Consumption and environment: some conceptual issues

Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347 – 363 www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

ANALYSIS

Consumption and environment: some conceptual issues Thomas Princen * Workshop on Consumption and En6ironment, School of Natural Resources and En6ironment, The Uni6ersity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 -1115, USA Received 20 July 1998; received in revised form 1 February 1999; accepted 4 February 1999

Abstract Consumption ranks with population and technology as a major driver of environmental change and yet researchers and policymakers have paid it scant attention. When the topic is addressed, its conceptual foundations are either taken as self-evident or are conflated with production, overall economic activity, materialism, maldistribution, population or technology. The risk is to adopt the latest buzzword in the environmental debate, stretch the concept to encompass all conceivable concerns, and forfeit any advantage — for analysis or for behavior change — that may accrue to a new perspective on environmental problems. Consumption must be distinguished conceptually from other approaches to environmental problems. One approach is to work within the consumption – production dichotomy, examining not just purchasing but product use and non-purchase decisions. A second approach, one that challenges the prevailing dichotomy and its propensity to relegate consumption to a black box, is to treat all resource use as consuming, that is, ‘using up’, and ask what risks are entailed. Consumption can then be seen as material provisioning where risks increase with increasing distance from the resource; as background, misconsumption, or overconsumption depending on the social concern raised; or as a chain of decisions that compel the behaviors of restraint and resistance among ‘producers’. Pursuing the consumption and environment topic engenders resistance among a wide range of actors for reasons that are personal, analytic, and policy related. Nevertheless, the topic appears to have the potential of helping analysts and others transcend conventional approaches to excess throughput. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Consumption; Environment; Policy

1. Introduction On a per capita basis, humans, especially those in the Northern industrialized countries and those * Tel.: +1-734-647-9227; fax: + 1-734-936-2195. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Princen)

in capital cities of the Southern countries, are consuming more resources than the planet can regenerate, and filling waste sinks at a more rapid rate than the planet can assimilate. Documentation for this premise is abundant (e.g. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; Turner et al., 1990; OCED, 1995; Postel et

0921-8009/99/$ - see front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 8 0 0 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 8 - 2

348

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

al., 1996; The Royal Society of London and the United States National Academy of Sciences, 1997; World Resources Institute, 1998). The fact that, for example, energy in some countries is used more efficiently than 20 years ago and that populations have stabilized in some places does not negate the premise. Aggregate consumption of energy continues to increase, suggesting that consumption as a research topic, let alone a target of public and private policy, is critical. Consumption or, more precisely, overconsumption, ranks with population and technology as a major driver of global environmental change. Consequently, in this article I take overconsumption as given.1 If consumption is so important from both a research and policy perspective, what is remarkable is the scant attention paid it by researchers and policymakers.2 This neglect can be attributed either to simple ignorance and the fact that impacts are diffuse or distanced and thus not discernible to individuals or countries. Or the neglect can be attributed to several prevailing beliefs. One is that the world has seen several centuries of ever-increasing wealth, attributed in large part to human ingenuity. This belief suggests that, because such ingenuity has no limits, there is no reason why the increase in wealth should have limits. Technologies have solved problems in ways totally unimaginable in the past. As new problems arise and the demand for solutions increase, new technologies will emerge, as they always have. A second common belief is that, while work may be onerous, consumption is pleasurable. Consumption is good and more is always better.

1 I also take underconsumption as a given. That is, at least a billion people have too little food, clothing, and shelter. But in this paper I address the overconsumption of the billion or so who consume far more than their basic needs and, it is reasonable to assume, contribute directly or indirectly to the underconsumption of the impoverished billion. For documentation of one such pattern of connected over- and underconsumption, see Mitchell (1996). 2 There are some notable exceptions in the last few years, especially in Europe. See, e.g. the projects at Lancaster University ([email protected]) and University of Groningen ([email protected]); also, projects at Indiana University ([email protected]) and the University of Michigan ([email protected]).

This belief has a significant, yet rather recent, history (Leach, 1993, pp. 231–244). For the great bulk of human experience, the problem of greatest concern was underproduction. When that was largely eliminated with rapid industrialization in the 19th century, the problem shifted. In the US there was a widespread fear that demand was insufficient to absorb the productive capacity of the country. At risk were the idling of heavily capitalized industrial plants and equipment with large debt loads, millions of jobs, and the greatness of the US as a world power. In short, the problem had become o6erproduction and, its corollary, underconsumption. Economists, business people, religious leaders and policy makers worked together to stimulate consumption. By developing new concepts (e.g. utility, insatiability) and by emphasizing some aspects of human behavior (e.g. the need for acceptance and status through material accumulation) they stimulated consumption in part by construing material consumption as the primary source of satisfaction where more is always better. And in part, they did so by construing consumption as a patriotic duty, a refrain that is still heard in the US, especially around holiday shopping time when sales are down.3 A comprehensive research agenda on consumption and environment must address these beliefs and concepts. It must show how they may have been perfectly sensible, indeed, civic and patriotic, when overproduction and underconsumption were pervasive problems and when natural resource abundance could be reasonably assumed. A research agenda on overconsumption, therefore, must describe the biophysical trends and categorize contemporary beliefs and practices that perpetuate those trends. But it must also ask what 3 Consumption as a duty is also heard among financial leaders with respect to the ‘sluggish’ Japanese economy. For example: ‘World financial leaders have been hoping that [Japanese housewives] will spend away Japan’s worst economic malaise in recent history. Consumer spending accounts for almost 60% of Japan’s gross domestic product. And because Japan is the world’s second-largest economy, any reluctance on the part of its consumers is felt worldwide.’ New York Times, May 29, 1998, C1,4, ‘Shopping for a Recovery: In Japan, Housewives Seen as Key to Reviving Economy’.

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

distinguishes a consumption approach to en6ironmental problems from other approaches. It must conceptualize the problem, separate consumption from other problems and show how a consumption perspective raises new questions — analytic and policy oriented— and, ideally, generates new insights into environmental and related issues. This article deals with the latter — conceptualizing a consumption and environment perspective. Before proceeding, a methodological note is in order. A research agenda can be set either by adapting an existing framework to a newly identified social problem or it can specify the problem first and then build concepts to fit. I opt primarily for the latter on the assumption that few existing frameworks of social or natural analysis are oriented to the problem of excessive material throughput of one species. What is more, as I will show, employing an existing framework risks concept stretching, fitting the problem to concepts that were designed for a different purpose. For example, it is tempting to appropriate consumer theory in microeconomics as a basis of a consumption and environment agenda. One would begin by defining consumption as the purchasing of goods and services in the marketplace. Environmental impacts would be assessed and added to production impacts to estimate the total market failure of a purchased good. When the purpose of conventional economic analysis is to explain market behavior and prescribe corrections to enhance efficiencies, this may indeed be useful —that is, useful to the pre-existing objectives of microeconomic analysis. But when the purpose is to explain how consumption affects the environment, how it relates to ecologically excessive throughput, then marketplace purchasing is only one dimension of consumption. Other dimensions such as product use and non-market acquisition are at least as important and yet will be down played, if not completely ignored. In this article, then, I distinguish the consumption issue from other ‘big issues’ by first arguing that the consumption problem is not the problem of production, overall human or economic activity, equity, technology, or population. I then argue that, in pursuing the consumption and environment topic, researchers must choose either

