridicules the notion of labour being the sole source of land-value while acknowledging that it might increase it. Again, we hear it said, The soil of England, or of any country, is properly worth nothing, except, ‘the labour bestowed upon it’. This, speaking even in the language of Eastcheap, is not correct. The rudest space of country equal in extent to England, could a whole English Nation, with all their habitudes, arrangements, skills, with whatsoever they do carry within the skins of them, and cannot be stript of, suddenly take wing, and alight on it, -would be worth a very considerable thing! Swiftly, within year and day, this English Nation, with its multiplex talents of ploughing, spinning, hammering, mining, road-making and trafficking, would bring a handsome value out of such a space of country. On the other hand, fancy what an English Nation, once ‘on the wing,’ could have done with itself, had been simply no soil, not even an inarable one, to alight on? Vain all its talents for ploughing, hammering, and whatever else; there is no Earth-room for this Nation with its talents: this Nation will have to keep hovering on the wing, dolefully shrieking to and fro; and perish piecemeal; burying itself, down to the last soul of it, in the waste unfirmamented seas. Ah yes, soil, with or without ploughing, is the gift of God. The soil of all countries belongs evermore, in a very considerable degree, to the Almighty Maker! The last stroke of

 

122 

Sordid Boon? labour bestowed on it is not the making of its value, but only the increasing thereof12.

The authoritarian romantics Ruskin and Carlyle, disliked libertarian philosophy and its utilitarian ties while being, in most senses, quite radical proponents of social reform. Mill on the other hand, a strong supporter of utilitarianism, at least early in his career yet was, perhaps, more radical than Ruskin and Carlyle in his drive for social reform. Mill would probably not recognise today’s interpretation and application of economics, which has been taken so far beyond the context intended by its founding theorists. Smith, Mill, Martineau13 and others who were, to a greater or lesser degree, proponents of a market driven economy, envisaged a role for government regulation and intervention in a number of socio-economic spheres. Areas of government involvement acceptable to even the most zealous supporters of laissez faire tended to include education and housing. Mill, Ruskin, Carlyle and Darwin While Ruskin and Carlyle were friends who usually adhered to similar ideological positions, there were deep divides between many nineteenth-century intellectuals. Such divides often related to moral stances on what were essentially ideological issues. Theories about the physical and natural worlds, and human use of and dependence upon them, while often contentious, were not difficult for thinkers like Mill, Carlyle, Ruskin and Darwin to agree upon. However, the issue of human rights caused significant altercations between them. Mill and Darwin, for example, took an egalitarian view of human rights, while Ruskin and Carlyle believed in the superiority of Europeans as justification for what we now consider to be the unjust and inhumane treatment of other races. Such ideological differences came to public attention from time to time, but the trigger for an irreconcilable division occurred in the wake of the ‘Jamaica Rebellion’ of 1865. Edward Eyre, the governor of Jamaica, had declared that a riot ensuing from attempts by members of the black populace to free a prisoner constituted a rebellion. This ‘rebellion’ was harshly dealt with and many participants were

 

Chapter 5: The Romantics: Authoritarians and Liberals

123

executed following an arbitrary trial, flogged, or shot on sight. Eyre blamed George Gordon, a black member of the Jamaican Assembly for what had occurred and had him hanged. In England, the matter became the focus of a debate about British colonialism, the rightness of Eyre’s actions, and opinions about racial superiority. Mill and Carlyle were vehemently opposed to each others’ views and, as Rose14 states ‘Mill, outraged by Governor Eyre’s disregard of law and human rights, organized a committee which sought to have him removed from office and prosecuted for murder, while Carlyle accepted the chair of the Eyre Defence Fund ’. As discussed earlier, many Victorian intellectuals tended to be motivated by notions of ‘moral duty’. This influenced the way they developed theories in science, economics, art and literature. Mill, Darwin, Ruskin and Carlyle were among such intellectuals. However, as with the significant environmental and social debates of the twenty-first century, which have a strong focus on scientific, economic

and

socio-cultural

aspects

of

sustainable

development,

the

interpretation of ethical premises is influenced by ideological belief systems. Although Mill and Carlyle had a previous disagreement about the ‘Negro Question’ in 1849, that altercation had been less public and less divisive that their irreconcilable argument over the ‘Jamaica Rebellion’ in 1865. Views on that matter split the thinkers of the UK into two groups: those backing Mill and opposing Eyre, and those backing Carlyle in Eyre’s favour. Rose15 notes that the ‘liberals and scientific progressives’ Darwin, Huxley, Spencer, and George Henry Lewes backed Mill, and the romantic authoritarians, who included Dickens, Kingsley, Ruskin, Tennyson and Tyndall backed Carlyle. The differences between the ‘liberals and scientific progressives’ and the ‘romantic authoritarians’ notwithstanding, some intellectual bonds remained. The parallels between Darwin’s, Mill’s, Ruskin’s and Carlyle’s perceptions of humanity’s dependence on the environment and the need to sustain that environment to support human survival have already been noted. However, it is

 

124 

Sordid Boon?

worth briefly exploring further some of the common ground remaining between Ruskin, Carlyle and the liberals. Carlyle in Past and Present was particularly vituperative about the ‘unworking aristocracy’ and of their consumptive use of England’s natural resources. Furthermore, he recognised the potential for misusing market economics to benefit extant power bases stating: I say you did not make the land of England; and by the possession of it you are bound to furnish guidance and governance to England! That is, the law of your position on this God’s earth; an everlasting act of Heaven’s parliament, not repealable in St. Stephen’s or elsewhere! True government and guidance; not no-government and Laissez-Faire; how much less, misgovernment and Corn-Law!16 While Carlyle focused much of his attention on the consumption and degradation of England’s agricultural and environmental resources, Ruskin, who valued nature in a broad context, also emphasised conservation of the built environment. Ruskin’s work consistently shows an appreciation of the ‘interrelatedness’ of humanity and the environment and, as Gifford17 observes ‘… on a small scale this interrelatedness led Ruskin to value buildings in their context and to advocate their conservation … within a historical and physical continuum’. Carlyle recognised ‘living meaning and value’ in the natural environment and this gave major impetus to his tirade against the aristocracy for he believed, among other things, that long-term use of environmental resources would lead to their depletion. This would, in turn, affect the wider population’s ability to survive and thrive in perpetuity. In modern language Carlyle was referring to sustainability. In this regard his meaning is clear and, like Ruskin, despite a profoundly misguided sense of European superiority, his recognition of the interrelatedness of all aspects of humanity and the environment is cogent when he exhorts the aristocracy18: Nature’s message will have itself obeyed … Ye fools, in name of Heaven, work, work, at the Ark of Deliverance for yourselves and us, while hours

 

Chapter 5: The Romantics: Authoritarians and Liberals

125

are still granted you! No: instead of working at the Ark they say “We cannot get our hands kept rightly warm;” and sit obstinately burning the planks”. No madder spectacle at present exhibits itself under this Sun … The Working Aristocracy must strike into a new path; must understand that money alone is not the representative either of man’s success in the world or of man’s duties to man; and reform their own selves from top to bottom, if they wish England reformed. England will not be habitable long, unreformed. If Carlyle’s pleas and Ruskin’s views of interrelatedness were to be paraphrased in twenty-first century language they would resonate with modern arguments in sustainable development that focus, at least in theory, on resolving issues of overconsumption, resource depletion and environmental degradation. However, sustainable development also has to deal with balancing environmental and social equity against economic prosperity, as conventionally measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) indicators of growth which are deemed by many economists to be unsustainable 19 . As Meadows et al 20 . state ‘Growth in the physical economy is considered desirable; it is central to our political, psychological, and cultural systems. Growth of both the population and the economy, when it does occur, tends to be exponential ...’. Some modern analysts have assessed the use of economics in perpetuating the status quo. Spash 21 comments on the role of relevant arguments in the sustainability context stating ‘… In order to achieve social and environmental sustainability, there is a belief in the need to understand current approaches to economics and ecology but most importantly to develop a new paradigm’. As in Carlyle’s and Ruskin’s day, the development of a paradigm seems to be largely determined by government and by the owners of capital while there is little significant input from voters who tend to be reactive and, frequently, baffled. Democratic processes alone, while valuable, are insufficient in the shortterm to foster implementation of alternative systems to indicators such as GDP for measuring human success, and social and environmental quality. Nor are they capable of helping entire electorates to understand the complex theories and assumptions in economics and science, or to appreciate how they might be

 

126 

Sordid Boon?

influenced and interpreted according to different ideologies and belief systems. The case of climate change policy, its politicisation and lack of progress, sustainable development notwithstanding, and the undue influence of vested interests, is a prime example of this problem. In chapter eight arguments about measures for reducing human induced climate change in Australia will be briefly considered as a case study. This case study will include consideration of the impact of ideology, the poor understanding of economic theory, and the role of ethics in its history. There were for a while some slowly evolving but promising changes at various levels of environmental and social governance. In keeping with structures and processes set in place by the United Nations 1992 Rio Conference, as discussed in chapter one, numerous governments around the world established Sustainable Development Strategies according to their own needs and contexts. However, the problem of making a commitment to the sustainable use of natural resources when those resources are finite, no matter how abundant they might seem now, poses particular problems for sustainability policy. With the best of intentions it really is not possible to use something sustainably if it is a nonrenewable resource. Over one hundred years ago many of the Victorian intellectuals who were responsible for developing and applying theories in economics and science that are used in modern governance to justify ‘laissez-faire’ market economics, energy production from fossil fuels, and the dismantling of state-provided social services, recognised the inter connectedness of the environment, society and the economy. Whatever their political ideologies and belief systems intellectuals like Darwin, Mill, Carlyle and Ruskin recognised the need for moral imperatives in environmental management, and in social policy22. John Stuart Mill: A Romantic Liberal John Stuart Mill was a child prodigy who became a prominent moral philosopher, political economist and suffragist. In the first two disciplines he paralleled Adam

 

Chapter 5: The Romantics: Authoritarians and Liberals

127

Smith whose ideas he generally supported. He was an extraordinarily learned man, educated at the hands of his father from an early age. As mentioned earlier, Mill was initially a strong supporter of utilitarianism but when he matured his views changed. As he broadened his social contacts and personal relationships, his intellectual interests and belief systems also expanded23. Utilitarianism was the third of his best-known political tracts, all of which were published in the later years of his life. While he had modified his views on utilitarianism as he grew older he was still one of its proponents. In Utilitarianism he rationalised his arguments in support of the concept and argued strongly against the most contentious perception or interpretation of it: that it promoted selfishness. Conversely, and in this his position was borne out by Darwin’s view on the topic, Mill argued that utilitarianism sought to maximise the wellbeing of society as a whole, rather than to gratify the individual. More than 170 years on, this point is still being debated, perhaps more desperately and ideologically than ever before, as the consequences of human consumption takes their toll on the systems that sustain life on earth. For Mill and his peers, happiness equated with welfare, and maximising social welfare equated to ‘moral progress’. This reflects the ethical underpinning of Smith’s and Mill’s goals for economics, one of which was to lift the poorest, least happy and least educated sections of human society out of poverty. In keeping with the views of the ‘popularisers’ of science and economics, who will be discussed in chapter seven, nearly all of the political economists, social philosophers, scientists, romantics, suffragists and conservationists discussed in this book believed that education was a key to equality. This view was held by both supporters and opponents of utilitarianism who felt that the achievement of equality whether through universal suffrage, free education or labour reform was consistent with the overarching ethical imperative in policy making. For Mill, universal access to education was a particularly important tool for the alleviation of poverty.

 

128 

Sordid Boon?

Although Mill had taken the Malthusian view that overpopulation and its effect on the ability of the poor to subsist was a major cause of poverty, he modified this view in his later years. There are many twists and turns in the complex arguments and counter arguments that follow the development and interpretation of utilitarian theory, from Cantillon, Quesnay, Turgot, Smith, and Bentham, to Malthus, Comte and Mill, 24 and ideas about the causal relationship between material advancement and moral progress flipped back and forth, like chicken and egg arguments. However, by the last half of the nineteenth century most proponents of utilitarianism saw education as one of the most effective means of limiting population and achieving ‘material advancement’ which would in turn help to realise ‘moral progress’ and the increased equality and happiness of society. In the subtitle of his article Verberg25 refers to Mill’s ‘educational means to moral progress’ stating that ‘Mill’s political economy handsomely fitted his framework of progress as the educational means within the first stage of development in setting about a process of moralization’. As noted earlier, arguments about utility, ethics and happiness were complex and hotly debated. Mill seemed to turn Smith’s original supposition around, and conclude that material advancement promoted moral progress, rather than that moral progress promoted material advancement. According to Harris26 Mill saw virtue as the most intense form of happiness, but he argued that the ‘wretched social arrangements’ of the day somewhat precluded the ability to recognise this fact although he believed that it should be possible to ensure (through education and the implementation of utilitarianism) that everyone in society could access such happiness. While there can be no doubt that ethics was of tantamount importance to Mill, there is some disagreement about his attitude to market economics per se and to some of its mechanisms. Witztum 27 observes that ‘Mill was critical of competitive structures’ and we have previously considered Smith’s reservations about unregulated free markets and their likely implications for the ultimate generation of monopolies. This aspect of neoclassical economics is still a major

 

Chapter 5: The Romantics: Authoritarians and Liberals

129

concern for many people today given the predominant interpretations of economic theory in many post-rationalist economies globally, especially in the wake of the 2008 market crash. Since there appears to have been little meaningful resolution of its causes28, the lack of regulation of financial institutions, rating agencies and corporate bonuses will continue to distort financial markets. Without a proper understanding of the theory, contexts and mechanisms of market economics, policy makers, politicians and ordinary members of society will continue to support a flawed system that ensures the failure of sustainability policy. As Mill saw the pathway to moral progress, and especially ‘sympathy’ being through ‘material advancement’, his concerns about the mechanisms of that advancement were cogent. The unfettered market, which has the potential to lead to large monopolies involved in collusion, price fixing and stockpiling behaviour, with absolute control over the supply and distribution of numerous commodities, is more likely to decrease rather than increase social wellbeing and ‘character improvement’. Despite their identification with laissez-faire, both Mill and Smith believed that some forms of government intervention could improve social welfare. A few examples of this might include wealth redistribution by levying taxes according to ability to pay, regulation of some markets, and legislated internalisation of externalities (through mechanisms like carbon taxes). Witztum29 suggests that this sort of intervention could bring about changes in people’s lives through wealth redistribution, for example, that might in turn change their behavior and lead to greater co-operation. Witztum30 cites Mill31 who proposed a cooperative form of association in Principles of Political Economy stating: The form of association, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they can carry on their operations.

 

130 

Sordid Boon?

This form of association would probably instil alarm in the globalised, corporatised, managerialist whose forms of association might involve decentralised ‘outsourced’ production by marginalised workers in ‘offshore’ factories paying third world wages. It is not difficult to see in some cases, however, how the ideological interpretation and application of economic theory, cut off from its ethical framework and historical context, lacks both ‘sympathy’ between capitalist and workers, and the opportunity for the ‘moral improvement’ that Smith and Mill desired. There have been numerous proposals for ways in which social welfare can be improved. These proposals have been made, and sometimes implemented, within United Nations’ frameworks, government bureaucracies and independent organisations like the Australia Institute which drafted the Wellbeing Manifesto32. From a theoretical perspective, the adoption of sustainable development and its triple bottom line reconnects economics, the environment and social welfare in much the same way as nineteenth-century intellectuals envisaged those connections, guided as always by moral sentiment. In Brief In this chapter we’ve briefly reviewed some of the work of Ruskin, Carlyle and Mill. We’ve also further considered some of Darwin’s work in light of the discussion of the romantics, where we see Darwin aligned with the romantic liberal Mill. Darwin’s observations about the evolutionary role of cooperation in humans are important to how we view him as a utilitarian, and as a liberal. Although he was a supporter of utilitarianism, he emphasised that altruism, not selfishness, helped to ensure humanity’s evolutionary success. Darwin and Mill’s views align on this matter too as Mill argued strongly against the interpretation of utilitarianism as being synonymous with selfishness. As already evidenced, nature and the environment were important themes in much nineteenth century thought, and this was true also of artistic enterprise, some of which was influenced by new ideas in science. The nature poets like

 

Chapter 5: The Romantics: Authoritarians and Liberals

131

Wordsworth and Keats, and the Pre-Raphaelite artists, rose to prominence through the nineteenth century. Art nouveau emerged in the late 1800s as a consequence of the heightened awareness of humanity’s place in nature stimulated in part by the Romantics. That awareness was facilitated by knowledge of Darwin’s theories that had been spread widely with the help of the ‘popularisers’ of science (see chapter seven) and brought a new consciousness about human society’s links and history in the natural world. As the flyer for an Art Nouveau exhibition at the Washington National Gallery of Art33 observes: ‘After the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species (1859) and the Descent of Man (1871), artists and designers began to explore the idea that humankind was no longer above nature, but inextricably part of it’. While this was something that Ruskin and Carlyle were aware of, as seen in their work, it is perhaps surprising that Darwin’s books were relevant and inspirational to artists and poets as well as to other naturalists, philosophers, and political economists. In the next chapter the work of poets, artists and conservationists will be reviewed.                                                            Endnotes 1

For example see the following references: Katherine Baetjer, Glorious Nature: British Landscape Painting 1750-1850. (New York: Hudson Hills Press, 1993); Alan Bewell, Wordsworth and the Enlightenment: Nature, Man and Society in the Experimental Poetry. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); Edmund Blunden, Nature in English Literature, (London: Hogarth Press, 1929); Stephen C. Finley, Nature’s Covenant: Figures of Landscape in Ruskin, (PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992); Louis Hawes, Presence of Nature: British Landscape 1780-1830, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982); Oliver F. Sigworth, Nature’s Sternest Painter: Five Essays on the Poetry of George Crabbe, (Tucson: University of Arizona, 1965); Pamela Todd, Pamela, Pre-Raphaelites at Home, (New York: Watson-Guptill. 2001); Michael Wheeler (editor), Ruskin and the Environment: The Storm Cloud of the Nineteenth Century, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995);

 

132 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         James Winter, Secure from Rash Assault: Sustaining the Victorian Environment, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999); Carl Woodring, Nature Into Art: Cultural Transformations in Nineteenth-Century Britain, (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1989), and, E.A Wrigley, E.A, ‘Malthus’ Model of a Pre-Industrial Economy’, in Michael Turner (editor), Malthus and his Time, (London: Macmillan, 1986).  2 Ellen Frankel Paul, ‘Laissez Faire in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Fact or Myth?' Literature of Liberty. Vl. iii, no. 4, pp. 5-38. (Arlington, VA: Institute for Humane Studies, 1980). 3 Aidan Day, Romanticism. The New Critical Idiom, (London: Routledge, 1996). 4 See Isiah Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969); and, Phyllis Rose, Parallel Lives: Five Victorian Marriages, (London: Chatto/Hogarth, 1984). 5 Thomas Carlyle, Past and Present, (London: Chapman and Hall, 1843), p. 235, Carlyle’s emphasis. 6 John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, (Orpington: George Allen, 1883), p. 177.  7 Ibid, my emphasis. 8 Carlyle, Past and Present, p. 235. 9 For example see Sarah Lumley, Sustainability and Degradation in Less Developed Countries: Immolating the Future? (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002). 10 Dee Brown, Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970), p.273. 11 Carlyle, Past and Present, p.235; 12 Carlyle, ibid, pp. 235–37, my emphasis, except Carlyle’s in bold; 13 Mill and Martineau will be discussed in more detail in chapter seven; 14 Rose, Parallel Lives, pp. 263–64; 15 Ibid 16 Carlyle, Past and Present, p. 238, my emphasis, except Carlyle’s in bold. 17 Terry Gifford, ‘Conclusion’, in Wheeler, Ruskin and the Environment, p. 119. 18 Carlyle, Past and Present, p. 239, my emphasis, except Carlyle’s in bold. 19 For example see Herman Daly, ‘Towards Some Operational Principles of Sustainable Development’, Ecological Economics, 2 (1990), 1-6. 20 D. Meadows, J. Randers, and D. Meadows, Limits to Growth. The 30 Year Update, (London: Earthscan, 2005), p. 178. 21 Clive Spash, ‘The Development of Environmental Thinking in Economics’, in L. Kalof, and T. Satterfield, (editors), The Earthscan Reader in Environmental Values, (London: Earthscan, 2005), p. 55. 22 Joan Abse, John Ruskin: The Passionate Moralist? (London: Quartet, 1980). 23 Jose Harris, ‘Mill, John Stuart (1806-1873)’, The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004, online edition, Oct 2008, phttp://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/18711 , p. 1

 

Chapter 5: The Romantics: Authoritarians and Liberals

133

                                                                                                                                                         24 The citations in this book should make a good starting point for those who would like to follow the various discussions about the relationship between moral progress and material advancement in economics and philosophy. 25 Rudy Verberg, ‘John Stuart Mill’s Political Economy: Educational Means to Moral Progress’, Review of Social Economy, Vol. LXIV:2 (2006), 226-246, p.203.  26 Harris, ‘Mill, John Stuart’. 27 Amos Witztum, 'Economic Sociology: The Recursive Economic System of J. S. Mill’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 27:3 (2005), 251-280, p.255. 28 Charles H. Ferguson’s 2010 documentary film Inside Job claims that many of the US Government associated architects of the crash were appointed to senior positions in the Obama administration. 29 Witztum, ‘Economic Sociology’, p.256 30 Ibid 31 John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, W. Ashley (Ed.) (London: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, 1848), pp. 772-773, cited in Witzum (ibid).   32 See Clive Hamilton and Richard Denniss, Affluenza. When Too Much is Never Enough, (Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2005).  33 National Gallery of Art, Washington, ‘Anatomy of an Exhibition, Art Nouveau, 1890 – 1914’, 2009, http://www.nga.gov/feature/nouveau/design_maq.shtm

 

 

CHAPTER 6 POETS, PRE-RAPHAELITES AND CONSERVATIONISTS Little we see in nature that is ours; We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon! William Wordsworth: The World is Too Much with Us Men cannot benefit those that are with them as they can benefit those who come after them; and the pulpits from which the human voice is ever sent forth, there is none from which it teaches so far as from the grave. John Ruskin: The Seven Lamps of Architecture.

Introduction In this chapter we review the work of some Romantic poets, the Pre-Raphaelites and a conservationist, having considered the ideas of pre-eminent interdisciplinary philosophers in chapter five. We review the poets in the context of their interdisciplinary knowledge and their perspectives on science, economics, social justice, ethics and the environment. This short review cannot, of course, plumb the full depths of the work of nineteenth-century painters and poets. It is possible however, to observe the widespread exchange of knowledge between practitioners of the arts and the sciences, and their familiarity with cognate ideas. This exchange of knowledge affected the artists’ perceptions of society’s impact on the

136 

Sordid Boon?

environment. Some, like Wordsworth, made observations about the effects of economics and commerce on the environment. Many of the nineteenth-century poets and painters were also conservationists and social reformers who had a strong sense of moral duty. In that context, the work of a social reformer and conservationist, Octavia Hill, is also included. William Wordsworth’s work is the first to be reviewed here. He was best known as a nature poet but was also renowned in his early career for his radical political views. Wordsworth, who was born in 1770, was twenty years of age when Smith died. He too witnessed the immediate effects of both the industrial revolution and the French revolution on Western Europe and, like his polymath peers, he was also knowledgeable about science. The work of the poets Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809–1892) and Matthew Arnold (1822–1888) is then briefly assessed in the light of their responses to ideas of their time. Like Wordsworth, Tennyson had a sound knowledge and understanding of the sciences while Arnold had a particular interest in social justice and what he viewed as the ‘lack of moral grandeur’ of his times 1 . As with Wordsworth and Arnold his ideas are easily accommodated by the sustainability concept. The pre-Raphaelite poets and artists with their romanticised depictions of nature are then considered. One of the best-known pre-Raphaelite painter/poets, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, was a close contemporary of Arnold and like Arnold, he was culturally and politically well educated. As an example of the connections between people and disciplines, Rossetti knew Ruskin who knew Carlyle, Mill and Darwin and was, in his turn, keen to promote the art of the pre-Raphaelite painters. At the end of the chapter some of the work of Octavia Hill is then considered. Hill was a conservationist and social reformer who had a particular focus on conserving urban parklands and a concern for the welfare of the urban poor. However, unlike most of the women discussed in chapter seven she did not support women’s suffrage. These people, and their contemporaries, absorbed a sound knowledge and understanding of a multidisciplinary range of intellectual developments in their

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

137

time. Often they expressed and interpreted their knowledge to a wider audience through the dissemination of their own work. In some cases, as with Wordsworth, they attempted to make their work accessible to less well-educated people who were not traditionally readers of literature or admirers of art. In this way concerns about ethics, conservation and social welfare were conveyed to the lower-middle and artisan classes who thus became better informed about the intellectual issues of the day. William Wordsworth William Wordsworth preceded the other Romantic poets and artists discussed in this chapter and they were familiar with him and his work. His work is of interest because of his temporal context, his poetic protests about environmental damage and his perceptions about humanity’s relationship with nature. These factors are particularly relevant to the emergent ideas and applications in economics in the early nineteenth century, and to the arguments that are presented in this book. Wordsworth’s work and his interests also encapsulate much of what has been said about the polymath intellectuals of that time. They had knowledge and understanding that bridged the disciplines and they often applied or critiqued the ideas of others in their own work. As mentioned earlier, Wordsworth had a good knowledge of science and counted a number of Trinity College geologists among his friends2. He was also interested in ‘moral’ and philosophical ideas that he brought to bear in his expressions of outrage about environmental damage caused by commerce and technological advancement. Wordsworth’s life straddled two important centuries. In one, utilitarian economics was emerging as a mainstream idea, and in the next it was put into practice. Wordsworth was aware of, and disliked, the growing application of utilitarian market economics and its translation into commerce. In Wordsworth’s view some applications of economics and commerce had the potential to cause dire consequences for both nature and humanity. That view is projected quite

 

138 

Sordid Boon?

forcefully in his 1807 sonnet, The World is too Much with Us, in which his interests in mythology, poetry, ethics, economics, and conservation appear to coalesce, and from which this book’s title is taken. The World is Too Much with Us The world is too much with us; late and soon, Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers: Little we see in nature that is ours; We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon! This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon; The winds that will be howling at all hours And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers; For this, for everything, we are out of tune; It moves us not — Great God! I’d rather be A Pagan suckling in a creed outworn; So might I, standing on this plateau lea, Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn Have sight of Proteus coming from the sea; Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn. The American writer Saul Bellow saw in the poem Wordsworth’s criticism of the growing consumerism of the post-industrial age in which the disgruntled poet found himself. Bellow3 referred to the phenomenon Wordsworth experienced as ‘alienation’, a term also used by Karl Marx. While Wordsworth was concerned that we desensitised ourselves to nature in our pursuit of material wealth, Marx’s alienation ‘described the condition of the common man under capitalism, alienated in his work’4. Wordsworth once commented that, in contrast to Tennyson who succeeded him as Poet Laureate, he liked to view the material universe with spirituality5. In ‘The World is too Much with Us’ he is almost contemptuous of those who view the universe as materialistic, and who value it accordingly. Alexander6, whose reading of Wordsworth’s poetry focuses on the detail of the language rather than its overall impression, suggests that while the sonnet opens with reference to the material world, it seems also to have religious connotations with a biblical rather than spiritual perspective7. For twenty first century readers the rather dramatic

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

139

anthropomorphisms, which are mixed with allusions to Greek mythology, can seem rather distracting. However, although in keeping with the fashion of the time Wordsworth's use of the gods Triton and Proteus in his dramatic imagery also reminds us of the environment as an ecosystem rather than as a commodity because they had caretaking roles for the sea and its inhabitants. Whatever the context, Wordsworth’s world was changing and his England led and exploited that change to maximum effect. There was rapid population growth and agrarian practices were being transformed from extensive to intensive while people moved from the countryside to the industrialising cities. In 1844 Wordsworth re-emphasised his earlier criticisms of the effects of commerce on the environment, especially on the Lake District Where he lived. In a new sonnet, ‘The Projected Kendal and Windermere Railway’ he posed a question that resonates today: Is then no nook of English ground secure From rash assault? The proposal to build a railway between Kendal and Windermere in the Lake District provoked both the question about assault and Wordsworth’s alarm, for as Winter 8 commented: ‘There can be no doubt that areas of English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish ground were indeed rashly assaulted and left in ruins during the age of steam’. Like conservationists today Wordsworth mounted a campaign, in his case against the railway, which he feared would ruin the natural landscape. He sent letters and his poem to the Morning Post newspaper, including a note about his use of language that he’d attached to the sonnet for its readers saying, ‘Let not the above be considered as merely a poetical effusion’9. Kneale10 observes that Wordsworth’s opposition to railways encroaching on the Lake District was rather like that of the modern NIMBY (not in my backyard) approach to environmental protests. Maddox makes a similar, perhaps less judgemental, observation commenting ‘Certainly, Wordsworth’s sonnet against extending the railway into the Lakes offers lines that could well be adopted by

 

140 

Sordid Boon?

any environmental group fighting a new motorway’11. Although Wordsworth had many detractors in his time as well as having plenty of modern critics, it is also claimed that his persistent protests about environmental damage influenced the establishment of the National Trust by Octavia Hill, Robert Hunter and Hardwicke Rawnsley12. Like Wordsworth’s protests, their objections brought the potential impacts of the new railways on the Lake District to public notice. Wordsworth grew increasingly conservative and eccentric as he aged but he certainly reflected, and often expressed with considerable eloquence, a widely felt concern about humanity’s effect on the environment that ultimately sustained it. Kneale13 recognises both the power of Wordsworth’s language and his passion for protecting the environment, referring to Wordsworth’s rhetoric, in which he anthropomorphises nature’s resistance to humanity’s activities, as sublime. Further, in the sonnet he used to conclude his protest letters in the Morning Post, Kneale suggests that Wordsworth likens the impact of technology on nature to that of war and that14 ‘a rhetoric of invasion becomes explicit’. At whatever depth one analyses Wordsworth’s work, his concern for the environment in its own right, and his fear of the consequences for humanity should environmental ‘assault’ continue, reflect the views of many of his contemporaries. The role of moral sentiment no doubt played a part in this concern in the sense that it is simply wrong to damage nature. However, Wordsworth’s concern was also influenced by his understanding of the connections between the welfare of nature and of society. Paley and later Darwin both fostered Wordsworth's view. As we have seen already, the perception that humanity and nature are connected was also evident in Malthus’ work although, as Becker et al15 observe, the Malthusian view of the relationship between nature and humankind had a different focus to that of Wordsworth. They argue that for Malthus humanity and nature are opposed, and that this is determined by the omniscient laws of nature that God ordains16. However, for Wordsworth it was the [utilitarian] economic system that caused the tension between humanity and nature which he did not

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

141

view as being naturally in opposition, and that this tension ‘leads to a loss of the good life: Human actions become groundless and excessive and the human being a mere object of the economic process’17. In The World is Too Much with Us Wordsworth recognised the potential for people to become desensitised to nature as a result of the growth in trade and industry, and of their desire to consume and spend, as the influence of the material world spread. At the start of the nineteenth century, commerce was increasingly important to colonial Britain18 and Wordsworth seemed to understand early in the sonnet how dire the implications for both humanity and the environment might be if commerce were to be left unchecked. As mentioned earlier, Wordsworth continues the sonnet with his powerful descriptions of an anthropomorphised iconic nature. This includes the barebosomed sea, howling winds, sleeping flowers and a passive (but watchful?) moon in the background. Yet we humans, fixated upon commerce, on consuming and on spending, are unmoved by the beauty and power of the natural world and it leaves Wordsworth forlorn. Alexander19 views Wordsworth’s nature scenario as ‘centred in a set of sexual and related images’ but he suggests too, that the imagery at the start of the sonnet ‘is also capable of sexual interpretation, commercialism being a disastrous type of sublimation, as war is in Byron’s Don Juan’, Roe20 views Wordsworth’s work as powerful, influential, perspicacious and relevant to humanity’s worsening position in our relationship with nature. Wordsworth’s contemporary and laureate successor Tennyson was also much interested in the natural world. While Wordsworth did not always agree with Tennyson’s views, both poets were well versed in the intellectual dialogue of their time, and both were deeply concerned about humanity’s relationship with, and impact on, nature. Tennyson was younger and perhaps more scientifically focussed than Wordsworth, and he lived through the increasingly controversial debate on evolution. This affected him profoundly.

 

142 

Sordid Boon?

Tennyson and Arnold During the Romantic era of the nineteenth century many poets and artists used images of nature in their work. Two of Wordsworth’s successors, Alfred, Lord Tennyson and Matthew Arnold were particularly talented in using environmental metaphors to reflect human emotion. They also had a gift for producing imagery that demonstrated the interconnectedness of humanity and the natural world. Tennyson, one of Carlyle’s allies and Eyre’s defenders in the Jamaica Rebellion 21 , was born in 1809, a birth year shared with Barrett-Browning, Gladstone, Darwin, Poe, Mendelssohn and Chopin22. Tennyson was made Poet Laureate in 1850 upon the death of Wordsworth. While Tennyson’s subject matter was somewhat broader than that of Wordsworth, who was dubbed ‘the English poet of Nature’23, his treatment of the bio-geographical and celestial aspects of his environment are sometimes deemed to be more sophisticated and more strongly steeped in scientific learning than Wordsworth’s. Moore24 cites Wordsworth as stating ‘Tennyson is not much in sympathy with what I should myself most value … namely, the spirituality with which I have endeavoured to view the material universe, and the moral relations under which I have wished to exhibit it’. Tennyson was very much aware of theories in geology, botany, astronomy and evolution and he wove his knowledge of such issues into his poetry25. His epic poem, In Memoriam (1850), dedicated to his Cambridge University friend Arthur Hallam who died in 1833, reveals a crisis in Tennyson’s religious faith26. It has been suggested that this crisis was influenced by his awareness of contemporary work on evolution, especially that of Darwin. This idea is plausible since Tennyson spent over fifteen years working on In Memoriam, while Darwin spent several decades researching, reading and reviewing his ideas for Origin of Species. The two great works thus had many years of gestational overlap. That notwithstanding, the work of Darwin’s predecessors and peers such as Paley and Wallace also had wide currency and the poets and artists, as well as the scientists, knew of the various theories being discussed.

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

143

As mentioned in chapter four, Darwin acknowledged the long span of years during which the work of others that influenced or paralleled Origin of Species was published, from Grant in 1826 to Hooker in 1859. Schwingen27 comments: ‘The intellectual source of Tennyson’s doubt was precipitated by advances in scientific thinking’, while Landow

28

states more specifically that, in In

Memoriam: We confront Tennyson’s final effort at uniting evolutionary science and Christian faith’. Further, in section 55 of the poem he tries ‘to find consolation in the fact that while nature may be careless of the individual life, she is none the less ‘careful of the type [biological species]’. However Tennyson, while thinking about all the implications of his friend Hallam’s death, confronted the possibility that, like other species, the human race could also become extinct. According to Landow 29 he resolved this fear by accepting the possibility that should humanity become extinct it would be because God had prepared a more spiritually sophisticated successor. Tennyson was not alone among poets in considering the frightening possibility that life was finite and the soul mortal, where once absolute faith in an eternal afterlife in heaven had been unquestioned, not only by society in general, but by intelligent analytical theorists like Smith and Paley. Matthew Arnold, another Victorian poet, demonstrates a clearly wavering faith in his poem Dover Beach30 published between Darwin’s Origin of Species31 and his Descent of Man 32. Arnold’s anguish is almost palpable as he laments his loss of belief: The Sea of Faith Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl’d. But now I only hear Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, Retreating, to the breath Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear And naked shingles of the world;

 

144 

Sordid Boon? And33: Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain; And we are here as on a darkling plain Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night.

As well as being influenced by nature, Arnold was a man with a strong interest in social justice. He travelled widely in England while working as a school inspector for 35 years during which time he observed the poverty and inequality that influenced his work34. He was remarkable for his ‘ethical idealism’35 as well as his strong sense of duty, and a morality that drew on Christianity at the same time as offending many Victorian Christians. Robbins 36 comments that ‘We have considered Arnold’s attempt to be ‘a healing and reconciling influence’ in the warfare of science and religion (or of naturalism and supernaturalism)’. As a witness to the poverty and social inequity of Victorian England, and as a ‘reconciling’ participant in the intellectual revolution that exacerbated the antagonism between science and religion, Arnold saw nature as a source of tranquillity. In this regard, Jones37 views him as being different from Wordsworth, saying that ‘For Arnold, nature’s ‘secret was not joy, but peace’. He loved her in her quieter and more subdued moods’. Tennyson, though initially less open in recognising the influence of evolutionary theories on the certainty of his religious faith nonetheless expressed some doubt and fear about Hallam’s immortal soul in In Memoriam38, For tho’ my nature rarely yields To that vague fear implied in death; Nor shudders at the gulfs beneath, The howlings from forgotten fields. Yet oft when sundown skirts the moor An inner trouble I behold, A spectral doubt which makes me cold, That I should be thy mate no more. Tho’ following with an upward mind

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

145

The wonders that have come to thee, Thro’ all the secular to-be, But evermore a life behind. And39: If sleep and death be truly one, And every spirit’s folded bloom Thro’ all its intervital gloom, In some long trance should slumber on … … So then were nothing lost to man, So that still garden of the souls In many a figured leaf enrols The total world since life began. Later, when he wrote Locksley Hall Sixty Years After, he was less reticent about his loss of religious conviction. As Stableford40 comments: … Darwin’s ideas made an immediate impact on Alfred, Lord Tennyson, whose reference in In Memoriam to ‘nature red in tooth and claw’ seemed to have foreshadowed them; ‘Locksley Hall, Sixty Years After’ (1886) is one of the most explicit and most plaintive Victorian literary reactions to Darwinism. In his paper for the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, which was published as a pamphlet, John Murray Moore41 seems reluctant to acknowledge that scientific theories had compromised Tennyson’s religious faith in any way, though he does acknowledge Darwin’s influence on the poet, commenting42: In all his speculations upon evolution and other theories of science, which he studied very keenly, Tennyson, I rejoice to think, never lost sight of God, the ‘Great First Cause’, in the multitude of perplexing secondary causes. He was a poet who combined, in a unique way, sensuousness without sensuality, a love of detail, a delight in ordered natural laws, sympathy with humankind, and great imaginative power. One can see in his poems of a later date than 1859 the influences of Darwin’s Origin of Species, published that year, and of the later work The Descent of Man, in 1871; but none of them moved him from his religious faith.

 

146 

Sordid Boon?

While Moore is keen to downplay the possible influence of Darwin on Tennyson’s religious faith, the poet’s breadth and depth of scientific understanding, which is so enthusiastically emphasised by Moore himself, would have ensured that he well understood the implications of evolutionary theory for mainstream religion in the late nineteenth century. The theory of evolution notwithstanding, Moore is keen to further elucidate Tennyson’s thorough knowledge of nature and the environment stating43: As the wood-pecker and the king-fisher are already becoming rare in our country, it may be that thirty or forty years hence, Tennyson’s poems may be searched by the naturalists of that day for a list of the wild birds of 1892. Oddly, Moore hints here of an inevitability that some wild birds in England would become rarer, or perhaps extinct, in a matter of decades into the twentieth century. Moore makes no argument, judgement or analysis of why this might be, yet this view is almost prophetic. Moore is keen to continue to extol Tennyson’s scientific credentials and deep knowledge of nature. In addition to his ability to identify wild birds ‘As a poet-botanist Tennyson is unequalled. Without much scrutiny I have found sixty-six different trees, plants, fungi and mosses in his poems’44. The few examples of Tennyson’s and Arnold’s work briefly discussed here illustrate their broad awareness of intellectual developments in a range of disciplines. Such awareness was common among artists and scientists of their time as was a concern for both nature and humanity that they tended to see as interconnected. This, and the focus on ethics and ‘moral duty’, especially in Arnold’s work, is in keeping with sustainability. While the poets’ concern with social justice and the environment was consistent with a positive view of two elements of sustainability, they were generally less concerned with the third element, economics. For Wordsworth, however, in its manifestation as progress through commerce, market economics was a sordid boon.

