This paper examines the concept of sustainable development within the Southeast Asian context, questioning whether a universal definition is possible and exploring the tensions between economic growth and environmental protection. Drawing on scholarship from Lange, Wise, and Nahman; Quental, Lourenco, and Silva; Shaw and Black; and others, the paper traces major global policy milestones — from the Brundtland Commission to the Rio Earth Summit — before analyzing how colonial legacies, resource dependency, and governance failures complicate sustainable development in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The paper concludes that meaningful progress requires context-sensitive measurement frameworks weighted to each region's actual capacity for implementation.
Sustainable development means different things to different individuals and groups, and there is not yet a commonly acknowledged or accepted definition of the term. Sustainable development falls under the influence of various political mindsets, and its implementation can be differentiated on the basis of these varying perspectives. What counts as sustainable development in one area or world region may result in great costs to the environment and the community in another.
Practices such as "green consuming and socially responsible investing have seen a resurgence of interest," attributed in large part to the impact of the Internet (Conca, Princen, and Maniates, 2001, p. 2). Organizations such as "the Center for Civil Renewal and the Center for the New American Dream" have witnessed growing demand for their materials on reducing consumption (Conca, Princen, and Maniates, 2001, paraphrased). Many local communities have "launched 'Agenda 21' initiatives that examine questions of growth, planning, sustainability and the quality of life" (Conca, Princen, and Maniates, 2001, p. 2).
There has also been a growth in "cultural backlash against gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles and intrusive cellular phones — symbols of the frenetic, overconsuming society" — as well as a rise in "anti-sprawl movements" (Conca, Princen, and Maniates, 2001, p. 2). Meadowcroft (2000) notes that during the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, it was reported that "a large proportion of the world's population was still living in poverty… there were grave disparities in patterns of resource use between rich and poor countries… global ecosystems were already suffering acute stress" (p. 370).
Sustainable development is defined by Lange, Wise, and Nahman (2010) as "progression along a development path that maintains or improves the diversity and scope of prospects that enable individuals and communities to achieve their ambitions, while maintaining the resilience of economic, social and environmental systems" (p. 375). These authors further state that sustainability is "therefore based on the adaptive capacity of economic, social, and ecological systems" (p. 375).
The Brundtland Commission provided the widely cited definition of sustainable development as "the ability to make development sustainable — to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Kates, Parris, and Leiserowitz, 2005, p. 10). Shaw and Black (2010) note that citizens wishing to "influence and direct the development of a more sustainable economy and lifestyle" have several individual and group choices available, including "political activism, directed consumption, community participation and withdrawal from a consumerist society" (p. 385).
The motivators for such actions include environmental, political, ethical, and social concerns (Shaw and Black, 2010, p. 386). Shaw and Black identify the following antecedents: (1) disenchantment with political processes; (2) consumer sovereignty; (3) the cultural significance of goods and goods as expressions of identity; (4) information upon which to base choice; and (5) the range of products or services available (2010, p. 386). Actions available include market actions such as boycotting goods or services or demonstrating brand loyalty, as well as supporting actions such as volunteering, demonstrating, corresponding, and signing petitions (Shaw and Black, 2010, p. 386). These actions signal the market, which adjusts through product features, manufacturing practices, and supply chain management (Shaw and Black, 2010, p. 386). The outcomes include redesigned products or services and the reduction of exploitative marketing, which sends signals to competitors and government alike (Shaw and Black, 2010, p. 386).
Quental, Lourenco, and Silva (2011) argue that the introduction of sustainable development "as a concept was an intellectual answer to reconcile the conflicting goals of environmental protection and economic growth. Sustainability gained wide acceptance after the publication of the Brundtland Commission's report 'Our Common Future,' whose blurred definition is the most commonly cited in the literature" (p. 16). Environmental discourse is reported to have grown slowly from the 1950s, triggered by worsening socioeconomic and ecological conditions (Quental, Lourenco, and Silva, 2011, p. 18).
During the 1970s, a number of key multilateral environmental agreements were achieved, including the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971), the World Heritage Convention (1972), the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (1972), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1973), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1979), and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP, 1979) (Quental, Lourenco, and Silva, 2011, p. 18). The period between 1980 and 1986 was characterized by stagnation; however, major achievements followed between 1987 and 1995, including the work of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), which was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1982 "as an independent group of high-level experts and government officials" (Quental, Lourenco, and Silva, 2011, p. 18). This commission was tasked with formulating a "global agenda for change" and proposing "long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond" (Quental, Lourenco, and Silva, 2011, p. 19).
The follow-up to the Rio Earth Summit took place in Johannesburg in 2002 and was attended by more than 100 heads of state and 25,000 representatives from various organizations. The primary goal was to "put in place the necessary mechanisms to implement Rio's decisions, since progress during the 10-year interval had been disappointing. The conference is considered a flop" (Quental, Lourenco, and Silva, 2011, p. 20). The world was "not able to pursue more stringent commitments," and the September 11 attacks and subsequent concerns about terrorism are cited as contributing factors. More specifically, "the old principle of requiring environmental protection in the North and asking for development aid in the South was overruled by the belief that economic globalization was a cure for all problems" (Quental, Lourenco, and Silva, 2011, p. 20).
According to Quental, Lourenco, and Silva (2011), sustainable development should be measured on the basis of seven dimensions: (1) sustaining natural capital, including biodiversity, water, and air; (2) sustaining life-support systems, including ecosystems, ecosystem services, and resources; (3) minimizing human impacts, including climate change, pollution, waste, desertification, and population growth; (4) developing human capital, including human rights, political liberties, learning, equity, and health; (5) developing social capital, including solidarity, community, and culture; (6) developing the economy, including agriculture, consumption, employment, and technology; and (7) developing institutions to include good governance, democracy, transparency, public participation, and international cooperation (p. 27).
"Structural barriers and colonial legacies in poor regions"
"Resource dependency and political ecology in Southeast Asia"
If there is to be an equal level of sustainable development throughout the world, it will be necessary to consider the starting point for each region and country. There is a significant imbalance in the potential for sustainable development across world regions, rooted in disparities of wealth, resource availability, political institutions, governance quality, and a host of other factors that influence the likelihood of successfully implementing sustainable development. Accordingly, a measurement framework should be developed that operates on a sliding scale, weighted according to a region's or country's capacity index for implementing a viable sustainable development program. Only by accounting for these contextual differences can meaningful and equitable progress be made toward truly global sustainable development.
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.