349

to adopt the production–consumption dichotomy or to build an alternative framework. On the first count, I note several ways to expand existing research agendas. On the second, I posit three means of defining consumption as ‘using up’ material, energy, and other things of human value. I finish by noting problems in pursuing such research, showing why actors in all contexts tend to ignore or dismiss the topic. Along the way, I explore ways of setting boundaries on the agenda. Boundary setting is critical because a consumption agenda, like a sustainable development or a population or a peace agenda, can easily be stretched by analysts and practitioners alike to encompass all imaginable concerns. The effect, as these other agendas have experienced, is to dilute the research, to lose focus, and, most egregiously, to simply re-label old problems and old solutions. Also, I should stress that my purpose is not to extensively survey and critique existing literature, nor is it to generate a list of topical issues for consumption applications. Rather, my aim is to reason out some of the fundamental conceptual and boundary questions. My experience in pursuing the topic of consumption and the environment is that, to the extent the question is addressed, these fundamentals are commonly skirted.

2. The consumption problem, or, the problem of specifying the consumption problem On the face of it, the consumption and environment problem is straightforward. Humans are using material and energy at unprecedented levels threatening global climate, biodiversity, soil fertility and a host of other environmental factors. With growing affluence in many parts of the world, the trends are only increasing. At the same time, the consumption problem conjures up images of excess: shopping binges, gas guzzling vehicles, luxury spending, energy intensive conveniences, and throwaway products. And for some, the environmental impacts of overconsumption are yet another sign of moral decay brought on by material self-indulgence. So what exactly is the consumption problem? Is it overall resource and waste sink use? If so, why

350

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

not call it just that, resource use? Or if it is primarily a problem of economic activity why not call it, say, economic output and its externalities? Or might the consumption problem simply relate to what consumers do, that is, purchase and use goods and services? If so, humans have engaged in mutually beneficial exchange throughout history. If it is that basic, why is such activity now a problem? Are there some kinds of consumption that are good, or natural or acceptable, and others not? Or is it the overall level of consumption and, if so, how is that different from economic output? There is no resolution, let alone systematic attention, to such questions in the literature. The term is taken as self-evident and is rarely defined. These questions reveal, in fact, the considerable ambiguity if not confusion in contemporary usage. In this section I identify four common usages and note their shortcomings. One common usage is to equate consumption with overall material or economic activity. In an article in Science, biologist Norman Myers draws on Stern et al. (1997) to define consumption as ‘human transformations of material and energy’ (Myers, 1997, p. 54). Such consumption is a problem when it ‘‘makes materials or energy less available for future use and... threatens human health, welfare, or other things people value’’ (1997, p. 54). Substituting economic acti6ity or even consumption’s apparent polar opposite, production, for the word consumption in this definition would render an equally meaningful statement. Or one could substitute any other species for human and get a similar result. What is more, in the human context, this definition could just as readily be for ‘the environmental problem’. In a rejoinder to Myers in the same article, economists Vincent and Panayotou define consumption as that which ‘‘spans the full range of goods and services that contribute to human well being ’’ (Myers, 1997, p. 53). A synonym for lay people and policymakers might be an ‘economy’ or, maybe, all aspects of an economy that people desire. On the question of whether there is a problem of excess consumption, Myers is diametrically opposed to Vincent and Panayotou. But the two sets of authors share the proclivity to take an extremely broad view of

consumption—human transformations or well being—a view that can be stretched to include just about anything. As transformation, consumption is equivalent to all human material activity. As well being, it is everything that is good for humans. These usages allow biologists and others to re-work the limits-to-growth arguments under the rubric of consumption and economists to deny there is a consumption problem except for fullcost pricing. None of these authors shows what is distinctive about consumption, as opposed to production, income, or overall economic or material activity. And none show how consuming behavior leads to environmental harm. Myers states that rich humans are consuming excessively and wastefully and that aggregate levels are driving global warming, pollution, and other environmental problems. Once again, substituting the term producing for consuming makes for an equally sensible statement. Vincent and Panayotou dodge the issue entirely. To seek correlations between consumption and environmental impact, they shift definitions from the nebulous ‘well-being’ to monetary income and employ the concept of private consumption, ‘‘conventionally defined in national income accounts [as] a narrower measure, which encompasses only marketed (priced) goods and services’’ (1997, p. 53). They find that there is no inevitable tradeoff between private consumption and environmental quality and that, in fact, many indicators suggest that the environment improves with private consumption. The real problem is market failures, that is, production failures that, once corrected, will lead to a consumption bundle that will ‘‘automatically adjust to a more environmentally friendly mix’’ (1997, p. 56). Problems of irreversibility and nonsubstitutability, intertemporal and threshold effects, buffering capacity, cause-effect time lags, valuation, scale, hierarchy, and problem displacement (Dryzek, 1987; Arrow et al., 1995; Costanza et al., in press) are ignored. In short, broad sweeping definitions of consumption allow analysts from two opposing camps to rehash familiar arguments and, at least with respect to pricing, come to similar policy recommendations, namely, taxes and subsidies. Neither shows how a consumption perspective, as

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

opposed to a production perspective (see below) or, say, an income or industrialization or even population perspective, offers new insights into environmental problems. Most significantly, neither ties consumption patterns to biophysical processes. Myers in effect says that all economic activity (or at least that conducted by the wealthy few) destroys the environment. Vincent and Panayotou say consumers do not destroy the environment, producers do (or producers in distorted markets do). In the book, En6ironmentally Significant Consumption (1997), arguably the most thoroughly reasoned analytic treatment to date on the consumption and environment problem, psychologist Paul Stern and his colleagues do show how some consumption patterns lead to environmental impacts. For example, motor vehicle travel can be disaggregated to show how carbon emissions vary over time and among Northern countries. But in some of the work in this collection, consumption is individual and household purchasing, in others it is energy and material flows, and in still others it is economic activity. By defining consumption as human transformations, the authors not only employ the term variously, they readily slide into the broad research agenda known as human dimensions of global change. In fact, in the book’s conclusion, the authors barely mention consumption, instead focussing almost exclusively on ‘‘the causes of significant anthropogenic environmental changes’’ (p. 136), a critical agenda to be sure, but not distinctively consumption. The central weakness of this and related approaches may derive from the apparent intended audience, governmental policy makers, primarily those at the federal level. In En6ironmentally Significant Consumption, a brief reference to a purportedly successful example of consumption management is revealing. In critiquing a popular usage of consumption that targets individuals, not organizations, Stern cites automobile emissions control technology as a ‘politically practicable policy’ and then argues that ‘‘a broader definition of consumption might help identify such strategies and allow analysis of how much they can accomplish’’ (p. 19). As I will argue further below, such policies are best seen as consistent with the pre-