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

147

The Pre-Raphaelites Pre-Raphaelite art was prominent in the second part of the nineteenth century. It originated with the formation of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood (PRB) by three young art students at the Royal Academy in 1848. They had rebelled against the constraints of the Academy’s teaching in particular and against the formulaic academic style of nineteenth-century painting in general45 46 47. The PRB aspired to ‘fidelity to nature’ and ‘moral seriousness’48. The Brotherhood’s level of dissatisfaction with the state of the British art establishment that led to its formation was perhaps best expressed by one of its members nearly half a century later49: In 1848 the British School of Painting was in anything but a vital or lively condition. …On the whole the School had sunk very far below what it had been in the days of Hogarth, Reynolds, Gainsborough, and Blake, and its ordinary average had come to be something for which commonplace is a laudatory term, and imbecility a not excessive one. The founding members of the PRB were ‘William Holman Hunt, John Everett Millais, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, painters, and Thomas Woolner, sculptor’50. They were all to become famous in their own right. Three more artists subsequently joined the PRB, which had seven members at its peak. They were William Michael Rossetti, Frederick Stevens and James Collinson51. However, many other artists were associated with the Pre-Raphaelite movement. These included Ford Maddox Brown and William Morris. Although the PRB dispersed around 1854, it continued to exert an influence on painting, poetry and design well into the twentieth century. In 1850, the PRB rather ambitiously embarked on the publication of a periodical, The Germ. Thoughts Towards Nature in Poetry, Literature and Art. Though it only ran to four issues (January, February, March and May 1850) and ceased publication due to lack of sales, it was reprinted in 1898 and 1901 after the Pre-Raphaelite movement and many of its members had achieved fame52. The 1901 reprint was published as a facsimile of the first issue and included a long

 

148 

Sordid Boon?

introduction by William Michael Rossetti. It is from this introduction that much information about the PRB and its motivations can be gleaned. While it has been argued that the members of the brotherhood were united by their dislike of Renaissance artists like Raphael and Titian who were admired by members of the recently established Royal Academy 53 William Rosetti asserted that this was not strictly true. William, who was secretary of the Brotherhood and Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s younger brother, gave a slightly different origin for the name ‘Pre-Raphaelite’54 stating: It would be a mistake to suppose, because they called themselves PreRaphaelites, that they seriously disliked the works produced by Raphael; but that they disliked the works produced by Raphael’s uninspired satellites, and were resolved to find out, by personal study and practice, what their own several faculties and adaptabilities might be, without being bound by rules and big-wiggeries founded upon the performance of Raphael or of any one. And further; The Pre-Raphaelite Brothers entertained a deep respect and a sincere affection for the works of some of the artists who had preceded Raphael; and they thought that they should more or less be following the lead of those artists if they themselves were to develop their own individuality, disregarding school-rules. This was really the sum and substance of their ‘Preraphaelitism’. As with others active in intellectual circles, the Pre-Raphaelites were knowledgeable and well connected with some of the leading progressive thinkers of their day. They had a strong supporter in John Ruskin ‘for whom morality, art and nature were inextricably linked’55. The themes connecting morality, nature and the environment recur throughout the work of all of those considered in this book. Through Ruskin, the Pre-Raphaelites, who concentrated more on the visual and verbal arts, and less on the sciences, had a link with the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Ruskin, whose many interests and skills included architecture, was involved in the decoration of The Oxford Museum whose architect Benjamin Woodward

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

149

was an admirer of Ruskin’s writing. The museum was to be dedicated to the natural sciences and Ruskin raised funds and employed pre-Raphaelite artists to work on the project. According to Leight56 ‘The museum’s new library was used for the famous debate between T. H. Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce on Darwin’s ‘On The Origin of Species’’. While recognising their links with nature and morality, most current discussions of the Pre-Raphaelites justifiably focus on the quality of their work and their influences on art and design. The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies was founded in 1977 in North America as a forum for the study of Pre-Raphaelite, Aesthetic and Decadent art, and to ‘promulgate and stimulate research on the PreRaphaelites’ 57 . In Britain, ‘the Pre-Raphaelite Society is dedicated to the celebration of the mood and style of art which Ruskin recognised and preserved by his writings and to the observation of its wide-ranging influence’58. Both of these organisations celebrate the invaluable legacy left by the PRB. The Pre-Raphaelites, with their goals concerning morality and the accurate representation of nature in their art and literature were also reflecting ‘the cultural reconstruction of nature that transpired in the years just preceding the publication of Darwin’s major work and in the wake of the Darwinian revolution’59. Gates60 uses the example of a Pre-Raphaelite painting by William Holman Hunt to open the first paragraph of her book, Kindred Nature, which is about Victorian and Edwardian women’s actions and words in the name of nature. In Hunt’s painting, The Awakening Conscience (1853–54), a young woman is rising from a man’s lap while looking through the window to the natural world outside61. For women, the link between ethics and the environment was important. While men still held most of the financial and political power, women in the nineteenth century were increasingly participating in intellectual forums. Some, like Marcet and Martineau62 , were to become quite influential but, as Gates 63 observes, ‘Darwin’s revolution demanded not just a reordering of nature but a resituating of human beings in the history of nature.

 

150 

Sordid Boon?

In Victorian Britain, as now, the dominant gender system socially constructed both women and nature’. It is thus fitting that we now briefly consider the work of Octavia Hill who looked towards nature and was a woman active in both social reform and environmental preservation in nineteenth-century Britain. Octavia Hill Octavia Hill was a conservationist and a social reformer, as well as being an artist and writer. She is credited with being the founder of the modern discipline of social work64 and could also lay claim to formulating the idea of environmental justice. She was a protégé of the apparently ubiquitous John Ruskin, whom she met in 1854 and together they began a social housing project in 1864 65 . As mentioned earlier, being of the co founders of the National Trust in 1885 she also had links with Wordsworth66. Hill saw access to parkland and open spaces as vital to the physical health of individuals, but she also viewed it as a necessary provider of recreational opportunity for those who might otherwise use their energies destructively. In the opening paragraphs of her rigorously researched and presented appeal to preserve and set aside more public open space ‘More Air for London’ 67 , she used the example of the children of the overcrowded poor to illustrate her point arguing that what she saw from day to day prompted her desire for change68: To see the little pale face and shrivelled form of invalid children who cannot be laid down on the grass in the sunlight to be healed and cheered, but must sit the whole summer through in the hot room in court or alley; to watch the big lads who get into mischief because they have no scope for their energies, no space for game at hare and hounds, no opportunity for leaping ditches, or climbing hills, or skating, or taking a refreshing walk; Hill asserted that she knew both ‘theoretically and scientifically’ that people needed open spaces. She said that witnessing their urban confinement daily while living side by side with the poor, prompted her not to be just an advocate, but also to write ‘an article on the subject’69. The problem of insufficient open space in

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

151

London was exacerbated by the fact that its poorest people lived in cramped and overcrowded accommodation all year round, having neither the money nor the opportunity to take holidays in the countryside70. According to the Octavia Hill Society71, Hill was: An artist and a radical, she was a pioneer of affordable housing and can be seen as the founder of modern social work. Her formidable achievements as an environmental and open space campaigner led to her co-founding the National Trust, which today protects over 300 historic properties and keeps 250,000 hectares of land open to all. As discussed earlier, the goal of improving the well-being of both society and the environment was a topical and popular goal among nineteenth-century intellectuals, and a focus of the poets and artists discussed earlier in this chapter. That goal reflected recognition of the interconnectedness between nature and humanity. This recognition resulted from contemporaneous theories and analyses, many of which were derived from the ideas of eighteenth-century philosophers, economists and natural scientists. Improving social and environmental welfare comprise two of the three elements on which sustainability theory and policy is predicated. Like Wordsworth, Tennyson, Arnold and the Pre-Raphaelites, moral sentiment strongly motivated Hill and it was manifest in her work as an altruistic drive to improve the welfare of the poor then and in the future. Hill, through her analysis of the area and distribution of open space in London also recognised the inequality of access to London’s open spaces, which favoured the wealthy. As Haggard 72 comments of Hill’s findings ‘The problem was that although West London, dividing the metropolis at Charing Cross Road, had one acre of parks for every 682 residents, the East End had one acre of parks for every 7,481 inhabitants’. Putting this another way, the wealthier residents of West London had access to 63.9 square feet of nearby park land per person, while residents of the East End each had access to only 5.8 square feet of local parkland.

 

152 

Sordid Boon?

One does not have to be mathematically gifted to see that this represents a significant inequity in regard to accessible open spaces. Doing the sums reveals that the wealthier residents of West London had local access to about eleven times as much open space compared with the inhabitants of the East End. With the process of industrialisation urban populations had grown rapidly as rural dwellers left the countryside to find work in the towns and cities73. It was largely thanks to people like Hill and their campaigns for open spaces in the city landscape that urban inhabitants had access to parks. Hill’s role in fighting ‘to save the recreational open spaces that were being devoured by the belching metropolis of London’74 was significant. In regard to open spaces, the problems facing the poor residents of London were twofold. There was insufficient open space, but in industrial areas where it was already in shortest supply it was disappearing. Hill, following the moral imperative of Matthew Arnold believed that it was her duty to help the poor. In this she displayed the altruistic sort of moral sentiment that made perfect sense to Turgot in the previous century, but seemed to perplex slightly the utilitarian part of Smith. Smith and the other intellectuals arguably placed moral sentiment, ethics and duty above all else, both as a personal code of behaviour and as a policy determinant. This might have illuminated possible theoretical tensions between altruism and utilitarianism but Darwin, Martineau and other Victorian thinkers did not appear to perceive any conflict. Hill sought to explain, but not justify, her motivation for helping London’s disadvantaged citizens75 saying: ‘This is different from reason and science: this is life, and this is pain. This urges me to speak, making it my duty to speak, and that before it is too late’. Pain and duty notwithstanding, Hill’s arguments in ‘More Air for London’ are presented objectively and she uses relevant statistics to support her case. A frail, neatly folded map is attached to the back of my copy of Hill’s original article. This circular map shows all ‘the parks and open spaces within a radius of 8 miles from Charing Cross’76. In the two corners of the page beneath the map the

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

153

following legend appears, comparing the East End with West London. The example given is from the Eastern corner77: No. of Acres secured in 4 mile radius 97 ‘ 6 ‘ 601 Population in Eastern semi-circle in the 4 mile radius, 1,668, 412, Acreage secured in the same area, 223, or one acre secured Every 7481 people in the Eastern semi-circle. Above the upper bounds of the map the number of acres secured in the 4 and 6 mile radius for the Northern and Eastern semi-circles are shown without the population statistics. Hill describes in her article the painstaking manner in which the statistics were collected and the map created78: The collection of facts for this memorial has occupied me for a portion of the autumn, and there are several of them which I think would be interesting to readers in general, especially to those who are occupying themselves about the welfare of London. Our first step was to prepare in clear tabular form a list of the spaces now secured, their acreage, and the quantity of space in each district as compared with the population. We took one of Stanford’s map, such as accompanies this article. We struck two circles each with a centre at Charing Cross, one with a radius of four miles, one with a radius of six miles. We divided these circles into quadrants. We then coloured green, not (as is usual on maps) the spaces unbuilt, but those really secured to the people. We marked the number of acres of each and every such place. When the spaces were too small to be given on a map of this scale, which was the case with the smaller churchyards, we still chronicled their existence and added their acreage to that of the larger spaces shown by figures on the map. We thus got the total number of acres preserved for, and open to, the public in each quadrant, with the following very remarkable result:In the four-mile radius the number of acres preserved is: In South-Western Qadrant . . 945) “ North-Western “ . . 756} Total in Western half, 1,701. “ North-Eastern “ . . 126) “ South-Eastern “ . . 97} Total in Eastern half, 223. Showing nearly eight times as much in one semicircle as in the other.

 

154 

Sordid Boon?

Through her careful assessments and detailing of the need for open space in London Hill hoped to convince London’s Parochial Charities Fund to provide money to support the purchase of land that could then be ‘secured’ in perpetuity for the people of the area. Hill identified two particular parcels that straddled the four mile radius from Charing Cross. She believed that urgent representations should be made to effect their purchase as there was no other worthwhile open land in or near the four mile radius left to be saved. In ‘More Air for London’ she focused on land parcels at Clissold Park and Parliament Hill. Clisshold Park was important because it was in an Eastern quadrant that was very low in open space, while Parliament Hill was in a poorly supplied area of the North-Western quadrant and, if purchased, it would extend the space of Hamstead Heath. The ‘Ecclesiastical Commissioners’ owned Clissold Park, which they had recently acquired and wanted to develop. The campaign to secure Clissold Park for the people of London had been running since before 1855 and the Commissioners were very unpopular with those who sought to save it. An article entitled ‘A New Lung for North London. A Plea for Clissold Park’ was published in the Pall Mall Gazette on 23rd July 1886 79 , eighteen months before Hill published her article ‘More Air for London’. As well as providing statistics on open spaces according to area, location and population, Hill’s article provides socio-economic arguments justifying the need for open space access for London’s poor. Hill also illustrates why the matter should be urgently addressed, detailing the areas already lost to rapid building development. She hoped that some of the money set aside under the City of London Parochial Charities Act of 1883 might be made available for land purchases given that provision of open spaces was one of the identified objectives of the fund. She also appealed to London’s wealthier residents to donate money to enable land purchases for the poor. Both Clissold Park and Parliament Hill were saved for the people of London. According to Local History ‘Clissold Park, consisting of 54 acres, was opened on

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

155

24 July 1889 by the Earl of Roseberry, the first chairman of the London County Council, but their predecessors had done the hard work’80. The value of Clissold Park, Parliament Hill and all the other urban open spaces that were saved from development by far-sighted people in previous centuries is incalculable today. Changing circumstances, which include exponential population growth, increased metropolitan sprawl and the advent of the internal combustion engine, have augmented their value and it is even more difficult now to conceive of anything that could take it away. Hill died in 1912, remembered best for her fight for London’s open spaces, her work with the poor and her role in establishing the National Trust. Surprisingly, perhaps, she did not believe in women’s suffrage though she fought for Clissold Park alongside Harriet Martineau who campaigned for the emancipation of women and of slaves. Martineau, an enthusiastic political economist, is considered with other feminist thinkers from a range of different disciplines in the next chapter. Concluding Comments This chapter comprises a review of the work of some eminent nineteenth-century Romantic poets, the Pre-Raphaelites, and a social reformer and conservationist. Although brief, it demonstrates the interactions between their work and that of intellectuals in other disciplines of their time. Understanding this interaction is important in relation to today’s concept of sustainability and its interpretation and application, especially with that of economics, in modern policy. We find that there was wide dissemination of knowledge between the arts and sciences and a strong adherence to moral duty and ethics among most participants. This is amply demonstrated in the work of those considered in this chapter. There was also a strong recognition of the interactions between the environment and social welfare. However poets, artists and conservationists were generally ambivalent or opposed to commerce or development that compromised nature or moral sentiment.

 

156 

Sordid Boon?

In the next chapter some pre-eminent nineteenth-century political economists, social philosophers, popularisers of science and feminists will be reviewed in light of their perceptions of the environment, society and economics, and the overarching presence of ethics. This will help to further elucidate the discussion about the connections between the origins of the different disciplines that inform sustainability and policy in the twenty-first century. This in turn helps to shed light on the validity, or otherwise, of current interpretations of economics that have such a powerful influence on modern society.                                                          Endnotes 1

Margaret Drabble, The Oxford Companion to English Literature, (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p.12. 2 John Wyatt, Wordsworth and the Geologists: A Correlation of Influences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 3 Saul Bellow, ‘A World too Much with Us’, Critical Inquiry, 2:1 (1975), 1-9, p. 1.  4 Ibid. 5 J. Murray Moore, Tennyson’s Nature Studies: A Paper Read before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool April 12 1897 by J. Murray Moore.  6 John H. Alexander, Reading Wordsworth, (New York and London: Taylor and Francis, 1987).  7 Ibid, p. 124. 8 James Winter, Secure from Rash Assault: Sustaining the Victorian Environment, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), p.3.  9 J. Douglas Kneale, Romantic Aversions: Aftermaths of Classicism in Wordsworth and Coleridge, (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Press,1999), p.102. 10 Ibid. 11 Brenda Maddox, ‘A Man of Many Quotes. Review of Barker, Juliet; Wordsworth a Life, Viking, 971pp’, New Statesman, 23 October, 2000, p.2.  12 OHS, ‘Home’, The Octavia Hill Society, 2000, http://octaviahill.org/   13 Kneale, Romantic Aversions, p.102. 14 Ibid. 15 C. Becker, M. Faber, K. Hertel, and R. Manstetten, R, ‘Malthus vs Wordsworth: Perspectives on Humankind, Nature and Economy. A Contribution to the History and the Foundations of Ecological Economics’, Ecological Economics, 5, 3 (2005), 299-310.  16 Becker et al, ‘Malthus vs Wordsworth’, p. 304. 17 Ibid, p. 308. 18 Alexander, Reading Wordsworth, p. 124;

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

157

                                                                                                                                                         19 Ibid, p. 125. 20 Nicholas Roe (editor), William Wordsworth. Selected poems, (London: The Folio Society, 2002).  21 See chapter five. 22 J. Murray Moore, Tennyson’s Nature Studies.   23 Ibid, p. 10, original emphasis; 24 Ibid, p. 12. 25 George P. Landow, Victorian Types, Victorian Shadows: Biblical Typology in Victorian Literature, Art and Thought, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980), http://www.victorianweb.org/religion/type/intro.html   26 Herbert J. C. Grierson, ‘The Tennysons’, Chapter II in A.W. Ward, A. R. Waller, W. P. Trent, J. Erskine, S. P. Sherman, C. and Van Doren, Vol XIII, Part One, The Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia in Eighteen Volumes, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Bartleby.com, 2000. http://www.bartleby.com/cambridge/ Mary Schwingen, ‘The Child as Figure for Religious Crisis in Jane Ayre and In Memoriam’, (1994), Brown University, The Victorian Web, http://wwwVictorianweb.org/authors/bronte/cbronte/  27 Schwingen, ‘The Child as Figure’, p. 1. 28 Landow, Victorian Types, Victorianweb p.3. 29 Ibid. 30 Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach, 1867, v. 3, http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/writings/doverbeach.html 31 Charles Darwin, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, sixth edition, with additions and corrections, (London: John Murray; 1875, first edition 1859)  32 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex; second edition, (London: John Murray, 1873, first edition 1871). 33 Arnold, Dover Beach, v. 5. 34 Drabble, The Oxford Companion. 35 William Porges Robbins, The Ethical Idealism of Matthew Arnold: A Study of the Nature and Sources of his Moral and Religious Ideas, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1959).  36 Robbins, ibid, p. 159. 37 W. Lewis Jones, ‘Matthew Arnold, Arthur Hugh Clough, James Thompson,’ Chapter IV in A.W. Ward, A.R. Waller, W.P. Trent, J. Erskine, S.P. Sherman, C. and Van Doren, Vol XIII, Part One, The Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia in Eighteen Volumes, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 2, Bartleby.com, http://www.bartleby.com/cambridge/   38 Tennyson, Alfred Lord, ‘In Memoriam’, London, 1850, XLI, v. 4–6.  39 Ibid, XLIII v.1, v. 3. 40 Brian Stableford, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, (New York and London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2006), p. 169. 

 

158 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         41 Murray Moore, Tennyson’s Nature Studies.  42 Ibid, p.13. 43 Ibid, p.20. 44 Ibid, pp. 21–22. 45 Hamilton A. Thompson, ‘The Rossettis, William Morris, Swinburne and others. 1. The Pre-Raphaelites’, Chapter V, in A.W. Ward, A.R. Waller, W.P. Trent, J. Erskine, S.P. Sherman, C. and Van Doren, Vol XIII, Part One, The Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia in Eighteen Volumes, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p.2, Bartleby.com, 2000, http://www.bartleby.com/cambridge/   46 Drabble, The Oxford Companion. 47 National Museums, ‘High Victorian Art, 8, British paintings and sculpture, The Walker’, pamphlet, (Liverpool: National Museums, 2005). 48 Drabble, The Oxford Companion, p. 813. 49 William Michael Rosetti, The Germ: Thoughts Towards Nature in Poetry, Literature and Art being a Facsimile Reprint of the Literary Organ of the PreRaphaelite Brotherhood, published in 1850, with an introduction by William Michael Rossetti, (London: Elliot Stock, 1901), pp.5–6.  50 Ibid, p. 5. 51 Ibid; and also see Thompson, ‘The Rosettis’. 52 Rossetti Archive, The Germ, (British Library Copy, first issue), http://www.rossettiarchive.org/docs/ap4.g415.raw.html 2009, p.3.  53 Margaret Lonzano, ‘The Pre-Raphaelites. The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood’, 2008, a knol, http://knol.google.com/k/margaret-lozano/the-pre-raphaelites/   54 Rosetti, The Germ, pp. 6-7.  55 National Museums, ‘High Victorian Art’, p. 8.  56 Michele Leight, ‘Ruskin, Turner and the Pre-Raphaelites’, at the Tate Britain, March 9 to May 28 2000. Portrait of the critic as a young artist’, Art Museums The City Review, http://thecityreview.com/ruskin.html p. 18.  57 JPRS (2009), The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite studies, 2009, http://www.yorku.ca/jprs/   58 Anthony Hobson, The Pre-Raphaelites and the society, Birmingham: The PreRaphaelite Society, 2009), 2pp, http://www.pre-raphaelitesociety.org/society.htm  59 Barbara T. Gates, Kindred Nature: Victorian and Edwardian Women Embrace the Living World, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), p.1.  60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 62 See chapter seven. 63 Gates, 1998, p. 3. 64 OHS, ‘Social Housing’, The Octavia Hill Society, 2009, http://octaviahill.org/social-housing.html   65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Octavia Hill, ‘More Air for London’, Nineteenth Century, 23, (1888), 181-188. 

 

Chapter 6: Poets, Pre-Raphaelites and Conservationists

159

                                                                                                                                                         68 Ibid, p. 181. 69 Ibid. 70 Robert F. Haggard, The Persistence of Victorian Liberalism: The Politics of Social Reform in Britain, 1870-1900, (London: Greenwood Publishing, 2001).  71 OHS, ‘Co-Founder of the National Trust’, The Octavia Hill Society, 2009, http://octaviahill.org/co-founder-of-the-national-trust.html p.1.  72 Haggard, Persistence, Ibid, p. 68. 73 Winter, Ibid, p.3. 74 OHS, ‘Home’.  75 Hill, ‘More Air for London’, p.181. 76 Ibid, p. 189. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid, p. 182. 79 Local History, ‘The Open Spaces Movement. Saving Clissold Park from the Builders’, 2008, Local Local History, http://www.locallocalhistory.co.uk/openspaces/clissold-park/index-m.htm  80 Ibid, p. 14.

 

 

CHAPTER 7 SCIENTISTS, ECONOMISTS, PHILOSOPHERS AND FEMINISTS A man is seldom ashamed of feeling that he cannot love a woman so well when he sees a certain greatness in her: nature having intended greatness for men. George Eliot [Mary Ann Evans]: Middlemarch … the Royal Astronomical Society had a discussion as to whether they should award their medal to Miss Caroline Herschel for her discovery of five comets. It was understood that it would undoubtedly have been given had the discoverer been a man. But they came to a determination akin to that of the Royal Geographical Society — not to recognise or reward science when rendered by a woman, and the medal was withheld. Lydia Becker: On the Study of Science by Women

Introduction The work of some of the nineteenth-century’s most prominent political economists, social philosophers and female scientists is reviewed in this chapter. Many nineteenth-century intellectuals were women and, not surprisingly from today’s perspective, most of the women, as well as some of their male counterparts, could be viewed as feminists. Like the poets and artists discussed in the last chapter nineteenth-century economists and social reformers were mostly

162 

Sordid Boon?

multidisciplinary in knowledge. For this reason there is often overlap between their primary disciplines and other disciplinary areas in which they sometimes worked. Because of the obstacles placed in their way, many aspiring female scientists and mathematicians who fought for the simple right to participate in their chosen fields were by necessity also social reformers and feminist thinkers. It is important to emphasise the nineteenth century as a period when knowledge and ideas burgeoned, and were disseminated via a proliferation of newspaper articles, populist pamphlets, erudite books and academic journals. Exposure to emerging ideas was thus widespread among the literate working classes as well as the more educated middle and upper classes. The scope of this book does not allow a review of all the remarkable thinkers of the period so the ideas of those who are considered here are generally representative of the ideas debated across the wider community. Understanding this context should help us to interpret and apply such ideas in both the manner and spirit that was intended. We reviewed the work of Adam Smith and his eighteenth-century contemporaries in some detail in chapters two and three, and established their ethical, social and environmental context. Whether pro-utilitarian like Smith or anti-utilitarian like Turgot, they laid the foundations of modern economic theory firmly beneath an overarching framework of ethics (moral sentiment)1. This fact is still not sufficiently recognised in twenty-first century economic policy, but the economist Amartya Sen 2 , who emphasises the ethical nature of Smith’s work, observes that Smith had a tendency to view people as fundamentally similar. What Sen2 refers to as ‘Smith’s ethical inclusiveness’ contrasts somewhat starkly with the tendency of our current paradigm towards an exclusive ideological interpretation and application of classical and neoclassical economics that is arguably at odds with its ethical basis. Ethics is not part of economic theory because it was assumed, given its clear context, to be implicit in all actions and ideas and thus was expected to overarch and guide economic theory 3 . In this chapter we elucidate this point by examining the work of those who interpreted, criticised and further developed eighteenth-century ideas.

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

163

We considered nineteenth-century scientists, writers, poets, artists and conservationists in chapters four to six. As with their eighteenth-century antecedents, there was a clear connection between the emergence of ideas in the arts and sciences, the development of ideas in economics and the social sciences. and the modern concept of sustainability Regrettably, the convenient designation of disciplines to individuals or bodies of work in this book is sometimes arbitrary and might occasionally detract from the continuum that existed in the flow of ideas and in the relationships between intellectuals. Because of their enduring but little recognised influence on important elements of sustainability we review in more detail a few of the political economists and social reformers who developed and applied economics and science and social theory. As with their eighteenth-century counterparts, some supported utilitarianism and some opposed it. Whether they were in agreement or disagreement in this regard, it becomes apparent that the conceptualisation of their ideas once again lies within the now familiar but derivative framework of sustainability. Although it is not sufficiently recognised, economists like Harriet Martineau and Mill considered ethics to be one of the most important criterion for policy determination. That notwithstanding, current interpretations of economic theory and sustainable development might often be perceived as either well intentioned but misapplied at best, or self-interested and ideological at worst. The 2008 global market crash and responses to it have done little to relieve such perceptions. A major theme of this book is to emphasise the need to improve economic, social and environmental policy in the context of the inherently ethical purpose the nineteenth economists and scientists and their predecessors. They founded and developed the essentially complementary modern disciplines of economics and science on principles that did not place finance or commerce above moral sentiment. This reminder should promote better understanding of where and how economic theory in particular is misapplied or misinterpreted. Nineteenth-century economists generally understood the work of their eighteenth-century

 

164 

Sordid Boon?

predecessors and participated in an interdisciplinary dialogue. They further developed and applied economic theory in the years that followed the industrial revolution when the theoretical foundations of modern ‘free market’ (laissezfaire) economic systems were being established. The continuity of ideas flowing within and between centuries and continents was also apparent in the emerging suffrage movements. Many intellectuals who contributed to political economy and supported notions akin to environmental and social justice, also supported the rights of women and slaves. As eighteenth and nineteenth-century women like Mary Wollstonecraft and Catherine Spence worked towards female emancipation others, like Arabella Buckley, Lydia Becker, and Harriet Martineau also participated as scientists and economists. It is appropriate to include female intellectuals and feminist thought in a separate chapter since they emphasise some of the social justice aspects of eighteenth and nineteenth-century ideas. Feminist work also provides a direct route to women who were both prominent and influential in mainstream nineteenth-century thinking. These women are not sufficiently recognised today for their contributions to the many fields of intellectual debate and enterprise that we now take for granted. Following the section on the popularisers of new ideas, the work of Arabella Buckley (science) and Mill (political economy and social philosophy) is reviewed. Both were outspoken supporters of emancipation. Arabella Buckley published a detailed appraisal of Darwin’s Descent of Man in the context of religion4 as a response to outraged claims that it put humans on the same footing as apes and that it challenged Christian belief. Buckley was also a scientist who wrote books for children to educate and familiarise them with contemporary developments in science. As a man perhaps Mill sits uneasily among the women. However he was a feminist thinker and an outspoken opponent of anti-feminists like Huxley. In The Subjection of Women5 Mill makes powerful arguments for female suffrage and legal equality while strongly supporting the emancipation of women and slaves.

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

165

The Spread of New Ideas and Feminist Thought The continuity and development of ideas flowing between intellectuals is perhaps more apparent in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries than at any other time in the recorded history of European thought. The work discussed here represents only a small part of that body of work that led, inexorably, to defining ‘sustainable development’ as a new idea in the twentieth century. Developing an understanding of the historical relationship of diverse disciplines to the concept of sustainability (by many other names) must reinforce the need to include ethical imperatives as the main drivers of twenty-first century sustainable development policy. This includes climate change policy. The 2008 global market crash and other financial disasters have demonstrated that neoclassical market economics repeatedly fails to realise the outcomes anticipated or advertised by its proponents. This is hardly surprising given the combination of ideological zeal and misunderstanding with which market economics is promoted and implemented, and the way its underlying assumptions and conceptual raisons d’etre are ignored. Regardless of whether one ‘believes’ or not in the ability of markets to maximise the well-being of society, it is unacceptable to base economic, social and environmental policy on flawed interpretations of economic and scientific theory, and deep ignorance of the context and motives of its originators. Following the industrial and intellectual revolutions of the eighteenth century, nascent concepts began to emerge in a wide range of disciplines. The young thinkers of the nineteenth century drew their own conclusions from the knowledge they had gleaned. While scientists thought and wrote about the origins of life, the Pre-Raphaelites redefined art in the context of the natural world and the poets reflected on the destruction of nature and their own mortality. However, along with the political economists, they were all also concerned about the best way to improve human wellbeing in the newly industrialised world. While the focus in this chapter is on those intellectuals whose work most closely informs or relates to the current market system, economists like Karl Marx

 

166 

Sordid Boon?

and Frederich Engels also came to prominence during this turbulent period in European history. Meanwhile Darwin, like his contemporaries, read widely in nearly every area of intellectual endeavour. He read Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women 6 and Carlyle’s The French Revolution, A History7 and was aware of the political unrest that destabilised Europe in the late 1830s. There were demonstrations in London and riots in Scotland, while France experienced street riots and a workers’ uprising in Paris. In July of 1838 Austria defeated its Piedmont colony in its fight for independence, and this signalled, perhaps, an end to overt rebellion and insurgency in Europe8. Many intellectuals like Thomas Carlyle and John Stuart Mill, who supported Carlyle’s publication of The French Revolution, wrote sympathetically of the poor and the vulnerability of the human condition. The idea of workers’ rights and the hostility towards capitalism that had been brewing since Wordsworth’s time did not disappear after the turbulent 1830s. In 1847 Karl Marx and Frederich Engels drew up The Communist Manifesto at the Communist League’s Congress in London. It was published in February 1848 and Stott 9 observes that Marx and Engels used terms from geology and evolutionary theory to describe historical aspects of political change. In chapter six we noted Bellow’s comment on the parallel between Wordsworth’s ‘world too much with us’ and Marx’s concept of alienation 10 . Stott 11 draws a parallel between Darwin’s and Marx’s ideas noting that12 ‘Marx understood social and political change in natural and organic terms — they were like volcanos overturning land, or earthquakes. Darwin’s evolutionary paradigms were more gradualist but no less epic’. Darwin’s theory of evolution also paralleled the rise of feminist thought, though Darwin was no feminist. However Gould13 points out that he was aware of women's contribution to social well-being, and of the importance of his wife to his achievements, suggesting 14 that Emma was one of the greatest fortunes in Darwin’s life. Darwin, who had read Mary Wollstonecraft’s feminist work, and who knew about female reproduction in almost every species, perhaps appreciated more than

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

167

most men of his time what women suffered and sacrificed in their subordination to men. When he wrote about the life of a male barnacle, which was little more than a bag of sperm attached to a much larger female15, he must have understood very well that in an evolutionary sense men were not superior to women. Stott seems to suggest with more than a hint of humour that, based on the evolutionary implications of Darwin’s barnacle studies, ‘the prehistoric emergence of maleness’ 16 was rather undignified. She quotes Darwin’s almost mournful description of the lot of male barnacles 17: ‘thus fixed and half-embedded in the flesh of their wives they pass their whole lives and can never move again’. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it was extremely difficult for women to have an independent life or to be educated to the same level as their male peers. The number of women participating in the generation and dissemination of new ideas during this period is thus rather impressive. While it is regrettably not possible to name them all, mention of just a few with their associated disciplines helps to illustrate this point. Such women include Elizabeth Gaskell (literature, social commentary), George Eliot (literature, social commentary), George Sand (French literature), Mary Wollstonecraft (feminism, politics, social commentary), Jane Marcet (economics, science), Mary Somerville (mathematics and astronomy) Mary Kingsley (geography, science), Harriet Martineau (economics, politics, social commentary), Lydia Becker (science, suffrage), Catherine Spence (economics, sociology, politics), Ann Murry (science), Priscilla Wakefield (natural history, science, philanthropy), Arabella Buckley (natural selection, education) and Mary Shelley (science, literature). Mary Shelley’s mother, Mary Wollstonecraft who died soon after giving birth to her daughter, published the provocative appeal for female independence, A Vindication of the Rights of Women with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects, in 1792, sixteen years after Smith published Wealth of Nations and only two years after his death. There were some male intellectuals who went much further than Darwin in their recognition of women’s potential. Such men recognised that women were

 

168 

Sordid Boon?

disempowered and favoured female emancipation. In 1867 Mill published The Subjection of Women18 in which he argued that it was wrong to subordinate one sex to another. This was by no means his only objection to the subjection of women. Mill also argued that female subordination was a major obstacle to human improvement and that the introduction of a principle of perfect equality was needed. Though Mill was not the only man to fight for female emancipation he was in a minority. Huxley, for example, so erudite and clever in other ways, was vehemently opposed to sharing the pursuit of science and other intellectual activities with women. He also disliked the parson-naturalists and was determined to oust them from any positions they might hold in scientific institutions and societies. However, as Lightman19 observes, he was unable to stop the Victorian public from buying their books. Many of the popularisers of science, and of intellectual thought generally, were women, and their writings pervaded every medium available to them. These included books, pamphlets, newspapers, magazines and, sometimes, even academic journals. Women involved in popularisation engaged in all discourses including astronomy, mathematics, physics, botany, sociology, political economy, philosophy and literature. Many went much further than mere popularisation. Lydia Becker, for example, was one of the many remarkably multidisciplinary women. She was a strong and influential campaigner for women’s suffrage, but she was also determined that girls and women should have access to a formal education in science and went to considerable lengths to argue her case. In Victorian times science was a ‘masculine’ discipline and women were actively discouraged from study or engaging in it20. The Popularisers of New Ideas The popularisers of new ideas made complex concepts, especially in science and political economy, accessible to many members of society by publishing their work in the popular press. Like other great thinkers Jeremy Bentham and Darwin, Martineau belonged to the Unitarian Church. She was an enthusiastic, and

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

169

sometimes over-zealous, proponent of free-market economics which she communicated to a wide audience that included lesser educated Victorians by publishing her work in the popular press. She was a keen disciple of Smith and of utilitarianism, and to promote the cause of the free market she interpreted it in parable-like stories, following the example of Jane Marcet21. Martineau was one of a growing number of women capable of exerting an influence on Victorian society. As mentioned in the last chapter, she joined another of those women, Octavia Hill, in the fight to save Clissold Park. Lydia Becker campaigned for women’s participation in science and she began her paper on the subject in The Contemporary Review22 as follows: ‘In speaking of the study of science by women, I desire, at the outset, to guard against the supposition that I consider study to present any exceptional peculiarity to distinguish it from the study of science by men’. In that paper Becker set about objectively demonstrating that women were as capable as men, intellectually, physically and emotionally, in scientific endeavour. She argued that the disparity in the number of women studying or working in science was due to ‘existing social and conventional arrangements, which exclude women from those opportunities of cultivating their intellectual faculties which are freely enjoyed by men…’23. In order to support her arguments Becker obtained and published the marks of top students for a range of science prizes from 1855 to 1868 in the relatively rare classes with both male and female students. In order to distinguish gender where full names were not given she showed the women’s names in upper case letters and the men’s names in lower case letters. Given their relative proportions women were extremely well represented in all subjects in all years24, yet Becker was compelled to present arguments to counter specious assertions from dissenting men about why women did so well given their intellectual inferiority. For example, that they had more leisure, or that they were above average students anyway25 (and the men were not?). The subjects covered by Becker’s analysis include geology, chemistry, physical science (physics), botany, zoology, and ‘five

 

170 

Sordid Boon?

subjects’ (all of the foregoing?). Women were among the prize and certificate winners (sometimes in first place) in every subject in every year covered by the study. At the conclusion of her assessment, Becker comments 26 : ‘The cry for equal rights for all human beings proceeds from the irrepressible consciousness of equal needs, and the possession of common feelings’. Many female scientists popularised their disciplines via the press and by publishing books. Lightman27 comments that ‘While Huxley was busily excluding women from professional scientific societies, they were turning to popular science writing in droves’. He names numerous female scientists who were active in the nineteenth century including Rosina Zornlin, Jane Loudon, Anne Pratt, Elizabeth Twining, Mary Ward, Agnes Clarke and Alice Bodington28. Arabella Buckley took popularisation of science to a new level by writing children’s books with evocative titles like The Fairy-land of Science29, and Life and her Children 30 . These books covered the latest scientific ideas and were beautifully illustrated in order to capture both the interest and imagination of children, and to draw them into science. There were also many men, especially Anglican churchmen, involved in the popularisation of science. These included Charles Alexander Johns, John George Wood, Edward Clodd, Richard Proctor, and David Page31. Marcet and Martineau There were two particularly successful popularisers in another challenging area of emergent intellectual thought: that of political economy. In a contemporaneous review of their works Empson32 states: If political economy is a new faith, yet, thus considered, it is one which may naturally look for an attentive hearing from the enlightened portion of the sex. Accordingly, the point is already passed of public congratulations on the accession of female converts. Popular priestesses have arisen. And they have fortunately undertaken to preach the practical truths and blessings of the science, rather than its mysteries and creed.