351

vailing perspective on economic and environmental problems, namely, the production perspective. Production-oriented policies may be politically expedient and they may reduce the intended environmental impact, but they do not fundamentally change the problem, in this case, automobile use and its myriad environmental consequences. Rather, they tend to displace the problem or create new problems. A second common usage is to equate consumption with materialism. Critical and religious studies have a longstanding history examining changing patterns of consumption in modern societies in the context of materialism, alienation in the work place, cultural imperialism, gender discrimination, and personal dissatisfaction (e.g. Scitovsky, 1976/1992; Rappoport, 1994; Richins, 1994; Miller, 1995; Schor, 1995; Agarwal, 1996; Ger and Belk, 1996; Ahuvia and Wong, 1997; Ger, 1997; Wilk, 1998). With the rise of environmental concerns, these critiques have expanded to include the environment. What is more, social critics and environmental analysts and activists alike have tended to appropriate each other’s findings. Anthropologists can not only denounce the rise in materialist values among traditional peoples, but show that forests are despoiled in the process. Environmentalists can not only argue that biophysical conditions limit overall consumption, but that personal well-being does not improve with ever-increasing convenience and material indulgence. The mutual crossover of these two lines of analysis and prescription may enhance the agenda of each but it does not constitute a focussed research agenda on the consumption–environment interface. A consumption and environment agenda is useful to the extent it generates new questions and insights which is unlikely when one field merely appropriates issues from another field to buttress a pre-existing framework or prescription. A third common usage is to insert consumption in analyses and action agendas regarding the unevenness of the distribution of economic goods. It is commonplace to hear, for example, that the North with 20% of the world’s population consumes 70% of the world’s resources. Such a statement could read equally well as the North

352

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

produces 70% of the world’s goods. To frame the North–South discrepancy as a consumption problem is to imply excess or inequity. If it is excess, then the analyst must specify what exactly is excessive—any material use beyond basic human needs? Anything beyond the society’s average? Anything beyond comparable societies’ average? Such questions lead one into a morass of competing claims for the moral high ground in lifestyle and individual and collective choice. Resolution is extremely unlikely. If excess is anything that has environmental impact, then all material use is indicted, production and consumption, human and non-human. If it is only that which is harmful then it begs precisely the key question — what is harmful? Answering this question — that is, what is harmful about consumption as opposed to production or overall economic activity or material provisioning generally — begins to narrow the agenda. Research must show how consuming behavior itself is harmful. It should show how the distribution of harms is distinctively tied to consumption patterns, not to, say, investment, lending, trade or technological patterns, all of which have distinctive research agendas. If the problem is one of inequity, no analytic advantage is gained by calling it consumption. Adding the environment and calling the problem consumption only muddles the longstanding debates of North and South, haves and have-nots, rich and poor, powerful and powerless, to include environmental inequities. These problems are real and serious, but, a priori, there is no reason why consumption per se should be identified as the problem. Access to resources, control of decision making, and ability to resist external intrusions are closer to the problem and agendas are developed in politics, community development, civil society, and the like. A fourth usage is to conflate consumption with population or technology issues. One tendency is to label what is truly a consumption problem as a population problem. For example, from 1960 to 1990 in the US state of Michigan the amount of land converted to residential and commercial use increased 76% (Wilkins, 1997, p. 7). A common reason given is that more and more people need housing and the evidence is their willingness to

pay for lots and houses in the countryside. The fact, however, is that in the same time period, Michigan’s population increased only 13%. The problem is not primarily a population problem but, indeed, a consumption problem, using up farmland when other residential space is available. Freshwater usage is similar. According to a United Nations report, worldwide water usage this century has been increasing more than twice as fast as population (Lewis, 1997). In general, the population problem is easily construed as a consumption problem because more individuals obviously consume more, all else equal. The consumption problem arises, however, when all else is not equal, when, regardless of population changes, demand on ecosystem services increases. If China’s population increases and everyone continues to (mostly) rely on pedal power for everyday transportation, the increase in demand for bicycle tyres is part of the population problem. But if China’s population increases or if it stays the same and people shift to automobiles, creating increased demand for car tyres, fossil fuels, and roads, it is a consumption problem. The problem of consumption also tends to be conflated with technological issues and management. If people buy a product that is produced with more pollution than an alternative product, the problem is primarily one of production. It can only be a consumption problem if, for example, the consumer has useful information about the life cycle of the product, prices and quality are equivalent, and the consumer still buys the more environmentally harmful product. These conditions stimulate important research questions about the distribution of impacts of consumption patterns—e.g. who really pays for gas guzzling private automobiles in the US. Similarly, resource management questions are generally framed as production problems when they are better construed as consumption problems. To illustrate, if a fishery is being overfished and the proposed solutions are improved nets, more efficient use of by-catch, and better fishery management, the problem is being construed as a production problem. To construe the overfishing as a consumption problem one would have to ask about the nature of consumer demand, why it

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

exceeds the regenerative capacity of the fishery, and why fishers whose livelihoods depend on the fishery are responding more to market signals than to ecological signals. I return to this point in the next section. In sum, when common usages of consumption are explored in some depth, the concept of consumption becomes slippery and the utility of their applications doubtful. Conflating consumption with overall economic activity risks sliding into a conventional approach to environmental problems, namely, as problems of production that only macro-level governmental policies can correct. Conflating it with materialism or maldistribution only confuses other agendas and misses the ecological component. And conflating it with population or technology issues obscures many of the driving forces. An objective of the remainder of this article is to suggest ways of specifying and distinguishing the issue of consumption and environmental impact to avoid such conceptual and, eventually, policy problems. Not to do so is to risk the common tendencies of jumping on the bandwagon with the latest buzzword in the environmental debate, stretching the new concept to encompass all conceivable concerns and, in the process, forfeiting any advantage — for analysis or for behavior change — that may accrue to a new perspective on environmental problems. The risk, in short, is to simply re-label old problems and old solutions without generating new insights. The careful analyst and activist must accept the possibility that the consumption topic may, in the end, not yield new insights into environmental problems. Consumption may be no more than a buzzword. A premise in this article, however, is that it can be more. Below, I suggest two general analytic approaches that may push the topic beyond mere fad. I assert that, in pursuing the research topic of consumption and environment, one has to make some basic choices, each of which has its own limitations. One choice is between accepting the prevailing production – consumption, supply – demand, producer–consumer dichotomy, on the one hand, and seeking an alternative framework on the other. In the production – consumption dichotomy, one can investigate consumption via