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

171

Those ‘popular priestesses’ were Jane Marcet and Harriet Martineau. Marcet, the elder, was one of the early female proponents of popularisation and her successful use of the parable style of explaining new or complex ideas in science and economics provided the model for the younger Martineau. Empson33 observes of Martineau’s work: The invention, the knowledge, and the workman like skill required to maintain, single-handed, the form which she has assumed, and to keep the orbit in which she is travelling, must be taken into consideration in order duly to appreciate the task which she has set before her. Perhaps no single writer, certainly no young lady, ever contracted so extraordinary an engagement with the public as that of a monthly course of Political Economy, embodied in apposite fables uniting at once dramatic beauty and scientific truth. However, Empson was not always so full of praise for Martineau. He later cautions her34 that: Scientific truths are not of a kind to be insensibly absorbed. They depend on a class of proofs, in respect of which there is no thoroughfare or percolation backwards and forwards to the severer regions of the understanding, from more popular quarters of the imagination and the feelings … And, in keeping with today’s standards of scientific practice35: … if these stories are to answer to their elevated purpose, they must be studied as lessons; and the truth of the lessons must be verified as we proceed. Marcet’s work generally met more thoroughly with Empson’s approval. He viewed Marcet as more objective and honest than Martineau whom he sometimes appeared to accuse of ideological bias. Conversely he was full of praise for Marcet’s John Hopkins’ Notions of Political Economy saying36: Mrs Marcet has resumed her valuable labours in the unpretending little volume which heads our article. It is delightfully written, and is admirably adapted, by plain straightforward sense, for its virtuous purpose — the

 

172 

Sordid Boon?

improvement of the labouring classes. It is intended to do for the uneducated generally, what her well known Conversations on Political Economy [1816] had before done (and most successfully) for young and controversy hating students. Conversations on Political Economy was the second of Marcet’s Conversations, which also included Conversations on Chemistry37 and Conversations on Natural Philosophy 38 . The Conversations series demonstrated Marcet’s considerable knowledge and impressive learning over a diverse range of disciplines including chemistry, zoology, botany and economics. Like Arabella Buckley and Mary Ward, Marcet sometimes also extended her teaching and learning to the instruments that helped to elucidate nature, the world, and indeed sometimes the universe. Her interpretation of science was unembellished by political or religious undertones or the value-laden digressions of some of her peers in popularisation, like Martineau, whose political ideology comes across clearly in her writing, and Maria Hack

39

whose religious and political beliefs sometimes direct her

discourses on science away from objective language and towards theological hints at ‘the Maker’s’ intelligent design. While, in the view of some modern writers, Martineau’s Illustrations of Political Economy 40 resemble optimistic myths 41 , Marcet tries to sustain a strictly scientific approach in her Natural Philosophy42. Their differing styles, subtexts and disciplinary approaches notwithstanding, the popularisers of nineteenth-century intellectual thought were moved by a firm belief in the right to equal opportunity for all members of society, and by a conviction that moral sentiment should be the chief motivator of governance, as evidenced in Martinenau’s mature work43. Brief Cameos of Some Eighteenth Century Women The influence of knowledge dissemination by people from the educated middle class to the working poor should not be underestimated. The added belief that an ethical imperative supported this dissemination potentially made the position of a populariser of knowledge very powerful. That many of the popularisers were

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

173

women disadvantaged by their gender made the mix even more potent, and the number of women involved in knowledge popularisation burgeoned in the nineteenth century. However one must not forget those who were active in science and literature in the eighteenth century, either for their own work or for the path they made for the women who followed. Mary Woolstonecraft, mentioned earlier as the author of A Vindication of the Rights of Women6 was like her daughter Mary Shelley also a populariser of scientific thought. Woolstonecraft wrote Original Stories from Real Life 44 for children. Ann Murry also interpreted science for children and her work Mentoria 45 was aimed especially at girls. With reference to Murry, Rauch 46 observes that women were not only significant disseminators and popularisers of science but that they also contributed to the way in which the public understood science. Because women were excluded from science (as a masculine topic) even more forcefully than other areas of intellectual pursuit, women with hard won access to scientific knowledge were very busy with its dissemination. However, as already discussed, women were also active in political economy as well as in the humanities and social sciences. Like their male counterparts, such women were often multidisciplinary, and were also effective social reformers. Lydia Becker: A Nineteenth Century Reformer Lydia Becker, whose analysis of women’s participation in formal science education was briefly reviewed earlier, was both active and influential in other areas of education for girls and the socially disadvantaged. One of her avenues of assistance was through participation in the administration and politics of education. To this end she sat on the governing boards of several schools in Manchester where she used her influence to campaign for girls’ access to the same science education as boys, and for the poor to have greater access to education overall47. Apart from publishing her work she also gave lectures and presented papers to the public to spread her ideas about education and emancipation. By the time she wrote her paper on women in science48 she had

 

174 

Sordid Boon?

written two books: Botany for Novices 49 and Elementary Astronomy, which wasn’t published50. In 1867 Becker founded the Manchester Ladies’ Literary Society that, its name notwithstanding, focused mainly on scientific matters. After making her acquaintance with Darwin he sent one of his papers to the Society for a reading. While Becker’s interest in science never waned, her commitment to women’s suffrage grew and she continued to participate in both areas, frequently making connections between them51. Her activities with the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) were thus complementary to the causes for which she fought the hardest. The BAAS was established in 1857 and, like the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science (NAPSS), its main purpose was to address social issues52. Becker’s introduction to suffrage relatively late in her life came through the NAPSS. While attending a meeting there she heard a paper presented by the suffragist Barbara Bodichon on the ‘Reasons for the enfranchisement of women’53. Becker was from a wealthy industrialist family. At the age of eighteen, as the eldest of fifteen children, she was left to raise her younger siblings when her mother died. She thus knew something of the inequities that women faced54 and she felt that her lack of opportunity had starved her mind of the things she could have learned55. Parker56 notes that Becker took some comfort from studying more feminine subjects like astronomy and botany that were deemed to be more compatible with a woman’s lifestyle and duties. At the age of thirty, Becker left home and eked out an existence on a small salary as the secretary of the Manchester National Society for Women’s Suffrage57. Like many of her female contemporaries she was ultimately able to gain her independence through publishing her work and giving public lectures. It was Becker’s exclusion from science that led her to campaign so strongly for girls’ education and women’s suffrage. Becker presented her first public paper at the Norwich Museum in 1865. Before a large crowd she argued strongly against the notion that women’s

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

175

intellectual abilities are in any way different from men’s and she refuted ‘scientific’ arguments that were used to impede women’s progress. Becker is said to have been a strong public speaker and in response to a heckler who asked who would do the cooking if girls obtained an education had replied58: ‘No true man should want to be the husband of a domestic slave’. She resented the fact that women were discriminated against in almost every walk of life except ‘home making’. As in her paper ‘On the Study of Science by Women’ which was discussed earlier in this chapter, she supported her assertions with evidence. Becker also used political arguments in support of suffrage and women’s rights to an education in science. Becker’s successful museum presentation enabled her to meet some important scientists of her time including Darwin and Wallace59 and ‘On the study of Science by Women’ caused considerable controversy in male scientific circles. As with other bastions of traditional male views The Lancet was hostile to Becker and, as Parker comments60: ‘The Lancet’s unease was still evident the following year when it linked her work with the nineteenth century’s most outstanding rebuttal of female inferiority, J.S. Mill’s Subjection of Women’. In addition to her ties with the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Association of Social Sciences, the Women’s Suffrage Journal and the various Manchester School Boards, during her life Becker held many posts in organisations relating to science, education and suffrage61 62. She died in France in 1890, well before women achieved the full vote in 1928. While Becker would no doubt have been appalled to hear that women are still under represented in the sciences and in politics, her popularisation of issues relating to women’s participation in science and women’s suffrage contributed to the eventual realisation of both goals. Catherine Spence Catherine Spence, another suffragist, was a Scottish-born, Australian populariser, novelist, educator, and political reformer. She had an enduring belief in social

 

176 

Sordid Boon?

justice, and fought for the rights of abused women and children, especially those who were victims of domestic violence. Despite her significant work in education and human rights, and her numerous publications on a range of topics, she felt her greatest achievements to be in politics and electoral reform63. Spence was a keen campaigner who worked to promote proportional representation. She was strongly influenced by Thomas Hare’s A Treatise on the Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal, which Mill referred to ‘the most important work ever written on the practical part of the subject’ 64 . Mill’s work had a significant influence on Spence’s life and she was pleased to have met both Mill and Hare in 1865 when she was on a lecture tour of Britain. They were both supportive of her publication about Hare’s work, Plea for Pure Democracy: Mr Hare’s Reform Bill Applied to South Australia65, which was one of Spence’s early works on electoral reform. While Spence’s political and electoral work was by no means conservative, some of her fiction was particularly controversial. Her first novel Clara Morison66 which was well received, had appeared in 1854, but her seventh novel Handfasted 67 was not published until 1984 due to its radical subject matter. Handfasting was an old Scottish custom that permitted a couple to live together for a period before marriage, and the novel was rejected as a contender for a literary prize offered by the Sydney Mail because ‘it was calculated to loosen the marriage tie — it was too socialistic, and consequently dangerous’ 68. Spence, an enthusiastic but not particularly successful novelist, continued to pursue social themes in her work but tended to focus in her later years on topical issues that she saw as requiring action, reform or support through policy and process. Like Octavia Hill, Spence saw the need for the urban poor to have access to open spaces. In Heredity and Environment69, a work reflecting her awareness of some of the negative interpretations of Darwin’s work, Spence argues that it is environment not genetics that causes criminality. She asserts that the physical and social conditions under which children live strongly influence their lifelong behaviour. She believed that if children could have the combined benefits of

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

177

sufficient open space and a decent education they would have a fair chance of becoming good citizens. Spence had a proficient knowledge and understanding of the developing intellectual ideas in Europe and the Americas. She valued her education highly and knew she would have struggled to survive as an independent woman without it. Her motivation to afford others greater life opportunities via education was strong 70 . Religious belief notwithstanding, Spence viewed ethics as the policy ‘bottom line’ and tended to be motivated by it, continuing in her later years to campaign for suffrage and for the rights of women and children facing domestic violence. Spence’s motivations for her campaign on proportional representation and electoral reform include significant elements of current sustainability objectives, especially equity. Given the nature of her interests, and her travels around the world including the USA, Spence had plenty of opportunity to develop a hardened cynicism. However, even in old age she exhibited a touching faith in human nature and democracy which has probably been borne out over the years when she commented in her Autobiography71 ‘I was prepared to trust the people; and Mr Hare was also confident that, if all the people were equitably represented in Parliament, the good would be stronger than the evil. The wise would be more effectual than the foolish’. Spence’s long campaign for suffrage eventually paid off and in 1894 women were granted the right to vote in South Australia, which became the second place in the world, after New Zealand, to grant such rights. The other Australian states gradually followed suit, with Spence continuing to lend her support to suffragists in the rest of Australia, the United States and England. Having fought hard for women’s suffrage, Spence 72 was naturally delighted saying ‘… I rejoiced when the Women’s Suffrage Bill was carried, for I believe that women have thought more and accepted the responsibilities of voting to a greater extent than was ever expected of them’.

 

178 

Sordid Boon?

While most states in the rest of Australia granted men over the age of twenty-one the right to vote in the 1850s, South Australia was the first to give women that right. The right was extended to all women, including Indigenous women, so that in 1894 every citizen of South Australia over the age of twenty-one could vote to elect their government representatives. Because South Australia had enfranchised women well before Federation in 1901 it ensured, by inserting Section 41 in the Australian Constitution, that it was clearly stated that anyone with the right to a state vote would be entitled to a Commonwealth vote. However in 1901 Indigenous South Australian men and women voted in an Australian Commonwealth Government election for the first and last time until 1967. This travesty of justice occurred because in 1902 the Solicitor General ‘interpreted’ section 41 to mean that only those Indigenous voters who were already enrolled in the state could vote, so no new Indigenous people could be enrolled. While Queensland and Western Australia had continued to ban Indigenous people from voting, in the rest of Australia, along with women, they had in reality been enfranchised from the day they were permitted inclusion on their state’s electoral roll73. Hopefully

Spence

heard

the

news

about

the

Commonwealth’s

disenfranchisement of South Australia’s recently enfranchised Indigenous women and men with anger and regret. Magarey74 notes Spence’s rather racist attitudes and her unflattering portrayal of Indigenous people in her first novel Clara Morison but she is of the opinion that Spence may have changed her views as she aged. She optimistically observes75 that Jeanne Young (who compiled Spence’s autobiography) added a note to the ‘American’ chapter of the Autobiography about Spence’s change of attitude when she was staying with William Lloyd Garrison, son of the famous Abolitionist. While in his Boston house, she wrote: I began to be a little ashamed of being so narrow in my views of the coloured question. Mr Garrison, animated with the spirit of the true brotherhood of man, was an advocate of the heathen Chinee, and was continually speaking of the goodness of the negro and coloured and yellow races, and of the injustice and rapacity of the white Caucasians’76.

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

In 2010, Justice Robyn Layton

77

179

gave the Catherine Helen Spence Memorial

Oration, which recognises Spence’s achievements in her own state, to mark the centenary of her death. She spoke about the law and social justice, topics both dear to Spence. Early in her speech Layton established the nature of the link between Spence’s apparently diverse interests, which are all in keeping with sustainability elements, when she discussed the social studies textbook that Spence had written for school students78. In that book, The Laws we Live Under, which was published by the South Australian Government, Spence was essentially acting as a populariser of a number of social issues that were much in the minds of nineteenth-century intellectuals. As with the other popularisers, Spence aimed to write in a manner that would be comprehensible to all. She also stressed the importance of education, law reform and human rights, and believed that well educated children would become responsible citizens. All of these issues are just as important and relevant today as they were in her time. More Female Intellectuals and Feminist Thinkers The work of two nineteenth-century intellectuals who have been previously mentioned in this book will now be considered in more detail. They supported female emancipation, were multidisciplinary, and worked to bring about change that would benefit the poorer majority of society in some way. Importantly they held moral sentiment and altruism in high regard. Arabella Burton Buckley was one of the popularisers of science while Mill, whose work as a liberal foil to the authoritarians was briefly reviewed in chapter five, was an outspoken campaigner for the emancipation of women and of slaves. Like others discussed here they possessed broadly based intellectual skills and they were particularly outspoken about women’s rights. They both made remarkable contributions to political economy, philosophy, education and social reform, and their respect for the natural environment in parallel with their promotion of social and economic

 

180 

Sordid Boon?

justice suggests them as early, but unknowing, proponents of the sustainability concept. Arabella Burton Buckley Arabella Burton Buckely, children’s author and populariser of science, was the daughter of a Sussex vicar. Her knowledge about many fields of science was extensive and she wrote fluently at different levels of sophistication depending on the age and education level of her readers. Much of her scientific knowledge was gleaned during her time as secretary to the influential geologist Charles Lyell. Through her work with Lyell, from 1864 until his death in 1875, Buckley became acquainted with many of the foremost scientists of her time79. Like Spence and Lydia Becker, Arabella Buckley gave public lectures on topics that were current among intellectuals. Her first book, A Short History of Natural Science80, was published the year after Lyall died. Prior to that, she had published an ambitious and assertive article ‘Darwinism and Religion’ in Macmillan’s Magazine481. That piece, most certainly not intended for children, displayed a detailed knowledge of contemporary debates and topical issues. The paper was in direct response to Darwin’s publication of Descent of Man the same year82, and in it she forcefully countered popular arguments that the theory of evolution, and especially humanity’s relationship to the apes, was a theory against religion and the existence of God. While some simply saw Darwin’s theories as a challenge to the religious status quo (and possibly to extant power structures), others like Tennyson and Arnold, as discussed earlier, thought deeply about the implications of evolutionary theory for their own convictions. Interestingly, while Darwin’s ultimate loss of religious faith is sometimes interpreted as a direct response to his own theory of evolution, Stott83 suggests, rather, that his apostasy resulted from the death of his favourite child Annie. At the stage of her life when she wrote the paper on Darwinism and Religion81, Buckley was uncompromising in her defence of God as the creator. She presented her arguments step by step, using examples and drawing on topical

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

181

issues to illustrate her points. Her arguments were rational because she did not suggest that there was any direct proof of the existence of a creator; rather she argued that a slow creation, lasting aeons wasn’t less credible than a quick seven day creation. She brought ethics, altruism and morality into her discussion, reflecting Darwin’s attention to these issues. Her own focus on ethics perhaps foreshadowed her future book Moral Teachings of Science84 that she was to write many years later. Altruism and cooperative behaviour featured quite strongly in Descent of Man, as mentioned earlier in this book, and these philosophical and theological aspects of evolutionary theory and the controversy surrounding them, clearly made a lasting impression on Buckley. She commented that if Darwin had refrained from extending his arguments about humanity’s similarities to the apes from the physical to the emotional and intellectual there would have been less fuss, but also no new ideas or ‘startling principle’ further to his previous book. Buckley states85: Into these fields of speculation he enters boldly in the present work, and arrives at the conclusion that the mental powers of man, though so different in degree to those of the higher animals, are yet the same in kind [Buckley’s emphasis]: while in the social instincts existing so strongly in many animals, he finds a basis for the moral sense or conscience of the human race [my emphasis]. While Buckley was arguing the point with those who rejected Darwin’s work on the premise that it would refute their religious beliefs, she was also interpreting parts of Descent of Man82 step by step for those whose comprehension of the Darwinian thesis was incomplete. She was especially careful to explain in detail the proposition that the possession of ‘social instincts’ in an animal would lead to the acquisition of ‘a moral sense or conscience’. She argued that this was ultimately because, with the development of a human-like intellect, once speech had been acquired and a community could express its wishes properly, there would be a stronger incentive to act for the common good. Just as people could express approbation, they could presumably also express disapproval of wrong

 

182 

Sordid Boon?

doing (which they would recognise as such). Buckley 86 went on to assert that Darwin’s theory adequately supported the proposition, our significant differences notwithstanding, that all of our characteristics, physical, mental and moral, have been developed from more primitive or ‘lower’ animal ancestors. She was at pains to point out that this does not in any way ‘detract from all that is noble in our nature’87. Buckley went to considerable lengths to ensure that this message be communicated to those who had no difficulty accepting the concept of a physical evolution for humans, but who found the idea of humanity experiencing an emotional or intellectual descent from lower creatures frightening or repugnant. It was, after all, held that self-consciousness and conscience set humanity apart from the rest of creation and marked us as being cast in God’s image: that was the crux of the matter. Buckley goes on to explain, again step by step, that the point of her article was to demonstrate that the theory of evolution, especially in regard to the descent of man, did not compromise a belief in God, nor the belief that God had endowed us with a conscience and the ability to communicate with him. She also indicated that our ‘hope of immortality’ had the same foundation whether we had evolved slowly over aeons or had been created in a matter of days. Finally she argued88: That Mr Darwin, if his theory be even approximately true, has given a new impulse to the utilitarian philosophy, in enunciating a proposition by which, as he says “the reproach of laying the foundation of the most noble part of our nature in the base principle of selfishness is removed”. Given that Arabella Buckley lived in a context where utilitarian economics was being increasingly applied (and interpreted for the public by her peers), and that she knew and understood the most influential and immediate contemporary intellectual ideas, the following question has to be asked: How did ‘the Utilitarian philosophy’, whether or not one agrees with it, come to be crudely understood in the twenty-first century that the promotion of self-interest was the optimal

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

183

mechanism for maximising social benefits? In every-day language this roughly translates as ‘selfishness promotes the common good’. It was a similarly ideological extension of the ‘utilitarian philosophy’ to the completely deregulated ‘free market’ of ‘economic rationalism’ that led to the global financial crisis of 2008 from which repercussions were felt for years. Buckley’s 1871 paper 89 established for her a pattern and a purpose. Her passion for science and for education was realised in her subsequent books, written both for adults and for children. In them her capacity to understand and to explain complex theories, including utilitarianism, across a range of disciplines found a constructive outlet. As a young woman her knowledge was impressive. In her brief paper on ‘Darwinism and Religion’81 she cites, for example, the work of Huxley the zoologist, Malsthus the parson naturalist and Smith’s contemporary, John Tyndall, the Irish scientist who studied glaciers, and John Stuart Mill the philosopher and political economist. Buckley published her first book A Short History of Natural Science And Of The Progress of Discovery From The Time Of The Greeks To The Present Day. For The Use Of Schools And Young Persons in 187580 Nearly twenty years after she wrote Darwinism and Religion she published Moral Teachings of Science90 which reflected the philosophical issues that she had raised in her early article. The first edition of Moral Teachings published in 1891 only contained five somewhat abridged chapters and the sixth, which was included in the second edition, was omitted for ‘want of space’. In the preface to the second edition Buckley suggested that the book remained briefer than she would have liked but perhaps, as such, it would appeal ‘to many readers who would not take up an elaborate philosophical work’91. This book, written for adults, unsurprisingly uses a more sophisticated language than her expositions for children, and makes reference to works that might require some background knowledge to be fully appreciated. That notwithstanding, Buckley wrote the book for those92 ‘who, feeling puzzled and

 

184 

Sordid Boon?

adrift in the present chaos of opinion, may welcome even a partial solution, from a scientific point of view, of the difficulties which oppress their minds’. Conversely, The Fairy Land of Science93, originally published in 1879 and based on ten lectures delivered to children is told as a series of stories each focusing on a particular aspect of science in the natural world. For example, Chapter II is ‘Sunbeams and the work they do’ while Chapter VII is ‘The Life of a Primrose’ and Chapter IV, ‘A Drop of Water on its Travels’. The book is clearly didactic; designed to fire the children’s imaginations and draw them gradually into an appreciation of, or a fascination with, science and all it encompasses. Early on the first page Buckley says94 ‘… I thoroughly believe myself and hope to prove to you, that science is full of beautiful pictures, of real poetry, and of wonder-working fairies …’ and ‘…you will be able to call them up whenever you wander by land or by sea, through meadow or through wood, through water or though air’. She was literally promising the children the earth if only they would look and appreciate the natural world around them. She wove references to well-known fairy tales of her time such as ‘Sleepy Beauty in the Wood’95 and ‘Wonderful Travellers’96 into her narrative. She also quoted from the work of her contemporaries like Wordsworth whose character Peter Bell’s appreciation of nature was clearly found wanting97: A primrose by a river’s brim A yellow primrose was to him, And it was nothing more. Having set the scene with familiar backdrops, Buckley drew in her audience and focused their attention on her main purpose, which was to teach the children about science. In her first chapter she manages to squeeze in an introduction to the nature of raindrops (which she covers in greater detail in chapter IV) while mentioning the concepts of heat, cohesion, and gravitation. In chapter II, ‘Sunbeams and the Work they Do’ we learn of the sun’s importance to life on earth and the ‘cold eternal night’ of a world without sunlight. Buckley uses

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

185

analogies to convey to the children the sun’s massive distance of 92 million miles from the earth. By the end of the book, in addition to the chapters already mentioned, the children have learned about water’s contrasting life giving yet sometimes erosive and destructive forces; the ‘voices’ of nature; the life history of a piece of coal; the life cycle of bees; and the role of bees in pollinating flowers. Buckley’s reverence for nature is palpable in her work yet even in her narratives for children she avoids sentimentality and trivialisation of the natural world in her portrayals of its potential for destruction. Fairy Land of Science was followed by the publication of Life and her Children: Glimpses of Animal Life from the Amoeba to the Insects98, Winners in Life’s Race 99 and seven further books on aspects of science and nature, including Through Magic Glasses and Other Lectures: A Sequal to the Fairy Land of Science 100 . The last contained detailed descriptions of contemporary scientific instruments and their mechanisms and, like her other children’s books, was richly illustrated. Apart from her children’s books and her works on evolution, Buckley wrote History of England for Beginners 101 but although she adhered to her educational purpose she didn't imbue the book with her usual passion for the subject102. It seems fitting that her last book was Moral Teachings of Science103 given that in her much earlier publication on Darwinism she had mused about the connections between evolution and altruism. She had almost come full circle but had somehow ended on another plane. The elder Arabella Buckley, writing almost twenty years later was perhaps a more confident and more assertive person than the young woman who, in 1871, had written104: On no hypothesis founded on the facts of nature can we shut out the everpresent action of the Infinite and All-perfect First Cause nor shake the belief that, whether through a process of creation or the apparently less direct one of evolution “in Him we live, and move, and have our being”.

 

186 

Sordid Boon?

The older Buckley had lived for many years absorbing arguments about religion and Darwinism, reading and learning about developments in science, writing about the many manifestations and roles of nature and analysing and interpreting the facts as she knew them. She had also done her best to educate people of all ages and social classes about science and nature. By 1892 when the fuller edition of Moral Teachings of Science 105 was published she placed less emphasis on arguing for the presence of an omnipotent deity and more emphasis on the significance of evolution to altruism. While she wasn’t an apostate like Martineau, she had become far less patient with those who persisted with rejecting the theory of evolution because they believed that it denied the existence of God. Buckley continued to argue that this wasn’t a true premise and that a belief in evolution permitted a belief in God, saying106: Theology is now studied as a science, and points are disputed, which in the age of our forefathers were accepted without discussion; while the rapid spread of scientific discovery has discredited many dogmas of earlier days under which, nevertheless, deep truths are hidden. But107: If it be true that the instincts which lead us to be just and merciful, honest and unselfish, pure and affectionate, to fear moral degradation and to aspire to nobleness of character, are inherent in the very laws of our being then we shall find the gradual development of these qualities in the ground-work of living nature … High moral duties are not true because all religions have taught them, but that all religions have taught them because they are true. Arabella Buckley died in 1929. At least five of her books are currently in print. John Stuart Mill John Stuart Mill was a political economist, social philosopher and feminist. We previously encountered him in chapter five as a romantic liberal, and Chairman of the 1866 Jamaica Committee fighting against his erstwhile friend Thomas Carlyle

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

187

to prosecute Governor Eyre for murder. Mill was a close contemporary, in age and intellectual inclination, of Harriet Martineau. They were also acquaintances. His father James Mill was a utilitarian philosopher who was born in Scotland three years before Smith published Wealth of Nations108. James Mill had a very powerful influence on his son’s education and intellectual life both at home, and at work in the India Office. Some of Mill’s publications on political economy and utilitarian philosophy were briefly considered earlier so the focus in this section is mainly on his advocacy of women’s rights. Like Spence and Buckley, Mill was a strong proponent of education for the poor and, while not quite a populariser of science or economics, he is viewed in some lights as an educator109. In the overall context of this book it is Mill’s view of ethics and the way in which his thinking was influenced by moral sentiment that are most important to his parallel with modern sustainability theory and practice. Indeed as Verburg110 suggests he tends to be viewed as a reformer applying economic theory to policy but that ‘Philosophical rethinking of Mill’s work, however, has reaffirmed the importance of ethics to his system of thought’. Mill’s ethical perspective was, in fact, consistent with his social philosophy, which was, in turn, interconnected with his political thought and with non-ideological interpretations of utilitarianism. These elements link directly to the triple bottom line of sustainability. As with most other intellectuals reviewed in this book, there are various interpretations of, and disagreements about, the intentions and impacts of their work, particularly that work which is viewed as reformist or radical. Mill’s outspoken support for female emancipation came late in his life, although his concern about women’s inequality as an economic and social issue had been expressed in his earlier work. After he was elected as the Liberal Member for Westminster in 1865, Harris111 observes that ‘… Mill … for a time played an active role in radical and parliamentary politics. In the latter phase he also published the series of popular writings on social and political theory for which he is best known to posterity, most notably An Essay on Liberty112 and The Subjection of Women113’.

 

188 

Sordid Boon?

While Parker114 views Mill’s Subjection of Women18 as ‘the nineteenth century’s most outstanding rebuttal of female inferiority’, Rose115 considers that Mill ‘… tried so hard to avoid the traditional male-dominated balance of power within marriage, that he enacted a parody of the patriarchal situation and in the name of sexual equality was, if anything, dottily deferential’. However, when viewing marriage as a business relationship he argues sensibly that there need be no dominant partner116. Mill had a long career writing his own important essays and helping with his father’s publications, as well as working by day in the India Office to which, in 1823, he had been appointed as a clerk in his father’s department. However, it was not until after the death of his wife Harriet Taylor (nee Hardy) in 1858 that he became involved with a number of radical and controversial issues and campaigns. In many of these he was assisted by his step daughter Helen Taylor who, like her mother, was an independent and outspoken woman. During this period he published his ‘great political tracts’

117

On Liberty (1859); Representative

Government (1861); Utilitarianism (1863), and On the Subjection of Women (1869)118. There has been much speculation that Harriet and Helen Taylor’s views were strongly expressed in Subjection, which was begun in 1861, and even that one or other of them wrote sections of some of Mill’s publications. For example, in a feminist blog reviewing feminist classics, which credited Harriet Taylor with co-authorship, the writer119 states as a footnote to her generally positive review ‘You won’t likely find her [Harriet Taylor] officially credited as author anywhere, but after our discussion at the Feminist Classics blog about how she’s been widely demonized and written out of history, I wanted to both make a point and pay her respect’. Given Mill’s adoration of Taylor, and his respect for her intellect, it would be surprising if she had not strongly influenced his work and participated in discussions from which he drew ideas and opinions. Mill’s close intellectual relationship with Harriet Taylor and later with her daughter Helen would have

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

189

given him significant insights into, and empathy with their own lives in particular, and with the lives of women in general. Mill had taken up the issue of women’s rights some years before he wrote Subjection, but well after he met Taylor at a dinner in 1830, at which Martineau was also present115,

118

. In Principles of Political Economy, which was first

published in 1848, he tackled the issue of women’s inequitable wages and unequal access to varied work. Mill based some of his analysis of wages on the 1841 report of the Hand-loom Weavers’ Commission. The problem of the handloom weavers was not, in this instance, one of gender but of poverty since men and women seem to have been equal in the paucity of their wages — the salient point at this juncture. Their low pay was, according to Mill, due to the exclusionary practices of other trades that shut them out, leaving their labour in oversupply for their own very limited trade. Mill’s overall concern with the ‘grievous condition of that depressed class’ was, like gender inequality, one of social justice. Further120: It deserves consideration, why the wages of women are generally lower, and very much lower, than those of men. They are not universally so. Where men and women work at the same employment, if it be one for which they are equally fitted in point of physical power, it does not appear that they are in general unequally paid. Women, in factories earn as much as men; and so they do in hand-loom weaving, which, being paid by the piece, brings their efficiency to a sure test. However, he says121: If the pay is unequal where the efficiency is equal, the only explanation that can be given is custom; grounded either in a prejudice, or in the present constitution of society, which, making almost every woman, socially speaking, an appendage of some man, enables men to take systematically the lion’s share of whatever belongs to both. Mill thus observed that very occasionally men and women obtained equal pay for equal work, and he used the example of the unfortunate and poorly paid handloom workers to illustrate one instance of that case. More often though men were

 

190 

Sordid Boon?

paid more than women, but what was worse was that women were excluded from most forms of employment thus causing an oversupply of labour in the very few areas in which they were permitted to work. As an aside, it is interesting to note that Mill, while justifiably concerned about women’s paid labour, didn’t directly comment on the unacknowledged value of their unpaid labour. On this matter, Hirschmann122 comments with some justification: ‘Mill… is ambiguous about the productive status of domestic labor, and is thereby representative of a crucial failure in political economic thought, as well as in egalitarian liberal thought on gender’. Perhaps, as evidenced later in this section, Mill viewed his analogy of wives as slaves as sufficient comment on the matter. On the matter of excluding women from most paid occupations, Mill argued that this led to women’s wages being driven down by the competition for wages in a small overcrowded market. Conversely for those admitted to such positions123 ‘If apprentice laws, or the regulations of corporate bodies, make the access to particular employment slow, costly or difficult, the wages of that employment may be kept much above their natural proportion to the wages of common labour’. That not withstanding, Mill was of the view that [all] employers should 124 : ‘preclude from taking the utmost advantage of competition’. It was presumably because many employers failed to do this that some countries ultimately legislated for a minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws. It seems to have been a given that the utilitarian philosophers and economists who proposed and supported market economics, sometimes in the face of significant objection from other intellectuals, did not envisage pushing competition to its logical conclusion. This was a point made even by Smith in his rather dark scenario of the perfectly competitive world. That was because their ultimate ‘bottom line’ was ethics. The logical end point of a completely unfettered free market is monopoly (even if everyone behaves honestly), which in itself is the antithesis of free market economics because it is inefficient. Even in today’s market, where the ethical requirements of the discipline have usually been ignored,

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

191

and economic efficiency (or worse, economic ‘growth’) is the ultimate bottom line, economists and others with even a tenuous grasp of the theory will require some level of regulation in most markets to encourage equilibrium and appropriate responses to ‘market signals’. By 2008, the radical pursuit of ideological interpretations of economics, which has discarded its ethical underpinnings, had encouraged private and corporate resistance to any form of government regulation up to the point of the global market crash. Subsequently, while millions worldwide lost their homes and their employment, resistance to government intervention was lifted long enough to facilitate the payment of billions of dollars in government subsidies to private companies and corporations to ‘rescue’ them, while social costs soared and social welfare, which utilitarian economics requires governments to maximise, collapsed. The rapid and artificial escalation in property prices that occurred before the crash was exactly the type of ‘sordid boon’ that Wordsworth envisaged, and from which this book takes its title. Meanwhile, in regard to social justice and gender equity considerable progress has been made in many respects. It still sometimes seems that there are places where men have access to employment from which women are barred or discouraged, so the disadvantage tends to gravitate against women. That, along with what Mill called ‘custom’ and ‘prejudice’, has not yet been sufficiently resolved, although all forms of equity are supposedly part of the ‘bottom line’ of sustainable development. In his Subjection of Women (1869) Mill challenged gender discrimination quite forcefully and he was strongly focused on dealing with it by removing extant legislation that promoted gender discrimination and disenfranchised women. In his introduction, Mill’s stated goals are laudable125: The object of this essay is to explain as clearly as I am able grounds of an opinion which I have held from the very earliest period when I had formed any opinions at all on social political matters … That the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes — the legal

 

192 

Sordid Boon? subordination of one sex to the other — is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on one side, nor disability on the other.

Not surprisingly Mill linked the idea of perfect equality between genders with the idea of morality: it was, of course, to him both an ethical issue and an economic issue. Much of Subjection is a narrative of the nature of women’s oppression. Mill describes the history of male dominance in England’s past and the legal situation of women in the nineteenth century in some detail. Mill was thorough in his coverage of the plight of women and, using his extensive knowledge of history and the classics, he compared women’s treatment in other civilisations like ancient Greece somewhat favourably with their relatively recent treatment in England. Not so long before Mill wrote Subjection a woman was the possession of her father, and then her husband. She had little choice about which husband to take, nor even whether she wished to marry. She was virtually traded by her father who generally, if wealthy would also pay a handsome dowry to the man who took his daughter off his hands. A woman thus seems to have had a negative exchange value. If she retaliated against a brutal husband she was punished severely. If she killed him she was deemed to have committed treason and could be burned to death. Mill conceded that by the mid-nineteenth century things had improved somewhat, but were not perfect. He comments126 ‘I am far from pretending that wives are in general treated no better than slaves; but no slave is a slave to the same lengths, and in so full a sense of the word, as a wife is.’ And further127: While she is held in this worst description of slavery as to her own person, what is her regard to the children in whom she and her master have a joint interest? They are by law his children. He alone has legal rights over them … Even after he is dead she is not their legal guardian, unless he by will has made her so. At the end of chapter four128 Mill issued what sounds distinctly like a challenge to authority, and a rallying cry to suffrage supporters. The words are genuinely

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

193

passionate. If they had been written by a woman she might have been accused of histrionics: from a man speaking on behalf of women they are almost touching, if not ‘dottily deferential’: When we consider the positive evil caused to the disqualified half of the human race by their disqualification — first in the loss of the most inspiriting and elevating kind of personal enjoyment, and next in the weariness, disappointment, and profound dissatisfaction with life, which are so often the substitute for it; one feels that among all the lessons which men require for carrying on the struggle against the inevitable imperfections of their lot on earth, there is no lesson which they more need, than not to add to the evils which nature inflicts, by their jealous and prejudiced restrictions on one another. However, as a summary of the evils consequent upon women’s subjection, there seem to be some curious omissions. Although Mill did argue that the subjection of women was a major obstacle to human improvement, he could have carefully enumerated all the different costs to society, tangible and intangible, of not using the full potential of their intellectual power and other skills. Given that Mill was a political economist (and a utilitarian one at that), it is surprising that he didn’t include all the social benefits foregone through subjugation of the other half of society’s members — the disqualified half of the human race. As a consequence of publishing The Subjection of Women Mill became simultaneously reviled and revered. The essay’s content seems rather tame to modern readers but, as Harris129 states: It was widely denounced by a majority who saw it as subversive of familial and social stability, and by a minority who disliked Mill’s picture of companionate marriage, his very limited endorsement of divorce, and his belief that even liberated women would opt for homes and children. Conversely, most supporters of suffrage for women were delighted with the book. As well as appearing in pirated versions in Europe and America it was highly valued by the emerging feminist movement for whom he was a hero130. In 1868 a committee established the previous year by Mill and Helen Taylor to enfranchise

 

194 

Sordid Boon?

women, became the London National Society for Women’s Suffrage131. This was founded in parallel with the Manchester National Society for Women’s Suffrage to which Lydia Becker belonged, as mentioned earlier. Pointers to the Present We’ve examined he work of some of the outspoken female and feminist intellectuals of the nineteenth century in this chapter, which includes a review of the popularisers of new ideas. Their work was considered in accord with both their own specialist areas and in the sustainability context. Their roles as feminists, in keeping with the social justice dimension of sustainability, which includes inter- and intra-generational equity, were also discussed, as was the feminist work of John Stuart Mill. This feminist perspective of nineteenth-century thought and its sustainable development and policy implications provide a continuum which links to the next, penultimate chapter of the book. That chapter will bring us back to the present having assessed the origins of our current governing paradigms in the previous seven chapters. In chapter eight we’ll assess some current social and environmental problems, and consider how economics and sustainability can be more honestly and accurately applied to twenty-first century policy. As noted previously, Mill and Martineau identified limits to the use of market economics and free competition. Like Smith and the other political economists discussed here, they placed ethical values and moral sentiment above financial and commercial considerations when proposing policy options. Given that they developed, interpreted and applied the classical economic theory of their immediate predecessors, and often proposed their own theories, they were in a good position to understand both its intentions and its potential outcomes. Nearly all policy discussions about the environment, social justice and sustainability necessarily have a strong ethical component. It is unsurprising then, that twenty-first century feminist ecological economists concern themselves with ethics. Nelson 132 observes that modern mainstream economics uses what she views as a masculine pattern of definitions, models and methods. These ‘gender

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

195

schema’ in neoclassical economics tend to line up with widely accepted perceptions of the way in which men and women tend to operate. Nelson’s view is that the characteristics of today’s orthodox economics are essentially masculine while ‘soft (‘not economics’) methods’ are essentially feminine 133 . If Nelson’s thesis is accepted it follows that because of the male preponderance in the practice of orthodox economics there is not a balance in the way in which economic models and methods are applied to the different components of sustainability’s triple bottom line. Clearly not all women conform to Nelson’s gender schema (consider Margaret Thatcher, for example) any more than all men conform. For example Nelson 134 cites Nicholas Stern the former chief economist of the World Bank and author of the Stern Review135 as being rather vocal about the limitations of applying conventional economic analysis to climate change, his ‘impeccable’ orthodox credentials notwithstanding. She comments136: ‘Ethics and uncertainty, as well as international policy, must be ‘at the core’ of the analysis’. In fact, as we have already seen, ethics was an underlying requirement of those who developed the theory upon which those modern ‘objective’ analyses are purportedly based. It is clear from the work of the various intellectuals considered in this book, utilitarian or otherwise, that their theories, in the main, took ethics as their overarching principle. This is especially so for the works of Smith and Darwin. It is worth repeating Arabella Buckley’s unambiguous statement about her understanding of Darwin’s theory, which is so much at odds with current applications of utilitarian free market economics and its goal of competitive ‘efficiency’137: That Mr Darwin, if his theory be even approximately true, has given a new impulse to the Utilitarian philosophy, in enunciating a proposition by which, as he says, “the reproach of laying the foundation of the most noble part of our nature in the base principle of selfishness is removed”. As Nelson 138 observes of twenty-first century orthodox economics ‘… it is ‘masculine’ and ‘superior’ to see ourselves as beings who are above nature, and

 

196 

Sordid Boon?

that doing ‘good economics’ means distancing ourselves from each other and from ethical concerns’. In light of this, it is worth briefly examining some of the stated objectives of the Australian Adam Smith Club (AASC) (Melbourne), arguably a stalwart of 'orthodox economics', while keeping in mind the preceding historical chapters and Nelson’s observation. The Club Objectives, as set out in the AASC membership renewal form139 state that the Club was formed … ‘to promote and explore the further understanding of the principles and works of Adam Smith and like minded thinkers’140. In addition and among other things: 'Members of the club take an uncompromising stand in their support of' private property, ...freedom from coercion by others, freedom of trade and enterprise in the market ... ' and, ‘freedom of the individual within the framework of minimal government activity’. These objectives, which have a strong private, anti-intervention focus, not only reflect current orthodoxy in economics, but also gain credibility by using Smith’s name. In view of Nelson’s analysis these objectives might seem to have an essentially masculine flavour. Not only do they suggest a certain superiority, but they also appear to place ethical concerns at arm’s length. Their emphasis on the individual rather than on society, and on the material world, does seem rather uncompromising and the only mention of others is that we should be free of their coercion. There appears to be little sense of community or society, whose welfare Smith and subsequent neoclassical economists seek to maximise through a combination of wealth redistribution, market mechanisms and government intervention. In that context, it is perhaps strange that current orthodox economics claims to be based directly upon the economics of Adam Smith, given the pre-eminent role of ethics, and government, alongside the market and God, in his work. As we have seen, the nineteenth-century intellectuals, utilitarian or otherwise, who succeeded him had similar guiding motivations. This point is worthy of reflection as we move on to consider some of the current implications of market economics for sustainability and government policy in the next chapter.

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

197

                                                                                                                                                         Endnotes 1

W.B. Hodgson, Turgot: His Life, Times, and Opinions. Two Lectures, (London: Trubner and Co, 1870), and, W.W. Stephens, Life and Writings of Turgot, (London: Longman, 1895).  2 Amartya Sen, ‘The Economist Manifesto’, New Statesman, 2010, http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2010/04/smith-market-essay-sentiments p.2;  3 For example, Michael Common, Sustainability and Policy. Limits to Economics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).  4 Arabella Buckley, ‘Darwinism and Religion’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 24 (1871), 45-51.  5 John Stuart Mill, ‘The Subjection of Women’, (first published 1869), 2004, http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645s/ 6 As mentioned previously, Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women was first published in 1792, see42 below.  7 First published in 1837. 8 See, Rebecca Stott, Darwin and the Barnacle, (London: Faber & Faber, 2003), p. 107, and, S.J. Gould, ‘Darwin and Paley meet the Invisible Hand’, Natural History, November 1990, 8-16. 9 Rebecca Stott, Darwin and the Barnacle, (London: Faber & Faber, 2003), p. 107.  10 Saul Bellow, Saul (1975), ‘A World too Much with Us’, Critical Inquiry, 2, 1, (1975) 1-9.  11 Stott, Darwin and the Barnacle. 12 Ibid, p. 107. 13 . Gould, ‘Darwin and Paley’  14 S.J.Gould, The Lying Stones of Marrakech. Penultimate Reflections in Natural History, (London: Jonathan Cape, 2000), p. 180.  15 Stott, Darwin and the Barnacle, p.100. 16 Ibid. 17 Stott, ibid. 18 Mill, The Subjection of Women 19 Bernard Lightman, ‘Marketing Knowledge for the General Reader: Victorian Popularizers of Science’, Endeavour, 24, 3, (2000), 100-106, p. 102.  20 Joan E. Parker, ‘Lydia Becker’s “School for Science”: A Challenge to Domesticity’, Women’s History Review, 10, 4 (2001), 629-650. 21 Sarah Lumley, ‘Harriet Martineau 1802-1876.’ In: Armstrong, P.H. and Martin, G.J. (eds) Geographers: Biobibliographical Studies, Vol. 22, (London and Washington: Mansell, 2001).  22 Lydia Becker, ‘On the Study of Science by Women.’ The Contemporary Review. 10 (1869), 386-404, p.386  23 Ibid. 24 Ibid, pp. 396–399.

 

198 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         25 One can almost hear Becker sigh as she embarks upon her arguments in which she uses an example of discrimination in the face of excellence in women at Cambridge University who were actually permitted to sit for exams on an equal basis with men. Becker states, apparently with a carefully controlled exhalation: ‘The only matter for regret in respect of these examinations is the treatment of the successful students, in the invidious distinction implied in the exclusion of girls from the class lists. The boys who pass honourably have their names published; the girls who pass honourably have their names suppressed’, see Becker, Ibid. 26 Ibid, p. 104. 27 Lightman ‘Marketing Knowledge’, p. 102. 28 Ibid 29 Arabella Buckley, The Fairyland of Science, Yesterday’s Classics, (NC: Chapel Hill, 2006, first published by E. Stanford, London, 1879).  30 Arabella Buckley, Life and her Children: Glimpses of Animal Life from the Amoeba to the Insects, (London: E. Stanford, 1880).  31 Lightman, Marketing Knowledge. 32 William Empson, ‘Illustrations of Political Economy’, Edinburgh Review, 4, 57 (1833), 1-10, p.2. 33 Ibid, p. 3. 34 Ibid, p. 5. 35 Ibid, p.6. 36 Ibid, p. 2, my emphasis. 37 Jane Marcet, Conversations on Chemistry in which the Elements of that Science are Familiarly Explained and Illustrated by experiments. 2 vols. (London: Longman, 1806).  38 Jane Marcet, Conversations on Natural Philosophy in which the Elements are Familiarly Explained, (London: Longman, 1836, first published 1819). 39 Maria Hack, Harry Beaufoy; or the Pupil of Nature, (London: Harvey, Darton and Co, 1821).  40 Harriet Martineau, Illustrations Of Political Economy (1832-4), (London: Charles Fox, 1834) 41 Ellen Freedgood, ‘Banishing Panic: Harriet Martineau and the Popularization of Political Economy’, Victorian Studies 39, 1 (1995), 33-53. 42 Ibid. 43 For example, Harriet Martineau, Society in America, (London: Saunders And Otley. 1837), and, Harriet Martineau, Retrospect Of Western Travel, (London: Saunders And Otley, 1838).  44 See Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects, with an introduction by Claire Tomalin (London: The Folio Society, 2008, 2nd edition, first edition published 1792). 45 Ann Murry, Mentoria or the Young Ladies Instructor in Familiar Conversations on Moral and Entertaining Subjects: Calculated to Improve Young

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

199

                                                                                                                                                         Minds in the Essential, as well as the Ornamental Parts of Female Education. (London: Edward and Charles Dilly, 1778).  46 Alan Rauch, ‘Mentoria: Women, children and the structures of science’, Nineteenth Century Contexts, 27, 4, (2005), 335-351, p. 335.  47 See CHS, ‘Lydia Becker – The Life and Times’, Chadderton Historical Society, Famous Chaddertonians, 2009, http://www.chadderton-historicalsociety.org.uk/lydia%20becker.htm  and, Susan Kingsley Kent, Sex and Suffrage in Britain 1860-1914, (London: Routledge, 1990). 48 Becker, ‘On the Study of Science by Women’.  49 Lydia Becker, Botany for Novices: A Short outline of the Natural System of Classification of Plants, (London: Whittaker & Co, 1864). 50 See CHS, ‘Life and Times’; Kent, Sex and Suffrage, and, Parker, ‘Lydia Becker’s School for Science’.  51 Ibid. 52 Jennifer S. Uglow (editor), The Macmillan Dictionary of Women’s Biography, (London: Macmillan 1998), and, Parker, ‘Lydia Becker’s “school for science”’.  53 CHS, ‘Lydia Becker – The Life and Times’. 54 Parker, ‘Lydia Becker’s “school for science”’. 55 , Ibid, p.630. 56 Ibid 57 Ibid. 58 CHS, 2009, Ibid, p. 2. 59 Ibid; Kent, Sex and Suffrage.  60 Parker Ibid, p. 636. 61 Ibid; CHS, ‘Life and Times’; Kent, Sex and Suffrage; Becker, ‘On the Study of Science; Uglow, Macmillan Dictionary. 62 Those organisations included the Manchester Ladies’ Literary Society, the Manchester National Society for Women’s Suffrage, the National Association of Social Sciences, the Married Women’s Property Committee, and the London Central Committee for Women’s Suffrage. 63 Sarah Lumley, ‘Catherine Helen Spence 1825 – 1910’, Armstrong, P.H. and Martin, G.J. (editors) Geographers: Biobibliographical Studies, Vol. 23, (London and Washington: Continuum Press, 2003), and, Catherine Helen Spence, Catherine Helen Spence: An Autobiography, (Adelaide: W.K.Thomas, 1910, (reprinted from the Register, 1910). 64 Magarey, Unbridling the Tongues of Women, p. 123. 65 Catherine Helen Spence, A Plea for Pure Democracy: Mr Hare’s Reform Bill Applied to South Australia, (Adelaide, W.C. Rigby, 1861).  66 C.H. Spence, Clara Morison: A Tale of South Australia During the Gold Fever, (London: J.W. Parker, 1854).  67 Catherine Helen Spence, Handfasted, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1984). 

 

200 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         68 Helen Thomson, ‘Preface’, in Catherine Helen Spence, Handfasted, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1984), p. ix.  69 C.H. Spence, Heredity and Environment, from a lecture delivered before and printed at the request of the Criminological Society of South Australia, (Adelaide: Webb and Son, 1897).  70 See Lumley, ‘Catherine Helen Spence’; Magarey, Unbridling the Tongues of Women; and, Thomson, ‘Preface’. 71 Spence, 1910, Ibid, p. 37. 72 Ibid, p. 77. 73 AEC, ‘Indigenous People and the Vote’, Australian Electoral Commission, 2011, www.Aec.Gov.Au/Voting/Indigenous_Vote/Aborigin.Htm  74 Magarey, Unbridling the Tongues of Women. 75 Ibid. 76 Spence and Young cited in Magarey, ibid. 77 Robyn Layton, ‘Law and Social Justice. Is it all Rhetoric?’ Catherine Helen Spence Commemorative Oration, pdf, The University of South Australia, 2010, http://www.unisa.edu.au/hawkecentre/events/2010events/chs_oration.asp p. 1.  78 C.H. Spence, The Laws we Live Under, (Adelaide: Government Printing Office, 1880). This school textbook was published by the South Australian Government. 79 Barbara T. Gates, Kindred Nature: Victorian and Edwardian Women Embrace the Living World, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).  80 Arabella B. Buckley, A Short History of Natural Science and of the Progress of Discovery from the Time of the Greeks to the Present Day, for the use of Schools and Young Persons, (London: J. Murray, 1876). 81 Buckley, ‘Darwinism and Religion’. 82 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex; second edition, London: John Murray, 1873, first edition 1871). 83 Stott, Darwin and the Barnacle. 84 Arabella Buckley, Moral Teachings of Science, (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1892).  85 Buckley, ‘Darwinism and Religion’, p.45. 86 Ibid, p. 46. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid, my emphasis. 89 Ibid 90 Buckley, Moral Teachings of Science. 91 Buckley, ibid, p.2. 92 Ibid. 93 Arabella Buckley, The Fairy Land of Science, Yesterday’s Classics: (Chapel Hill, NC, 2006, first published by E. Stanford, London, 1879).  94 Buckley, Moral Teachings, p. 1.  95 Buckley, ‘Darwinism and Religion’, p.2.  96 Ibid, p.4. 97 Ibid, p.6.

 

Chapter 7: Scientists, Economists, Philosophers and Feminists

201

                                                                                                                                                         98 Arabella Buckley, Life and her Children: Glimpses of Animal Life from the Amoeba to the Insects, (London: E. Stanford, 1880).  99 Arabella Buckley, Winners in Life’s Race, or the Great Backboned Family, (London: E. Stanford, 1882).  100 Arabella Buckley, Through Magic Glasses and other Lectures, 1890, Facsimile held at George Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Georgia http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00078569/00001/7j?td=arabella+=buckley  101 Arabella Burton Buckley, History of England for Beginners, (London: Macmillan and Co, 1887). 102 Gates, Kindred Nature.  103 Buckley, Through Magic Glasses.  104 Buckley, ‘Darwinism and Religion, p. 47 105 Buckley, Moral Teachings of Science.  106 Buckley, Ibid, p. 4. 107 Buckley, Ibid, p.6. 108 Smith, Wealth of Nations.  109 Rudy Verbourg, ‘John Stuart Mill’s Political Economy: Educational Means to Moral Progress’, Review of Social Economy, Vol. LXIV, 2, (2006), 226-246;  110 Ibid, p. 226. 111 Jose Harris, ‘Mill, John Stuart (1806-1873)’, The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) online edition, Oct 2008 p.1, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/18711 112 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty: Representative Government: The Subjection of Women, (London: Oxford University Press, 1912).   113 John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women, eBooks.Adelaide, 2004, first published 1869, http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645s/  114 Parker, ‘Lydia Becker’s “School for Science”, p. 636.  115 Phyllis Rose, Parallel lives: Five Victorian Marriages, (London: Chatto/Hogarth, 1984), p. 265.  116 Ibid, p.266. 117 John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women, and, John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism; On liberty; Essay on Bentham: Together with selected writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, in Mary Warnock, (editor) Utilitariansim, John Stuart Mill (1861), (London: Collins (Fontana), 1962).   118 Harris, ‘Mill, John Stuart’. 119 Emily Jane, ‘The Subjection of Women by John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor*’, Booked All Week, 2011, http://bookedallweek.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/the-subjection-of-women-byjohn-stuart-mill-and-harriet-taylor/   120 John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy, Volume I, second edition, (London: John W. Parker, 1849), p.487.  121 Ibid, my emphasis.

 

202 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         122 Nancy J Hirschmann, ‘Mill, Political Economy and Women’s Work’, American Political Science Review, 102, (2008), 199-213, p. 1.  123 Mill, Principles of Political Economy, p 488. 124 Ibid, p. 491. 125 Mill, John Stuart, ‘The Subjection of Women. p. 1.  126 Ibid, p.2 chapter 2. 127 Ibid, p. 3. 128 Ibid, p .13, chapter 4. 129 Harris, ‘Mill, John Stuart’, p. 29. 130 Ibid. 131 Ibid 132 Julie A. Nelson, ‘Between a Rock and a Soft Place: Ecological and Feminist Economics in Policy Debates’, Ecological Economics, 69 (2009), 1-8.  133 Ibid, p. 3. 134 Ibid. 135 Nicholas Stern, The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, (London: H.M. Treasury, 2006).  136 Nelson, ‘Between a Rock and a Soft Place’, p.5. 137 Arabella Buckley, ‘Darwinism and Religion’, p.46, my emphasis.  138 Nelson, ‘Between a Rock and a Soft Place’, p. 3. 139 AASC, ‘Club Objectives’, Membership Renewal Form for 2013, The Australian , (Melbourne), 2012, p.2, http://www.adamsmithclub.org/ 140 Ibid

 

 

CHAPTER 8 ECONOMICS AND POLICY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY Whatever Nature has in store for mankind, unpleasant as it may be, men must accept, for ignorance is never better than knowledge. Enrico Fermi (cited in Atoms in the Family, Laura Fermi)

Introduction So far in this book we have broadly reviewed the contextual history of some of the disciplines that inform modern policy, and we’ve noted the clear interrelationship between these discipline as they developed and evolved. Their practitioners, if not actively engaged in them all, were aware of the ideas and arguments that the range of disciplines encompassed. Given the growing emphasis on economics in current policy determination it is increasingly important for members of the voting public to have a basic understanding of economic theory and inter-related disciplines. This will help us to determine for ourselves whether utterances by politicians about economics in particular are accurate, or whether they are ideologically or politically biased. For example in April 2012 controversy erupted in Australia when the Commonwealth Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey made a speech1 in London to the Institute of Economics Affairs calling for cuts to Australian welfare payments and an end to what he referred to as ‘the age of entitlement’. This view is increasingly common in

204 

Sordid Boon?

conservative interpretations of market economics worldwide. Hockey asserted that there were compelling economic reasons for such welfare cuts and, as with many neoliberals, he cited Adam Smith to back up his assertions. There were some prompt responses to the speech in the alternative online media2 as well as significant coverage in the mainstream press. That particular episode which has implications for ethics and equity, as well as for economics, reinforces the need to examine current policy debates. Market economics may not be the best paradigm for dealing with current social and environmental problems, but corrupting the theory, using it out of context, or violating its assumptions will hardly improve matters. Throughout the eighteenth century and for most of the nineteenth century ethical considerations were arguably the most important considerations in the development of theory and policy. I have proposed in this book that the modern concept of sustainable development with its triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental elements strongly parallels the conceptual underpinnings of the disciplines discussed here. I have also argued that in classical economic theory the requirement for ethics was not made explicit because it was implicit in almost every thought and action of its time. An ethical premise over arched almost everything. As Alvey 3 states: ‘Economics grew out of moral philosophy and eventually became one of the moral sciences’. Unfortunately modern ideological applications of economics often fail to recognise this. The life and work of Adam Smith, moral philosopher and ‘father’ of modern economics, was considered in some detail in chapters two and three. Smith’s book Wealth of Nations 4 , first published in 1776, is often cited in arguments for minimising government participation in service provision and other activities, as indeed it was in the Hockey case outlined above. In countries like Australia, this ideologically based ‘economic rationalist’ ‘small government’ approach to policy has led to the sale or ‘corporatisation’ of numerous public utilities and services by successive Labor and Liberal governments, often with little detailed analysis of all possible social benefits or costs of such action and,

 

205

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

frequently, with questionable outcomes in terms of optimising social benefits. As we saw in chapter three5 the role of government was central to Smith’s proposals for economics, and was pivotal in education, public works, defence and justice. While some prominent economists like Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen6 continue

to

emphasise

misunderstanding

of

the

importance

economic

theory

of

ethics

is

often

in

economics,

the

far

reaching.

This

misunderstanding has a detrimental effect on both social and environmental policy, and is often associated with an ideologically biased narrative that masquerades as part of an objective policy debate. Climate change policy is one of many contemporary issues that require informed public debate encompassing a range of disciplines including those in the natural and social sciences. It is of great importance for all parties to such debates, including the public, to have a sound understanding of the issues involved in developing workable policy. This includes careful identification and consideration of all viable policy options. As discussed earlier 7 in relation to Darwin’s response to Smith’s work, the natural sciences were developed by natural philosophers in a similar context, and with similar moral underpinnings, to economics. Moral philosophy, natural philosophy and political economy were parallel disciplines and the theories and concepts discussed here have been considered in this regard with the aim of furthering effective policy determination through greater understanding of these issues. Given the emphasis placed on sustainable development and the elements within it, it is important to understand and conform to the requirements embedded in the concept. In Australia the Federal Government’s EP&BC Act 8 clearly defines the principles of ecologically sustainable development. As described in the Act, the principles have a strong ethical focus with an emphasis on social equity and environmental protection. While sustainability principles are referred to in Australian State and National policy related documents, as well as having wide global currency, they are often conspicuously absent in policy implementation.

 

206 

Sordid Boon?

The historical aspects of neoclassical economic theory and its inter relationship with other disciplines discussed in previous chapters provide a backdrop to the exploration of some important issues and examples in current policy determination. More importantly, knowledge and understanding of the context in which eighteenth and nineteenth century intellectuals developed ideas and proposed theories to improve social well-being not only helps to enhance our understanding of the theories themselves, but it also helps us to apply them to policy. In the historical chapters of this book we have recognised the ethical premise, or moral sentiment, that overarched the work of the eighteenth and nineteenth intellectuals, and we have observed, like other contemporary writers9 that the modern concept of sustainable development is also overarched by an ethical premise. The importance of ethics in economics is increasingly attracting the attention of modern writers who are also concerned about the loss of that dimension in current economic policy10. While it has not been possible to provide an exhaustive analysis of all relevant issues, it is hoped that the broad overview presented in this book will give some insights to help those who are interested in interpreting relevant theories. If their understanding is thus sufficient to identify when such theories are being misinterpreted for ideological or other reasons, they should be able to respond appropriately to important policy issues via the democratic process. While sustainable development has become something of a cliché, its components reflect the historical connections of environmental, economic and social theory. More importantly though, being essentially a moral concept that requires recognition of all values including intangibles, it also embeds ethical requirements in government policy. In both classical and neoclassical economics the role of governments is to maximise social welfare, and governments are able to choose how that goal is achieved. There is a range of policy instruments available but they must be used honestly, and inaccurate claims should not be made to justify the use of a particular approach. For example if a government wants to provide subsidies to a

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

207

particular sector it is perfectly entitled to do so, but this should be made explicit; if it wants to have private contractors running public utilities it should not claim that this is done as part of an efficient free market system that will deliver cheaper services to society if, as often appears, the reason is political. Some of the issues that have risen to prominence through the United Nations’ programs as discussed in chapter one, and which have the potential to threaten the natural systems upon which humanity depends, have become highly politicised. For example policies addressing human induced climate change, which was the subject of the Kyoto Protocol 11 , may now have the power to destabilise governments. In Australia this issue is particularly significant because it has long been suggested by the mining and energy sectors that any attempt to reduce carbon emissions will threaten the national economy12. This, it is argued, is because of the powerful mineral resources sector’s dependence on both the extraction of fossil fuels for export and for energy generation to power the mining sector and its allied industries. In Australia in 2011 a carbon tax (price) was ratified after much debate and this is briefly reviewed while keeping in mind its global economic and sustainability context. Like other nations around the world, Australia is already affected by human induced climate change. In some areas of Australia, particularly along its southern seaboard, this has resulted in prolonged drought. As a result some State Governments sought alternative water sources for major cities such as Melbourne in Victoria, and Perth in Western Australia. Their State Governments decided to build desalination plants to cover potential water shortfalls in their capital cities. Those cities are also expected to experience significant population growth in the next few decades. Like the carbon price, desalination plants are controversial, not least because the process of reverse osmosis, which is used to extract salt from sea water, is energy intensive and is likely to increase carbon emissions thus contributing to the phenomenon that led to the need for desalination plants. There are also fears about pollution and disruption of fragile marine and coastal ecosystems13.

 

208 

Sordid Boon?

Carbon emissions notwithstanding, Victoria’s desalination plant near the town of Wonthaggi is interesting for another reason: it is being built under Victoria’s, program – the Public Private Partnership program – which casts a spotlight on the role of ‘rationalist’ ideology in interpreting economics. PPPs provide an opportunity to assess the governance of public infrastructure and service provision, and the importance of transparency in public projects. In the Wonthaggi case there was no public debate about alternatives, no comprehensive analysis of options, no open discussion about sustainability, and no apparent consideration of comparative equity or efficiency issues. After briefly examining the process for Public Private Partnerships (henceforth referred to as PPPs) some aspects of the Wonthaggi desalination plant are reviewed later in this chapter. First however, the related matter of who pays for what, and why, needs to be considered briefly, thus raising the thorny issues of taxes, subsidies and government intervention. Taxes, Subsidies and Government Policy Unfortunately the parallel application of ideologically driven free-market economics,

an

anti

government-intervention

stance,

and

the

seeming

abandonment of sustainability’s triple bottom line in favour of a single commercial bottom line, has confounded the realisation of truly sustainable development. The admission of the former US Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan in his testimony to the Government Oversight and Reform Committee following the global financial crash in 2008, that his understanding of economics was ‘flawed’ 14 has done little to improve the interpretation of economics by policy makers. The application of similarly flawed economics subsequent to 2008 has continued. Sometimes it seems that the only exceptions to anti government intervention stances by politicians in general, and private corporations in particular, tend to be in the form of tax payer funded rescues of private organisations where a ‘flawed’ understanding of economics has led them to the brink of bankruptcy or liquidation.

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

209

In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis (GFC) one of the best-known cases is probably the bailout of the iconic General Motors in the USA but the authors of a New York Times article15, ‘Tracking the $700 billion bailout’, cited many others. According to the article most of the money was paid to banks but insurers and other car manufacturers such as Chrysler also took a share. The funds were provided via the US Government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was established under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act in October 200816. TARP was originally allocated $700 billion with $644 billion provided for specific programs17. Despite a longstanding and overt anti-subsidy, anti-government intervention stance in US policy, there has been a history of large public bailouts of the private sector. Along with TARP, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout was one of the largest, drawing on $400 billion of government funds 18 . Subsidies have also been provided in numerous other countries and even in the absence of financial catastrophes, the annual global total of bailout subsidies paid by governments to private companies would be significant. The provision of subsidies is by no means contrary to market theory and neither is the use of taxes as a policy tool. Problems arise however when subsidies or taxes are not made explicit, are used for crisis management in the private sector, as described above, or used as a political or ideological measure to promote an inefficient industry. This upsets the balance of markets that rely on supply and demand to determine product prices. The reason that subsidies (or taxes) are an acceptable policy measure when used, for example, to reduce pollution is because that pollution is the consequence of an inefficient firm that does not allow for the cost of pollution in the price of the product, so the product price is too low. In economic jargon pollution is an externality 19 : it is external to the firm’s production function and not considered in its decisions. According to the theory this is economically inefficient and results in ‘market failure’. In other words the polluting company does not include the cost of the pollution in the price of the product, or in its own costs, so that it is imposed on others. In theory, if the price

 

210 

Sordid Boon?

of the product included all the costs of the negative effects of its production and use (included in the cost of making it), then the externality would be internalised, demand for the product would drop, reflecting its higher price, supply would drop and the level of pollution would drop. This phenomenon can be illustrated by the case of a carbon tax that is applied in an attempt to reduce the effects of carbon dioxide emissions on climate change by increasing the price of fossil fuels. Very simply put, these fuels are overused, in large part because their price does not reflect the full cost of their production and use. These costs are then imposed on society from the pollution and carbon their use emits. Companies that make products which use a lot of fossil fuel based energy, and generate a lot of carbon dioxide and other pollutants in the production process, make extra profits while costs are imposed on society by their production activities; people who drive cars that use a lot of petrol also impose costs on society and so on. If, for example, all the costs associated with using petrol in cars and fossil fuels in energy production could be identified it should be possible to work out the correct price of fossil fuels. In theory the appropriate tax to be imposed on the company generating the externality would be the cost of the externality to society. The same arguments apply to the price of any product that imposes costs on society (also known as social costs) when the cost is not paid for by the producing firm. In economic parlance the polluter pays to internalise those costs and the market becomes more efficient because the cost is reflected in the price and, in the simplest model, demand and pollution both drop. Given the detailed role for Government set out by Smith in Wealth of Nations5, today he might also have argued that it is the role of the government as the custodian of society to intervene in such situations to maximise social welfare by reducing the costs placed on society by other parties. Governments resolve problems by making and implementing policy, which often passes into law. Private companies frequently protest that policies essentially designed to reduce costs imposed on society, like those controlling pollution, will put them

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

211

out of business. At the same time, proponents of market economics point out that one of the main strengths of the free market system is that only competitive firms remain in business and that this results in optimal supply, demand and pricing of goods and services. It then follows that if private companies were to be forced out of business by being made accountable for their polluting activities it would lead to a more efficient and competitive market. It must be clearly understood by all participants in a market economy that the free market system only works when the assumptions and requirements embedded in the theory are consistently applied. It is thus not acceptable in such a system to have economically inefficient activities that impose costs on society. Nor is acceptable to expect to be bailed out by governments when markets collapse, nor to expect government subsidies to compensate for regulations imposed on pollution or other externalities. While such subsidies are inconsistent with market theory and run counter to efficient market operation, providing them might be politically expedient for governments but it is not good economics. Ideological proponents of competitive market systems often (erroneously) insist that any sort of government role in the provision of goods and services, apart from basic infrastructure, and welfare and administration, runs contrary to market economics. At the same time they tend to demand government subsidies for activities that should, according to their own criteria, be determined by market signals. If the firms (companies, corporations) who profit from imposing externalities on society don’t wish to pay for those costs then governments must rectify the problem by requiring that society not be made to bear them. In such instances the government often uses taxation as a policy tool. Pollution taxes, also known as Pigovian taxes, have been in use for a long while and can be very effective20. As discussed in chapter three, Smith made it clear that the main purpose of his proposed market theory was to promote the welfare of society and in so doing he set out quite unambiguously the role of government. This was by no means a minimal role and Smith was not an adherent of the view that government

 

212 

Sordid Boon?

intervention is bad. He wanted to promote the well-being of everyone in society and he tried to devise an essentially moral system that was equitable. To this end he identified a range of services that should be financed from government revenue. These included defence, road construction and maintenance, communications, and institutions for education. Smith made it clear that if an activity enhances social welfare but is unprofitable then the government should subsidise it. Public transport, hospitals and libraries are good modern examples of this type of government-funded service. On the other hand, if public infrastructure were to be used commercially, then commercial users must pay an extra contribution proportional to wear and tear from such use. Private users of public resources were not to impose on the public purse at the expense of other members of society. In Smith’s own words21 they should: ‘... pay for the maintenance of those public works exactly in proportion to the wear and tear which they occasion of them. It seems scarce possible to invent a more equitable way of maintaining such works’. Smith is stating that governments should apply a user pays policy or levy taxes for commercial use of public infrastructure. Motor registration taxes, which are used in Australia and many other countries to pay for roads and related infrastructure, while not as equitable as Smith would have liked, are an example of such taxes. Taxation of polluters follows a similar theoretical premise, yet frequently such taxes often elicit extreme reactions from private and corporate users of publicly owned resources and polluters of public goods (like air). Recently the Australian Government prepared to levy taxes on particular activities associated with private profit from publicly owned resources on the one hand, and unsustainable (non-renewable) resource use resulting in significant social costs on the other. Those activities – minerals extraction, and emitting greenhouse gases, were to be subjected, respectively, to a ‘resources super profits tax’ and a carbon price. The latter began its troubled life in Australia as the ‘carbon pollution reduction scheme’, which was intended to be a scheme for trading carbon. The imposition of both of those taxes is consistent with market

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

213

theory, the former to obtain an appropriate price commensurate with private profits for the extraction of publicly owned resources, and the latter to internalise an externality19. However, the response of the private corporations most significantly involved in those activities was nothing short of outrage. In the case of the resources super profits tax, that outrage was to save the mining industry billions of dollars at the expense of Australian taxpayers. The processes by which the super profits tax and carbon price were ultimately implemented is briefly described below in what is essentially a critique of Australia’s political system. That system probably reflects the political systems in the USA, the UK and Europe to a sufficient degree for the examples cited below to be of relevance and interest to many readers, both in the global north and the global south22. These examples illustrate how the mining and energy industries’ apparently selfinterested interpretations of economically valid government policies derailed those policies. Given the potentially high social benefits of the original policies, this has probably been at considerable expense to the whole of society. The Australian Resources Super Profits Tax In May 2010 the Australian Government released a voluminous report entitled Australia’s Future Tax System. This report, known as the Henry Report after its author Dr Ken Henry, then Treasury Secretary, contained 138 recommendations for tax reform in Australia. While the government delayed immediate implementation of the majority of Henry’s recommendations, it moved quickly on what was arguably to become one of the most controversial government policies in recent years: the Resources Super Profits Tax. The proposed tax was both simple and equitable. It was proposed as a result of detailed economic analyses presented in section 8.5 of the Henry Report under the heading of ‘The Treatment of Natural Resource Assets’. The Australian people’s ownership of Australia’s natural resources was emphasised at the outset with that ownership legally vested ‘through governments’ rights over these assets’ 23 . Governments may assign

 

214 

Sordid Boon?

certain rights to the private sector in return for payments. The nature of such rights is outlined in the report, along with information about Australia’s share of world markets for different mineral resources, components and values of payments by private companies for their use, and revenues and profits received by the private sector. International comparisons are made, for example, of how Norway, Canada and Russia organise their revenues from natural resources. One of the reasons that the new tax was proposed was because the profits of mining companies had been rising steeply in the preceding few years as a consequence of rising resource prices. Between 2001-02 and 2006-07 overall annual operating profits in the mining sector increased from $5.8 billion to $32.1 billion. While government revenues also increased it was not to the same extent as mining industry profits24. In addition, most of the profit from Australia’s mining sector accrues to foreign investors25. The Government was intending to implement the tax on 1 July 2012. It was to be levied on the ‘super’ profits made from mining Australia’s non-renewable resources. In a press release from the then Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer Wayne Swan, having stressed that all Australians own the country’s natural resources, he stated26: ‘A Resource Super Profits Tax will ensure Australians get a fair share from our valuable non-renewable resources’. It seemed like a safe commitment to make to the electorate, the majority of whom are neither employed in the mining sector nor make any direct profit from it. Given what was to ensue in relation to the proposed tax, it is surprising that the government did not carefully present the information in the Henry Report to the public in a simple and easy to understand format. As well as promising a more equitable share of the massive profits made for the private sector from mining publicly owned resources, the super profits tax policy also made a commitment to distribute a significant proportion of the proceeds of the tax to a large part of the electorate in the form of augmenting superannuation savings ‘for working families’. The government also promised to rebate royalties paid to the states by mining companies and to consult the State

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

215

Governments on the matter. In addition to the promise to return a higher proportion of profits to the Australian people, the Government committed to give about one third of the tax raised back to the resources sector. According to the Commonwealth Government this would have been more than $20 million in the first year (2012 to 2013) and nearly $2billion of the expected $5.6 billion from the first decade27. The government press release

28

was reasonably plainly written and

comprehensible, the policy was in keeping with the requirements of neoclassical (market economics) and Australians needing more financial support would receive it. Meanwhile the States would be compensated for losses in royalty revenues while even the large multinational mining companies at whom the tax was aimed would still make significant profits as only super profits would be taxed29. Given the nature of the proposed policy and its main beneficiaries, events that followed the government’s announcement of the mining tax almost beggar belief. They also attest to the media power and political influence of the massively wealthy mining industry that profits from Australia’s natural resources. Economics has developed jargon that is almost incomprehensible to those not trained to interpret it and this tends to preclude most members of society from understanding the rationale for any government policy that includes an economic element (which is most government policy). This is unfortunate since the purpose of government is to maximise the welfare of its constituents and it is vital for those constituents to understand not only the economic basis of proposed policy, but also the validity of the arguments proposed by interests opposed to any particular policy. The incomprehensibility of economic theory and its attendant jargon also means that parties with a vested interest and plenty of money, for example the mining industry or the fossil fuel lobby, are able to promote their case through advertising in a range of media, unfettered by moral obligation or financial accountability to anyone but their shareholders30. One of the resources and mining industry’s responses to the tax was to spend millions of dollars on a very high profile advertising campaign that

 

216 

Sordid Boon?

essentially told Australians that a mining tax would cost them very dearly. Industry leaders held what became known as ‘the billionaires’ rally’ in the centre of Perth, the capital of Western Australia, one of Australia’s richest sources of mineral wealth during a visit there by the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The rally was organised by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) where, with a gathering of about 3000 people, some of the country’s richest individuals, chanted ‘Axe the Tax’ with a group of mine workers. According to a newspaper report on 10 June 2010 most of the protesters were associated with the mining industry though others with no mining connection were also there, having received the idea that everyone in Australia would lose out 31 . One analyst commented on the inconsistent commentary of the national newspaper The Australian which had published an editorial a few days after the billionaires’ rally that was critical of the Resources Super Profits Tax. The paper exhorted Rudd not to listen to ‘noisy activists’ like trade unions and environmentalists but rather to embrace the ‘sensible centre’. As Burnside32 so eloquently stated ‘There seemed to be some cognitive dissonance on the part of the national newspaper: those who were heckling Government ministers, taking to the streets and engaging in public protest … were not from the left’. The mining industry’s alleged $22 million advertising campaign, which fuelled electoral fear with quite a lot of potentially misleading information went Australia wide and by 20 June 2010 it had become an issue that threatened to topple the government. On 23rd June Julia Gillard took over as Prime Minister after Rudd lost the support of his party on the issue of the public reaction to the mining tax. Gillard immediately cancelled all the Government’s own advertising response to the mining industry’s campaign and then withdrew the Government’s policy on a super profits mining tax, eventually replacing it with a much weaker tax that would significantly reduce the amount of revenue Australians would receive from the extraction of publicly owned mineral resources, especially during boom times such 2009-2010 when mining companies made significantly high profits. According to an Australia Institute Report, total mining profits might

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

217

be in excess of $600 billion between 2011 and 2021 if the commodities boom continues14. It is argued in that report that at current prices the Resources Super Profits Tax would have raised $200 billion in that decade instead of $38.5 billion expected from the Mineral Resource Rent Tax that will replace it. If true this represents a loss of up to $160 billion in government revenue from a publicly owned resource because of the political influence this wealthy and powerful industry was able to exert on the Commonwealth Government. The mining tax continued to be politically prominent throughout 2011 and nd

on 2

November the Labor Government introduced legislation to Parliament to

enact the minerals resource rent tax (MRRT). The Treasurer’s press release on the topic announced that the new tax would ‘deliver a fairer return from the nation’s mineral wealth’ and ‘ensure all Australians share in the benefits of the boom’15. While much of the revenue will be used for welfare and superannuation support, the government intends to reinvest some of it in the mining sector. Newspaper reports of the results of an opinion poll commissioned by the ALP and released to coincide with the MRRT’s introduction, suggest that the public may have had adequate time to reflect on the implications of both the mining tax and the well publicised profits of the booming mining sector. Of one thousand people polled, it was reported that 68 per cent of Australians did not believe that they were benefitting from the minerals boom, with only 21 per cent believing that they were. Surprisingly when responses were segregated according to which political party they supported 67 per cent of people who voted for the conservative opposition coalition, led by the Liberal party, felt they did not benefit compared with 64 per cent of Labor supporters33. Meanwhile, the Government, having previously amended its plan to implement an emissions trading scheme in response to earlier pressure from the mining and allied industries, attempted to focus on community consultation before implementing a carbon ‘price’ in a bid to meet its international obligations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This would also benefit the Australian

 

218 

Sordid Boon?

economy and improve social welfare by reducing the costs of climate change and curtailing the emission of other pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion. The Australian Carbon Price Australia has a long history of involvement in the global movement to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that have caused human induced climate change34 but the country has taken an inordinate amount of time to implement workable policy to ameliorate the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon doxide and methane. The movement was initiated at the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 when the United Nations Framework on Climate Change was established 35 . The goal of this framework was to reduce developed countries’ greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. As a result of the United Nations’ Earth Summit Australia developed its own greenhouse policy known as the National Greenhouse Response Strategy 36 . An attempt to endorse binding emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol met with very limited success as the United States, a major emitter, refused to sign the protocol, and Australia, a global leader in per capita emissions, obtained significant concessions on ‘economic’ grounds. In 2009 there was a meeting in Copenhagen following failed talks in Bangkok that aimed to ratify new binding emissions targets and to determine the best way of reducing global emissions with richer nations helping poorer nations to pay for mechanisms to limit their emissions 37 . The Copenhagen talks also failed to reach any significant agreement and further hopes were pinned on the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban-that did not reach consensus either. Australia had compelling reasons to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions both as a good global citizen and as a nation experiencing the vagaries of floods, droughts, depleted water storages and increasingly frequent extreme weather events that experts believe are attributable to human induced climate change38. The potential impacts of human induced climate change on Australia have long been known. Over twenty years ago the Industry Commission (IC) released a far reaching and very detailed report on the costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

219

gas emissions39. The report explained the causes and effects of human induced .

climate change and outlined a range of policy options as well investigating the implications of unilateral and multilateral agreements on controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Both tradeable permits and a carbon emission price (tax) were amongst the various policies suggested for mitigating human induced climate change40. Unfortunately, more twenty years after the IC’s report was written the impact and volume of greenhouse gas emissions was even greater than predicted. While there was a small drop in emissions between 2008 and 2009, total emissions increased from 549,854 Gg (1000 Tonnes) in 1990 to 564,542 Gg in 2009 over a period when, in keeping with the Kyoto Protocol, the nation was meant to be reducing emissions to 1990 levels. Of the five broad sectors identified in the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory waste and agriculture had reduced their emissions to below 1990 levels by 2009, while land use, land use change and forestry had accrued significant reductions well below 1990 levels. Industry showed a modest increase while greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector rose from 289,014 Gg to 417,619 Gg, a significant increase of 128,340 Gg that put Australia among the highest per capita emitters globally41. In November 2011 the United States Department of Energy released a report revealing that in 2010 the world emitted an additional 512 million tonnes of CO2 compared with the previous year. At a time when the world should have been reducing our global emissions, they increased by six per cent42. Between 1990 and 2009 global emissions increased by 38 percent although some nations were able to reduce their emissions significantly. For example during the same period Germany reduced emissions by 21 percent and Latvia by 64 percent 43. In September 2010 the new Labor Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard established a Climate Change Committee in an attempt to gain consensus on climate change policy. One of the major issues for the committee to address was the introduction of a carbon price. Labelling this correctly as an ‘economic reform’ the Prime Minister issued a joint press release with the Deputy Prime

 

220 

Sordid Boon?

Minister and Treasurer, and the newly appointed Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. The press release outlined the role of the new Committee and stated that a carbon price is ‘required to reduce carbon pollution, to encourage investment in low emissions technologies and complement other measures including renewable energy and energy efficiency’44. Carbon emitters, some of them wealthy corporations involved in the fossil fuel and minerals extraction sector, would be expected to pay via the carbon tax for some of the ‘externalities’ they imposed on society, as well as helping to meet Australia’s moral obligation to reduce global emissions and help to slow global climate change. The anti-carbon tax campaign showed little concern for the current and future costs of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, preferring to focus on the costs of mitigation, including the costs of a carbon tax which, as mentioned earlier aimed to internalise the costs of emissions imposed on society. After the success of the anti-mining tax campaign the Minerals Council formed an alliance with the Housing Industry Association and the Chamber of Commerce to launch its media campaign. The alliance claimed that that the tax would harm business without benefitting the environment, while ‘weakening our own job security’45. The Minerals Council has been a long-term player in various policy debates in which it has a vested interest. Being both extremely wealthy and powerful, an ideological interpretation of neoclassical economics that is anti-government intervention and anti-taxation is in the interest of the Minerals Council and other natural resource based private sector organisations like those in the timber industry. They have a tendency to repeat and emphasise the notion that government intervention harms the economy and society when frequently, as in the cases of the resource rent tax and the carbon tax, the reverse is true. In 2000 the then Liberal Government Minister of the Environment proposed using the Commonwealth’s EP&BC Act to limit new developments that would generate more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The Deputy Prime Minister, addressing a minerals industry dinner undermined his colleague by arguing against the proposal saying it would damage Australia’s economy and society46.

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

221

Such arguments continue to be repeated and without a thorough understanding of the historical context of economic theory, its role in maximising social welfare and its ethical roots, members of society are often misled. By 2011 greenhouse gas emissions were already believed to have influenced Australia’s increasingly severe weather patterns and extended droughts, and which led to the construction of desalination plants to supplement depleted water supplies 47. The complex relationship between Australia’s mining industry, energy generation and pricing, carbon emissions, drought, water depletion, and the country’s new water desalination industry is one that is filled with both controversy and irony. In Australia there had been vocal opposition to the carbon tax since its inception, even after the government was forced to back down on its earlier policy for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions starting with an emissions trading scheme in the first instance. The amended policy to legislate for a carbon price was passed on 8 November 2011 with the support of the Greens and the Independents who held the balance of power in the Australian Senate (the upper house). The starting carbon price was proposed to be $23/tonne of CO248. The leader of the conservative Liberal coalition, Tony Abbott, had maintained a protest against the tax and had been supported by a rather mixed group from the ideologically right wing of Australian politics. He was cheered at a rally49 ostensibly held to protest the introduction of a carbon price less than two months before it passed into law. The sentiment expressed at the rally was similar to that expressed at the anti-mining tax rallies. Both issues were highly politicised by all sides of politics and the ideological interpretations of the taxes by their opponents were presented as contrary to the interests of all Australians. However, their abandonment would have carried a high long-term social cost. In a report about the rally by the publicly owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the ideological nature of the protest was apparent 50 . In addition to his coalition partner’s leader in the senate, Mr Barnaby Joyce, Mr Abbott shared the podium with an odd assortment of speakers who were keen to address other unrelated ideologically based issues, in particular gay marriage. The speakers included Mr

 

222 

Sordid Boon?

Bob Katter, a disgruntled former coalition party member; Ms Pauline Hanson, a notorious anti-immigration campaigner; and Mr John Murphy a Labor party MP. The fact that the carbon tax appeared to be given lesser or equal billing with an anti-gay rights campaign attests to the ideological rhetoric embodied in such campaigns. The campaigns against the super profits mining tax and the carbon price by wealthy individuals and corporations51 demonstrate the power and influence that a self-interested private sector can bring to bear over elected governments. In such campaigns the free market and competition are often invoked with an almost religious fervour. In the case of the carbon tax the campaign was very successful despite the tax being both in keeping with economic theory and in the interests of society. The fact that a number of countries around the world, some of them significant producers of energy, had introduced carbon taxes many years earlier without detriment to their economy or to the fabric of society failed to make an impact on Australians whose less than enthusiastic support for a carbon tax fell from 36 percent to 32 percent between July and October 201152. In a July 2011 World News Australia report the broadcaster SBS provided details about a number of countries using carbon taxes. Finland was the first to introduce a carbon tax in 1990, followed quickly by Sweden in 1991, Denmark 1992, and Costa Rica 1997. Norway introduced a carbon tax in 1991 but was not successful like other nations in reducing or stabilising emissions, and experienced a rise to 199853. Meanwhile the economy of Canada’s British Columbia, which proposed raising its carbon tax from CAD$25 to $30/tonne, was reported as doing well ‘despite the levy’ by The Economist 54 . In the run up to the introduction of Australia’s carbon ‘price’ in July 2012, the leader of the opposition Tony Abbott persistently claimed that it would be the world’s biggest despite the evidence suggesting otherwise55 Carbon emissions impinge on all of the elements of sustainable development’s triple bottom line: economy, environment and society. In addition

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

223

to its domestic social obligations, which are underlined by the ethical requirement of inter and intra-generational equity, Australia has a global obligation to reduce its carbon emissions, the failure of the United Nations climate change56 talks in 2009 and 2011 not withstanding. Opposition to the Australian Government’s carbon tax (price) and the commission and construction of the Victorian Government’s desalination plant illustrate different aspects of how the ideological (mis)interpretation of economics can interfere with the development or implementation of government policy, and run counter to sustainable development. In the case of the mining and carbon taxes, the economics used as the basis of both policies was sound, but opponents of the policies used apparently ideologically biased, purportedly economic arguments to change the policies, at great social cost. In the case of PPPs57, policy often seems to be driven by the ideological position that demands small government, and private access to public infrastructure and service provision, often at the expense of social welfare. With the selection and implementation of PPPs sometimes insufficient heed is paid to the economic arguments set out by Smith that comprise part of the neoclassical economic paradigm and, to use Smith’s own words58: When the institutions, or public works, which are beneficial to the whole society, either cannot be maintained altogether, or are not maintained altogether, by the contribution of such members of the society as are most immediately benefited by them; the deficiency must, in most cases, be made up by the general contribution of the whole society … In the next section the Wonthaggi desalination plant will then be briefly considered as a case study in public infrastructure decision making. Before we examine the desalination plant and the controversy attendant upon it, we’ll briefly assess the phenomenon of private-public partnerships (PPPs) that now determines the way in which many public infrastructure projects are constructed and managed.

 

224 

Sordid Boon?