353

price and income elasticities and purchasing patterns. These are well developed in microeconomics and marketing studies and need no elaboration here. To focus on environmental effects, however, one can investigate a broad range of product-related decisions of which the purchase decision is only one. I explore some of these in the next section below. This approach attempts to open the black box of consumer sovereignty and consumer preferences. It also rejects the exclusive focus on market purchasing and considers a range of behaviors that comprise the end use of resources and products. The limitation of this approach is the tendency to focus on marketplace activity to the exclusion of a wider range of human activities that are, in some sense, ‘consuming’. Moreover, environmental impacts tend to be incorporated as add-ons, not as integral components of the analytic framework. Thus, in the following section I posit a framework that begins with material provisioning and its biophysical effects. The aim is to suggest not only how research on consumption can transcend the production– consumption dichotomy and how it can follow different paths but, importantly, how the analytic starting points—price determination and purchasing behavior versus resource use—can lead to very different questions and prescriptions. 3. Consumption as product use Consumption as the necessary complement to production is eating the apple, burning the log, wearing the socks. A consumption and environment research agenda must examine such decisions and influences for their biophysical impacts. A conventional starting point is the decision to purchase. From the prevailing commercial perspective, especially that of retailing, whatever happens after purchase is of little concern unless the consumer’s anticipation of subsequent decisions affects the purchase decision. But from an environmental impact perspective, the critical decision is a combination of purchase and product use decisions where, in some cases, major purchases drive resource use (Stern et al., 1997, p. 130) and, in others, the patterns of use are most important (Nordman, 1995).

354

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

Disaggregating the relative impacts of purchase and use decisions is certainly critical to the consumption and environment agenda. But a more extensive approach would be to go beyond ‘product’ to consider the ‘non-purchase’ decision. That is, individuals consume to meet needs. Sometimes those needs can only be met with purchased items—say, grain, electric power and high technology equipment. But many other needs can be obtained through productive effort, individually or collectively. Fresh produce can be purchased at a grocery store or grown oneself. Personal transportation can be had by driving to work or walking (or at least walking part way). Community members can raise funds to purchase playground equipment and pay to have it installed or they can collect materials and build it themselves. If one has a need for musical experience, one can buy an album or call a few musician friends over for a jam session. In each of these examples, a priori, one cannot know for sure which activity has the least environmental impact. But an initial and plausible operating assumption is that the commercial, purchased choices are more a part of the current trends — everincreasing throughput, ever more ‘manufactured’ resource use (see below) — than the noncommercial, and thus have a greater impact. Little if any research has been done on peoples’ choices not to purchase or to seek less consumptive, less material-intensive means of satisfying a need (De Young, 1990 – 1991; Maniates, 1998). The reason may be obvious: it is very hard to get an analytic or empirical handle on an act that entails not doing something. But my hunch (and it can only be a hunch given the state of knowledge on this kind of question) is that this gap exists in large part because the question is out of, or contrary to, the dominant belief system where value is presumed to inhere in market transactions. A consumption perspective that is more expansive, that recognizes that individuals actually meet their needs with non-commercial or relatively non-material means, makes the non-purchase decision a critical focus of inquiry. To develop the research agenda within the consumption–production dichotomy, then, product use, not just purchase, must be addressed. What is

more, both post-purchase decisions and non-purchase decisions must be included in the analysis. At least two empirical questions arise. One, under what conditions do individuals switch from purchasing a high environmental impact item to a relatively low impact item, when impact is evaluated not just in production but in the use of the product itself? This question might fit existing research programs including that of energy use (e.g. Cleveland et al., 1984; Schipper, 1997); household metabolism (e.g. Noorman and Uiterkamp, 1998); industrial ecology (e.g. Keoleian and Menerey, 1994; Graedel and Allenby, 1995) and of market research (e.g. Richins, 1994; Ahuvia and Wong, 1997; Ger, 1997). Two, and this may well be the most difficult yet most important question, under what conditions do individuals opt for a non-commercial or relati6ely non-material response to meet a need? Research does exist on intrinsic satisfaction as it relates to conservation behavior (De Young, 1990–1991), subjective well-being (Inglehart and Abramson, 1994; Andrews and Withey, 1976), and work and leisure (Scitovsky, 1976/1992; Schor, 1995). Much of this research could be extended to consumption patterns and their environmental impacts. Conducting such research within the framework of the supply–demand, producer–consumer dichotomy is important if, for no other reason, production has been the dominant focus, not only in economics but in the economic strands of other disciplines including political science, sociology, and anthropology. Environmental and policy studies generally have also been primarily informed by the dichotomy. It may also be the safest research tact, given the hegemony of the economistic belief system. Unpacking and ‘de-aggregating’ the demand function for environmental impacts can enrich existing research traditions and inform policymaking and do so without challenging their underlying assumptions. But for those seeking a more transformative approach to environmental problems, the prevailing dichotomy is probably more of a hindrance than an aid. It tends to constrain the analysis to market functioning (and malfunctioning) where ‘the environment’ is merely an externality.

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

A more radical approach, one that challenges this dichotomy and its propensity to relegate consumption to a black box or to the marginal status of emotion or personal values, would be to treat all resource use as consuming and ask what risks are entailed in patterns of resource acquisition, processing, and distribution. This approach would be more consistent with the ecological economics perspective where human economic activity is seen as an open subset of a finite and closed biophysical system. Consuming is that part of human activity that ‘uses up’ material, energy, and other valued things (Daly, 1996). 4. Consumption as ‘using up’ A definition of consumption that transcends the supply–demand dichotomy would start with biophysical conditions and their intersection with human behavior. That intersection, following from systems theory, has many attributes but key is ecological feedback, that is, signals from the biophysical system that are picked up and reacted to by individuals and groups in the social system (Kay, 1991; Ulanowicz, 1997; Costanza et al., in press). At its most basic and general level, the human behavior that intersects with the biophysical realm can be termed material pro6isioning, that is, the appropriation of material and energy for survival and reproduction.

4.1. Material pro6isioning All human activity can be divided among overlapping sets of behavior that includes reproduction, defense, social interaction, identity formation, and material provisioning. Three broad categories of material provisioning are hunting/gathering, cultivating, and manufacturing. The question then is, what aspects of each category of material provisioning are best construed as consumption? Alternatively, the question is, if hunting/gathering, cultivating, and manufacturing is each construed as consumption, rather than as production, the dominant viewpoint, what insights are gained? To answer this requires first a general definition of consumption itself.