Policy Instruments and Public Private Partnerships Preamble As discussed earlier, the role of any government operating within a neoclassical (market) economic framework is to maximise social welfare, in keeping with Smith’s ideas, upon which modern neoclassical economics is based. For government policy making this theory sits alongside Australian State and Commonwealth Government sustainable development frameworks, which are prominent in a number of government strategies and Acts of Parliament59. The

Commonwealth

Government’s

Environment

Protection

and

Biodiversity Conservation Act, which over arches State legislation, describes the principles of sustainable development in unambiguous detail. The strong parallels between sustainable development and the principles underlying the evolution of theories in science and economics during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have been considered in previous chapters. Moral concern for the environment and, society’s dependence upon it were also reflected in the arts and were acted upon by nineteenth century environmental and social activists. Many of those activists, like Wordsworth, Carlyle, Martineau and Ruskin, were also popular writers who were deeply concerned about social and environmental welfare60. For better or worse, neoclassical (market) economics is the current global paradigm, promoted and endorsed by all the dominant western democracies. While it may not be best suited to today’s conditions it should, at very least, be consistently and honestly applied by those who claim to use it. There are several assumptions underlying neoclassical theory that must hold for the whole market system to work and to achieve the primary goal of maximising social welfare. This is done, as the theory goes, through efficient operation of the market, which allocates resources. The assumptions include requirements for perfect competition, perfect knowledge and no externalities61. While these are neither achievable nor credible in any absolute sense, it is not acceptable for governments or the private sector to pick and choose amongst them, discarding assumptions that don’t fit in

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

225

with their world view. For example, the distressing failures of the current economic paradigm are significantly exacerbated by the selective exclusion or, at best downgrading, of the requirement for no externalities that we briefly discussed earlier Everyone knows about free competition, which has become like a mantra. However when proponents of the ‘free market’ generate externalities and then don’t want to internalise them (for example by paying a carbon tax 62 ) they contravene those requirements just as much as those who indulge in ‘anticompetitive’ behaviour – an anathema to ideologues. There are also requirements for perfect knowledge, so to claim ‘commercial in confidence’, or to withhold other information that might influence decision making or otherwise enlighten people, whether it relates to prices, markets or other matters, precludes access to knowledge. While Australia’s commitment to its ‘knowledge economy’63 has in some ways been desultory, and the commitment from the private sector and the opposition to removing certain externalities seems risible, our commitment to competition has been exemplary 64 as evidenced by the National Competition Policy65. As previously mentioned, the fundamental goal of economics is to maximise social welfare and one important role of government, which is accountable to all members of society, is to intervene when necessary to ensure that this is done. The super-profits mining tax and the carbon price were used earlier in this chapter as recent examples of government attempting to fulfil this role, intervening on the one hand to deliver some of the income from the private use of publicly owned resources to society and, on the other, to attempt to ‘internalise’ the externalities caused by market failure, improper pricing and inefficient resource use. This is in keeping with both the equity and efficiency arguments grounded in economics and sustainability. There is a range of policy instruments that a government can use to achieve any particular goal, and governments are obliged to be flexible when developing and implementing policy using the full range of available instruments, including taxes, subsidies, prohibition, and markets, for example. We have already seen that

 

226 

Sordid Boon?

policy is vulnerable to ideological biases, and economics is especially susceptible to ideology (Marxist theory is a good example). Unfortunately over the past decade social welfare in rich and poor nations alike has suffered less than optimal conditions. ‘Rationalist’ interpretations of economic theory demanded almost blanket deregulation of some financial markets, like the sub-prime mortgage market in the US, and saw a transfer of wealth away from society and into the hands of multinational corporations and the finance sector. The global financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent collapse of a number of national economies in Europe were arguably consequent upon an ideological interpretation and application of economics. Because of the nature of our political system, interest groups within society can readily mobilise campaigns to influence government policy. While wealthier groups like banks and miners generally wield more power, any well-resourced group can be effective. The successful campaign to end old-growth logging in Western Australia at the turn of the millennium is a good example of how the political economy of the current system operates 66 . While that campaign culminated not just in a policy change, but in a change of State Government, from Liberal to Labor, the ongoing campaign against the carbon tax by the mining lobby might well lead to a change in National Government, from Labor to Liberal. Current ideological interpretations of market economics appear to have a common set of characteristics: they abhor government intervention, seem to have no moral framework, demand an ever-increasing role for the private sector in the provision of public infrastructure, and require cheap or free access to publicly owned resources. As the dominant paradigm the market approach to governance has worldwide prevalence and currency in both labour and conservative politics. That is not to say that market approaches to government policy and public resources cannot work. There are examples of successful markets in the policy sphere including, in northern Victoria, marketable water rights67. The use of PPPs for the provision of public infrastructure and services in Australia and overseas appears to be less influenced by party politics, than by a

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

227

system that has structured private participation into public governance68. Used by both conservative and labour parties such governance processes take privatisation and the market system well beyond the provisions of the original theory and, in instances like the Wonthaggi example, are arguably not consistent with the social equity, economic or environmental requirements of sustainability. PPPs are, however, consistent with Australia’s National Competition Policy (NCP) and its successor the National Reform Agenda69. NCP was established to ‘have the effect of exposing sheltered areas of the economy to greater competitive pressure so encouraging greater efficiency’64. PPPs The Australian Government has a policy of encouraging partnerships between the private sector and the public sector with the stated aim of obtaining private sector investment in public infrastructure and service provision. While there is little doubt that investment in public infrastructure is in the best interests of society, this does not necessarily mean that such investment should come in greater measure from the private sector. That not withstanding, the government is not shy about wooing the private sector, stating 70: ‘… governments across jurisdictions currently seek the participation of the private sector in the delivery of infrastructure and related services to the public’. In December 2008, presumably to facilitate public and private understanding of PPPs while establishing a clear and consistent process for their implementation, the Australian Government published eight volumes relating to National Public Private Partnerships (NPPPs). Two of these volumes, the overview of the NPPP guidelines and the policy framework for the NPPP71 are comparatively simple to comprehend. The other six volumes72 are not, however, for the faint hearted. While it is vitally important that the PPP process is transparent and accountable, it is fair to say that these six volumes would present a challenge to the comprehension of all but the most learned economists. In that regard the process is hardly transparent and even economists well versed enough

 

228 

Sordid Boon?

to ask specific questions about particular projects might struggle to find the answers buried somewhere in the complex documents relating to PPP projects73 Ordinary members of society can at least take heart from a statement about PPPs that makes their purpose abundantly clear. According to the National Public Private Policy Framework74: ‘The aim of a PPP is to deliver improved services and better value for money primarily through appropriate risk transfer, encouraging innovation, greater asset utilisation and an integrated whole-of-life management, underpinned by private financing’. While the national government provides the guidelines and defines the framework ‘for the procurement of PPPs on a national basis’ PPPs can be implemented by Commonwealth, State or Territory governments. The states and territories are free to pursue private partnerships for their public projects while conforming to the framework provided by the national government. The state of Victoria has an agency, Partnerships Victoria (PV), which is dedicated to PPP projects. In its foreword to the summary for the Victorian (Wonthaggi) Desalination Project, PV cited the nineteen PPP infrastructure projects worth $9.5 billion that it had contracted between 2000 and 2009. The Wonthaggi desalination plant was worth ‘$3.5 billion of capital investment’ 75 . This meant that about one twentieth of the state’s total PPP projects was worth about one third of their total value, thus placing a lot of Victoria’s eggs in one already controversial basket. Worse still, to stretch the apt but somewhat clichéd poultry metaphor, PV was counting its chickens well before they hatched claiming (with seemingly breathtaking inaccuracy) that76: The success story of this Project bears testament to the robustness of the Australian PPP market and the ability of the State and leading Australian banks to structure PPP transactions which continue to attract significant international investment and offer value for money to the taxpayer. The main objectives of the project, which are mostly in keeping with sustainability principles, are summarized under the headings ‘Value for Money’ (to be translated as Economic?), ‘Environmental’ and ‘Social’. One social

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

229

objective of the project consistent with market theory, to maximise social welfare, is made explicit 77 ‘ to maximise benefits to the local community and wider economy within relevant State Government policy frameworks’. Unfortunately, this social objective is not always realised at the state level and the desire to use PPPs might be viewed as a disingenuous way of minimizing state debt or concealing government expenditure by transferring the project cost from the public accounts to the private sector. Minimising public debt might in turn be viewed as akin to selling the house the pay the mortgage. However, while the State’s goals are not always realised, it is in the Australian Government’s Guideline objectives that potential ambiguities creep in. While providing a ‘unified national framework’ for PPPs in all Australian jurisdictions, the Guidelines also aim to ‘describe a competitive and transparent mechanism to pursue opportunities that bring together the ideas, experience and skills of both sectors to develop innovative solutions to meet the community’s needs, expectations and aspirations’, and furthermore: ‘The objective is to maximise the efficiency of infrastructure procurement, reduce public and private sector PPP procurement costs and remove disincentives to participation in the infrastructure market’78. While these goals sound appropriate, their primary aim doesn’t really appear to be to maximise social welfare. While ‘efficient asset utilisation’ is certainly a desirable outcome, the main purpose of public/social infrastructure is to benefit society and, as we have already seen, it is acceptable, and even sometimes desirable, for such infrastructure to be funded by the Government on an ongoing basis. The social benefits of participating in the ‘infrastructure market’ are not immediately obvious and are certainly not a requirement of economic theory. It could be argued that requiring social infrastructure projects to compete in the private market will benefit the private sector rather than society. Unfortunately, as with both the super profits mining tax and the carbon price, campaigns to oppose those policy measures were run to benefit the private sector. If imposition of the taxes were, for example, to have a significantly negative

 

230 

Sordid Boon?

impact on employment, or were to increase energy prices so as to disadvantage poorer members of society, the government has an array of policy options to compensate for negative effects. Many forms of social infrastructure, and services that accrue from such infrastructure, have intangible benefits and attempts to create markets both for infrastructure and service provision can inadvertently impose social costs. It is not the role of governments to emulate or compete with private companies. Nor is it the role of governments to create markets where none exist just for the purpose of being able to state that it uses ‘competitive’ mechanisms to find ‘innovative’ solutions to meet the ‘needs’ of society. That is not to say that governments should never use market processes to provide social benefits but they should not bind themselves to such processes by insisting that public projects be subject to the same competitive processes as private corporations. As mentioned before, governments have a range of policy instruments available for promoting social welfare and all that entails. A comprehensive analysis of the Australian Government’s PPP framework and methodology documents could fill a separate volume and such an analysis is beyond the scope of this book. Many of the problems with the Wonthaggi plant arguably stem from the way in which the guidelines were applied and the project was implemented, rather than from flaws in the guidelines. However there is little doubt that the treatment of risk and discounting in the guidelines reflects the ideological requirement for governments to compete in private markets, while ignoring, distorting or misunderstanding some of the theoretical requirements79 of economics. Unfortunately, as we shall see, in the case of the Wonthaggi plant both the economic and social elements in the sustainability triple bottom line have been compromised and it is being argued that the environment is also compromised. Many environmental problems result from reverse osmosis, which is the predominant technology used to produce fresh water from seawater. Other problems include carbon and other emissions from the use of fossil fuels to meet

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

231

high energy demands; marine contamination from chemicals used in the process; increased salinity in the vicinity of the plant; and, ecosystem disruption from altered water flow around the intake areas of the plant80. The Wonthaggi Desalination Plant The Wonthaggi desalination plant is on the coast of rural Victoria, one of the smaller states in the island continent of Australia, about two hours drive from Victoria’s capital, Melbourne. Wonthaggi was a quiet former coal mining town when the Labor Government was elected to power in Victoria in 1999. By then the state, like much of Australia, had already experienced the first three years of a drought that was to last thirteen years81. Although the cause and effects of human induced climate change had been recognised many years earlier82 little had been done to develop policy to reduce greenhouse emissions or to ensure water supplies. This was partly because in the 1990s the emerging scientific consensus about the causes and impacts of human induced climate change had coincided with the rule of the previous neoliberal government led by the Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett who was focused on promoting and enlarging the private sector, arguably with minimal attention to the environmental or social impacts of such policy. That Kennett government’s ideology, coupled with Victoria’s considerable brown coal reserves, the income earned from coal exports, and the cheap electricity that Victoria’s coal-fired power plants provided to the industrial sector, had fuelled powerful opposition to reducing the State’s reliance on coal. Government provision of subsidies to develop alternative or renewable energy sources was also opposed. The Kennett government’s economic rationalist policies resulted in the privatisation or corporatisation of many government utilities, including those supplying water and power. As a result of the previous government’s policies, the subsequent Labor government led by Steve Bracks had to contend with a depleted public sector, a powerful and wealthy private sector and an increasing gap between rich and poor

 

232 

Sordid Boon?

members of society83. For the Labor government, which savoured the unexpected victory, there should have been almost boundless opportunities for environmental, economic and social reform. Nabben84 comments: ‘The shock result of a one-seat majority was attributed to the electorate’s rejection of the Kennett led coalition’s heavy-handed imposition of economic rationalism’. The electorates in the countryside had been particularly hard hit by the impacts of the Kennett government’s policy of privatisation that frequently affected rural and regional services, and sometimes caused their loss. This loss led to social decline and social dislocation in some rural areas85. In Australia, economic rationalist policies had actually been introduced at the Commonwealth level some years earlier by a Labor Government 86 starting with matters like the reform of tertiary education that had, for a short while in the 1970s, been completely free under the Whitlam Government which was infamously sacked in 1975 by the Governor General. In the name of efficiency Victorians under Kennett bore the brunt of ‘downsizing’, ‘outsourcing’ and privatising functions normally carried out in the public sector. The Bracks Government continued to pursue a rationalist system similar to that of the previous government, favouring the use of ‘market based’ policy instruments without clear evidence that the full range of policy options had been considered. In addition to The Age’s coverage of the issue 87 even the staunchly conservative Institute of Public Affairs produced a twenty-one page report examining Melbourne’s water supply options88. The years of drought continued and, as the level of the major dams and reservoirs dropped, water was rationed. The Government sought long-term solutions for the water supply problem and presented strategic priorities in documents with catchy names. An early example, published in 2001, the year after the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act became law, was the somewhat ungrammatically titled Growing Victoria Together: Innovative State. Caring Communities. This policy document, like so many contemporaneous papers the world over, included the elements of

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

233

sustainability’s triple bottom line for ‘balance’, emphasising the equal treatment of economic, social and environmental considerations in its goals for Victoria89. In 2007, after eleven years of drought, the government decided to ensure Victoria’s water supply. In January the Victorian Government announced that it was considering building a desalination plant for Victoria and to that end was conducting a feasibility study to investigate possible locations and to calculate the cost which it estimated at about $1billion90. The desalination plant was to be part of a much larger government strategy aimed at establishing secure water supplies for Victoria. The strategy was announced in June 2007 and stirringly entitled Our Water Our Future – The Next Stage of the Government’s Water Plan. The government appeared take no chance of running out of water and it announced two major public water infrastructure projects to supply Melbourne with water. In addition to the desalination plant it promised to build a pipeline to carry water saved by the Murray-Goulburn irrigation infrastructure renewal project91 from the north of Victoria to Melbourne. In June 2008 the Victorian Labor Government called for expressions of interest to build the desalination plant and in September the shortlisted bidders were asked to submit their proposals. In July 2009 the Aquasure consortium92 signed a contract with the state government to build the desalination plant at Wonthaggi on the Bass coast. The Bass Coast Shire threatened to ask for $3.1 billion in compensation for having the desalination plant imposed on it, while farmers in the Goulburn Valley to the north protested that the water strategy would give the water saved by improvements to their irrigation systems to Melbourne (via the pipeline) rather than pass it back to the farmers 93 . Both infrastructure decisions were to have later financial repercussions Melburnians. In the former case through major financial blow outs, while in the latter through closure of the new north-south pipeline for which Melburnians had already paid94, when a liberal coalition resumed control of the state government. Throughout 2007 The Age, had run increasingly frequent reports about the proposed plant. In an article that posed ten questions that Victorians might have

 

234 

Sordid Boon?

asked, a team of journalists addressed a number of salient issues while attempting to provide possible answers to the questions they raised. The first question 95 posed was: How will the project be paid for? In an allusion to the economic rationalist policies of the former Liberal Commonwealth Government the answer was prefaced with the comment that: ‘Ever since Peter Costello [Treasurer] and John Howard [PM] turned ‘deficit’ into a dirty word governments have done what they could to avoid the shame of having one. At first this involved reducing spending, selling public assets and under investing in infrastructure’96. The article’s implication was that such policies at Commonwealth and State levels had left Australians with a depleted and run-down stock of public infrastructure that needed some rather costly augmentation, and significant capital would need to be raised. However, increasing government debt was likely to be viewed as bad management in a climate where the ‘sell the house to pay the mortgage’ approach was viewed as good economic policy. To this end, the Age journalists had speculated (correctly) that the government might choose to enter into a Public Private Partnership to help to fund the project, suggesting that97: ‘State Treasurer John Brumby will tell you that PPPs can represent fantastic value for money. The beauty is that the private contractor bears part of the risk and has an incentive to deliver a project on time and on budget’. Another article published on the same day in The Age98 considered various ways of funding the desalination plant. It had a short introductory sentence that exhorted the government to pay attention, stating that ‘experts’ were urging the Victorian Government to consider the full range of funding options ‘before making any deals with the private sector’. One of ‘the experts’ mentioned in the article was Professor Graeme Hodge, an internationally respected specialist in the privatisation of government services, public-private partnerships, and public accountability. In fact Hodge subsequently co-authored a book that presented a comprehensive analysis of public private partnerships that includes a history of ‘the movement’, and international and local perspectives of legal and policy aspects of PPPs amongst other things 99 . As such, his advice might have been

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

235

worth considering. In another newspaper article it was noted that the author’s correspondent suggested changing the name of PPPs to PPPPs – Public Pays for Private Profits100. The Devil in the Detail The Wonthaggi desalination plant remained unpopular and controversial for many reasons. Apart from the long delays, the social disruption on the Bass coast, the numerous environmental concerns, and the process by which it was contracted, it seemed likely that it would be extremely costly to the taxpayers of Victoria. At the end of 2011 The Age reported that the plant would cost Victorians $1.8 million per day for the next thirty years or so, even if they drew no water from it. If true, and in the absence of transparent figures from the government or the contractor there was no reason for doubt, that amounts to a bill for $19,710 million for a service that the state government contracted through a Public Private Partnership. That partnership was to ‘adequately protect the public interest’ and deliver ‘value for money’ for the state. In addition Victorians were promised that: ‘The Project capital cost of $3.5 billion will be fully funded by the private sector’101. There seem to be inherent tensions between the concepts of the ‘public interest’ and ‘value for money’, the definition of ‘fully funded’, and the reported $1.8 million daily payment that taxpayers may be required to make for years to come. It is thus worth briefly examining some aspects of the project, including the economics, in more detail. This necessarily needs an investigation of the Government’s requirements for the project, and of the terminology and techniques used by the winning proponent. One would expect all of this information to be both available and comprehensible to the public, so it is indeed fortunate that Partnerships Victoria has an easily accessible, downloadable thirty four page summary of the Victorian Desalination Project on its website102 No one would deny that economics is an arcane discipline and that much of its language is opaque, rendering it difficult to understand, even for the most of

 

236 

Sordid Boon?

literate citizens. Among other things, Governments have a responsibility to their constituents to take care of their assets, manage their funds wisely and provide them with reliable services. They also have a responsibility to keep them informed about the decisions they make in the course of discharging their duties. Partnerships Victoria has been administering PPPs since 2000, and since 2008 those PPPs have been subject to the National PPP Policy and Guidelines agreed to by COAG (Council of Australian Governments). The reason for bringing PPPs under the Commonwealth Government umbrella was to development a national approach and to fulfill the objective of ‘consistency and harmonisation of PPP policy and practices across jurisdictions’103. All PPP tenders should conform to the guidelines and are structured accordingly. As mentioned above, they are required to be in the public interest and to deliver value for money104. Value for money is a ‘critical focus’ of PPPs and, significantly, should encompass both quantitative and qualitative elements105. Unfortunately the qualitative elements are frequently overlooked in economic analysis precisely because they cannot easily be quantified and included in a cash flow chart or budget. Economists have developed various ways of accommodating these ‘intangibles’ that are frequently environmental goods or services. Projects like the Wonthaggi desalination plant can have an impact on fragile environments that may harbour endangered species like the hooded plover which is found along the Bass coast and at Williamson’s Beach where the desalination plant is sited. In keeping with both economic and equity requirements it is very important that the intangible elements of proposals properly reflect both positive and negative impacts on intangibles. While the National guidelines emphasise the importance of qualitative elements they can easily be omitted or understated with the consequence of distorting ‘value for money’ outcomes. While qualitative and intangible elements might be problematic to accommodate, one of the most difficult parts of the proposal for most readers to grasp relates to the techniques used to compile the figures that are ultimately used to assess the viability of a proposal. The problem is compounded by the

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

237

complexity of the economic theory in which such techniques are embedded and by their misapplication, either for ideological purposes or because of simple misunderstanding. Two particularly problematic issues embedded in the PPP proposal process are the use of discount rates and the treatment of risk. These are both important components of the Public Sector Comparator (PSC) which is the instrument used to compare the cost of public sector delivery of a project with that of a proponent’s tender for it. Details about the components to be included in the public sector comparator can be found in volume four of the National Public Private Partnership Guidelines, while the treatment of risk and choice of discount rate are detailed in volume 5, Discount Rate Methodology Guidance106107. Unfortunately, it is difficult to obtain either the public sector comparator or winning tender figures for construction and operation of the desalination plant. In regard to the PSC, Partnerships Victoria’s summary document presents a very brief table with one column of data108: The figures are for the ‘risk adjusted whole of life cost of the project if delivered by the State’109. The information provided for the costing of AquaSure’s winning bid appears in table 2 of the same document. That table simply has one row of data showing the net present costs for the PSC ($6,656 million), for AquaSure’s bid ($5,720 million) and Saving (14.1 percent ). In Australia there is a long history of claiming ‘commercial in confidence’ when people request copies of documents that governments are keen to conceal. This appears to have been true for both Labor and Liberal State governments in the case of the Wonthaggi plant110 111. For this reason the full set of figures in the public sector comparator for AquaSure’s tender for the Wonthaggi plant are not widely available. However, Volume 4 of the comprehensive NPPP Guidelines, the Public Sector Comparator Guidance is easily accessible. While this does not greatly elucidate the figures provided by AquaSure, it does provide a comprehensive description of the PSC methodology. It also gives examples of the sort of criteria that should be included in each section, and at the end it provides

 

238 

Sordid Boon?

fully worked examples for the ‘simple risk evaluation method’ and the ‘advanced risk evaluation method’112. Inside a PPP PPPs have been in use in the UK for quite some time and in 2003 the UK Parliament, House of Commons, Public Accounts Committee provided a succinct analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of using them for public infrastructure projects 113 . The public sector comparator-a concept seemingly specific to PPPs-is something of a mystery to the general public. It can be difficult to gain insight into the way in which figures have been manipulated to arrive at the end result of the Net Present Cost (NPC) against which the bids from private operators are compared. There has been much debate over the use of public sector comparators, and numerous publications address various aspects of the role of the PPP in the provision of public (social) infrastructure and good governance114 115 116 117

. The 2003 UK Parliament report118 provides a summary of concerns about

their use stating: …the desire to show that the PFI (private finance initiative) deal is "cheaper" than the public sector comparator has led to manipulation of the underlying calculations and erroneous interpretation of the results. There are likely to be qualitative and non-financial differences between the options that cannot simply be subsumed in a difference in forecast cost. A later report published by the House of Commons Treasury Committee in 2012119 was more scathing saying: ‘Our report on the Private Finance Initiative [PPP] set out a number of deep concerns about the value for money of PFI to the taxpayer. A great deal of public money may have been misallocated or wasted’. The concerns expressed in both UK reports are directly relevant to Australia. The National PPP guidelines make it very clear that qualitative as well as quantitative considerations must be included when the private tender is compared with the public sector comparator. Indeed this requirement is emphasised in the ‘Value for Money' section of the Partnerships Victoria project summary for the Wonthaggi

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

239

desalination plant. As that report correctly states120: The concept of value for money is not a simple selection of the cheapest solution. Value for money analysis requires consideration of the true value121 of each method of delivery whether by the State or the Private Sector. It is stated in the report that qualitative elements were ‘considered’ in the analysis yet when the ‘additional value for money benefits’ are perused none appear to incorporate the qualitative (intangible) non-market criteria that we should expect in such an analysis, Rather those additional ‘benefits’ are mostly seem to be derived from rectification of damage or disruption caused by the project itself. This appears to be somewhat disingenuous. The issues raised by the public sector comparator, and indeed the entire PPP project, are both complex and numerous. In Australia the Commonwealth Government’s National Competition Policy (NCP) and the subsequent National Reform Agenda parallel its PPP policy and have similar ideological implications that, while purportedly implementing neoclassical economic theory actually sometimes, inadvertently perhaps, undermine it. This is because NCP intervened at every level of operation to remove any competitive advantage that public service assets and services might have over the private sector, even when the purpose of such assets and services is to improve social welfare. There is a theoretical and practical relationship between Australia's NCP, NRP and its PPP Guidelines, particularly in the manner of their dealings with the public and private sectors, and their potential effect on natural resource depletion. Lumley122 gives a reasonably detailed discussion of National Competition Policy and the implications of discounting for environmental governance in Australia. As mentioned earlier, one of the main problems associated with the Wonthaggi PPP is that it appears to adhere to the requirements in the National Guidelines, using the prescribed headings and format, but the substance is not always consistent with those requirements. In turn, some of the requirements of the PPP guidelines are inconsistent with neoclassical economic theory123.

 

240 

Sordid Boon?

Much of the discussion of PPPs has necessarily been a critique of public sector decision making rather than a direct critique of how economics and governance per se contribute to social welfare and sustainability. Unfortunately because of the way in which some decisions are made, governance in this case contributes little either to optimising social welfare or sustainability. Many of the problems currently encountered in governance pre-empt the ideological interpretation of economic theory by making ideologically based decisions that actually avoid even using economics. There was apparently no analysis per se of competing options to ensure Victoria’s water security, so there seems to have been no assessment of the opportunity cost of the desalination plant. The decision to use a PPP in the absence of any analysis was arguably a value-laden decision which would appear to have had a double, ideologically based, focus: To avoid placing an additional public debt on the state’s accounts (though the debt is real enough), and; to place the construction and management of a major public infrastructure project in private hands. It is somewhat surprising that the Productivity Commission 124 needed to make the key point that: Efficient water supply decision making needs to be based on cost-benefit frameworks that assess the relative merits of the various augmentation options in ways that better address climate related uncertainty and which can adapt to improved understanding of future needs and supply options. There were also no explicit in-built ethical premises in the PPP, but there should have been, given the strong moral dimensions of the sustainability requirements embedded in the PPP process. The sustainability requirements relating to interand intra-generational equity, especially in regard to paying for the plant, are particularly problematic, and whether we’re referring to moral or fiscal duty, in difficult times, the corporate owners the plant will not be concerned with improving social welfare. The duty of private companies is to their shareholders, but the duty of governments is to their citizens125.

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

241

Neither classical nor neoclassical economic theory has a requirement for public (social) infrastructure projects to be profitable. In fact the focus is on maximising social benefits (welfare). As discussed in chapter three, Adam Smith made it very clear that it is entirely appropriate for governments to fund services that enhance welfare. The provision of water is one of the most fundamental of services that a government could provide. Its impact on social well-being needs no discussion. Water is the medium of life and we cannot survive without it. Along with food and shelter, access to water is a basic human right as well as an inalienable need. One of the purported benefits of PPPs is that the private sector bears the risk of the project. In the case of Wonthaggi plant, Aquasure over ran its completion deadline by more than a year and was unable to provide the water that it had contracted to provide by the agreed deadline. In this case the government was entitled to terminate the project. However, Aquasure flagged its intention to sue the government for days lost to wet weather and industrial action by site workers. These outcomes were among the risks identified in the project summary126 that Aquasure was supposed to bear: ‘Risk that the design, construction and commissioning of the Project cannot be completed on time or to budget … or that the Project (as built) does not meet the State’s output specification resulting in delayed or reduced service to the State’, and127 ‘Risks of all strikes or industrial action …’. According to the figures in the project summary, in the absence of risk transfer, which comprised $782 million of the difference in NPC between Aquasure’s bid and the PSC, the purported saving to the public dwindles to $154 million so that with the other issues raised above, the actual ‘saving’ seems to evaporate. While there is some ambiguity surrounding the ‘commercial in confidence’ aspects of the Wonthaggi desalination plant PPP, the risks to be borne by Aquasure, and its contractual obligations, are stated unambiguously in the thirty five page project summary, as well as in the contract which is publicly available. Risk Transfer is presented in section 2.3 of the summary with various risks and who is to bear them tabulated over four pages, while in Section 2.4128 it is stated,

 

242 

Sordid Boon?

simply, that: ‘… AquaSure’s obligations under the Project Documents are to finance, design, construct, commission, operate, maintain and handover the Desalination Plant over the Project Term’. That notwithstanding, on 24th February 2012, The Age newspaper ran a front-page article headed ‘Desal consortium seeks $1 billion from taxpayers’129. Aquasure, which needed to refinance its debt on the project, was allegedly demanding compensation from the government, claiming that ‘bad weather and industrial action’ were responsible for the problems with the desalination plant. In the eyes of the private sector, the concept of risk transfers, like subsidies, seems to be very flexible. Summary In this chapter we have considered a number of social and environmental issues that tend to be resolved through economic policy formulation. The examples presented here have been chosen because of their global topicality and because they illustrate well the tensions that exist between the theory and practice of market economics and sustainable development, and the current tendency to place ideological interpretations on economic theory. The Wonthaggi desalination plant is one of a number of costly PPPs with questionable ‘value for money’ and dubious net social benefits in Australia. In August 2012 the Victorian Government was forced to rescue the Ararat prison project in rural Victoria when the Premier advised the public that it would help to finance a bailout, in partnership with two banks, after the main builder went broke. He was reported as saying130 that the project provided ‘an important lesson for the Government when signing future public-private partnerships’. The Lane Cove Tunnel, the RiverCity Motorway, and Sydney’s cross-city tunnel are other examples of problematic PPPs in Australia131. In the UK Railtrack is but one example 132 while in the US the Las Vegas Monorail and the Southbay Expressway are amongst several PPPs listed as bankrupt in a recent American report133. There is a number of reasons that PPPs can pose problems but these are not usually publicly acknowledged by governments or PPP proponents. It was thus refreshing that the American report

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

243

mentioned above 134 while promoting PPPs, carefully iterates some of the problems associated with them and proposes ways in which such problems might be overcome. One proposal135, which recognises the phenomenon of PPPs being used to remove major infrastructure from public accounts, states that PPP projects must be transparently accounted for in government budgets. Although it really shouldn’t need to be spelled out, the report also proposes is that PPPs be chosen by governments for the ‘right’ reasons136. The historical context of sustainability and economics was discussed in preceding chapters. The clear inter relationship between the development of cognate disciplines and the conceptual underpinnings of economics and sustainability was demonstrated, with some focus given to the over-arching role of ethics. The importance of adhering to the underlying assumptions when applying market economics cannot be sufficiently emphasised, especially given the purported equality of its weighting with social and environmental equity in the triple bottom line of sustainable development. Because of the complexity of economic theory it is extremely difficult for those unversed in its intricacies to understand, let alone critique, its application to all manner of policies that affect our lives every day. This situation is further complicated by the fact that its application is frequently influenced by an ideological interpretation that can have the effect of distorting the theory it purports to uphold. There have undoubtedly been PPP success stories but the saga of Wonthaggi desalination plant, provides a cautionary tale. There is no argument that democratically elected governments have a mandate to make policy decisions on behalf of their constituents, and that they thus have a mandate to choose whichever policy instruments they want to use to realise their goals for society. However, problems can arise when there are tensions and conflicts between what is in the best interests of society and what is in the best interests of the private sector. It is also important that government decisions are consistent with legislated policies and strategies like those incorporating sustainability requirements. Public projects implemented under PPP

 

244 

Sordid Boon?

contracts should be, as they state, transparent, consistent with government policy, adhere to sustainability principles, and deliver value for money. In the absence of further information it is not possible to give careful consideration to all the pros and all the cons of realistic private-public alternatives, and it is thus impossible to say how the Wonthaggi project would have fared in a comparison of a range of options. In his critique of the North-South pipeline and the desalination plant Edwards137 noted ‘the lack of transparency in the analysis and decision processes for the large investments in Melbourne’s water security, and the politicisation of decision-making in urban water’. There are numerous environmental and social issues that require governments to make important decisions about controversial policies like the desalination plant, the mining super profits tax and the carbon tax. Such decisions not only focus on resolving significant environmental problems, but they also help to rectify economic inefficiency and social injustice and inequity, in keeping with the ethical underpinnings of both economics and sustainable development. It is important that until a better paradigm is implemented, the requirements that underscore the current market economic model should be consistently applied. Understanding the historical context of the various disciplines that inform both economics and sustainability will not only help people to determine better governance now, but it might also assist us to ensure that elected governments develop better policies in the future.                                                          Endnotes 1

Joe Hockey, ‘The End of the Age of Entitlement’, the text of Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey's speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs in London on April 17, 2012, published in The Age http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-end-of-theage-of-entitlement-20120419-1x8vj.html   2 For example see Ben Eltham, ‘Hockeynomics Eats Our Safety Net’, New Matilda, 19 April 2012, http://newmatilda.com/2012/04/19/hockeynomics-eatsour-safety-net and Sarah Lumley, ‘Hockey’s Mockery of Smith’, New Matilda, 20 April 2012, http://newmatilda.com/2012/04/20/hockeys-mockery-smith;

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

245

                                                                                                                                                         3 James E Alvey, ‘A Short History of Economics as a Moral Science’, Journal of Markets & Morality 2, 1 (1999), 53-73, p.53. 4 Adam Smith, An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1784, originally published 1776, Penn State Electronic Classics Series Publication, 2005, http://freedownload.is/pdf/the-wealth-of-nations-7591189.html and, Adam Smith, An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Volumes 1 and 2, (London: Henry Froude, 1908, first published 1776).  5 In that section, entitled ‘Smith’s Role for Government and State’, we considered Chapter I of Book V in Wealth of Nations in detail. While Smith’s Chapter I of Book V is devoted to ‘… the Expenses of the Sovereign or Commonwealth’, the rest of Book V focuses the government’s role in other matters related to the public interest and accountability. 6 Amartya Sen, ‘The Economist Manifesto’, New Statesman, 23 April 2010, http://www.newstatesman.com/print/201004230054 7 See the discussion in chapter one about Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and Charles Darwin’s, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, (London: The Folio Society, 2008, 1877 edition). 8 Commonwealth of Australia, The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, (Canberra: The Australian Government Publishing Service, 2000). 9 This issue was discussed in chapter one where a number of relevant references are cited in the endnotes. 10 The World Economics Association viewed the issue of ethics in economics to be of sufficient importance to run an online conference on the matter in FebruaryMarch 2012, see http://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/ 11 UN, The Kyoto Protocol, United Nations, see the Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1997, http://unfcc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php   12 For example see Ian Henderson, ‘Greenhouse Trigger a Shot in the Foot’, The Australian, 8 June 2000, and, Ben Eltham, ‘And it passed! Australia Sets A Price On Pollution’, New Matilda, 8 Nov 2011, http://newmatilda.com/2011/11/08/and-it-passed-australia-sets-pricepollution   13 See Gurudeo Tularam and Mahbub Ilahee, ‘Environmental Concerns of Desalinating Seawater using Reverse Osmosis’, J. Env. Monit, 9, (2007), 805813. 14 See chapter one regarding Alan Greenspan’s testimony to the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, 23 October 2008, Chaired by Mr Henry Waxman, http://www.clipsandcomment.com/?s=Greenspan%27s+testimony 15 Matthew Ericson, Elaine He and Amy Schoenfeld, ‘Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout’, The New York Times, April 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/200904_CREDITCRISIS/recipie nts.html  16 CBO, ‘Report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program – March 2012’, Congressional Budget Office, http//www.cbo.gov/publication43138

 

246 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         CBO, ‘CBO’s Latest Estimate of the TARP: 24billion, Congressional Budget Office’, October 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43663 17 CRFB, ‘Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), stimulus.org, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Project, 9 July 2009, http://stimulus.org/financialresponse/troubled-assets-relief-program-tarp 18 CRFB, CRFB Paper on ARRA, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Project, http://stimulus.org/ 19 The OECD definition is ‘Externalities refers to situations when the effect of production or consumption of goods and services imposes costs or benefits on others which are not reflected in the prices charged for the goods and services being provided’, OECD Glossary, 2012. http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3215 20 For example Bruce Yandle, ‘Much Ado about Pigou’, Briefly Noted, Regulation, Spring 2010, 1-4  21 Smith, Wealth of Nations, pp. 351–352. 22 This might be of particular relevance to poorer nations with significant mineral wealth. 23 Ken Henry, Australia’s Future Tax System. Architecture of Australia’s Tax and Transfer System, The Treasury, (Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2010), p.1, http://www.taxreview.treasury.goc.au/content/Paper.aspx?doc=html   24 Ibid 25 David Richardson and Richard Denniss, Mining the Truth: The Rhetoric and Reality of the Commodities Boom, Institute Paper No. 7, (Canberra: The Australia Institute, 2011).  26 Wayne Swan, ‘Stronger, Fairer, Simpler: A Tax Plan for our Future’, joint media release No 028 with the Hon. Kevin Rudd, MP, Prime Minister and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, 2010, p.1. http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2010/028.ht m&pageID=003&min=wms&year=&DocType  27 Ibid 28 Ibid 29 There have been a number of papers by economists about various aspects of Australia’s mining taxes. For example see Pietro Guj, Mining Royalties and other Mining-Specific Taxes’, Mining for Development: Guide for Australian Practice, International Mining for Development Centre, (Nedlands: UWA, 2012), www.im44dc.org UWA_1698_Paper-01_-Mineral-royalties-other-mining-specific-taxes1.pdf; Brian Parmenter, Amar Breckenbridge and Stephen Gray, Stephen (2010), ‘Economic Analysis of the Government’s Recent Mining Tax Proposals’, Economic Papers, 29:3 (2010), 279-291; and, John William Freebairn and John C. Quiggin, ‘Special Taxation of the Mining Industry’, No WPP10_3, Australian Public Policy Program Working Papers, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, (St Lucia: University of Queensland, 2010. 

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

247

                                                                                                                                                         30 Guj, Mining Royalties, provides a brief summary of the economic rationale for mining taxes stating: ‘Under most jurisdictions throughout the world mineral resources are, with some rare exceptions, in public rather than private ownership. Mineral resources are finite and nonrenewable in the sense that their extraction permanently depletes a country’s resource inventory. The role of governments should be to manage the exploitation of these resources to maximise the economic benefits to their community …’ (p. 3, his emphasis);  31 Michael Gordon, ‘Billionaires’ Club Hits the Street for Tax Protest’, The Age, 10 June, 2010, http://www.theage.com.au/national/billionaires-club-hits-thestreet-for-tax-protest-20100609-xwu6.html   32 Sarah Burnside, ‘Sound and Fury: The Resources Tax’, The New Critic, Issue 12, August 2010, p.1 http://www.ias.uwa.edu.au/new-critic/twelve/burnside  33 Phillip Coorey, ‘Mining Tax Gets Backing from Most Taxpayers’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 November 2011, http://www.smh.com.au/action/id=2744837, and, Anon, ‘Windsor Calls for Coal Seam Gas Mining Halt’, The Age, 2 November 2011, http://www.theage.com.au/environment/   34 There is a rich literature on climate change that includes commentary, statistics, policy discussions, economic analyses and strategies. The United Nations (UN) website is a good place to start. UN programs, conference and summit records and documents relating to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change can be accessed at http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php. Other useful documents include Stern’s review of the economics of climate change, published by the UK Treasury (see above). See also the report by James P. Bruce, Lee Hoesung, and Erik F. Haites, Climate Change 1995. Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). In Australia the CSIRO has an excellent website that addresses global and local aspects of climate change. ‘Understanding Climate Change’ can be accessed at http://csiro.au/science/Changing-Climate.html. The so called ‘Garnaut Review’ is another comprehensive and frequently updated report: Ross Garnaut, The Climate Change Review: Australia in the Global Response to Climate Change, update 2011, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011.html 35 Details  of  the  first,  1992,  Rio  Conference can be found at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) website http://www.Un.Org/Geninfo/Bp/Enviro.Html. For more about the United Nations climate change programs see the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and related information at http://unfccc.int/2860.php 36 Commonwealth of Australia, Interim National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, and, Commonwealth of Australia, National Greenhouse Response Strategy, (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1992).

 

248 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         37 Ben Eltham, ‘Copenhagen for Dummies’, New Matilda, 28 October 2009, http://newmatilda.com.  38 For example, see the following papers: CSIRO, ‘Climate Variability, Climate Change and Drought in Eastern Australia’, 2011, http://csiro.au/science/climate-and-drought-in-eastern-australia/ and Garnaut, Climate Change Review.   39 IC, Costs and Benefits of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Industry Commission Inquiry Report Volume I, (Canberra: Australian Government, 1991), http://www.pc.gov.au/ic/inquiry/15greenhouse 40 The full report in two volumes can be accessed on the Australian Productivity Commission’s website at http://www.pc.gov.au/ic/inquiry/15greenhouse 41 AGEIS (2011), ‘National Greenhouse Gas Inventory – Kyoto Protocol Accounting Framework’, Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System, 2011, http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au 42 Seth Borenstein, ‘Greenhouse Emissions Exceed Worst case Scenario’, The Age, 5 November 2011, http://theage.com.au 43 IEA, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion. Highlights. International Energy Agency report, 2011 edition, (Paris: OECD/IEA, 2011), www.iea.org   44 Julia Gillard, ‘Prime Minister establishes Climate Change Committee’, Joint press release by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, 2010, http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/primeminister-establishes-climate-changecommittee 45 Sabra Lane, Sabra (2011), ‘Industry launches Anti-Carbon Tax Campaign’, p. 2, ABC News, The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2011, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-21/   46 Henderson, ‘Greenhouse Trigger’ a Shot in the Foot’. 47 Australian Government, ‘What is Climate Change?’, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, 2011, www.climatechange.gov.au/climatechange/ CSIRO, ‘Climate Variability’. Melbourne Water, ‘Climate Change’, Melbourne Water, 2011, http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/sustainability/climate_change/climat e_change.asp?bhcp=1   48 The Treasury (2011), Strong Growth, Low Pollution. Modelling a Carbon Price, (Canberra: Australian Government, 2011), www.treasury.gov.au/carbonpricemodelling/ 49 Jeremy Thompson, ‘Abbott Cheered on at Anti-Carbon Tax Rally’, ABC News, 2011, http://www.abc.net.au/news/ accessed online 12 November 2011. 50 Ibid.  51 There is increasing concern in Australia about ownership of the media by those with a vested interest in swaying public opinion. On 9th February 2012 a social activist organization, GetUp placed in The Age a full page of mocked-up editorial changes to page of that newspaper in protest against the mining magnate Gina

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

249

                                                                                                                                                         Rhinehart’s purchase of a stake in the Fairfax group which owns The Age (and other newspapers). Rinehart already owns part of the television station Channel Ten which ran expensive advertisements opposing the super profits mining tax and the carbon tax. In June 2012, after increasing her holding in Fairfax to 19 percent , Rhinehart sought three seats on the Fairfax board, with a view to taking editorial control having refused to sign the company’s charter of editorial independence (see www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3528953.htm ) 52 Dennis Shanahan, Dennis (2011), ‘Coalition and Carbon Support Fall: Newspoll’, The Australian, 2011, http://theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/   53 SBS (2011), ‘Factbox: Carbon Taxes Around the World’, World News Australia, 2011, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1492651/Factbox-Carbontaxes-around-the-world Eliot Metzger, ‘Bottom Line on Carbon Taxes’, (Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 2008), http://www.wri.org/publication/bottom-line-carbontaxes   54 See the article at http://www.economist.com/node/18989175 55 For a summary of other carbon taxes around the world (and not including the price for trading carbon within the EU) see, for example, http://newmatilda.com/2012/05/09/our-carbon-tax-really-biggest;  56 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Copenhagen, 2009 and UN Durban, 2011 Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention (COP 17), in conjunction with the seventh meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 7), Durban, South Africa, 28 November to 9 December 2011.  57 The philosophy behind PPPs is closely related to National Competition Policy and its successor the National Reform Agenda. 58 Smith, Wealth of Nations, p. 459-460; 59 For example Commonwealth of Australia, The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, (Canberra: The Australian Government Publishing Service, 2000).  60 For example Maria Hack, Harry Beaufoy; or the Pupil of Nature, (London: Harvey, Darton & Co, 1821). W.S. Jevons, The Match Tax: A Problem in Finance, (London: Macmillan A. Bowes, 1871). Tennyson, Alfred Lord, ‘In Memoriam’, (London, 1850).  61 There are many excellent books that provide detailed discussions of the underlying assumptions in neoclassical theory from a range of perspectives. For example see: Ahmed H Hussen, Principles of Environmental Economics. Ecology, Economics and Public Policy, (London & New York: Routledge, 2000), E.J. Mishan, Introduction to Normative Economics, (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), and, P.A. Samuelson, W.A. Nordhaus, S. Richardson, G. Scott, and R. Wallace, Economics, (Sydney: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1994). For a more dissenting

 

250 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         view of economics that is well grounded in theoretical knowledge see Steve Keen’s Debunking Economics. The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences, (Annandale: Pluto Press, 2001). 62 The leader of the Commonwealth (Liberal) Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, an outspoken free market supporter vowed to rescind the carbon tax if elected to government. 63 For an early example see the former Trade Minister, Mark Vaile’s speech to The Economist Intelligence Unit in 2000, http://www.trademinister.gov.au/speeches/2000/001031_eiu.html 64 Australia agreed to establish National Competition Policy in 1992, signing on in 1995 and proceeding in 1997. Its successor the National Reform Agenda took over in 2007 (see http://ncp.ncc.gov.au/pages/overview, and http://www.pc.gov.au/research/commission/nationalreformagenda); 65 For example see Sarah Lumley, ‘Losing the Lands of Plenty? Timescale and Discounting in Environmental Governance’, in Albert Breton, Georgio Brosio, Silvana Dalmazzone and Giovanna Garrone, Governing the Environment. Salient Institutional Issues, (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009) 66 See, for example, David Worth, ‘Our New Cathedrals: Spirituality and OldGrowth Forests in Western Australia’, PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, 3, 1 (2006), 1-15. 67 For details of Victoria’s water trading and allocation system see http://www.water.vic.gov.au/allocation 68 PPPs have been used in a number of countries for over a decade and there are many informative papers examining them Public Private Partnerships. Some have an ideological basis, some are impartial; some are for PPPs and some are against. For interested readers the following articles are a good place to start: Anon, ‘Public v Private’, The Economist, March 2002, http://www.economist.com/node/1065784, Anon (2011), ‘Windsor Calls for Coal Seam Gas Mining Halt’, The Age, 2 November 2011, http://www.theage.com.au/environment/ House of Commons, Private Finance Initiative: Government, OBR and NAO Responses, House of Commons Treasury Committee, ament, HC1724, pdf , 2012, http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/ H.A. Patrinos, F. Barrera-Osprio, and J. Guaqueta, The Role and Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in Education, (Washington DC: The World Bank, 2009). John Quiggin, (2006), ‘Public Private Partnerships: Options for Improved Risk Allocation’, UNSW Law J, 51: 29, 3, (2006), 1-5 www.austlii.edu.au/journals/UNSWLJ/2006/51.html S. Player, D. Price and A. Pollock, A. (2004), Public Risk for Private Gain? The Public Audit Implications of Risk Transfer and Private Finance, (London: Unison, 2004).

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

251

                                                                                                                                                         Darren Grimsey and Mervyn K. Lewis, ‘Are Public Private Partnerships Value for Money? Evaluating Alternative Approaches and Comparing Academic and Practitioner Views’, Accounting Forum, 29, 4, (2005), 345-378; Mervyn K. Lewis, ‘Risk Management in Public Private Partnerships, CeGE Discussion Paper 12, Universitat Gottingen, 2001 http://hdl.handle.net/10419/31983 69 For example see http://www.australiancompetitionlaw.org/law/ncp.html and http://www.pc.gov.au/research/commission/nationalreformagenda 70 Australian Government, National PPP Guidelines Overview, Canberra: Infrastructure Australia, 2008, www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/public_private/ p.1;  71 Australian Government, National PPP Policy Framework, Canberra: Infrastructure Australia, 2008, www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/public_private/   72 Australian Government respectively: National Public Private Partnership Guidelines. Vol 1, Procurement Options Analysis; Vol 2, Practitioners’ Guide; Vol 3, Commercial Principles for Social Infrastructure; Vol 4, Public Sector Comparator; Vol 5, Discount Rate Methodology Guidance; and, Vol 6, Jurisdictional Requirements, (Canberra: Infrastructure Australia, 2008). All eight volumes can be found on the Infrastructure Australia website at www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/public_private/ 73 For example: What discount rate should be applied to the project’s discounted cash flow analysis? Is that discount rate based on the social time preference rate or the long-term bond rate, or something else? Should a differential rate be used for environmental resources if indeed they are included in the net present cost calculations? Which shadow-pricing techniques should be used to value intangible costs and benefits? 74 National PPP Guidelines, Ibid, p.3; 75 PV, Victorian Desalination Project. Project Summary, Partnerships Victoria, Capital Projects Division, (Melbourne: Department of Sustainability and Environment with the Department of Treasury and Finance, 2009, p.1)  76 Ibid, p. 2; 77 Ibid, p. 3; 78 National PPP Guidelines. 79 Theoretically a market cannot operate efficiently in the presence of externalities. These include all forms of pollution not accounted for by the producer. While we have been made manifestly aware of the requirement for (perfect) competition, there tends to be silence about the equally important requirement for (perfect) knowledge. It is difficult to fulfill these requirements in many instances and with a project the size of the Wonthaggi desalination plant it would be virtually impossible. 80 Emily Van Rijswijck, ‘South Africa’s Largest Desalination Plant Opens’, Media Club South Africa, Afribiz info, 2011, http://www.afribiz.info/content , and, Gurudeo Tularam and Mahbub Ilahee, ‘Environmental Concerns of Desalinating Seawater’. 

 

252 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         81 See CSIRO, ‘Understanding Climate Change’ and, Garnaut, The Garnaut Climate Change Review. 82 see IC, Costs and Benefits of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 83 Robert Nabben, ‘Opportunity Lost? Victorian Labor’s Enactment of Community Development 1999-2006’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70, 3, (2011), 287-297. 84 Ibid, p.288. 85 David Ensor, Margaret Rogers and Roberta Ryan, Roberta (2000), ‘Rural and Regional Victoria, A Challenge for the State Government’, Centre for Sustainable Rural Communities, (La Trobe University, Bendigo, 2000), for the Victorian Local Governance Association.  86 Jakupec, ‘Economic Rationalism as the Engine of Policy’.  87 For example Rachel Kleinman, Josh Gordon, David Rood, Chantel Rumble, Liz Minchin, and Mathew Murphy, ‘Pass on the Salt. Focus Water’ The Age, 21 June 2007. Farrah Tomazin, ‘Melbourne Desalination Plant is Inevitable: Thwaites’, The Age, 16 January 2007. Kenneth Davidson(2007b), ‘It’s not too late, Premier, to Save Us from the Desal Disaster’, The Age, 26 December 2007, www.theage.com.au/action/ Kenneth Davidson, ‘Premiers Need to Stop Tilting at Windmills and Back Effective Water Plans’, The Age, 5th July 2007. 88 Alan Moran, Water Supply Options for Melbourne. An Examination of the Costs and Avaliabilities of New Water Supply Sources for Melbourne and Other Urban Areas in Victoria, (Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2008).  89 Government of Victoria, ‘Growing Victoria Together: Innovative State, Caring Communities’, (Melbourne: Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2001).  90 David Rood, Rachel Kleinman, and Orietta Guerrara, ‘Bracks, $4.9bn Water Plan. Bills to Soar as Desalination Pipeline Projects get the Nod’, The Age, 20 June 2007.  91 In 2008 the Productivity Commission released a report called ‘Towards Urban Water Reform’ which investigated the options for water supply and assessed some of the policies, including those for Melbourne, that were introduced during the long drought. http://www.pc.gov.au/research/commission/urbanwaterreform   92 The Aquasure Consortium comprises Macquarie, Thiess, Degremont and Suez Environment. At the time of writing Degremont and Suez are French multinationals, Thiess is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Leighton Holdings which is owned in turn by the massive German construction company Hochtief. The Macquarie investment banking group is Sydney based 93 David Rood, Rachel Kleinman, Paul Austin, and Orietta Guerrara, ‘Bracks’ Water Plans under Fire. Water Supplies – Farmers Angered by Goulburn Deal’, The Age, June 22nd2007, and, Farrah Tomazin, ‘Melbourne Desalination Plant is Inevitable: Thwaites’, The Age, 16 January 2007.

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

253

                                                                                                                                                         94 See Geoff Edwards’ summary paper, which incorporates a neoclassical analysis of the pipeline and the desalination plant in the context of maximizing Melburnians’ social welfare: Geoff Edwards, ‘The Desalination Plant, the NorthSouth pipeline and the Welfare of Melburnians’, paper presented to the 56th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, 8-10 February 2012, Fremantle, Western Australia. 95 The other nine questions can be accessed in Kleinman et al’s article (21 June 2007) in The Age’s archives at www.theage.com.au/ 96 Rachel Kleinman et al, ‘Pass on the Salt’.  97 Ibid 98 Mathew Murphy and Josh Gordon, ‘Water Plant Deals up in the Air. Thirsty for a Piece of the Action’, The Age, 21 June 2007.  99 Graeme A. Hodge, Carsten Greve and Anthony E. Boardman (editors), International Handbook on Public-Private Partnerships, (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2010).  100 Kenneth Davidson, ‘Desal Doesn’t Hold Water Against Alternatives. In its Obsession with PPPs, the State Government is Ignoring Taxpayer Value’, The Age, 10th December, 2007.  101 PV, Victorian Desalination Project. Project Summary, p.2. 102 Ibid 103 COAG, ‘Council of Australian Governments’ Meeting’, 29 November 2008, p.7, http://www.coag.gov.au/node/294   104 The objectives set out in the National PPP Policy Framework are to: -Encourage private sector investment in public infrastructure and related services where value for money for government can be clearly demonstrated; -Encourage innovation in the provision of infrastructure and related service delivery; -Ensure rigorous governance over the selection of projects for PPPs and the competition for and awarding of contracts; -Provide a framework and streamlined procedures for applying PPPs across Australia, and; -Clearly articulate accountability for outcomes.  105 Australian Government, Public Sector Comparator. 106 Australian Government, National PPP Policy Framework. 107 Australian Government, National, Discount Rate Methodology Guidance.   108 See PV, Victorian Desalination Project, p.9. 109 Ibid 110 ABC, ‘Breaking Desal Deal Too Expensive: Walsh’, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1 March 2011, www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/01/ 111 Miranda Route, ‘Victorian Desalination Plant a $20bn Drain on Taxpayers’, The Australian, 1 March 2011,.www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ accessed online 8 Jan 2012;  112 Australian Government, National Public Private Partnership Guidelines, Appendix C & D respectively.

 

254 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         113 Note PPPs were called PFIs in the UK, and see House of Commons, ‘Choosing Whether to Go Ahead with the PFI Option’, Select Committee on Public Accounts, Twenty-Eighth Report, House of Commons, 2003, p. 3, http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/   114 Anon, ‘Windsor calls for coal seam gas mining halt’, The Age, 2 November 2011, http://www.theage.com.au/environment/  115 Robert Bain, ‘Public Sector Comparators for UK PFI Roads: Inside the Black Box’, Transportation, 37, 3, (2010), 447-471. 116 Hodge et al, International Handbook on Public-Private Partnerships.  117 Mervyn K. Lewis, ‘Risk Management in Public Private Partnerships’, CeGE Discussion Paper 12, Universitat Gottingen, 2001, http://hdl.handle.net/10419/31983 118 House of Commons, ‘The PFI Option’, p. 3.  119 House of Commons Treasury Committee , Private Finance Initiative. 120 PV, Victorian Desalination Project, p.8. 121 My emphasis 122 Lumley, ‘Losing the lands of plenty?’ 123 Some of the major issues concerning the Wonthaggi plant are briefly summarised as follows: The PPP process was not transparent; public documents relating to the PPP are voluminous and cumbersome and intriguingly opaque; The most useful document for ordinary Victorians should be the Partnerships Victoria Project Summary, but it is difficult to find information about what was actually included in the tender; The discount rate used in the PSC is one that relates to risk and profit rather than to public infrastructure and is hence higher than it would be if the plant were built and run by the public sector; As private rates are higher than public rates, the public sector comparator NPC is likely to be a lot higher than it should be. The relatively small difference of $936 million between the winning private bid and the PSC might have been wiped out by use of appropriate discount rates; The actual cost of the private plant will over run the proposed cost and the PSC by far more than the 14.1 percent ‘saving’. 124 Productivity Commission (my emphasis) in Towards Water Reform, 2008, http://www.pc.gov.au/research/commission/urbanwaterreform/keypoints ; 125 Another problem with the PPP is that the figure upon which decision making was based was the net present cost rather than the net present value which means that benefits were not quantified nor included in project selection. This issue is compounded by the fact that intangibles do not appear to have been accommodated in the calculations. This oversight would probably have caused a significant understatement of the costs of the plant.   126 PV, Victorian Desalination Project. Project Summary’, p. 14.  127 Ibid, p. 15. 128 Ibid, p.16. 129 Royce Millar and Ben Schneiders, ‘Desal Consortium Seeks $1 Billion from Taxpayers’, The Age, 24 February 2012, p.1. 

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

255

                                                                                                                                                         130 ABC, ‘Government Strikes Deal on Stalled Prison Project’, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 3 Aug 2012, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-0803/government-strikes-deal-on-stalled-prison-project/4175002 131 ABC, ‘Public Private Partnerships Under the Microscope’, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, broadcast on Radio National, 8 Feb 2012. 132 Anon, ‘Public v Private’.  133 Eduardo Engel, Ronald Fischer, and Alexander Galetovic, ‘Public-Private Partnerships to Revamp U.S. Infrastructure’, Discussion paper, February, The Hamilton Project, (Washington DC: Brookings, 2011). 134 Ibid, Table 2, p. 11. 135 Ibid, p.20. 136 Ibid, p. 15. 137 Edwards, ‘The Desalination Plant’, p. 1.

 

 

CHAPTER 9 LESSONS FROM HISTORY We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. Franklin D. Roosevelt: Second Inaugural Address. History is philosophy derived from examples. Dionysius of Helicarnassus: Ars Rhetorica.

Introduction So far in this book in we’ve examined some of the eighteenth and nineteenthcentury history of thought with a view to providing a context for today’s use of economics, especially in regard to public policy. We have also reviewed social and environmental policy issues in light of economics, ethics and sustainability. This has necessarily involved covering significant breadth over a range of topics to provide the reader with a working knowledge of basic economic theory and associated disciplines as they relate to current policy perspectives and sustainable development. We have seen that the ethical underpinnings of modern sustainability theory closely parallel those originating in economics, the natural sciences and the arts. As outlined earlier, knowledge of those disciplines is important to current

258 

Sordid Boon?

policy development, which is formulated within a framework that requires adherence to both market economics and sustainable development. It is hoped that those with a focus on particular aspects of historical thought will have found as much to interest them as readers with a broad general interest in eighteenth and nineteenth century ideas. In this, the final chapter we shall briefly review the book and its overall goals in our current context, after which I shall leave readers to draw their own conclusions. One main goal of the book has been to understand economic theory as it relates to the ideas and intentions of early theorists in order to apply it more appropriately now. In that context we have considered the notion that the basic tenets of sustainable development, while not articulated as such, underlay the goals of much eighteenth and nineteenth century thought1. We’ve also considered the idea that an ethical premise overarched the development of market economics and its contemporaneous disciplines and that the responsible theorists were motivated by a desire to do what was right and just by society. In order to understand the relevance and effectiveness of current policy making to the complex and increasingly urgent social, environmental and economic issues that we face, it has been necessary to develop a broad critique of the thinking and ideology embedded in current applications of market economics. Some of these applications were considered in chapter eight and they included Australia’s somewhat controversial super profits mining tax, the even more controversial carbon tax2, and the use of public private partnerships (PPPs). The issue of ethics in economics is one that has been considered by a number of modern economists, but it tends to be marginalised in policy making, which increasingly appears to be influenced by a corporate-led push for governments to privatise most of their service delivery and public infrastructure functions. In Australia significant public subsidies3 are also provided for certain private sector activities like, for example, those involved in resource extraction4. Mainstream political parties and governments who generally support the privatisation of public projects often justify this approach by using arguably

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

259

ideological interpretations of economics. These interpretations purport to be consistent with a theory that is inaccessible, if not incomprehensible, to most members of the voting public. This approach to governance ultimately does little to benefit society and can, in the language of the dominant economic paradigm, lead to sub-optimal resource allocation, market failure and externalities. As previously discussed this leads to pollution, resource depletion, ecosystem damage and social inequity: the sort of problems that early economic theorists like Adam Smith tried to prevent or rectify when they proposed or developed economic theory and policy. Ideological interpretations of economics, as well as frequently bewildering the voting public, thus often sabotage the most fundamental requirements of economic theory. This in turn conflicts with the intentions the theorists and highjacks the public policy debate. One consequence of this is to harness public policy, and indeed public resources, and infrastructure to the interests of private corporations rather than to benefit the society they exist to serve. In Australia this phenomenon can be illustrated by the influence of the powerful mining sector on a range of important policy issues. These issues concern taxes, subsidies and resource extraction and might cost Australians billions of dollars in subsidies and lost revenues while further enriching Australia’s wealthiest industrial sector which is presided over by some of its richest individuals. Obtaining a fair return from publicly owned mineral resources is even more problematic for the world’s poorer nations, some of which have rich stores of mineral wealth that wealthy mining corporations want to exploit. The World Bank Group in Extractive Industries’ 2011 Annual Review5 stated that: ‘some mineralrich countries have found that their mineral tax revenues have not increased commensurate with the sharp rise in prices and the increased profits of private developers, and therefore have been seeking to improve their EI-related tax collection in recent years’.

 

260 

Sordid Boon?

The Ethical Dimension In chapter one of this book we considered the concept of sustainable development in some detail and acknowledged its current universality. Sustainability was also reviewed in relation to the historical contexts of the disciplines considered here. Given that the purpose of sustainable development’s triple bottom line is to give equal weighting to economic, social and environmental matters in decision making, its importance cannot be understated especially since, in Australia at least, it is embedded in legislation

6

. That notwithstanding, social and

environmental considerations tend to be rendered subservient to finance and commerce in public decision making, despite the emphasis placed on intergenerational and intra-generational equity within the legislated definition of, and provisions for, sustainable development5. Equity issues are part of the ethical dimension of sustainability and, as discussed earlier, relate to one of the important dimensions that link the concept directly to Adam Smith as the father of modern economics. Ethics also connects economics to the subsequent nineteenth century thinkers considered here who either promoted utilitarian (neoclassical or market) economics7 or who developed other seminal ideas in parallel with the rise of market economics in decision making. Such ideas, like Darwin's theory of evolution and others that emerged during the spread of mercantilism and its transformation to capitalism, had a strong focus on moral sentiment, which accommodated consideration of altruism as well as equity. In previous chapters we considered the ideas of moral philosophers, political economists, sociologists, conservationists, artists, poets and architects to illustrate the point and to give context both to their work and their intentions. I have argued that their ideas were overarched by an ethical premise8 that motivated them to work towards making a better, more equitable world for all members of society. We know they recognised, and emphasised our reliance on the natural environment and our capacity to damage it. All of those intellectuals thus worked within a paradigm that was overarched by ethics while accommodating

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

261

economics, society and the environment in much the same way as they are accommodated today by sustainable development. However, some of those intellectuals, such as Carlyle and Wordsworth, placed less importance on economics, arguably viewing social and environmental equity as more significant matters. We cannot take it for granted either, that because Smith wrote Wealth of Nations he viewed economics as more important than social or environmental issues 9 . Indeed, as Sen 10 pointed out, Smith ‘... identified why the markets may need restraint, correction, and supplementation through other institutions for preventing instability, inequity and poverty’. The moral imperative, while barely recognised by some of today’s free market enthusiasts who tend to equate utilitarian economics with the promotion of self-interest, was arguably the main motivator for Smith who was primarily a moral philosopher. As discussed in chapter one, Darwin was keenly aware of Smith's work and he argued emphatically that it was the moral imperative of cooperation rather than selfishness that influenced humanity's evolutionary progress. Both Darwin and Smith saw altruism as a significant behavioural trait that was strongly tied to moral sentiment. Darwin11, who was intrigued by Smith's commentary on empathy, observed that humans like ‘all animals’, direct sympathy ‘towards members of the same community’ but not to all others of their species. While Smith thought about sympathy within a utilitarian framework Darwin was less concerned with such constraint. He was of the view that cooperation, not competition, within a community promoted natural selection of ‘those animals which aid and defend one another’ which confounds the arguments of those who advance the ideological position that self-promoting behaviour is generally in the interest of society. Such arguments are popular in certain circles where knowledge and understanding of Smith’s work appears to be narrow12. This narrow view is actually contrary to Smith's broader perspective that recognises the full gamut of human feeling and motivation. As discussed earlier, Smith was strongly focused on acknowledging the human capacity for unselfish behaviour

 

262 

Sordid Boon?

even to the point that people sometimes sacrifice their own interests (or even their lives) to help others. Sen13 not only recognises this important aspect of Smith's work, but he also emphasises the way in which Smith’s utilitarian approach to economics is erroneously used to justify a more broadly based self-interest, especially among economic rationalists who purport to uphold Smith's principles. Sen14 comments that such economists are ‘enchanted by something that has come to be called ‘rational choice theory’ in which rationality is identified with intelligently pursuing self-interest’. He cites Smith's observation in the Theory of Moral Sentiments that while ‘prudence’ might be most advantageous to the individual in possession of it, ‘humanity, justice, generosity and public spirit, are the qualities most useful to others’. This is a view complementary with Darwin's assessment of the benefits of an individual’s unselfishness to their community and the reason that altruistic traits rather than selfish traits are selected for in evolution. This point illustrates the importance of being familiar with the work of important theorist and of examining their work in its historical context and that of other theorists. Both Smith and Darwin are frequently misquoted and misunderstood or, if we’re cynical, misrepresented for ideological reasons. However both are unambiguous about the benefits of unselfish behaviour to society in a way that makes the ethical underpinnings of their work very clear. Interdisciplinary Dialogue Given the emphasis on economics and nature throughout this book, Smith’s and Darwin’s work is central to its overall theme. Because context is so significant to the meaning and intention of their work, we’ve also considered the work of some of Smith’s and Darwin’s peers and contemporaries. Knowledge burgeoned in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when many gifted intellectuals worked during and after the industrial revolution but unfortunately it is beyond the scope of this this book to consider more than just a few of them. However, even a fairly cursory examination of the work considered here reveals that moral sentiment was

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

263

an overarching premise of the period, and that the premise spanned the full range of disciplinary endeavour. Humanity’s relationship with nature was another theme that spanned the disciplines and reflected concern for our dependence upon the environment, as well as for our potential to damage it. By reviewing a range of disciplines and establishing their ethical context, as well as identifying the eighteenth and nineteenth century recognition of interactions between economics and other disciplines, we are better able to develop workable policy. In considering these issues, and having assessed Smith, Darwin and their peers, we briefly reviewed the work of a number of nineteenth century thinkers starting in chapter five with Thomas Carlyle, John Ruskin and John Stuart Mill. While Carlyle and Mill, though prominent in other disciplines like history, were essentially philosophers, Ruskin was an architect, artist and philanthropist. The fact that there was considerable dialogue between them demonstrates the breadth of knowledge and debate in their time. This is true of most of the people represented here and though they by no means always agreed, they engaged with each other and disseminated new ideas widely to ensure that everyone who could read had access to all avenues of intellectual enterprise. We have seen that a significant proportion of the people we’ve considered were very active in social reform. While some, like the poet Wordsworth and the sociologist Octavia Hill, were also environmental activists these social reformers represent here the social justice aspect of the sustainability concept. In chapter seven we reviewed more of John Stuart Mill’s work as well as considering that of Martineau, a political economist and social commentator. Both Mill and Martineau were also campaigners for the emancipation of women and of slaves that, along with education, are elements of social justice that were especially significant to the nineteenth century, but are still relevant today. Some of the many women among the important thinkers of the nineteenth century were also reviewed in chapter seven. A fair proportion of them worked in areas that were very much in the male domain, which meant that, like Lydia Becker15, they often fought on behalf of all women for the right to an education,

 

264 

Sordid Boon?

especially in science. Many women who were lucky enough to have access to an education, mainly through male patronage, inheritance, or both, were keen to share this privilege with those less fortunate, aiming to make education a right. Enfranchising the less fortunate had been, in some ways, promoted by Adam Smith, the ‘father' of economics who, in the eighteenth century, recognised the importance of education and proposed that the government should provide free education for factory workers and the poor. Smith had some significant female contemporaries who sought to support women’s rights through their writing. Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women 16 , published in 1792, was an early work on female emancipation, while Ann Murry one of the first popularisers of new ideas, published Mentoria, an educational book for girls, in 177817. Many nineteenth century women took on the mantle from Wollstonecraft and Murry, writing prolifically to fight for emancipation and education, and to interpret and popularise new ideas for other women, and for the literate working classes 18 . While Marcet and later Martineau interpreted political economy, including Smith’s Wealth of Nations, for a wide readership, the area where women were especially productive was in popularising science. As with many of their male contemporaries they were influenced by moral sentiment and a concern for both humanity and nature. They were aware of economic theory and some, like Martineau, promoted utilitarian economics within a framework governed by ethics and principles akin to those embodied by the sustainability concept. Looking to the Future At the start of this book I set out to facilitate a better understanding of market economic theory within its historical context. Such understanding helps people to assess the numerous 'economic' arguments presented to them by politicians, interest groups and the media. As those arguments are often presented in the course of the democratic process, especially before elections, this should help people to make better-informed decisions about social and environmental policy

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

265

that’s consistent with both sustainable development and economic theory that politicians in particular purport to apply. It is hoped that armed with better knowledge and a deeper understanding of such issues, people will be able to draw their own conclusions rather than being led by the view that is most persistently or aggressively presented to them. That view often seems to be motivated by vested interests such as politicians seeking support from wealthy corporations or industry groups, or by such industry groups themselves. Having briefly reviewed the of history of market economics and other disciplines we now also have a clearer indication of the values and ideas that were common across avenues of intellectual enterprise in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We also have a multi-dimensional view of such issues as they relate to current policy, some aspects of which were reviewed in chapter eight. While examining history to understand the present better is not novel, if it were employed more widely it could perhaps help to facilitate democratic decision making by enabling voters to make better sense of the mass of sometimes conflicting information that is showered on them by politicians and the media. The pluralist journal Ecological Economics recently published a special section on environmental history stating that its goal was ‘to examine the past as a way of understanding something about the present, as well as the future’19. While the editors endorsed the historical approach, they also issued caveats about drawing inferences from historical events ‘Where the past was radically different from the present’ or when cases or case studies that are not alike are compared. Those caveats not withstanding, the historical perspective is especially valuable when it helps us to understand the fundamental requirements of a theory that is applied in the present without due knowledge of, or regard for, its original context. It is probably most valuable when the misapplication of a theory out of ignorance or ideology is potentially destructive, as is the case of some of today’s applications of economics. Given the devastating impact of the global financial crisis in 2008 and its continued repercussions in Europe down the years, this is probably a moot point.

 

266 

Sordid Boon?

While the causes and consequences of the GFC were multiple and complex, as discussed earlier, there is little doubt that the manner in which financial markets were deregulated consequent upon a free market ideology that seems to abhor government intervention except perhaps to subsidise the private sector, was largely responsible for that disaster. It would be an understatement to say that the impact on social welfare and social equity globally was catastrophic for many. An extension of the ‘laissez-faire’ approach, especially in regard to the finance sector and banks, with none of the checks and balances so carefully identified by Smith, coupled with corporate globalisation, at that time provided little in the way of social benefits in the US, Greece, Ireland or Spain, for example. Much less has it been beneficial to the world's poorest people, those of the 'global south' who had no wealth to lose, and are mostly yet to achieve the most fundamental access to fresh water and adequate food. If moral sentiment had been somehow invoked as the first requirement of financial market transactions there might have been a different outcome. Rereading theory in its original form, by its original author, while understanding its broad historical context can help both to identify where ideology has intervened in policy, and to rectify it so that theory is more appropriately applied. One commentator, while reviewing a book with on history, noted that there is a significant range of positions that influence how we perceive the economy (and economics) including ideological, political and religious positions which are frequently neither mutually exclusive nor rational, economic rationalism notwithstanding20. Although the economic and financial landscape of much of the world is fairly bleak in the wake of the GFC, there are optimistic signs that real attempts are being made to improve all facets of economics and policy making in recognition of the important inter-relationships between economics, society, and the environment. Interdisciplinary dialogue is also growing as is recognition of the need to review economics in its historical context. Economists who have dissented from the ‘economic rationalist’ approach to economic policy that uses a

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

267

rather biased interpretation of theory, as mentioned earlier, are moving towards finding a better economic paradigm. The World Economics Association (WEA), which was formed in 2011, is one of the new organizations attempting to improve the use and understanding of economics while seeking economic reform with significant ‘departures from mainstream thinking’. In this it has been manifestly successful, attracting 10,400 members in just over a year to become the world’s second largest professional organization of economists 21 . One of the main objectives of the WEA 22 is to ‘increase the relevance, breadth and depth of economic thought’. It makes its arguments, forums and papers available online via newsletters, journals and conferences. Following Rio+20, which did little to lift the people of the world's poorest nations out of poverty despite the promises made at the original Rio Earth Summit, the WEA held an online sustainability conference. The conference drew on a report prepared by the UN Secretary General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability in anticipation of the Rio+20 Summit23. According to the WEA, the report, Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing24 misses a number of important points. Apart from raising several issues that we’ve also considered in this book it provides a list of points that it has identified as missing from the global dialogue on sustainability in general, and from the Resilient People report in particular. In its call for papers for the online conference on sustainability the WEA identified six fields of discussion which included the need to clarify ideological issues in the sustainability dialogue, and the need to initiate a debate about the way in which democracy and political-economic systems function in relation to sustainability. These are very important issues that we've touched upon here: issues that are vital for to both inter and intra-generational equity, which impinge upon the poorest people of all nations, as well as for proper and accountable governance that does not put the accumulation of corporate wealth above social welfare.

 

268 

Sordid Boon?

Paradoxically, the widespread lack of optimism and the general negativity about the process and outcomes of Rio+20, especially in regard to the world’s poorer nations in the global south, as mentioned earlier25, have the potential to generate some significantly positive consequences. This is because, in many instances, dissident thinkers, frustrated proponents of social and environmental justice, and those who have become mistrustful of UN process and the lack of progress in regard to its Millennium Goals, began stimulating a broad global dialogue about all aspects of sustainable development. They did this either by holding parallel conferences or summits to coincide with Rio+20 or, like the WEA, by planning a conference in response to the preliminary material and outcomes of the Rio+20 process. Another example of this phenomenon was the People’s Summit Rio+20 that was ‘organised by global social movements’ and held in Rio at the same time as the UN Rio+2026. The summit was supported by the Transnational Institute, ‘a worldwide fellowship of scholar activists’27, which also ran workshops during the summit28. In light of the preceding discussion in this book, it should come as no surprise that one aspect of sustainability causing more controversy and dissent than most others, especially in the wake of the GFC, is the role of market economics. While sustainable development is almost defined by its triple bottom line that is supposed to give equal weight to social, environmental and economic issues, economics (often in the guise of corporate commerce or finance) seems almost invariably to be the bottom-bottom line. For this reason much dialogue generated by dissenting thinkers relates to economics because interpretation of the current paradigm and the way it is applied gravitate against sustainability in all its guises. The International Society for Ecological Economics, which seeks to establish a new economic paradigm, ran its conference29 in Rio just before the UN Rio+20 summit. The conference, entitled Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy had four main themes: Greening the Economy; The Political Economy of Green Development;

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

269

Environmental Justice, Ethics and Values; and, Methodological Challenges. Meanwhile the New Economics Institute, an American based organization whose goal is to establish a new economy ‘that gives priority to supporting human wellbeing and Earth’s natural systems’ used the run up to UN Rio+20 to launch a program, The Global Transition to a New Economy 30 that it developed with a international coalition of partners. While the outcome of the UN Rio+20 sustainable development conference was disappointing for many, it has enabled the development of a much wider and more accessible discourse that has its own momentum and which reflects one of the more positive aspects of globalisation. It has a discourse that almost anyone can participate in to bring about change, not only in the sustainability of human actions, but also in the dominant economic paradigm that currently seems to determine government policies the world over. It is encouraging to see that a wider dissemination of knowledge and information, generated in response to the parlous state of economics and its ideological misapplication, is operating via the internet. The internet helps to facilitate informed debate and makes it accessible to interested people who can use the world wide web. This form of globalisation perhaps helps to offset some of the negative impacts of the globalised, deregulated financial markets that have, often with good reason, given economics and many of its practitioners a bad reputation. In some instances this bad reputation has been exacerbated by people in charge of important institutions such as, for example, Greenspan, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve. At the start of chapter one I included a quote from a Time Business31 article by Robert Johnson who is a member of the UN Commission of Experts on International Monetary Reform, and executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking32. In the article Johnson proposes remedies for some of the recent failures of economists and mentions how important it is for them to interact with other disciplines. It seems appropriate to close with a brief discussion of Johnson’s article, given its relevance to this book. The article comprises a

 

270 

Sordid Boon?

succinct commentary on the failure of economics and economists to achieve what they are supposed to achieve, while proposing ways in which economics might be saved. Johnson's view that economics is in disrepute is supported by the long-term repercussions of the global financial crisis and the continuing misinterpretation of economic theory, especially in its application to public policy. In the article Johnson also discusses the need for an interdisciplinary dialogue and an historical context for economics, in order to recognise and avoid ideological bias in today’s policy making which is, in essence, what this book is all about. As mentioned in preceding chapters, the role of economics is to maximise social welfare. It is a policy instrument for governments who are responsible for overseeing the well-being of society, and it should not be used as an ideological tool by vested interests who want to manipulate policy in their favour at the cost of society. It is an indictment that many democratically elected governments use an ideologically distorted form of economics that serves wealthy corporations so much better than it serves society. This renders Johnson’s rather evocative metaphor of ‘our ship of state’ slamming into rocks both stark and accurate, and his appeal for economists to ‘help lead society off the rocks’ cogent. Johnson proposes that we ‘reintroduce context’ and research economic history as a means of understanding the economy. He also stresses the importance of interdisciplinary interactions for economics that, as we have seen, is entirely consistent with its historical context. I am in accord with Johnson and I believe that his proposals validate the focus of this book in which we have indeed researched history to understand economics. Johnson also stresses the importance of recognising the close relationship between politics and economics which includes the influence of ‘large powerful’ interests on laws and regulations. In chapter eight we discussed some of the pressures placed on governments by large powerful influences like the mining and energy sectors. In the case of issues that are unpopular with them, like the carbon tax, the pressure is almost relentless. In Australia some of the wealthiest members of the mining sector also own shares in the print and television media. Apart from placing pressure on the government,

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

271

they may also bombard the public with advertising and editorial opinion. This means that a well-educated public that is able to draw its own conclusions from information presented in the media is imperative for ensuring socially and environmentally optimal policy via the democratic process. While change might seem to be coming too slowly for some, it is encouraging to see that there are many dedicated and public spirited economists and policy makers who are working hard to facilitate not only a better understanding of economics, but also a better application of economics, so that the goals of the intellectuals who developed economic theory to improve the wellbeing of all members of society can be realised. There is great reason for optimism and it is hoped that this book will make a small contribution to the understanding and improvement of public policy by setting economics and its associated disciplines in their historical context, which was overarched by ethics in parallel with the unspoken precept of sustainable development. Equipped with that understanding in our own context, we must help to ensure that economics is honestly and appropriately applied within the current paradigm. However our study of history and context can take us further since such knowledge will assist us to develop a new paradigm. That new paradigm, which must reclaim ethics as its overarching principle, must also accommodate the various disciplines that we need to use to ameliorate the damage we have done to the earth’s complex and interconnected environmental systems. A new paradigm will implement economic, social and environmental policies that will enable us, and our children, and our children's children to balance and share more equally, especially among the world’s poorest people, the consumption and conservation of our natural resources while living more harmoniously, not just with nature, but also with each other.                                                                   

 

272 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                           Endnotes    1 See: Sarah Lumley and Patrick Armstrong, ‘Some of the Nineteenth Century Origins of the Sustainability Concept’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6, (2004), 357-378.  2 For example see Sarah Lumley, ‘Is our Carbon Tax Really the Biggest?’ New Matilda, 9 May 2012, http://newmatilda.com/2012/05/09/our-carbon-tax-reallybiggest 3 For example the fuel tax credits return over 38 cents per litre for fuels other than LPG, LNG and CNG (which attract a different tax credit) to mining companies. This is about 25 percent of the price of petrol paid by ordinary taxpayers. Further details can be found at the Australian Taxation Office website www.ato.gov/corporate/   4 As mentioned in the last chapter, this trend became more apparent during the campaigns by large mining companies to oppose government policy in the form of the super profits mining tax and the carbon tax via a range of media in some of which they owned a share.   5 The World Bank Extractive Industries Group, 2011 Annual Review, World Bank Oil, Gas and Mining Unit, 2012, p. 22, WBG_El_Annual_Report_FY11_final.pdf, www.worldbank.org 6 For example the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act defines the principle of ecologically sustainable development in significant detail.  7 Harriet Martineau, for example, whose work was discussed in chapter seven  8 As noted earlier, moral sentiment was a concept that pervaded much nineteenth century thought as well as being a major preoccupation of many eighteenthcentury philosophers, including Adam Smith.   9 Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations after The Theory of Moral Sentiments which he considered to be his most important work, and to which he returned his attentions after completing what was, in his view, the less significant book.  10 Amartya Sen, ‘Adam Smith and the Contemporary World’, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 3, 1 (2010), 50-67, p. 54.  11 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, (London: The Folio Society, 2008, 1877 edition), p.112.  12 For example see Sen’s comments about economic rationalists in ‘Adam Smith and the Contemporary World’. 13 Ibid 14 Ibid. 15 For example see Lydia Becker, ‘On the Study of Science by Women.’ The Contemporary Review. 10, Jan-Apr, (1869) pp. 386-404. 

 

Chapter Nine: Lessons from History

273

                                                                                                                                                         16 Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects, with an introduction by Claire Tomalin (London: The Folio Society, 2008, 2nd edition, first published 1792).   17 Ann Murry, Mentoria or the Young Ladies Instructor in Familiar Conversations on Moral and Entertaining Subjects: Calculated to Improve Young Minds in the Essential, as well as the Ornamental Parts of Female Education, (London: Edward and Charles Dilly, 1778). 18 For example see Arabella Buckley, Life and her Children: Glimpses of Animal Life from the Amoeba to the Insects, (London: E. Stanford, 1880). 19 Jouni Paavola and Evan D.G. Fraser, ‘Ecological Economics and Environmental History’, Ecological Economics, 70, 7 (2011), 1266-1268, p. 1266.  20 Stuart Birks in a review of What is History by E.H.Carr (2008) in the World Economics Association Newsletter 2 (1) Feb 2012, http://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/newsletters/   21 Cited in a letter to WEA members on 24th September 2012. Further information about the WEA from the same source includes the following: its worldwide membership is drawn from Africa (9 percent ), Asia (18 percent ), Europe (33 percent), Latin American and the Caribbean (12 percent ), Oceania (8 percent ), and US and Canada (20 percent ); it has published two new open-access and open peer review journals, World Economic Review and Economic Thought, and has increased the subscription base of its pre existing open access Real-World Economics Review to 20,900.  22The WEA’s manifesto can be found at the following web address: http://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/wea/manifesto/   23 UN (2012), Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing,  United Nations Secretary‐General’s High‐level Panel on Global Sustainability,  http://www.un.org/gsp/report   24 Ibid. 25 Refer to earlier discussion of the United Nations frameworks, sustainable development and Rio+20 in chapter one. 26 For more information about the Transnational Institute and the Rio+ 20 People’s Summit, visit www.tni.org/article/peoples-summit-rio-20;   27 Ibid. 28 Further information about the quest for a new economic paradigm can also be found under the headings of heterodox economics and behavioural economics. 29 See the International Society for Ecological Economics website for the conference proceedings of ‘Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy’, June 2012, http://www.isee2012.org/   30 For more information about the New Economics Institute see http://neweconomicsinstitute.org/content/global-transition;   31 Robert Johnson, ‘Economists: A Profession at Sea’, Time Business, 19 January 2012, http://business.time.com/2012/01/19/economists-a-profession-at-sea/

 

274 

Sordid Boon?