355

According to the American Heritage dictionary, consumption is to expend or use up, to degrade or destroy. Thermodynamically, it is to increase entropy. Biologically, it is capturing useable material and energy to enhance survival and reproduction and, ultimately, to pass on one’s genes. Socially, it is using up material and energy to enhance personal standing, group identity, and autonomy. A defining characteristic of consuming behavior, therefore, is that it is that feature of material provisioning that permanently degrades material and energy and serves some purpose to the individual or to the group. Within hunting/gathering, consumption begins when the deer is shot or the apple is picked and ends when the user has fully expended the material and energy in that deer or apple. It is important to stress that, in hunting/ gathering, the consumption act is only the appropriation of the item and its ingestion. The one deer and the one apple are permanently degraded, not the deer herd or species and not the apple tree or species. This level of consumption is the most fundamental biologically and, indeed, is integral to all life. When some argue that consumption is ‘natural’, they are right—at this level. In cultivation, one begins to see both the extension of consumption beyond single items and the external effects of consumption. Consumption in cultivation begins when a forest is cleared or a grassland plowed. It ends when the crop is harvested and the wood burned or the bread eaten. What is expended—used up or degraded—is not just the wood fiber or seed of individual plants. Rather, it is, first and foremost, the ecosystem that preceded the cultivation and, second, the cultivated plants that no longer function within integrated ecosystems. Cultivation may be conventionally thought of as production, that is, as adding value. But from the consumption perspective, a perspective grounded in the biophysical, cultivation is a set of degrading behaviors—clearing, breeding, harvesting, and ingesting. I should note that characterizing cultivation as degrading is not to judge it as wrong. I use ‘degrade’ primarily in the thermodynamic sense of increased entropy but also in the ecological sense of decreased autonomous functioning over long periods of

356

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

time. Thus, a corn field may generate more calories than its grassland predecessor but it does so only with continuous external inputs. It likely operates at a net energy loss and without the resilience of a less ‘productive’ yet self-organizing system. Also, this treatment is not to suggest that there is no value in cultivation. The consumption perspective on cultivation merely directs analytic attention to degradation and irreversibility in a way that the prevailing perspective — the production perspective—does not, or does so only as an add-on where value added is the focus and environmental impacts are unfortunate side effects that can be cleaned up if actors have the funds, the interest, and the political will. Whereas cultivation involves rearranging extant plants and animals, manufacturing, quite literally, is making things by hand. It is applying human labor and ingenuity to create wholly new substances. Ecologically, it draws on more than the available soil and water and associated ecosystems. In particular, manufacturing extends consumption beyond the direct use of individual organisms and ecosystems to the use of energy sources and waste sinks. Converting a log into lumber and then furniture entails an expenditure of low entropy fuel and the disposal of waste material and heat. From the production perspective, this is value added. But from the consumption perspective, it is using up secondary resources (energy and waste sink capacities) to amplify and accelerate the use of primary resources (forests, grasslands, fisheries, etc.). Consuming here may entail permanent and unavoidable depletion as with fossil fuels, or a temporary drawdown with the possibility of regeneration as with soil buffering. Both cultivation and manufacturing risk permanent degeneration in ecosystem functioning. But manufacturing is generally more risky due to the separation of activity from primary resources. High technology and global finance are extreme examples where so-called ‘wealth creation’ is far removed, some would argue completely removed, from a natural resource base. The consumption perspective directs attention to the heightened risks of such distanced material provisioning (Dryzek, 1987; Princen, 1997a).

In sum, an ecologically grounded definition of consumption takes as a starting point human material provisioning and the draw on ecosystem services. It is distinguished from those that begin with market behavior and ask what purchasers do in the aggregate and from those that start with social stratification and ask how consumption patterns establish hierarchy or identity. The potential of such an ecological definition is to escape the confines of both limits-to-growth and economistic frameworks that tend to prescribe top–down, centralized correctives for errant (i.e. over-consuming) human behavior. An ecological approach to consumption directs attention to ecological risk and the myriad ways clever humans have of displacing the true costs of their material provisioning. The next step in conceptualizing the consumption–environment nexus is to specify what is excessive or maladaptive consumption. In particular, it is to ask how a given act of consumption (e.g. eating the apple, converting the forest, manufacturing the chair) can be interpreted or judged. I start with the broad biophysical context in which consuming behavior can be interpreted as ‘natural’ or ‘background’ and then consider both ecological and social definitions of degradative consumption, what I will call ‘overconsumption’ and ‘misconsumption’.

4.2. Excess consumption: three interpreti6e layers A strictly ecological interpretation takes consumption as perfectly ‘natural’. To survive, all organisms must consume, that is, degrade resources. This interpretation of a given consumption act I term background consumption. It refers to the normal, biological functioning of all organisms, humans included. Every act of background consumption by an individual alters the environment, the total impact being a function of aggregate consumption of the population. Individuals consume to meet a variety of needs, physical and psychological, both of which contribute to the ability of the individual to survive and reproduce, and hence to its ability to pass on its genes. From this limited, asocial, nonethical interpretation of consumption, all consumption patterns and consequences are natural, including popula-

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

tion explosions and crashes and irreversibilities caused by the expansion of one species at the expense of other species. If, however, the interpretation is modified to include human concern for population crashes, species extinctions, permanent diminution of ecosystem functioning, diminished reproductive and developmental potential of individuals, and other irreversible effects, then ‘problematic consumption’ becomes relevant. I specify two interpretive layers, o6erconsumption and misconsumption. Overconsumption is that level or quality of consumption that undermines a species’ own lifesupport system and for which individuals and collectivities have choices in their consuming patterns. Overconsumption is an aggregate level concept. With instances of overconsumption, individual behavior may be perfectly sensible conforming either to the evolutionary dictates of fitness or to the economically productive dictates of rational decision making. Collective, social behavior may appear sensible, too, as when increased consumption is needed in an advanced industrial economy to stimulate productive capacity and compete in international markets. But eventually the collective outcome from overconsuming is catastrophe for the population or the species. From a thermodynamic and ecological perspective, this is the problem of excessive throughput (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993). The population or species has commanded more of the regenerative capacity of natural resources and more of the assimilative capacity of waste sinks than the relevant ecosystems can support. And it is an ethical problem because it inheres only in those populations or species that can reflect on their collective existence. What is more, for humans it becomes a political problem when the trends are toward collapse and when the distribution of impacts generates conflict. The second interpretive layer within problematic consumption I term misconsumption. It deals with individual behavior. The problem here is that the individual consumes in a way that undermines his or her own well-being even if there are no aggregate effects on the population or species. Put differently, the long-term effect of an individual’s consumption pattern is either suboptimal or a net

357

loss to that individual. It may or may not, however, undermine collective survival. Such consumption can occur along several dimensions. Physiologically, humans misconsume when they eat too much in a sitting or over a lifetime or when they become addicted to a drug. The longterm burden overwhelms the immediate gratification. Psychologically, humans misconsume when, for example, they fall into the advertiser’s trap of ‘perpetual dissatisfaction’. They purchase an item that provides fleeting satisfaction resulting in yet another purchase. Economically, humans misconsume when they overwork, that is, engage in onerous work beyond what can be compensated with additional income. With more income and less time, they attempt to compensate by using the additional income, which is to say, by consuming (Schor, 1995).4 Ecologically, humans misconsume when an increment of increased resource use harms that resource or related resources and humans who depend on the resource. In the short term, if one builds a house on a steep, erosion-prone slope, the construction itself increases the likelihood of massive erosion and the destruction of one’s consumption item, the house. In the longer term, if one uses leaded house paint, one’s children or grandchildren are more likely to have developmental problems. Misconsumption, then, refers to those individual resource using acts that result in net losses for the individual. They are not ‘rational’ or sensible in any of several senses—psychological, economic, or health-wise. And, once again, they may or may not add up to aggregate, ecological decline. The question that critically defines the consumption and environment research agenda at this, the individual level, is, what forms of individual misconsumption lead to collective overcon4

This is not to say that the marginal work effort is generally compensated by the additional income. Compensation takes many forms, both extrinsic (e.g. monetary, public recognition) and intrinsic (e.g. sense of competence, autonomy, achievement, well-being) and varies from case to case. It is to say, however, that humans occasionally work beyond what can be explained by additional monetary or psychic income. The reasons for this are complex but include a lack of flexible time in the work place (Schor, 1995).