                                                                                                                                                         32 For more information about the Institute for New Economic Thinking visit its website at http://www.ineteconomics.org/  

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AASC (2013), 'Club Objectives’, Membership Renewal Form for 2013, The Australian Adam Smith Club, (Melbourne), 2012, p.2, http://www.adamsmithclub.org/ ABC (2012a), ‘Public Private Partnerships Under the Microscope’, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Broadcast on Radio National, 8 Feb 2012. ABC (2012b), ‘Government Strikes Deal on Stalled Prison Project’, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 3 Aug 2012, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-0803/government-strikes-deal-on-stalled-prison-project/4175002 [viewed 22 Nov 2012]. ABC (2011), ‘Breaking Desal Deal Too Expensive: Walsh’, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1 March, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-0301/breaking-desal-deal-too-expensive-walsh/1961654 [viewed 22 Nov 2012]. Abse, Joan (1980), John Ruskin: the Passionate Moralist London: Quartet. AEC (2011), Indigenous People and the Vote, Australian Electoral Commission, www.Aec.Gov.Au/Voting/Indigenous_Vote/Aborigin.Htm [viewed 5 Oct 2012]. AGEIS (2011), National Greenhouse Gas Inventory– Kyoto Protocol Accounting Framework, Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System http://Ageis.Climatechange.Gov.Au [viewed 30 Nov 2011]. Aguilera-Klink, Federico (1994), Some Notes on the Misuse of Classic Writings In Economics on the Subject of Common Property, Ecological Economics, 9: 221-8. Alcoa (2010), Sustainable Development. The Basis For Alcoa’s Future. https://www.Alcoa.Com/Bcs/En/About/Sustainability.Asp [viewed 24 March 2010]. Alexander, John H. (1987), Reading Wordsworth, New York and London: Taylor and Francis. Alvey, James E (1999), ‘A Short History of Economics as a Moral Science’, Journal of Markets & Morality 2, 1: 53-73.

276 

Sordid Boon?

Anglo American (2007),‘Presentation on Anglo American’s Sustainable Development Performance 2006’, sustaindev.pdf, www.Angloamerican.Com.au/ [viewed 19 July 2011]. Anon (2011a), ‘Windsor Calls For Coal Seam Gas Mining Halt’, The Age, 2 Nov 2011, http://www.Theage.Com.Au/Environment/ [viewed 9 Nov 2011. Anon (2011b), 'Greenery in Canada - We have a Winner. British Columbia's Carbon Tax Woos Sceptics', The Economist, 21 July 2011. Anon (2002), ‘Public V Private’, the Economist, http://www.Economist.Com/Node/ [viewed 11 Jan 2012]. Arnold, Matthew (1867), Dover Beach, Victorian Web, http://www.Victorianweb.Org/Authors/Arnold/Writings/Doverbeach.Ht ml [viewed 5 Oct 2012]. ASOEC (2011), Australia. State of the Environment 2011, Australian State of the Environment Committee, Canberra: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Government, http://www.Environment.Gov.Au/Soe/2011 [viewed 12 March 2012]. Australian Government (2011), ‘What Is Climate Change?’, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, www.Climatechange.Gov.Au/Climate‐Change/ [viewed 19 July 2011]. Australian Government (2008a), National PPP Guidelines. Overview, Canberra: Infrastructure Australia, www.Infrastructureaustralia.Gov.Au  [viewed  3  Feb  2012]. Australian Government (2008b), National PPP Policy Framework, Canberra: Infrastructure Australia, www.Infrastructureaustralia.Gov.Au  [viewed  3  Feb  2012]. Australian Government (2008c), National Public Private Partnership Guidelines. Vol 1, Procurement Options Analysis, Canberra: Infrastructure Australia. www.Infrastructureaustralia.Gov.Au [viewed 3 Feb 2012]. Australian Government (2008d), National Public Private Partnership Guidelines. Vol 2, Practitioners’ Guide, Canberra: Infrastructure Australia, www.Infrastructureaustralia.Gov.Au [viewed 3 Feb 2012]. Australian Government (2008e), National Public Private Partnership Guidelines. Vol 3, Commercial Principles For Social Infrastructure, Canberra: Infrastructure Australia, www.Infrastructureaustralia.Gov.Au  [viewed  3  Feb  2012]. Australian Government (2008f), National Public Private Partnership Guidelines. Vol 4, Public Sector Comparator, Canberra: Infrastructure Australia, www.Infrastructureaustralia.Gov.Au [viewed 3 Feb 2012]. Australian Government (2008g), National Public Private Partnership Guidelines. Vol 5, Discount Rate Methodology Guidance, Canberra: Infrastructure Australia, www.Infrastructureaustralia.Gov.Au [viewed 5 Feb 2012]. Australian Government (2008h), National Public Private Partnership Guidelines. Vol 6, Jurisdictional Requirements, Canberra: Infrastructure Australia, www.Infrastructureaustralia.Gov.Au [viewed 6 Feb 2012].

 

Bibliography

277

Axon, William E.A. (1879), John Ruskin: A Bibliographical Biography, Manchester: Manchester Literary Club. Baetjer, Katherine (1993), Glorious Nature: British Landscape Painting 17501850. New York: Hudson Hills Press. 271p. Bain, Alexander (1871), ‘Darwinism and Religion’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 24: 45-51, Cambridge. Bain, Alexander (2004), Mental and Moral Science, London: Kessinger Publishing (first published 1881). Bain, Robert (2010), ‘Public Sector Comparators For UK PFI Roads: Inside the Black Box’, Transportation, 37: 3. Barlow, Nora (1945) (editor), Charles Darwin and the Voyage of the Beagle. London: Piper Press Beales, H.L. (1958), The Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850: An Introductory Essay, London: Longmans, Green & Co. Becker, C; Faber, M; Hertel, K. and Manstetten, R (2005), ‘Malthus Vs Wordsworth: Perspectives on Humankind, Nature and Economy. A Contribution to the History and the Foundations of Ecological Economics’, Ecological Economics, 53: 3, 299-310. Becker, Lydia, (1869), ‘On the Study of Science by Women.’ the Contemporary Review. 10, Jan-Apr: 386-404. Becker, Lydia (1864), Botany For Novices: A Short Outline of the Natural System of Classification of Plants, London: Whittaker & Co. Belchem, John and Price, Richard (eds) (2001), A Dictionary of NineteenthCentury History, London: Penguin Books. Bellow, Saul (1975), ‘A World Too Much with Us’, Critical Inquiry, 2:1, 1-9. Bennett, Sheila (1988), Imagination and Awareness. Literature as Society’s Analyst, New York: Vantage Press. Berlin, Isiah (1969), Four Essays on Liberty, New York: Oxford University Press. Bewell, Alan (1989), Wordsworth and the Enlightenment: Nature, Man and Society in the Experimental Poetry. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bexell, Magdalena (2010), Democracy and Public Private Partnerships in Global Governance, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. BHP (2010), Our Sustainability Framework, BHP-Billiton, http://www.Bhpbilliton.Com/Bb/Sustainabledevelopment.Asp. [viewed 24 March 2010]. Bibby, Cyril (1959), Huxley and the Reception of the Origin, Victorian Studies, 3: 76-86. Bibbings, Jennie (2003), ‘Consumption in Wales: Encouraging the Sustainable Lifestyle’, Sustainable Regions, 1 (5): 1-10. Birks, Stuart (2012), ‘Review of What is History by E.H.Carr (2008)’, the World Economics Association Newsletter 2 (1) Feb, http://www.worldeconomicsassociation.org/newsletters/ Borenstein, Seth (2011), ‘Greenhouse Emissions Exceed Worst Case Scenario’, The Age, 5 Nov 2011, http://Theage.Com.Au [viewed 12 Nov 2011].

 

278 

Sordid Boon?

Bowers, John (1999), Sustainability and Environmental Economics: An Alternative Text, Harlow, UK: Addison Wesley Longman. Bowker, R.R. (1883), Of Work and Wealth. A Summary of Economics, New York: The Society For Political Education. Blunden, Edmund (1929), Nature in English Literature. N.P: Hogarth Press. Braham, E.G. (1987), The Life Of David Hume (The Terrible David), Altringham: Stafford (first published 1931). Bree, C.R. (1873), On Darwinism and Its Effects Upon Religious Thought, Victoria Institute, 18. Brittan, Samuel (2004), ‘The Growth Fetish Exposed Again’, Financial Times, 26 March, http://www.samuelbrittan.co.uk/text.html FT 26/03/04 [viewed 6 Nov 2012]. Brougham, Henry and Bell, Charles (eds) (1886), Paley’s Natural Theology with Illustrative Notes: to Which Are Appended Supplementary Dissertations and Numerous Woodcuts, London: Charles Knight. Vol. 1 & Vol. 2. Brown, Dee (1970), Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Brown, Susan; Clements, Patricia; and Grundy, Isobel (2008), ‘Lydia Becker, Overview’, The Orlando Project, Cambridge, http://orlando.cambridge.org/public/svPeople?person_id=beckly [viewed 11th Nov 2009] Bruce, James P, Hoesung, Lee, and Haites, Erik F. (1996), Climate Change 1995. Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buckley, Arabella (1871), ‘Darwinism and Religion’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 24:45-51. Buckley, Arabella B. (1876) A Short History of Natural Science and of the Progress of Discovery from the Time of the Greeks to the Present Day, For the Use of Schools and Young Persons, London: J.Murray. Buckley, Arabella (1880), Life and Her Children: Glimpses of Animal Life from the Amoeba to the Insects, London: E. Stanford Buckley, Arabella Burton (1887), History of England For Beginners, London: Macmillan and Co. Buckley, Arabella (1882), Winners in Life’s Race, or the Great Backboned Family, London: E. Stanford. Buckley, Arabella (1890), Through Magic Glasses and Other Lectures, facsimile held at George Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Georgia, http://Ufdc.Ufl.Edu/UF00078569/00001/7j?Td=Arabella+=Buckley [viewed 1 March 2011]. Buckley, Arabella (2006), The Fairyland of Science, Yesterday’s Classics: Chapel Hill, NC (first published by E. Stanford, London, 1879). Buckley, Arabella (1892), Moral Teachings of Science, New York: D. Appleton and Company.

 

Bibliography

279

Burnside, Sarah (2010), ‘Sound and Fury: The Resources Tax’, The New Critic, Issue 12, Aug, http://www.Ias.Uwa.Edu.Au/New‐Critic/Twelve/Burnside [viewed 5 Nov 2011]. Burrow, Paul (1979), ‘Pigovian Taxes, Polluter Subsidies. Regulation, and the Size of a Polluting Industry’, Canadian Journal of Economics, 12: 3, 494. Buttel, Frederick H. (1998), ‘Some Observations on States, World Orders and the Politics of Sustainability’, Policy, Organisation and Society, 11 (3): 261-286. Campbell, G.D. (1884), The Unity of Nature, London: Alexander Strahan. Campbell, H. (1888), ‘A Great Confession’, The Nineteenth Century, 23: 142-160, London. Carlyle, Thomas (1842), Chartism, 2nd Edition, London: Chapman and Hall. Carlyle, Thomas (1843), Past and Present, London: Chapman and Hall. CBO (2012a), ‘Report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program – March 2012’, Congressional Budget Office, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43138 CBO (2012b), ‘CBO’s Latest Estimate of the TARP: 24billion, Congressional Budget Office’, October 2012, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43663 CCA (2012), Cancel Council of Australia, Melanoma, http://www.cancer.org.au/about-cancer/types-of-cancer/skincancer/melanoma.html [viewed 20 Nov 2012]. Cellucci, Thomas (2011), ‘A Guide to Innovative Public-Private Partnerships: Utilizing the Resources of the Private Sector for the Public Good’, Lanham: Government Institutes, Scarecrow Press. CEPA (2002), ‘Economics -The Italian Tradition’, Fonte: sito web di History of Economic Thought, 2002,   http://www.terni.unipg.it/uploads/dati/scienzepolitiche/tutoronline//Ec onomics_the_Italian_tradition.doc [viewed 1 Oct 2012]. CHS (2009), ‘Lydia Becker – The Life and Times’, Chadderton Historical Society, Famous Chaddertonians, http://www.Chadderton‐Hsfreeuk.Com/Page‐ Lydiab.Htm [viewed 11 Nov 2009]. Clarke, Ron (2002), ‘Introduction’ in Kirkpatrick, Colin, Clarke, Ron and Polidano, Charles (editors) (2002), Handbook on Development Policy and Management, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. CLLSI, (1830), The Moral and Political Evils of the Taxes on Knowledge in the Speeches Delivered at the City of London Literary Institution, on the Subject of a Petition to Parliament Against the Stamps on Newspapers, the Duties on Advertisements and on Printing Paper, City of London Literary and Scientific Institution, London: Effingham Wilson. Clubbe, John (editor) (1976), Carlyle and his Contemporaries, Durham, Nth Carolina: Duke University Press. COAG (2008), ‘Council of Australian Governments’ Meeting’, 29 Nov 2008, http://www.coag.gov.au/node/294 [viewed 23 Feb 2012. Common, Michael (1995), Sustainability and Policy. Limits to Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Commonwealth of Australia (2011), Climate Change-Water Resources-Think Change, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Australian

 

280 

Sordid Boon?

Government, http://www.Climatechange.Gov.Au/Climatechange/Impacts/ [viewed 11 Nov 2009]. Commonwealth of Australia (2000), ‘The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999’, Canberra: The Australian Government Publishing Service. Commonwealth of Australia (1992a), ‘The Australian Interim National Strategy For Ecologically Sustainable Development’, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Commonwealth of Australia (1992b), National Greenhouse Response Strategy, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Condorcet, Marie J.A.N. (1786), Life of Turgot, Paris: Londres. Coorey, Phillip (2011), ‘Mining Tax Gets Backing from Most Taxpayers’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 Nov, [viewed 8 Nov 2011, http://www.Smh.Com.Au/Action/Id=2744837. Cree, T.S. (1903), Business Men and Modern Economics: A Paper Read Before the British Association at Glasgow on 16th September 1901, Glasgow: Bell and Bain Ltd. Creese, Walter L. (1966), The Search For Environment: The Garden City Before and After, New Haven: Yale University Press.  CRFB (2009), ‘Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), stimulus.org, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Project’, 9 July 2009, http://stimulus.org/financialresponse/troubled-assets-relief-program-tarp [viewed 24 Nov 2012]. CRFB (2012), ‘CRFB Paper on ARRA’, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Project, http://stimulus.org/ [viewed 24 Nov 2012]. CSIRO (2011), ‘Climate Variability, Climate Change and Drought in Eastern Australia’, http://Csiro.Au/Science/Climate‐and‐Drought‐In‐Eastern‐ Australia/ [viewed 29 Nov 2011. Daly, H. (1990), ‘Towards Some Operational Principles of Sustainable Development’, Ecological Economics, 2: 1-6. Darwin, Charles (1872), Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, London: John Murray. Darwin, Charles (1875), Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Sixth Edition, with Additions and Corrections, London: John Murray (first published 1859). Darwin, Charles (1873), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Second Edition, London: John Murray (first published 1871). Darwin, Charles (2008), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, London: The Folio Society, (1877 Edition). David, Deidre (1987), Intellectual Women and the Victorian Patriarchy: Harriet Martineau, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, George Eliot, London: Macmillan. Davidson, Kenneth (2012), ‘Hope Springs Despite Desal Disaster’, The Age, 5 March 2012.

 

Bibliography

281

Davidson, Kenneth (2007a), ‘Desal doesn’t hold Water Against Alternatives. In its Obsession with PPPs, the State Government Is Ignoring Taxpayer Value’, The Age, 10 Dec. Davidson, Kenneth (2007b), ‘It’s Not Too Late, Premier, to Save us from The Desal Diasaster’, The Age, 26 Dec, www.Theage.Com.Au/Action/ [viewed 11th Jan 2012]. Davidson, Kenneth (2007c), ‘Premiers Need to Stop Tilting at Windmills and Back Effective Water Plans’, The Age, 5t July. Day, Aidan (1996), Romanticism. The New Critical Idiom, London: Routledge. Decleris, Michael (2002), Sustainable Development and the Rule of Law, Global Judges, United Nations Environment Program, unep.org, http://ebookbrowse.com/michael-declaris-doc-d385060311 [viewed 22 Nov 2012]. Detrosier, Rowland (1834), An Address on the Necessity of An Extension of Moral and Political Instruction Among the Working Classes: with a Memoir of the Author, London: Cleave. Dinwiddy, J.R. (1987), Chartism, London: The Historical Association. Dixon, E.S. (1862), ‘A Vision of Animal Existences’, Cornhill Magazine, 5: 311318, London. Donner, Wendy (1991), The Liberal Self: John Stuart Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy, New York: Cornell University Press. Drabble, Margaret (editor) (2000), The Oxford Companion to English Literature, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Dryzek, J. (1997), The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Earth Summit (2001), ‘National Strategies for Sustainable Development (NSSDs) and National Reports’, Towards Earth Summit 2002, http://www.earthsummit2002.org/es/national-resources/nssd.html [viewed 20 Nov 2012]. Edwards, Geoff (2012), ‘The Desalination Plant, the North-South pipeline and the Welfare of Melburnians’, paper presented to the 56th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, 8-10 Feb 2012, Fremantle, Western Australia. Ellis, Henry (1896), Can the Capitalist Be Moralized? London: W. Rees. Elliott, Lorraine (1998), The Global Politics of the Environment, London: Macmillan. Eltham, Ben (2009), ‘Copenhagen For Dummies’, New Matilda, 28 Oct, http://Newmatilda.Com [viewed 29 Oct 2009]. Eltham, Ben (2011), ‘And It Passed! Australia Sets a Price on Pollution’, New Matilda, http://www.Newmatilda.Com, 8 Nov, [viewed 10 Nov 2011). Eltham, Ben (2012), ‘Hockeynomics Eats our Safety Net’, New Matilda, 19/04/12, http://newmatilda.com/2012/04/19/hockeynomics‐eats‐our‐safety‐net [viewed 20 April 2012] Emily Jane (2011), Booked All Week. the Subjection of Women by John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor, 5 March 2011,

 

282 

Sordid Boon?

  http://BookedAllweek.Wordpress.Com/2011/03/05/The‐Subjection‐Of‐ Women‐By‐John‐Stuart‐Mill‐and‐Harriet‐Taylor [viewed 19 March 2011] Empson, William (1833), ‘Illustrations of Political Economy’, Edinburgh Review, 4:57. Engel, Eduardo, Fischer, Ronald and Galetovic, Alexander (2011), ‘PublicPrivate Partnerships to Revamp U.S. Infrastructure’, Discussion Paper, Feb 2011, The Hamilton Project, Washington DC: Brookings. Ensor, George (1967), An Inquiry Concerning the Population of Nations Containing a Refutation of Mr Malthus’s Essay on Population by George Ensor 1818, New York: Augustus M. Kelley. Ensor, David, Rogers, Margaret and Ryan, Roberta (2000), ‘Rural and Regional Victoria, A Challenge For the State Government’, Centre For Sustainable Rural Communities, La Trobe University, Bendigo, For Victorian Local Governance Association. Ericson, Matthew. He, Elaine. and Schoenfeld, Amy (2009), ‘Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout’, The New York Times, New York. http://www.Nytimes.Com/Packages/Html/National/200904_CREDITCRI SIS/Recipients.Html [viewed 26 Oct 2011]. Fawcett, Henry (1860), A Popular Exposition of Mr Darwin ‘On the Origin of The Species’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 3: 81-92. Finley, C. Stephen (1992), Nature’s Covenant: Figures of Landscape in Ruskin, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. FOE (2009), ‘Aquasure Announcement’, Friends of the Earth, www.Melbourne.Foe.Org.Au/ [viewed 29 Dec 2011]. Foster, John (editor ) (1997), Valuing Nature? Ethics, Economics and the Environment, London and New York: Routledge. Fraser, Alexander Campbell (1895-96), Philosophy of Theism: Delivered before the University of Edinburgh, Gifford Lectures 1894-95, Volumes 1 and 2, Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons. Freebairn, John William and Quiggin, John C. (2010), ‘Special Taxation of the Mining Industry’, No. WPP10_3, Australian Public Policy Program Working Papers, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, St Lucia: University of Queensland. Freedgood, Ellen (1995), ‘Banishing Panic: Harriet Martineau and the Popularization of Political Economy’, Victorian Studies 39, 1: 33-53. Garnaut, Ross (2011), The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Australia  in  the  Global  Response  to  Climate  Change, Update 2011, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, http://www.Garnautreview.Org.Au/Update‐ 2011/Garnaut‐Review‐2011.Html [viewed 1 Dec 2011. Gates, Barbara T. (1998), Kindred Nature: Victorian and Edwardian Women Embrace the Living World, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gates, Barbara (2004), ‘Buckley, Arabella Burton (1840-1929)’, In: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Bibliography

283

Gifford, Terry (1995), ‘Conclusion’, in Wheeler, Michael (editor) (1995), Ruskin and the Environment: The Storm Cloud of the Nineteenth Century, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Gillard, Julia (2010), ‘Prime Minister Establishes Climate Change Committee’, Joint Press Release by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, and the Minister For Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, http://www.Pm.Gov.Au/Press‐Office/Primeminister‐Establishes‐Climate‐ Change‐Committee [viewed 5 Nov 2011. Gillard, Julia (2011), ‘Carbon Price; Clean Energy Future. Transcript of Joint Press Conference, Sydney’, Canberra: Prime Minister of Australia, 11 July, http://Gov.Press‐Office/Transcript‐Joint‐Press‐Conference/ [viewed 13 July 2011. Gladstone, W.E. (1886), Speech to the House of Commons on the Reform Bill. Gordon, Michael (2010), ‘Billionaires’ Club Hits the Street For Tax Protest’, The Age, 10 June, http://www.Theage.Com.Au/National/Billionaires‐Club‐ Hits‐The‐Street‐For‐Tax‐Protest‐20100609‐Xwu6.Html [viewed 7 Nov 2011]. Gough, G.W. (1913), Half-Hour Studies in Economics, Manchester: W. Haugh and Sons. Gould, S.J. (1990), ‘Darwin and Paley Meet the Invisible Hand’, Natural History, Nov: 8-16. Gould, S.J. (2000), The Lying Stones of Marrakech. Penultimate Reflections in Natural History, London: Jonathan Cape. Government of Canada (2012), ‘Environmental Indicators’, Environment Canada, www.ec.gc.ca/ [viewed 6 Nov 2012]. Government of Singapore (1999), Singapore Agenda 21, Singapore: Singapore Government Publishing Service. Government of Victoria (2001), ‘Growing Victoria Together: Innovative State, Caring Communities’, Melbourne: Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Government of Western Australia (2006), State of the Environment Report Western Australia, Draft 2006, Perth, Australia: WA Government. Publishing Service. Government of Western Australia (2003), State Sustainability Strategy, Perth, Australia: WA Government Publishing Service. Graham, William (1881), The Creed of Science; Religious, Moral and Social, London: C. Kegan Paul. Grierson, Herbert J.C, (2000), ‘The Tennysons’, Chapter II, In: Ward, AW, Waller, AR, Trent, WP, Erskine, J, Sherman, SP and Van Doren, C (2000), Volume XIII, Part One, the Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia in Eighteen Volumes, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartleby.Com, 2000, http://www.Bartleby.Com/Cambridge/ [viewed11 June 2009]. Grimsey, Darrin and Lewis, Mervyn K. (2005), ‘Are Public Private Partnerships Value For Money? Evaluating Alternative Approaches and Comparing Academic and Practitioner Views’, Accounting Forum, 29, 4: 345-378.

 

284 

Sordid Boon?

Gruen, Lori and Jamieson, Dale (1994), Reflecting on Nature. Readings in Environmental Philosophy, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenspan, Alan (2008), Testimony to the Government Oversight and Reform Committee, 23 Oct 2008, Chair, Mr Henry Waxman,  http://www.clipsandcomment.com/?s=Greenspan%27s+testimony  [viewed 22 Nov 2012]. Guj, Petro (2012), ‘Mining Royalties and other Mining-Specific Taxes’, Mining for Development: Guide for Australian Practice, International Mining for Development Centre,  Nedlands:  UWA,  2012,  UWA_1698_Paper­01_­Mineral­ royalties­other­mining­specific­taxes1.pdf,  www.im44dc.org  [viewed  online  12 Oct 2012]. Hack, Maria (1821), Harry Beaufoy; or the Pupil of Nature, London: Harvey, Darton & Co. Haggard, Robert F. (2001), The Persistence of Victorian Liberalism: The Politics of Social Reform in Britain, 1870-1900, London: Greenwood Publishing. Hamilton, Clive and Denniss, Richard (2005), Affluenza. When Too Much Is Never Enough, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Hamilton, Clive (2003), Growth Fetish, Crow’s Nest: Allen & Unwin. Harris, Jose (2004), ‘Mill, John Stuart (1806-1873)’, The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004, online Edition, Oct 2008 http://www.Oxforddnb.Com/View/Article/18711 [viewed 1 March 2011]. Harris, R.W. (1968), Reason and Nature in the Eighteenth Century, London: Blandford. Harrison, Frederic (1891), Moral and Religious Socialism, London: Reeves and Turner. Harrison, Susan (editor), (1995), Criminals, Idiots, Women, and Minors: Victorian Writing by Women on Women, Peterborough: Broadview Press. Hawes, Louis (1982), Presence of Nature: British Landscape 1780-1830, New Haven: Yale University Press. Hawke, R. (1989), Our Country, Our Future, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Heilbroner, Robert L. and Malone, Laurence J. (1986), The Essential Adam Smith, New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company. Henderson, Ian (2000), ‘Greenhouse Trigger a Shot in the Foot’, The Australian, 8 June 2000. Henry, Ken (2010), Australia’s Future Tax System. Architecture of Australia’s Tax and Transfer System, the Treasury, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, http://www.taxreview.treasury.goc.au/content/Paper.aspx?doc=html [viewed 9 Nov 2011]. Hill, Octavia (1888), ‘More Air For London’, Nineteenth Century, 23: 181-188. Hirschmann, Nancy J (2008), ‘Mill, Political Economy and Women’s Work’, American Political Science Review, 102: 199-213. Hoang, Manh, Bolto, Brian, Haskard, Carolyn, Barron, Olga, Gray, Stephen and Leslie, Leslie (2009), Desalination in Australia. National Research Flagships. Water For a Healthy Country Research Series, Clayton: CSIRO.

 

Bibliography

285

Hobson, Anthony (2009), The Pre-Raphaelites and the Society, Birmingham: The Pre-Raphaelite Society, http://www.Pre‐Raphaelitesociety.Org/Society.Htm [viewed 17 June 2009]. Hockey, Joe (2012), ‘The End of the Age of Entitlement’, the text  of  Shadow  Treasurer  Joe  Hockey's  speech  to  the  Institute  of  economic  affairs  in  London  on  April  17,  2012,  published  in  The  Age http://www.theage.com.au/national/the‐end‐of‐the‐age‐of‐entitlement‐ 20120419‐1x8vj.html [viewed 20 April 2012]. Hodge, Graeme A. Greve, Carsten, and Boardman, Anthony E (editors) (2010), International Handbook on Public-Private Partnerships, Cheltenham: UK Edward Elgar. Hodgson, Geoffrey (1997),‘Economics, Environmental Policy and Utilitarianism’, in John Foster (editor), Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment, London: Routledge. Hodgson, W.B. (1870), Turgot: His Life, Times, and Opinions. Two Lectures. London: Trubner and Co. Hollander,Samuel (1985), The Economics of John Stuart Mill. Volume Two. Political Economy, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. House of Commons (2003), Choosing Whether to Go Ahead with the PFI Option, Select Committee on Public Accounts, Twenty-Eighth Report, House of Commons, London: UK Parliament, http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/ [viewed 11th Jan 2012]. House of Commons (2012), Private Finance Initiative: Government, OBR and NAO Responses, House of Commons Treasury Committee, London: UK Parliament, pdf http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/commons/ [viewed 20 Nov 2012]. Howarth, Richard (2008), ‘Why Stern Was Right: Time Preference, Risk, and the Economics of Climate Change’, Revue De Philosophie Economique, 9: 91-100. Howes, Michael (2000), A Brief History of Commonwealth Sustainable Development Discourse, Policy, Organisation and Society, 19:1, 65-85. Hume, David (1992), Of Miracles, La Salle, Illinois: Open Court. Edited by Flew, Antony (first published 1748). Hunter, Shelagh, (1995), Harriet Martineau. The Poetics of Moralism, Aldershot, UK: Scolar Press. Hussen, Ahmed H (2000), Principles of Environmental Economics. Ecology, Economics and Public Policy, London & New York: Routledge. Huxley, Thomas Henry (1860), ‘Time and Life: Mr Darwin’s Origin of Species’, Macmillan’s Magazine 1: 142-148. Huxley, Thomas (1888), ‘The Struggle For Existence’, Nineteenth Century, 23: 161-180. Huysmans, J.K. (1950), Against Nature: A New Translation of ‘A Rebours’, London: Penguin (first published 1884). Hyman, John (1989), The Imitation of Nature, Oxford: Blackwell.

 

286 

Sordid Boon?

IC (1991), Costs and Benefits of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Industry Commission Inquiry Report Volume I, Canberra: Australian Government http://www.Pc.Gov.Au/Ic/Inquiry/15greenhouse [viewed 29 Nov 2011]. IEA (2011), CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion. Highlights. International Energy Agency Report, 2011 Edition, Paris: OECD/IEA. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,401 0,en.html [viewed online 6 Nov 2012]. INET (2012), Web address for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, http://www.ineteconomics.org/ Ingham, John K. (1878), The Present Position and Prospects of Political Economy: Being the Introductory Address Delivered in the Section of Economic Science and Statistics of the British Association For the Advancement of Science, at Its Meeting in Dublin in 1878, London: Longmans & Co. IUCN, UNEP and WWF (1980), World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation For Sustainable Development, Galend: International Union For Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. ISEE (2012), Conference Proceedings, ‘Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy’, International Society for Ecological Economics, June 2012, http://www.isee2012.org/ Jackson, Holbrook (1948), Dreamers of Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Nineteenth Century Idealism, London: Faber and Faber. Jacobs, Michael (1990), Sustainable Development: Greening the Economy, London: The Fabian Society. Jakupec, Viktor (1996), ‘Economic Rationalism as the Engine of Policy’, in Evans, Terry and Nation, Daryl (eds), Opening Education: Policies and Practices from Open and Distance Education, Milton Park, UK: Routledge. James, Patricia (1979), Population Malthus. His Life and Times, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Jevons, W.S. (1871), The Match Tax: A Problem in Finance, London: Macmillan A. Bowes. Jevons, W.S. (1881), ‘Richard Cantillon and the Nationality of Political Economy’, Contemporary Review, Jan, Reprinted in Jevons, W.S. (1905) Principles of Economics, London, The Library of Economics and Liberty, http://www.Econlib.Org/Library/Npdbooks/Cantillon/Cntnt8.Html [viewed 6 Nov 2012]. Jevons, W.S. (1965), The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal Mines, New York: Augustus Kelley. (first published 1906). Johnson, Robert (2012), ‘Economists: A Profession at Sea’, Time Business, 19 January, http://business.time.com/2012/01/19/economists-a-profession-at-sea/ Jones, W. Lewis (2000), ‘Matthew Arnold, Arthur Hugh Clough, James Thompson,’ Chapter IV In: Ward, AW, Waller, AR, Trent, WP, Erskine, J, Sherman, SP and Van Doren, C (2000), Volume XIII, Part One, The Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia in

 

Bibliography

287

Eighteen Volumes, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartleby.Com, 2000. http://www.Bartleby.Com/Cambridge/ [viewed 10 June 2009]. JPRS (2009), The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies, http://www.Yorku.Ca/Jprs/ [viewed 15 June 2009]. Kalof, Linda and Saterfield, Terry (editors) (2005), The Earthscan Reader in Environmental Values, London: Earthscan. Keen, S. (2001), Debunking Economics. The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences, Annandale, Australia: Pluto Press. Kent, Susan Kingsley (1990), Sex and Suffrage in Britain 1860-1914, London: Routledge. Ker, Peter and Millar, Royce (2009), ‘Brumby’s $3.5bn Gamble’, The Age, 31 July. Kile, Michael (1995), No Room at Nature’s Mighty Feast. Reflections on The Growth of Humankind, East Perth, Australia: Demos Press. Kleinman, Rachel, Gordon, Josh, Rood, David, Rumble, Chantel, Minchin, Liz and Murphy, Mathew (2007), ‘Pass on the Salt. Focus Water’ The Age, 21 June. Kneale, J. Douglas (1999), Romantic Aversions: Aftermaths of Classicism in Wordsworth and Coleridge, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Knowles, Elizabeth (199), The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kollmuss, Anja, Lazarus, Michael and Smith, Gordon (2010), ‘Discounting of fsets: Issues and Options’, Working Paper WP-US-1005, Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute; Lane, Sabra (2011), ‘Industry Launches Anti-Carbon Tax Campaign’, ABC News, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, http://www.Abc.Net.Au/News/2011‐07‐21/ [viewed 1 Dec 2011]. Landow, George P (1980), Victorian Types, Victorian Shadows: Biblical Typology in Victorian Literature, Art and Thought, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, http://www.Victorianweb.Org/Religion/Type/Intro.Html [viewed 10 June 2009]. Layton, Robyn (2010), ‘Law and Social Justice. Is It All Rhetoric?’, Catherine Helen Spence Commemorative Oration, the University of South Australia, http://www.Unisa.Edu.Au/Hawkecentre/Events/2010events/Chs_Oratio n.Asp robynlayton-2010catherinehelenspenceoration.pdf, [viewed 6 Nov 2012]. Leight, Michele (2000), ‘Ruskin, Turner and the Pre-Raphaelites’, Tate Britain, March 9 to May 28, 2000. Portrait of the Critic as a Young Artist’, Art/Museums the City Review, http://www.Thecityreview.com/Ruskin.Html [viewed 16 June 2009]. Lewis, Mervyn K (2001), ‘Risk Management in Public Private Partnerships’, Cege Discussion Paper 12, Universitat Gottingen, http://Hdl.Handle.Net/10419/31983 [viewed 5 Oct 2012]. Lienhard, John H. (2010), Engines of Our Ingenuity, No. 943, ‘Fairy Land of Science’, http://Uh.Edu/Engines/Epi943.Htm [viewed 23 March 2010].

 

288 

Sordid Boon?

Lightman, Bernard (2000), ‘Marketing Knowledge For the General Reader: Victorian Popularizers of Science’, Endeavour, 24(3), 100-106. Linklater, Magnus (2005), ‘Greenspan Delivers Gospel According to Adam Smith’, London: the Times, Monday Feb 7 2005. Lippitt, John (editor) (1999), Nietzsche’s Futures, London: Macmillan. Local History (2008), ‘The Open Spaces Movement. Saving Clissold Park from the Builders’, Local Local History,   http://www.Locallocalhistory.Co.Uk/Open‐Spaces/Clissold‐Park/Index‐ M.Htm [viewed 5 Oct 2012] Lonzano, Margaret (2008), ‘The Pre-Raphaelites. The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood’, A Knol, http://Knol.Google.Com/K/Margaret‐Lozano/The‐ Pre‐Raphaelites/ [viewed 16 June 2009]. Lumley, Sarah (2012a), ‘Hockey’s Mockery of Smith’, New Matilda, 20/4/12, http://newmatilda.com/2012/04/20/hockeys‐mockery‐smith Lumley, Sarah (2012b), ‘Is our Carbon Tax Really the Biggest?’ New Matilda, 9 May 2012, http://newmatilda.com/2012/05/09/our-carbon-tax-really-biggest Lumley, Sarah (2009), ‘Losing the Lands of Plenty? Timescale and Discounting in Environmental Governance’, in Breton, Albert, Brosio, Georgio, Dalmazzone, Silvana, and, Garrone, Giovanna (editors), Governing the Environment. Salient Institutional Issues, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Lumley, Sarah and Armstrong, Patrick (2004), ‘Some of the Nineteenth Century Origins of the Sustainability Concept’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6: 357-378. Lumley, Sarah (2003a), ‘Selfishness or Altruism? An Historical Perspective of Sustainable Development, Economics, and Science’, Connections, Autumn 2003, online Journal of the Australian Society For Agricultural and Resource Economics and the Australian Agribusiness Society. Lumley, Sarah (2003b). ‘Catherine Helen Spence 1825 - 1910.’ In: Armstrong, P.H. and Martin, G.J. (editors) Geographers: Biobibliographical Studies, Vol. 23, London and Washington: Continuum Press. Lumley, Sarah (2002), Sustainability and Degradation in Less Developed Countries: Immolating the Future? Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Lumley, Sarah (2001). ‘Harriet Martineau 1802 - 1876.’ In: Armstrong, P.H. and Martin, G.J. (eds) Geographers: Biobibliographical Studies, Vol. 22, London and Washington: Mansell. Lumley, Sarah (1999). ‘Interpreting Economics, Rhetoric and Sustainable Development: Some Implications For Policy Determination’, Australian Geographer, 30: 1, 35-39. Lumley, Sarah (1997). ‘The Environment and the Ethics of Discounting: An Empirical Analysis’, Ecological Economics, 20: 1, 71-82. Maddox, Brenda (2000), ‘A Man of Many Quotes. Review of Barker, Juliet, Wordsworth A Life, Viking, 971pp’, New Statesman, 23 Oct. Magarey, Susan (2010), Unbridling the Tongues of Women: A Biography of Catherine Helen Spence, Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide Press.

 

Bibliography

289

Malthus, Thomas (1966), An Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr Godwin, M. Condorcet and Other Writers, London: J. Johnson (first published 1798, reprinted 1926 and 1966 by Macmillan, London). Machann, Clinton (1994), The Genre of Autobiography in Victorian Literature, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Marcet, Jane (1816), Conversations on Political Economy, London: Longman. Marcet, Jane (1806), Conversations on Chemistry in Which the Elements of That Science Are Familiarly Explained and Illustrated by Experiments, 2 Vols, London: Longman. Marcet, Jane (1819), Conversations on Natural Philosophy in Which the Elements Are Familiarly Explained, London: Longman (1836). Martineau, Harriet (1834), Illustrations of Political Economy (1832-4), London: Charles Fox. Martineau, Harriet (1837), Society in America, London: Saunders and Otley. Martineau, Harriet (1838), Retrospect of Western Travel, London: Saunders and Otley. Martineau, Harriet (1851), Letters on the Laws of Man’s Nature and Development, London: Atkinson, Henry George. Maxwell, Constantia (1933), ‘The Life and Work of Turgot’, J. Historical Assn, 18: 71. 216-229. Mazzini, Guiseppe (1872), The Italian School of Republicanism. A Translation from the Last Writing of G. Mazzini, London: Trubner & Co. Mazzeno, Lawrence W (1999), Matthew Arnold: The Critical Legacy, New York: Boydell and Brewer. Mcmanus, P. (1996), ‘Contested Terrains: Politics, Stories and Discourses of Sustainability’, Environmental Politics, 5, Pp. 48-73. Meadows, D, Randers, J, and Meadows, D. (2005), Limits to Growth. The 30 Year Update, London: Earthscan. Meadows, D.H, Meadows, D.L, Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. (1972), The Limits to Growth, London: Pan Books. Melbourne Water (2011), ‘Climate Change’, Melbourne Water, http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/sustainability/climate_change/cli mate_change.asp?bhcp=1 [viewed 22Nov 2012]. Metzger, Eliot (2008), ‘Bottom Line on Carbon Taxes’, Washington DC: World Resources Institute, http://www.Wri.Org/Publication/Bottom‐Line‐ Carbon‐Taxes [viewed 9 March 2012]. Mill, John Stuart (1849), Principles of Political Economy, with Some of their Applications to Social Philosophy, in Two Volumes, Vol I, 2nd Edition, London: John Parker. Mill, John Stuart (1912), On Liberty: Representative Government: The Subjection of Women, London: Oxford University Press. Mill, John Stuart (2004), ‘The Subjection of Women’, Ebooks.Adelaide, http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645s/ (first published 1869), [viewed 19 March 2010].

 

290 

Sordid Boon?

Mill, John Stuart (1848), Principles of Political Economy, in Ashley, W. (editor), London: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, pp. 772-773, cited in Witztum, Amos (2005), 'Economic Sociology: The Recursive Economic System of J.S.Mill’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 27:3, 251- 280. Mill, John Stuart (1849), Principles of Political Economy with Some of their Applications to Social Philosophy, Volume I, Second Edition, London: John W. Parker. Mill, John Stuart (1965), Collected Works: Vol I and II: Principles of Political Economy, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Mill, John Stuart (1962), Utilitarianism; On Liberty; Essay On Bentham: Together with Selected Writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, in: Warnock, Mary (editor) (1962), Utilitariansim, John Stuart Mill (1861), London: Collins (Fontana). Millar, Royce and Schneiders, Ben (2012), ‘Desal Consortium Seeks $1 Billion from Taxpayers’, The Age, 24 Feb 2012, p. 1. Mishan, E.J. (1986), Economic Myths and the Mythology of Economics, Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books E.J. Mishan (1981), Introduction to Normative Economics, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mishan, E.J. (1977), The Economic Growth Debate: An Assessment, London: George Allen and Unwin. Mishan, E.J. (1975), Cost-Benefit Analysis, London: George Allen and Unwin. Mishan, E.J. (1969), Technology and Growth: The Price We Pay, New York: Praeger Publishers. Mishan, E.J. (1967), the Costs of Economic Growth, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Mitchell, Rosemary and Vaninskaya, Anna (2009), ‘Introduction: Reading the Past in the Nineteenth Century’, Ninteenth-Century Contexts, 31, 1: 1-2. Moore, J. Murray (1897), Tennyson’s Nature Studies: A Paper Read Before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool April 12 1897 by J .Murray Moore. Moran, Alan (2008), Water Supply Options For Melbourne. An Examination of the Costs and Avaliabilities of New Water Supply Sources For Melbourne and Other Urban Areas in Victoria, Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs. Morley, John (1877), ‘Harriet Martineau’, Macmillan’s Magazine, 36: 47-60, Cambridge. Murphy, Mathew and Gordon, Josh (2007), ‘Water Plant Deals Up in the Air. Big Guns Thirsty For a Piece of the Action’, The Age, 21 June. Murry, Ann (1778), Mentoria or the Young Ladies Instructor in Familiar Conversations on Moral and Entertaining Subjects: Calculated to Improve Young Minds in the Essential, as Well as the Ornamental Parts of Female Education, London: Edward and Charles Dilly. Nabben, Robert (2011), ‘Opportunity Lost? Victorian Labor’s Enactment of Community Development 1999-2006’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 70:3, 287-297.

 

Bibliography

291

National Museums (2005), ‘High Victorian Art, 8, British Paintings and Sculpture, the Walker’, Pamphlet, Liverpool: National Museums. NEI (2012), ‘The Global Transition to a New Economy’, New Economics Institute, http://neweconomicsinstitute.org/content/global-transition Nelson, Julie, A. (2009), ‘Between a Rock and a Soft Place: Ecological and Feminist Economics in Policy Debates’, Ecological Economics, 69: 1-8. Nevile, J.W. (1974), Economic Growth - Blessing or Curse, in Ray, J.J. (editor), Conservatism as Heresy, Sydney: ANZ Book Company. NLCT (1997), ‘The Story of Robert Owen’, Lanark: The New Lanark Conservation Trust. OHS (2009 (A)), ‘Social Housing’, The Octavia Hill Society, http://Octaviahill.Org/Social‐Housing.Html [viewed 23 June 2009]. OHS (2009 (B)), ‘Co-Founder of the National Trust’, the Octavia Hill Society, http://Octaviahill.Org/Co‐Founder‐Of‐The‐National‐Trust.Html [viewed 23 June 2009]. OHS (2009 (C)), ‘Home’, the Octavia Hill Society, http://Octaviahill.Org.Html [viewed 19 June 2009. OHS (2009 (D)), ‘Open Spaces’, the Octavia Hill Society, http://Octaviahill.Org/Open‐Spaces.Html [viewed 21 June 2009]. Olson, Molly Harriss (1996), ‘The US President’s Council on Sustainable Development’, Global Environmental Change, 6: (1), 63-65. Omond, T. S. (1900), The Romantic Triumph, London: William Blackwood. Origin Energy (2008), ‘Sustainability Reports’, https://www.Originenergy.Com.Au/800/Sustainability‐Reports [viewed 9 Sept 2008]. Ostrom, Elinor (2009), ‘The Contribution of Community Institutions to Environmental Problem-Solving’, in Breton, Albert, Brosio, Georgio, Dalmazzone, Silvana, and Garrone, Giovanna (editors), Governing the Environment. Salient Institutional Issues, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Paley, W. (1825), Natural Theology: Evidences For the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature, London: G.Cowie, (first published 1802). Parisi, Daniela (2000), ‘About the Dissemination of Ideas in HET: The Case of the ‘German’ Economists and their Reception in Italy’, Storia Del Pensiero Economico, http://www.dse.unifi.it/spe/indici/numero37/parisi.htm [viewed 5  Oct 2012]. Parker, Joan E. (2001), ‘Lydia Becker’s “School For Science”: A Challenge to Domesticity’, Women’s History Review, 10 (4): 629-650. Parkinson, Richard (1838), Rationalism and Revelation: Or, the Testimony of Moral Philosophy, the System of Nature and the Constitution of Man to the Truth of the Doctrines of Scripture: in Eight Discourses Preached Before the University of Cambridge (Hulsean Lectures, 1837), London: Rivington. Passmore, John (1968), Hume’s Intentions, New York: Basic Books Inc.

 

292 

Sordid Boon?

Patrinos, H.A, Barrera-Osprio, F. and Guaqueta, J. (2009), The Role and Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in Education, Washington DC: The World Bank. Paul, Ellen Frankel (1980), ‘Laissez Faire in Nineteenth‐Century Britain: Fact  or  Myth?'  Literature  of  Liberty.  Vl.  iii,  no.  4,  pp.  5‐38.  (Arlington,  VA:  Institute for Humane Studies). Pearce, David (1971), Cost-Benefit Analysis, London: Macmillan. Pearce, D.W, Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. (1989), Blueprint For a Green Economy, London: Earthscan Publications. Pearce, D.W, Barbier, E. and Markandya, A. (1990), Sustainable Development. Economics and Environment in the Third World, London: Earthscan Publications. Pearce, David (1999), Economics and Environment. Essays on Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development, Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar. Peet, John (1992), Energy and the Ecological Economics of Sustainability, Washington DC: Island Press. Permalink (2008), ‘Collapse of Debt: Events Change Alan Greenspan’s World View’, http://www.Collapseofdebt.Com/2008/10/Events‐Change‐Alan‐ Greenspans‐World‐View.Html, [viewed 8 April 2009]. Perez, Fabiana and Sanchez, Luis (2009), ‘Assessing the Evolution of Sustainability Reporting in the Mining Sector’, Environmental Management, 43: 949-961. Petrosa (2011), Integrated Annual Report, 2011, www.Petrosa.Co.Za/ [viewed 12 March 2012]. Player, S. Price, D. and Pollock, A. (2004), Public Risk For Private Gain? The Public Audit Implications of Risk Transfer and Private Finance, London: Unison. Price, Bonamy (1878), Address on Economy and Trade, London: Spottiswood & Co. PV (2009), Victorian Desalination Project. Project Summary, Partnerships Victoria, Capital Projects Division, Melbourne: Department of Sustainability and Environment with the Department of Treasury and Finance Quesnay, F. (1758), Tableau Economique, Paris. Quiggin, John (2006), ‘Public Private Partnerships: Options For Improved Risk Allocation’, UNSW Law Journal, 51: 29 (3), 1-5, http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/lj2/issue.asp?id=f12-2 [viewed 9 March 2012]. Raphael, D. D. and Macfie, A. L. (editors) (1976), Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments. Oxford: Clarendon Press, (first published 1759). Rauch, Alan (2005), ‘Mentoria: Women, Children and the Structures of Science’, Nineteenth Century Contexts, 27(4): 335-351. Redclift, Michael (1987), Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions, London: Methuen. Ricardo, David (1821), On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, London: John Murray.

 

Bibliography

293

Richardson, David and Denniss, Richard (2011), Mining the Truth: The Rhetoric and Reality of the Commodities Boom, Institute Paper No. 7, Canberra: The Australia Institute. Roberts, Caroline (2002), The Woman and the Hour: Harriet Martineau and Victorian Ideologies, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Roberts, Diane (1994), The Myth of Aunt Jemima. Representations of Race and Region, London and New York: Routledge. Robbins, William Porges (1959), The Ethical Idealism of Matthew Arnold: A Study of the Nature and Sources of his Moral and Religious Ideas, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Rood, David, Kleinman, and Guerrara, Orietta (2007a), ‘Bracks, $4.9bn Water Plan. Bills to Soar as Desalination Pipeline Projects Get the Nod’, The Age, 20 June. Rood, David, Kleinman, Rachel, Austin, Paul, and Guerrara, Orietta (2007b), ‘Bracks’ Water Plans Under Fire. Water Supplies – Farmers Angered by Goulburn Deal’, The Age, 22 June. Roe, Frederick William (1969), The Social Philosophy of Carlyle and Ruskin, Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press (first published 1921). Roe, Nicholas (editor) (2002), William Wordsworth. Selected Poems, London: The Folio Society. Rose, Phyllis (1984), Parallel Lives: Five Victorian Marriages, London: Chatto/Hogarth. Rossetti Archive (2009), The Germ (British Library Copy, First Issue), http://www.Rossettiarchive.Org/Docs/Ap415.1.1.Radheader.Html [viewed 17 June 2009]. Rosetti, William Michael (1901), The Germ: Thoughts Towards Nature in Poetry, Literature and Art Being A Facsimile Reprint of the Literary Organ of the PreRaphaelite Brotherhood, Published in 1850, with An Introduction by William Michael Rossetti, London: Elliot Stock. Rossi, Alice S. (1973), ‘The First Woman Sociologist: Harriet Martineau (18011876),’ in Rossi, Alice, S. (editor), the Feminist Papers: from Adams to De Beauvoir, New York: Columbia University Press. Rotwein, Eugene (editor) (1970), David Hume. Writings on Economics, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Route, Miranda (2011), ‘Victorian Desalination Plant a $20bn Drain on Taxpayers’, the Australian, 1 March, www.Theaustralian.Com.Au/National‐Affairs/ [viewed 8 Jan 2012]. Ruskin, John (1883), The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Orpington, UK: George Allen. Russell, John (1855), The Obstacles Which Have Retarded Moral and Political Progress: A Lecture, London: James Nisbet & Co. Salt, Henry S. (1989), The Savour of Salt: A Henry Salt Anthology, Fontwell, UK: Centaur Press. Samuelson, P.A, Nordhaus, W.A. Richardson, S, Scott, G. and Wallace, R. (1994), Economics, Sydney: McGraw Hill Book Company.

 

294 

Sordid Boon?

SBS (2011), ‘Factbox: Carbon Taxes Around the World’, World News Australia,  http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1492651/Factbox-Carbon-taxes-aroundthe-world [viewed 29 Nov 2011]. Schwingen, Mary (1994), ‘The Child as Figure For Religious Crisis in Jane Ayre and In Memoriam’, Brown University, the Victorian Web, http://wwwvictorianweb.Org/Authors/Bronte/Cbronte/ [viewed 10 June 2009]. Sen, Amartya (2010a), ‘The Economist Manifesto’, New Statesman, http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2010/04/smith-market-essay-sentiments [viewed 25 June 2010]. Sen, Amartya (2010b), ‘Adam Smith and the Contemporary World’, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 3, 1 (2010), 50-67, ejpe.org/pdf/3­1­ 2010.pdf [viewed 20 Nov 2012). Shanahan, Dennis (2011), ‘Coalition and Carbon Support Fall: Newspoll’, the Australian, http://Theaustralian.Com.Au/National‐Affairs/ [viewed 2 Dec 2012]. Sherburne, James Clark (1972), John Ruskin, or the Ambiguities of Abundance: A Study in Social and Economic Criticism, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Sigworth, Oliver F. (1965), Nature’s Sternest Painter: Five Essays on the Poetry of George Crabbe, Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Smith, Adam (1976), Theory of Moral Sentiments, Oxford: Clarendon Press, (first published 1759). Smith, Adam (1908), An Enquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Volumes 1 and 2, London: Henry Froude, (first published 1776). Smith, Adam (1784), An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1784 (second edition), pdf, Penn State Electronic Classics Series Publication, 2005, http://freedownload.is/pdf/the‐wealth‐of‐nations‐ 7591189.html [viewed 12 Oct 2012]. Smith, Preserved (1934), A History of Modern Culture: Volume Two: The Enlightenment: 1687-1776, London: George Routledge & Sons. Soderbaum, Peter (2004), Politics and Ideology in Ecological Economics, Internet Enclopedia of Ecological Economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier, www.Ecoeco.Org/Publica/ency_entr/ Soderbaum, Peter (2008), Understanding Sustainability Economics. Towards Pluralism in Economics, London: Earthscan. Spash, Clive (2005), ‘The Development of Environmental Thinking in Economics’, in Kalof, L. and Satterfield, T. (2005), The Earthscan Reader in Environmental Values, London: Earthscan. Spence, C.H. (1854), Clara Morison: A Tale of South Australia During the Gold Fever, London: J.W. Parker. Spence, Catherine Helen (1861), A Plea For Pure Democracy: Mr Hare’s Reform Bill Applied to South Australia, Adelaide, Australia: W.C. Rigby. Spence, C.H. (1880), The Laws We Live Under, Adelaide, Australia: Government Printing Office.

 

Bibliography

295

Spence, C.H. (1897), Heredity and Environment, ‘From a Lecture Delivered Before and Printed at the Request of the Criminological Society of South Australia’, Adelaide, Australia: Webb and Son. Spence, Catherine Helen (1910), Catherine Helen Spence: An Autobiography, Adelaide: W.K.Thomas (Reprinted from the Register, 1910). Stableford, Brian (2006), Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Enclopedia, New York and London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Stephen, Leslie (2009), ‘George Eliot (1902), Chapter XIV. Conclusion’, http://www.Library.Utoronto.Ca/Utel/Criticism/Stephenl_Geliot/ [viewed 20 Nov 2009]. Stephens, W.W. (1895), Life and Writings of Turgot, London: Longman. Stern, Nicholas. (2006), ‘The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change’, London: H.M. Treasury. Stern, Nicholas (2011), How Should We Think About the Economics of Climate Change? Lecture For Leontief Prize, 8 March, London: London School of Economics. Stott, Rebecca (2003), Darwin and the Barnacle, London: Faber & Faber. Swan, Wayne (2010), ‘Stronger, Fairer, Simpler: A Tax Plan For Our Future’, Joint Media Release No 028 with the Hon. Kevin Rudd, MP, Prime Minister and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer,   http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2010/028 .htm&pageID=003&min=wms&year=&DocType [viewed 6 Nov 2011]. Swan, Wayne (2011a), ‘Locking in the Benefits of the Mining Boom’, Joint Media Release, No.134 of 02/11/2011 Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer,   http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/wmsDisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressrelease s/2011/134.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=2011&DocType=0   [viewed 9 Nov 2011]. Swan, Wayne, (2011b), ‘Household Assistance to Flow Under Clean Energy Legislation’, Joint Media Release, Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer, number 137, 8 Nov 2011. http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/wmsDisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressrelease s/2011/137.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=2011&DocType=0  [viewed 10 Nov 2011] Tennyson, Alfred Lord (1850), ‘In Memoriam’, London: E. Moxon. Tennyson, Alfred Lord (2009), ‘Locksley Hall, Sixty Years After’, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, http://www.Britannica.Com/Ebchecked/Topic/345843/Locksley‐Hall‐ Sixty‐Years‐After [viewed12 June 2009]. The Treasury (2011), Strong Growth, Low Pollution. Modelling a Carbon Price, Canberra: Australian Government, http://www.Treasury.Gov.Au/Carbonpricemodelling/ [viewed 10 Nov 2011]. Tomazin, Farrah (2007), ‘Melbourne Desalination Plant Is Inevitable: Thwaites’, The Age, 16 Jan 2007.

 

296 

Sordid Boon?

Thompson, Hamilton A (2000), ‘The Rossettis, William Morris, Swinburne and Others. 1. The Pre-Raphaelites’, Chapter V, In: Ward, AW, Waller, AR, Trent, WP, Erskine, J, Sherman, SP and Van Doren, C (2000), Volume XIII, Part One, The Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia in Eighteen Volumes, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartleby.Com, 2000, http://www.Bartleby.Com/Cambridge/ [viewed11 June 2009]. Thompson, Jeremy (2011), ‘Abbott Cheered on at Anti-Carbon Tax Rally’, ABC News, http://www.Abc.Net.Au/News/ [viewed 12 Nov 2011]. Thompson, Noel W. (1984), The People’s Science: The Popular Political Economy of Exploitation and Crisis, 1816-34, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomson, Helen (1984), Preface, in Catherine Helen Spence, Handfasted, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. Todd, Pamela (2001), Pre-Raphaelites at Home, New York: Watson-Guptill. Torrance, Colin (1998), ‘Promoting Sustainable Development at the Community Level’, European Environment, 8 (1): 22-27. Transnational Institute (2012), ‘Environmental Justice’, Peoples Summit Rio+20, June 2012, http://www.tni.org/article/peoples-summit-rio-20 Travis, Henry (1877), A Manual of Social Sciences For the Working Classes, Explanatory of the Means to Provide For the Population a Really Good Education and Beneficial Well-Regulated Employment in Highly Favourable New Social Arrangements: Or, of the True Parts of the Educational, Economical, and Social Views of the Late Robert Owen of New Lanark, the Discoverer of the Science of Moral Education and Society, London: George Potter. Tularam, Gurudeo and Ilahee, Mahbub (2007), ‘Environmental Concerns of Desalinating Deawater Using Reverse Osmosis’, J. Env. Monit, 9: 805-813. Turgot, A.R.J. (1769-70), ‘Reflections Sur La Formation Et La Distribution Des Richesses’, Paris. Uglow, Jennifer S (editor) (1998), The Macmillan Dictionary of Women’s Biography, London: Macmillan. Turner, Michael (editor) (1986), Malthus and his Time, London: Macmillan. U.K. Government (1989), Sustaining Our Common Future: A Progress Report by the United Kingdom on Implementing Sustainable Development, London: Department of the Environment. U.K. Government (1990), This Common Inheritance: A Summary of the White Paper on the Environment, London: HMSO. UN (2012), Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing, United Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, http://www.un.org/gsp/report [viewed 22 Nov 2012]. UN (2011), The United Nations Climate Change Conference, Durban, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php [viewed 6 Nov 2012].

 

Bibliography

297

UN (2004), ‘Assessment Report on National Sustainable Development Strategies: The Global Picture 2003’, Division For Sustainable Development, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Washington: United Nations. UN (1997a), The Kyoto Protocol, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, http://unfccc.int/2860.php [viewed 20 Nov2012]. UN (1997b), Earth Summit+5, Clause 24, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, Special Session of the General Assembly to Review and Appraise the Implementation of Agenda 21, New York, 23-27 June 1997 [viewed 18 Nov 2012]. http://www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/coverage.html UNCED (1992), ‘Rio Earth Summit,’ United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, http://www.Un.Org/Geninfo/Bp/Enviro.Html, [viewed 5 Oct 2012]. UNCED (2002), The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, http://www.Unep.Fr/Scp/Csd/Wssd/Postjoburg/Wssdoutcomes.Htm, [viewed 5 Oct 2012]. UNCED (2012), The Future we Want, outcome report of the United Nations ‘Rio+20’ Conference on Sustainable Development, [viewed 15 July 2012, http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/ UNDESA (2004), ‘National Sustainable Development Strategies’, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, http://www.Un.Org/Esa/Sustdev/Natlinfo/Nsds/Nsds.Htm [viewed 19 Aug 2008] UNEP (1992), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, United Nations Environment Programme,   http://www.Unep.Org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.Asp?Documentid =78&Articleid=1163, [viewed 5 October 2012]. UNEP (2005), ‘UNEP  launches  2004/5  GEO  Yearbook’,  United  Nations  Environment Programme, 2005,   http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID= 424&ArticleID=4728&l=en [viewed 20 Nov 2012]. UNEP (2006), Sustainable Trade and Poverty Reduction, Washington: United Nations Environment Program. Vaile, Mark (2000), Speech to the Economist Intelligence Unit, http://www.trademinister.gov.au/speeches/2000/001031_eiu.html  [viewed 3 Feb 2012]. Van Rijswijck, Emily (2011), ‘South Africa’s Largest Desalination Plant Opens’, Media Club South Africa, Afribiz Info, http://www.Afribiz.Info/ [viewed 4 Dec 2011]. Vaughn, C. (1914), Bibliographies of Swinburne, Morris and Rossetti, London: The English Association. Verberg, Rudy (2006), ‘John Stuart Mill’s Political Economy: Educational Means to Moral Progress’, Review of Social Economy, Vol. LXIV: 2: 226-246.

 

298 

Sordid Boon?

Ward, Anthony (1966), Walter Pater: The Idea in Nature, London: Macgibbon & Kee. Warnke, Martin (1994), Political Landscape: The Art History of Nature, London: Reaktion Books. Warnock, Mary (editor) (1962), Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill (1861), London: Collins (Fontana). Watershed Victoria (2009), ‘The Fight Goes On!’, www.Aclimateforchange.Org/Group/Watershedvic/ [viewed 18th Sept 2011]. WAWC (2006), ‘Desalination’, Paper Prepared For the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, Western Australian Water Corporation, Canberra: Department of the Environment and Heritage. WEA (2012), ‘Sustainability – Missing Points in the Development Dialogue’, online sustainability conference, 24 September to 21 October 2012, World Economics Association, http://sustainabilityconference2012.worldeconomicsassociation.org/ [viewed 25 Oct 2012]. WCED (1987), Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press. WCED (1990), Our Common Future, Australian Edition, Collingwood: World Commission For Environment and Development and Commission For the Future, Oxford University Press. Welland, D. S. R. (1953), The Pre-Raphaelites in Literature and Art, London: Harrap & Co. Wheatley, Vera (1957), The Life and Work of Harriet Martineau, London: Secker and Warburg. Wheeler, Michael (editor) (1995), Ruskin and the Environment: The Storm Cloud of the Nineteenth Century, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Willey, Basil (1940), The Eighteenth Century Background: Studies of the Idea of Nature in the Thought of the Period, London: Chatto & Windus. Wills, Ian (2006), Economics and the Environment. A Signalling and Incentives Approach, Melbourne, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Wilson, Richard (1917), Helps to the Study of Arnold’s Wordsworth, London: Macmillan. Winter, James (1999), Secure from Rash Assault: Sustaining the Victorian Environment, Berkeley: University of California Press. Witztum, Amos (2005), 'Economic Sociology: the Recursive Economic System of J.S.Mill’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 27:3, 251- 280. Woodring, Carl (1989), Nature Into Art: Cultural Transformations in NineteenthCentury Britain, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Wollstonecraft, Mary (2008), A Vindication of the Rights of Women with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects, with An Introduction by Claire Tomalin London: The Folio Society, second edition, (first published 1792). Wordsworth, William (1807), The World is Too Much with Us, originally published in Poems, in Two Volumes (London: Longman Hurst Rees & Orme, 1807).

 

Bibliography

299

World Bank (2012), The World Bank Extractive Industries Group, 2011 Annual Review, World  Bank  Oil,  Gas  and  Mining  Unit,  p.  22,  WBG_El_Annual_Report_FY11_final.pdf, www.worldbank.org Worth, David (2006), ‘Our New Cathedrals: Spirituality and Old-Growth Forests in Western Australia’, PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, 3, 1, 1-15. Wrigley, E.A. (1986), ‘Malthus’ Model of a Pre-Industrial Economy’, in Turner, Michael (editor) (1986), Malthus and his Time, London: Macmillan. WSSD (2002), The World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg,  2002, http://www.worldsummit2002.org/ [viewed 19 Nov 2012]. Wyatt, John (1995), Wordsworth and the Geologists: A Correlation of Influences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yandle, Bruce (2010), ‘Much Ado About Pigou’, Briefly Noted, Regulation, Spring 2010, 1-4. Yencken, David and Wilkinson, Debra (2000), Resetting the Compass. Australia’s Journey Towards Sustainability, Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing. Young, Robert (1985), Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in Victorian Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

 

INDEX     Abbott, Tony, 221, 222  Adam Smith, x, xi, 9, 10,11, 12, 13,  14, 21, 22, 23, 26, 35‐52, 55‐81,  81, 85, 89, 94, 96, 102, 103, 105,  106,  107,  117,  118,  122,  126,  127,  128,  129,  130,  136,  143,  152,  162,  167,  169,  183,  187,  190,  194,  195,  196,  204,  205,  210,  211,  212,  223,  224,  241,  257, 258, 259, 260, 262, 264   Adam Smith Club, 196  Agenda 21, 5, 17  ALP, see Australian Labor Party  Arnold, Matthew, 24, 136, 142‐147,  151, 152   Assumption(s), 3, 8, 16, 36, 126,  165, 204, 211, 224, 243   Australia, Commonwealth of  Australian Labor Party; Labor, 204,  217, 219, 221, 226, 229, 231,  232, 233, 237,   Bain, Alexander, 12, 13, 100, 101,  102, 103, 106,   Banks, 209, 226, 228, 264  Bankruptcy, 78,   Becker, Lydia, 24, 65, 141, 159,  164, 168, 169, 170, 172‐175,  180, 194, 262,   Bentham, Jeremy, 42, 128, 168   Bodington, Alice, 170  

                              Brown, Ford Maddox, 147  Brundtland Report, the, 7, 17  Buckley, Arabella Burton, 24, 54,  164, 167, 170, 172, 179, 180‐ 186, 187, 195  Cantillon, Richard, 35, 39‐41, 45,  47, 51, 79, 80, 109, 110, 128,  Carbon, 25, 129, 207, 208, 209,  210, 230    Emissions, 207, 208, 221, 222  Price, 4, 24, 207, 212, 213, 217,  217‐223, 229,   Tax, 2, 56, 210, 221, 222, 223,  225, 226, 243,    Trading, 212, 217  Carlyle, Thomas, 9, 23, 87, 102,  111, 115, 117, 118‐122, 122‐ 126, 130, 131, 136, 142, 166,  186, 224, 261, 263  Ceva, Giovanni, 38  Chambers, Robert, 90   Classical economics, see economics,  classical  Climate  change,  3,  4,  5,  19,  126,  165,  195,  205,  207,  209,  210,  217,  218,  219,  220,  223,  228,  231, 264, 267  Commerce,  26,  35,  40,  65,  68,  72,  73,  74,  76,  77,  111,  136,  137,  138,  139,  141,  146,  155,  163,  220, 266 

302 

Sordid Boon?

Comte, Auguste, 128   Condorcet,  Marie  Jean  Antoine  Nicolas,  Marquis  de,  43,  44,  47,  79  Conservation, 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 18, 23,  24, 46, 64, 80, 87, 116, 117, 124,  127, 131, 137, 224, 232, 270  Conservationist,  conservationists,  135‐155, 163, 258  Consume, 59, 64, 66, 76, 77, 141  Consumer, 76  Consumption,  1,  4,  15,  124,  125,  127, 270  Co‐operation, 41, 81  Corporations, 2, 191, 208, 211, 213,  220,  222,  226,  230,  259,  265,  270  Corporatised, 20, 130  Corporatisation, 74, 204, 231  Darwin, Charles, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23,  45,  46,  48,  74,  81,  85‐113,  115,  117,  122,  123,  126,  127,  130,  131,  136,  140,  142,  143,  145,  146,  148,  149,  152,  164,  166,  167,  168,  174,  175,  176,  177,  180,  181,  182,  195,  205,  260,  261, 262, 263  Darwin, Erasmus,     Grandfather, 91    Brother, 96  Darwinism, 111, 145, 146      and  religion,  85,  100,  106,  180,  181, 183, 184, 186  Debt,  71,  108,  229,  234,  240,  241,  242  Debtors yet unborn, 87, 115  Decentralised, 130  Demand, 64, 68, 74, 209, 210, 211,  226, 227  Democracy, democracies, 176, 177,  224  Democratic,  democratically,  16,  125,  206,  243,  264,  265,  270,  271  

 

Deregulated, 183, 264, 267  Deregulation, 226  Developed, 121      Less, 19  Development,     Sustainable, xi, xii, xiii, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8,  9, 13, 15‐21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 42,  45,  46,  57,  62,  79,  80,  81,  86,  87, 88, 97, 101, 111, 115, 116,  118,  119,  120,  123,  125,  126,  129,  130,  136,  146,  151,  155,  163,  165,  177,  180,  187,  191,  194,  195,  196,  197,  204,  205,  206,  207,  208,  222,  223,  224,  225,  227,  228,  230,  233,  240,  242,  243,  244,  255,  256,  257,  258,  260,  261,  262,  263,  264,  265, 267, 269, 271  Discounting, 230, 239   Disease, diseases, 19, 66, 91, 92,  Drought, 4, 207, 218, 221, 231, 233  Earth,  the,  xii,  1,  3,  24,  41,  46,  48,  51, 58, 59, 60, 80, 88, 89, 90, 99,  109,  121,  124,  127,  143,  184,  185, 193, 267, 269, 271  Earth Summit, Rio, 5, 17, 18, 20, 25,  46, 218  Earth Summit, Rio+5, 17  Earth Summit, Rio+10, 25  Earth Summit, Rio+20, 18, 25, 266,  267  Ecologically sustainable  development  (Australia),  5,  6,  18,  46, 205  Economic,   efficiency,  xiii,  11,  64,  74,  191,  195,  196,  208,  209,  210,  211,  219,  225, 227, 229, 232. 244  growth, 13, 15, 16, 21, 37, 62, 97,  191  rationalism, rationalist, 2, 36, 127,  129,  183,  204,  208,  226,  231,  232, 234, 262, 266   

Index Economics,  classical,  xiii,  2,  11,  14,  16,  22,  36,  51,  80,  86,  101,  162,  194,  196, 205, 206, 241, 258, 260  neoclassical, 11, 16, 36, 86, 101,  128,  162,  165,  195,  196,  205,  206,  215,  220,  223,  224,  239,  241, 258, 260  Electorate, 5, 27, 125, 214, 232  Energy,  2,  20,  75,  126,  207,  210,  213,  219,  220,  221,  222,  230,  231, 270  Engels, Frederich, 166  Environment  Protection  and  Biodiversity  Conservation  Act,  see EP&BC Act  Environmental    activists, xii, 24, 224, 263    conservation, 6, 7, 13, 23    damage, 137, 140    degradation, 125, 126  equity, 125, 243, 261  governance, 126, 239  history, 116, 265  intangibles, 65  justice, 43, 45, 76, 150, 164, 266,  268, 269  management, 81, 126  metaphors, 142  policy, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 15,  17,  19,  25,  45,  62,  102,  120,  163,  165,  205,  257,  264,  269,  271  protection, 205  resources, 20, 124  taxes, see taxes  EP&BC Act, 6, 205, 220  Equilibrium, 191  ESD,  see  ecologically  sustainable  development  Europe, 37, 38, 39, 79, 89, 99, 117,  136,  166,  177,  193,  213,  226,  265 

 

303 Evolution, theory of, 14, 22, 23, 36,  51, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 98‐ 106,  108,  111,  141,  142,  143,  144,  145,  146,  166,  180,  181,  182, 185, 186, 224, 258, 260  Externality, 209, 210, 213  Failure, market, 210, 225, 257  Fawcett, Henry, 95, 96, 97   Feminist,  xii,  24,  117,  155,  156,  161,  162,  164,  165‐168,  179‐ 194, 195  Financial, 3, 10, 36, 43, 58, 75, 105,  129,  149,  150,  165,  183,  194,  195,  208,  215,  226,  233,  238,  265, 266, 269, 270  Fossil fuel, 3, 4, 126, 207, 210, 215,  217, 220, 230  Future generations, 7, 24, 46, 86  Galiani, Ferdinando, 38, 41  Garrison, William Lloyd, 179  Gaskell, Elizabeth, 167  Gasoline, see petrol  GDP, 16, 125  Genovesi, Antonio, 38  GFC, see global financial crisis  Gillard, Julia, 216, 219  Gladstone, William xiv, 87, 142  Global, financial crisis, 3, 7, 10, 58,  75, 105, 183, 208, 226, 265, 266,  270  North  and  south,  8,  72,  78,  213,  266, 268  Globalisation, 7, 266, 269  Gross domestic product, see GDP  Growth, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15‐17, 21, 25,  26,  37,  47,  62,  80,  96,  97,  110,  125,  139,  141,  155,  191,  207,  226  Hare, Thomas 176, 177  Hill,  Octavia,  24,  117,  136,  150,  150‐155  Housing, 48, 122, 150, 151, 220 

304 

Sordid Boon?

Hume, David, 10, 22, 39, 40, 45, 46,  47, 49, 50, 51, 61, 62, 79, 80, 85,  89, 106, 107  Hunt, William Holman, 147, 149  Huxley,  Thomas,  94,  96,  97,  106‐ 110,  123,  158,  165,  168,  170,  183  IC, see Industry Commission  Indicators,  economic (also see GDP), 125  sustainability, 43, 119, 125  Indigenous, 46, 120, 178, 179  Industrial revolution, 9, 38, 51, 63,  74, 79, 136, 164, 262  Industry Commission, 3, 4, 218   Inequality, 144, 151, 187, 189  Infrastructure,  public,  social,  see  social infrastructure  Inter‐generational,  6,  20,  46,  80,  194, 240, 258, 260, 267  International,  195,  214,  217,  228,  244, 268, 269  Intra‐generational,  xiv,  20,  46,  80,  194, 223, 240, 258 260, 267,   Investment, 26, 220, 227, 228, 243,   Invisible  hand,  the,  x,  22,  36,  49,  59‐62, 63, 69, 80, 89, 105, 107  Jevons, W. S, 40  Johnson, Robert, 1, 269, 270  Justice,  environmental,  see  environmental justice  Justice, social, see social justice  Kyoto, 207, 218, 219  Labor, see Australian Labor Party  Labour,  10,  37,  40,  41,  52,  57,  58,  59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70,  71, 74, 75, 80, 88, 121, 122, 127,  179, 189, 190, 226, 227  Laissez‐faire  economics,  see  market  economics;  economics,  neoclassical  Land,  xiii,  26,  38,  39,  67,  75,  110,  118,  120,  121,  124,  151,  154,  184 

 

Landlord, 58, 59, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67,  77  Liberal  (party),  4,  187,  204,  218,  220, 221, 226, 231, 233, 237  Liberal,  7,  38,  115,  117,  126,  130,  180, 187, 189, 204, 217, 220  Literate, 96, 162, 192, 236, 264  Lyell, Charles, 89, 90, 96, 180  Malthus, Thomas, 14, 22, 39, 45‐51,  64,  65,  79,  80,  85,  86,  96,  106,  108, 110, 117, 128, 140   Manufacture,  manufacturing,  68,  69, 209  Marcet, Jane, 24, 98, 149, 167, 169,  170, 171, 172, 264  Market  economics, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17,  21,  22,  23,  35,  80,  120,  124,  126,  128,  137,  146,  165,  169,  190,  194,  195,  196,  204,  208,  210,  211,  215,  226,  242,  243,  255,  256,  258,  260,  263,  265,  268  failure, 209, 210, 225, 257  Martineau, Harriet,  10, 14, 21, 24,  42,  74,  87,  96,  98,  152,  155,  164,  167,  168,  169,  170‐172,  186, 187, 189, 194, 224, 263,  264  Marx, Karl, 138, 165, 166, 226   Maximise,  11,  127,  165,  191,  197,  206, 210, 215, 224, 225, 229,  268,   Media,  15,  25,  204,  215,  220,  263,  269, 270  Merchant,  merchants,  22,  52,  57,  62, 63, 69, 78  Mining, 4, 5, 20, 121, 207, 213, 214,  215, 216, 217, 221, 222, 223,  225, 226, 229, 244, 258, 259,  270  Mill,  John  Stuart  xii,  12,  14,  115,  117,  122,  123,  126‐130,  163, 

Index 164, 166, 168, 175, 176, 179,  183, 186‐194, 263  Millais, John Everett, 147  Millennium development goals, 18,  20  Monopoly, 69, 75, 190  Murry, Ann, 167, 173, 264  Natural  resources,  1,  2,  5,  25,  119,  124, 126, 213, 214, 215, 271  Nature, 8, 22, 23, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,  41, 47, 48, 49, 51, 56, 62, 65, 71,  73,  80,  85,  89,  92,  96,  98,  100,  101,  102,  105,  107,  108,  110,  116,  117,  118,  119,  124,  130,  131,  135,  136,  137,  138,  140,  141,  142,  143,  144,  145,  146,  147,  148,  149,  150,  151,  155,  161,  162,  165,  167,  172,  177,  179,  182,  184,  185,  186,  192,  193,  195,  203,  213,  215,  221,  226, 262, 263, 264, 270, 271  Neoclassical  economics,  see  economics, neoclassical  Optimal, 3, 182, 211, 226, 259, 271  Optimism, 106, 268, 271  Ortes, Giammaria, 38  Paley,  William,  xii,  10,  22,  23,  39,  45‐51,  61,  79,  80,  81,  85,  107,  109, 110, 117, 140, 142, 143  Petrol, 76, 210  Perfect competition, 224  Perfect knowledge, 224, 225  Plunderers (of India), 78  Policy,  see  social  policy,  and,  environmental policy  Political  economy,  24,  38‐51,  55,  56, 66, 72, 79, 80, 94, 101, 106,  108,  109,  128,  129,  164,  168,  170‐173,  179,  187,  189,  205,  226, 264, 268  Politician, 1, 16, 25, 27, 36, 44, 57,  78, 97, 129, 203, 208, 264, 265   Polluter pays, 210 

 

305 Pollution,  25,  76,  207,  209,  210,  211, 212, 220, 259  Population  growth,  47,  96,  110,  125, 139, 155  Poverty, 19, 20, 51, 57, 58, 60, 127,  128, 144, 189, 261, 267,   Price, 4, 24, 47, 64, 65, 67, 76, 119,  129,  191,  207,  209,  210,  212,  213,  214,  216,  217,  218,  219,  220,  221,  222,  225,  229,  230,  259    Australian carbon, 218‐224  Private,  4,  25,  73,  75,  76,  79,  191,  196,  206,  208,  209,  210,  212,  213,  214,  220,  222,  223,  224,  225,  226,  227‐231,  234,  235,  237,  238,  239,  240,  241,  242,  243, 256, 258, 259, 266  Privatisation,  privatise,  2,  20,  74,  75, 227, 231, 232, 234, 258  Production,  xiii,  10,  57,  60,  67,  69,  70,  80,  90,  126,  127,  130,  209,  210  Productivity Commission, 240  Profit, profits, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 57,  63,  67,  71,  73,  77,  78,  79,  210,  211,  212,  213‐218,  222,  225,  229, 235, 241, 244, 258, 259  Public  infrastructure,  see  social  infrastructure  Public  Private  Partnerships,  PPPs,  4,  25,  208,  224,  227‐231,  234,  235, 237, 258  Quesnay,  Francois,  22,  38,  39,  41,  43, 45, 79, 128  Railway, 74, 75, 139, 140   Rationalism, economic, see  economic rationalism   Regulation, 23, 67, 68, 71, 78, 122,  129, 190, 191, 192, 211, 226, 270  Resources,  environmental,  see  environmental resources  Resources,  natural  see  natural  resources, 

306 

Sordid Boon?

Revenue,  58,  67,  71,  75,  77,  212,  214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 259  Rio  Earth  Summit,  see  Earth  Summit  Ricardo, David, 87  Rossetti, Dante Gabriel, 136, 147  Rossetti, William Michael, 147  Ruskin,  John,  23,  87,  88,  111,  115,  116,  117,  118‐126,  130,  131,  135,  136,  148,  149,  150,  224,  263  Sen, Amartya, 10, 55, 58, 162, 205  Shelley, Mary, 167, 173  Slavery, 44, 192  Smith, Adam, see Adam Smith  Social,   benefit,  39,  75,  183,  193,  204,  213, 229, 230, 241, 242, 266  cost,  3,  4,  191,  210,  212,  221,  223, 230  equity,  inequity,  24,  86,  125,  205,  144,  227,  243,  244,  257,  259, 264,  259, 261, 266  infrastructure, 25, 26, 52, 74, 77,  229,  230,  233,  234,  238,  241,  243, 258, 259  justice,  xii,  5,  6,  13,  42,  45,  76,  80, 88, 135, 136, 144, 146, 164,  179,  189,  191,  194,  244,  263,  268  policy,  xi,  1,  2,  3,  5,  6, 9,  10,  13,  17,  19,  45,  62,  120,  126,  163,   165, 205, 257, 264, 269, 271  welfare,  15,  16,  17,  21,  25,  26,  66, 97, 106, 127, 129, 130, 137,  151,  191,  206,  210,  212,  217,  221,  223,  224,  225,  226,  229,  230, 239, 240,  266, 267, 270  Spence,  Catherine,  xii,  24,  162,  176‐180, 187   Spencer,  Herbert,  94,  103,  104,  105, 123  Subsidies,  75,  191,  206,  208‐213,  225, 231, 242, 258, 259 

 

Subsidise, 73, 212, 266  Supply, and demand, 209  Sustainable  development,  see  development, sustainable  Sustainability,  see  development,  sustainable  Taxes,  41,  71,  76,  129,  208‐218,  221, 222, 223, 225, 229, 259  Taylor,  Harriet,  nee  Hardy,  188,  189, 193  Tennyson, Alfred, Lord, 10, 24, 50,  51, 87, 101, 123, 136, 138, 142‐ 146, 151, 180  Trade,  7,  19,  63,  64,  71,  109,  141,  189, 192, 196, 216, 219  Turgot,  Anne  Robert  Jacques,  22,  38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 79, 80,  85, 102, 128, 152, 162  Tyndall, John, 123, 183   Uncertainty, 195, 240  United  Nations,  3,  5,  6,  13,  15,  17,  18, 20, 22, 46, 16, 26, 130, 207,  218, 223  United  States  (of  America),  105,  178, 208, 218, 219  UN, see United Nations  USA,  see  United  States  (of  America)  Utilitarian,  11,  12,  13,  14,  17,  20,  22, 26, 38, 41, 43, 55, 56, 62, 74,  79, 81, 87, 88, 94, 101, 102, 103,  106,  117,  118,  120,  122,  127,  128,  130,  137,  140,  152,  162,  163,  169,  183,  187,  188,  192,  193, 197  Value,  xi,  9,  12,  16,  36,  39,  41,  45,  46,  56,  64,  65,  102,  105,  115,  118,  119,  120,  121,  122,  124,  138,  142,  154,  155,  172,  177,  190,  192,  194,  195,  206,  213,  228,  234,  225,  236,  238,  239,  242, 263, 267  Wages, 57, 67, 71, 129, 189, 191 

Index Wallace, Alfred Russell, 47, 48, 93,  95, 142, 175  Water,  4,  5,  18,  75,  95,  108,  110,  118,  184,  185,  207,  218,  221,  226,  230,  231,  232,  233,  235,  240, 241, 243, 264  Wollstonecraft, Mary, 173  Woolner, Thomas, 147  Wordsworth,  William,  x,  9,  23,  65,  116,  117,  130,  135,  137,  142,  146,  150,  166,  185,  191,  224,  258, 262  World Bank, 7, 8, 14, 15, 195, 258 Zornlin, Rosina, 170

 

307