358

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

sumption? Put differently, when is overconsumption not simply a problem of excessive throughput —that is, a problem of too many people or too much economic activity — and when is it a question of the inability of individuals to meet their needs in a given social context? When, in other words, do individuals simultaneously wreak harm on themselves and on the environment through their consumption patterns? These questions are important because they point toward potential interventions that make sense at both levels and without requiring evolutionarily novel human behavior such as global citizenship (Low and Heinen, 1993) or authoritarian command structures (De Young, 1996). These questions point toward win – win, ‘no-regrets’ policies that simultaneously produce improved human welfare and reduced ecological risk to humans’ life-support system. A critical area of research, therefore, is the intersection of misconsumption and overconsumption where individuals and society together can potentially benefit from improved consumption patterns. This may offer the greatest, and certainly the easiest, opportunities for interventions. But a second area is at least as important yet more vexing. This is consumption patterns that involve individually satisfying behavior with net benefits to the individual and, say, to that individual’s kin, yet net harms to others. This is unavoidably a distributional question and, hence, a moral and political issue. Below I explore part of this moral and political dimension by considering how producers must exercise restraint and resistance when demand is overwhelming.

initial resource extraction decision and ends with the final consumption and disposal decisions. This ‘material decision chain’ parallels the life cycle approach of industrial ecology but traces decisionmaking, including interactive decisionmaking among more than one actor, rather than materials and energy flow. A simple example illustrates the approach and some of its implications. Imagine a resource is stressed, say, more timber is being harvested in a watershed than the forest ecosystem can regenerate. What is more, the primary reason is demand. Consumers want more of the timber than the ecosystem can bear and they can pay a sufficiently high price or marshall enough coercion to compel high production.5 In this case, forest users—that is, direct users, those who decide harvest rates and methods and management techniques—are responding completely to demand, managing the forest and choosing harvest rates and practices that best fit that demand. As demand increases, they increase the harvest rate in the short term and, for the longer term, plant, say, fast-growing species. Such production-oriented measures may be able to accommodate more of the demand but when demand continues to exceed supply (in an ecological sense), the real issue is, indeed, the demand, not the supply. Better forest management practices, less wood waste, more efficient milling, and lower transportation costs will have little effect on the excessiveness of the demand.6 The overharvesting is, therefore, really a consumption issue, yet one that can affect all steps along the chain of decisions. Activists will typically focus on the end-use of the chain, attempting to dampen de-

4.3. Material decision chain 5

Categories of material provisioning and layers of interpretation for a given consumption act help position human consuming behavior in ways the supply–demand dichotomy and the production perspective do not. But these two approaches only hint at actual decision making, the processes by which individuals and organizations use and compete for resources. Here, I posit a third approach to consumption, modelling all human resource use as a chain of decisions that begins with the

This scenario, although highly simplified to make the argument, is not unlike that which occurred in the great cutovers of North America (Cronon, 1991, pp. 148 – 206) or that are occurring currently in South America and Southeast Asia (Peluso, 1993). 6 More efficient use of a tree may appear to be a logical response to increasing demand. Certainly, getting more useable wood per tree would, all else equal, accommodate at least some of the excess demand. But, in general, such an efficiency always makes sense, regardless of demand. The issue raised here is what a producer must do outside of production efficiencies to deal with excess demand and still ensure long-term production from the resource.

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

mand. This is the aim of certification programs, moratoria, and bans (Princen, 1996; Kiker and Putz, 1997). Producers might focus on the other end, extraction, sensing a threat to their own long-term production. They may initially seek production-oriented measures — that is, those whose primary aim is to respond to demand as it exists and, in the case of excess demand, to increase output. But as these prove inadequate in the face of ecologically excessive demand, under some conditions they will seek measures to limit output (McGoodwin, 1990; Colchester and Lohman, 1993; Alcorn and Toledo, 1995). Such measures entail behaviors by producers that tend to be ignored when a production perspective is dominant. Two such behaviors coming from the consumption perspective are restraint and resistance. If forest users respond not only to demand but also to threats to their own long-term economic security or to their desire for multiple uses of the forest—for example, timber, recreation, and watershed—then, when demand is low, these forest users would harvest little and invest little. But they would also shift to different forest uses, from timber harvesting only, say, to hunting and fishing and tourism, as well as to different means of making a living.7 If demand is high (and this would be the test case for long-term sustainable use), they would increase the harvest rates only to a point. Beyond that point, a point determined not by short-term economic opportunity but by a sense of ecological limits, by a risk-averse approach to complex natural systems and to users’ economic security, they would restrain their harvests so as not to jeopardize future use and those other uses (Gadgil and Guha, 1992; Acheson and Wilson, 1996; Princen, 1997b). What is more, if 7 Some evidence does exist that extractors who attempt to maximize their long-term economic security rather than respond to extant demand pursue strategies of diversified production. When either demand or the resource declines, they shift to other pursuits. Fishermen in the Norwegian Arctic and many independent farmers follow this model (Jentoft and Kristoffersen, 1989; McGoodwin, 1990; Clunies-Ross and Hildyard, 1992). To my knowledge, however, no systematic research has been done on such work strategies and their impact on natural resources.

359

demand is so intrusive, so overwhelming via temptingly high prices or coercion (force or law), then a second behavior would be resistance. Users would develop organizational, legal, or, if necessary, coercive means of their own to resist the intrusion, limit their harvest, and thus maintain the resource over the long term.8 The problem here may appear to be one of production—i.e. harvest rates. But it is really one of consumption vis-a-vis production. The foci of conventional production analysis—questions of investment, management, extraction, pricing, processing, distributing—tend not to ask questions about restraint and resistance among producers. Quite the contrary, the productive enterprise is precisely one of opening markets, lowering prices, gaining efficiencies, and capturing market share— in short, increasing production. It is a process that sees the addition of value, not the subtraction of value, not the risks to multiple uses or to the long-term viability of the supporting ecosystem. In sum, a consumption perspective on resource use problems—especially problems of ecological overuse—compels examination of decisions among extractors and processors that tend not to get asked from a conventional production perspective. Among these decisions are those associated with the general behaviors of restraint, that is, self-limiting behavior, and of resistance to destructive intrusions. Comparing cases where restraint and resistance are prominent with those in which they are not, and applying indices of sustainable practice would be a logical research direction. I turn finally to the difficulty of pursuing a research agenda on consumption and environment, an agenda that at once challenges the dominant belief system and, I argue, contravenes personal, analytic and policy orientations.

8

Empirical support for restraint does exist, especially in the common property literature (Ostrom, 1990; Bromley, 1992). Other instances in private property are beginning to develop. See, for example, the cases being developed by the MacArthur Foundation’s Sustainable Forestry program. On resistance, see Gadgil and Guha (1992), Peluso (1993) and special sections of The Ecologist.

360

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

5. Resistance to the agenda: or, why the person sitting next to you does not want to talk about consumption On first mention, consumption is readily seen by analysts, policymakers, and others as an important topic, one probably deserving of considerable research and action. People seem to know at least intuitively that most individuals of the North and most elites of the South are consuming too much. But my experience in the classroom, with colleagues, and with funders is that pursuing the issue much further, whether conceptually, empirically or normatively, makes people uneasy. They prefer to shift to questions of overpopulation, inefficient production, or skewed governmental policies. I offer explanations for this reaction from three realms of activity: the personal, the analytical, and the political.

5.1. Personal In a graduate seminar on this topic, at one point or another, each member felt the need to reveal one’s own misconsumption or one’s apparent contribution to overconsumption. It was almost as if one could not address this forbidden topic without first admitting one’s sins. Activists Ryan and Durning found that readers of early drafts of their book on the impacts of everyday products felt ‘‘overwhelmed or depressed after learning the true stories of how things are made’’ (Ryan and Durning, 1997, p. 6). The authors in turn felt compelled to issue a warning that the product life stories could be disturbing and that readers should pace themselves. These anecdotes suggest that consumption is a topic that is deeply and unavoidably personal. Unlike many related issues such as population or conservation or international development, it is nearly impossible to get analytic distance. The reason may be because consumption is one social problem that, in its contemporary manifestation (i.e. industrial driven misconsumption and overconsumption), cannot be assigned to someone else. For Northerners, international development and population, say, can be easily construed as someone else’s problem. Poverty and overpopula-

tion are problems of the South, the uneducated, the undercapitalized, the pre-modern. Not so with consumption. The finger points at us Northerners and Southern elites. Another reason may be that it is very personal in its execution—we all do it—and, for reasons of individual liberty or religious right or cultural trait, we resist intrusions, however well intended.

5.2. Analytic A second reason why consumption makes people uneasy is that it is analytically slippery under the dominant rationalist paradigm. As discussed in Section 2, it tends to become conflated with more familiar issues of production, materials and energy flow, materialism, and population. When the concept is pushed beyond the dominant perspective, it necessarily challenges that perspective. The best way to see this is via the conventional notion of efficiency. A productive efficiency is an undeniably, unassailably good thing. If one can produce the same quantity of goods with less input or more goods with the same input, everyone is better off. Better off ceteris paribus, of course. But it is precisely here in the ubiquitous qualifier, ‘all else equal’, that aggregate resource use and the scale of economic activity enter. It is here that irreplaceable ecosystem services are, in effect, taken as given. In practice, efficiency gains can become instances of problem displacement (Dryzek, 1987). They can be disguised means of passing on true costs in space or time, especially when generations and political boundaries are spanned (Princen, 1997a). What is more, efficiency gains can divert attention from the real problem, that is, scale and ecological functioning. For example, in the US, automobiles have become considerably more efficient since the 1970s oil shocks. But the country as a whole is no less dependent on foreign oil nor does it emit less CO2, SO2, and other pollutants. Government agencies built more roads and people drive farther and faster and go through more cars than they did in the past. The efficiencies, that is, the increased miles per gallon of fuel per car, have achieved, at best, only one thing environmentally: a lower rate of increase in fossil fuel burning gi6en

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

all the changes in consumption behavior. But, of course, from the perspective of toxic loadings, CO2 emissions, habitat destruction, lost farmland and the like, the consumption behavior is precisely the issue of most interest and, ultimately, most import, not the technical efficiency. It seems that few people want to talk about this, preferring to pursue ever-greater efficiencies. The reason is that to talk about consumption levels and consumption patterns is to talk ‘out of paradigm’. It is to eschew the production perspective and to raise analytic questions that conventional analytic tools — price determination, cost-benefit analysis, even life cycle analysis—cannot comfortably address. It is, ultimately, to raise question of purpose (Schumacher, 1973; Daly and Townsend, 1993; Smith, 1993).

5.3. Policy This, then, brings me to a third realm of activity that may account for a general reluctance to engage this issue. Policy makers, both private and public, often find problems easier to solve — or, at least, address—by increasing the pie, not dividing it or redistributing it. If I run out of book shelf space, I, in my accustomed efficiency mode, construe the problem as too few shelves and thus seek more bookshelves or a bigger office or, ideally, both. I tend not to construe the problem as too many books and consequently do not seek ways to limit the inflow or to donate the excess to the library. If traffic is congested, planners expand the road. From an efficiency perspective, the problem is construed as inadequate avenue, not too many cars. There are, of course, many good reasons for this individual and collective behavior. A large literature exists on the growth imperative (Hirsh, 1976/1995; Meadows et al., 1992; Ayres, 1996; Daly, 1996). To address the consumption question not only forces the hard question — how to divide or redistribute the pie, sometimes a shrinking pie — and thus precludes the relatively easy response, growth promotion, but challenges individual choice and free will which, at least in North America, are held sacrosanct.

361

The current belief system operates as if free choice makes no threat to the biophysical system. Certainly leaders will restrict choice when harm to others is direct, immediate, and visible. Consider restrictions on heavy weapons, pornography, slander, and noxious substances. But in the present paradigm, one can irreversibly destroy an ecosystem depriving themselves, others, and future generations of species and the functions, many unknown, that are associated with those species in an ecosystem. To construe such behavior as a consumption problem, a problem that cannot be solved by ever more economic activity or ever more efficiencies, is to operate outside the dominant belief system. It is to ‘shift paradigms’. And, as with shifts in all paradigms—scientific, social, and religious—most of us resist until change is unavoidable. We do, however, change. If former communists can embrace free markets, it is not inconceivable that individuals and policymakers in an ecologically constrained world can embrace, indeed, reembrace, such notions as thrift, frugality, and self-reliance. Consequently, a major prescriptive task of a consumption and environment research agenda is to show how individuals can continue to strive for more, how they can thrive, how they can meet immutable human needs for status, identity, stimulation, association, and the like, and all without ever-increasing material consumption.

Acknowledgements Support for this research was provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (c 96-34311). Helpful comments on earlier drafts were given by Edward Comor, Raymond De Young, Maya Fischoff, Anu Kumar, Donald Mayer, Daniel Mazmanian, Norman Myers, Karl Steyaert, Paul Stern, and Richard Wilk.

References Acheson, J.M., Wilson, J.A., 1996. Order out of chaos: The case of parametric fisheries management. American Anthropologist 98, 579 – 594.

362

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363

Agarwal, A., 1996. Sustainable Consumption. Paper prepared for October, 1996 Meeting of IUCN, Montreal. Ahuvia, A., Wong, N., 1997. Three types of materialism: Their relationship and origin. Paper. University of Michigan Business School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 1–20. Alcorn, J.B., Toledo, V.M., 1995. The role of tenurial shells in ecological sustainability: Property rights and natural resource management in Mexico. In: Hanna, S., Munasinghe, M. (Eds.), Property Rights in a Social and Ecological Context: Case Studies and Design Applications. Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 123–140. Andrews, F.M., Withey, S.B., 1976. Social Indicators of WellBeing: American Perceptions of Life Quality. Plenum, New York, p. 455. Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Janson, B.O., Levin, S., Ma¨ler, K.G., Perrings, C., Pimentel, D., 1995. Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Ecological Economics 15, 91– 95. Ayres, R.U., 1996. Limits to the growth paradigm. Ecological Economics 19, 117 – 134. Bromley, D.W., 1992. Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, and Policy. Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, San Francisco, CA, p. 339. Cleveland, C.J., Costanza, R., Hall, C.A.S., Kaufman, R., 1984. Energy and the US economy: a biophysical perspective. Science 225, 890–897. Clunies-Ross, T., Hildyard, N., 1992. The politics of industrial agriculture. Ecologist 22, 65–71. Colchester, M., Lohman, L., 1993. The Struggle for Land and the Fate of the Forests. Zed Books, London 389. Costanza, R., Low, B.S., Ostrom, E., Wilson, J. (Eds.), Insitutions, Ecosystems, and Sustainability (in press). Cronon, W., 1991. Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. Norton, New York, p. 530. Daly, H.E., 1996. Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon Press, Boston, p. 253. Daly, H.E., Townsend, K.N., 1993. Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 387. De Young, R., 1990 – 1991. Some psychological aspects of living lightly: Desired lifestyle patterns and conservation behavior. Journal of Environment Systems 20, 215–227. De Young, R., 1996. Some psychological aspects of a reduced consumption lifestyle: The role of intrinsic satisfaction and competence. Environment and Behavior 28, 358–409. Dryzek, J.S., 1987. Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy. Basil Blackwell, New York, p. 270. Gadgil, M., Guha, R., 1992. This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, p. 274. Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1993. Selections from ‘Energy and Economic Myths’. In: Daly, H., Townsend, K.N. (Eds.), Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 89–112.

Ger, G., 1997. Human development and humane consumption: Well-being beyond the ‘good life’. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 16, 110 – 125. Ger, G., Belk, R.W., 1996. I’d like to buy the world a coke: Consumptionscapes of the ‘less affluent world’. Journal of Consumer Policy 19, 271 – 304. Graedel, T.E., Allenby, B.R., 1995. Industrial Ecology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 412. Hirsh, F., 1976/1995. Social Limits to Growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 208. Inglehart, R., Abramson, P.R., 1994. Economic security and value change. American Political Science Review 88, 336 – 354. Jentoft, S., Kristoffersen, T., 1989. Fishermen’s co-management: the case of the Lofoten Fishery. Human Organization 48, 355 – 365. Kay, J.J., 1991. A nonequilibrium thermodynamic framework for discussing ecosystem integrity. Environmental Management 15, 483 – 495. Keoleian, G.A., Menerey, D., 1994. Sustainable development by design: Review of life cycle design and related approaches. Air Waste 44, 645 – 668. Kiker, C.F., Putz, F.E., 1997. Ecological certification of forest products: Economic challenges. Ecological Economics 20, 37 – 51. Leach, W., 1993. Land of Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise of a New American Culture. Pantheon Books, New York, p. 510. Lewis, P., UN Report Warns of Global Water Shortage. New York Times, January 20, 1997. Low, B., Heinen, J.T., 1993. Population, resources, and environment: Implications of human behavioral ecology for conservation. Population Environment 15, 7 – 41. Maniates, M.F., 1998. ‘Confronting the Tyranny of Expectations: Global ‘Sustainability’, Consumption, and the Search for ‘Consumptive Resistance’’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 17 – 21 March 1998, Minneapolis, MN, USA. McGoodwin, J.R., 1990. Crisis in the World’s Fisheries: People, Problems, and Policies. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, p. 235. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., 1992. Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future. Chelsea Green, Post Mills, VT, p. 320. Miller, D., 1995. Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of New Studies. Routledge, London, p. 341. Mitchell, T., 1996. The use of an image: America’s Egypt and the development industry. Ecologist 26, 19 – 26. Myers, N., 1997. Consumption: Challenge to sustainable development…or Distraction?; Vincent, J.R. and T. Panayotou. Science 276, 53 – 57. Noorman, K.J., Uiterkamp, T.S., 1998. Green Households? Domestic Consumers, Environment, and Sustainability. Earthscan Publications, London, p. 267. Nordman, B., 1995. Celebrating consumption. Paper 90-4000. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, pp. 1 – 10.

T. Princen / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 347–363 OECD, 1995. OECD/MIT Experts Seminar on Sustainable Consumption and Production. OECD, Paris. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 280. Peluso, N., 1993. Coercing conservation: The politics of state resource control. In: Lipshcutz, R., Conca, K. (Eds.), The State and Social Power in Global Environmental Politics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 46–70. Postel, S.L., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., 1996. Human appropriation of renewable freshwater. Science 271, 785. Princen, T., 1996. The zero option and ecological rationality in international environmental politics. International Environmental Affairs 8, 147–176. Princen, T., 1997a. The shading and distancing of commerce: When internalization is not enough. Ecological Economics 20, 235 – 253. Princen, T., 1997b. Toward a theory of restraint. Population and Environment 18, 233–254. Rappoport, R.A., 1994. Disorders of our own: A conclusion. In: Forman, S. (Ed.), Diagnosing America: Anthropology and Public Engagement. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 235–294. Richins, M.L., 1994. Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research 21, 504 – 521. Ryan, J.C., Durning, A.T., 1997. Stuff: The Secret Lives of Everyday Things. Northwest Environment Watch, Seattle, p. 86. Schipper, L.J., 1997. Carbon Emissions from travel in the OECD countries. In: Stern, P., et al. (Eds.), Environmentally Significant Consumption: Research Directions. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 50–62. Schor, J., 1995. A new economic critique of consumer society. In: The Ethics of Consumption, vol. 15. Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, pp. 17–21.

.

363

Schumacher, E.F., 1973. Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Harper and Row, New York, p. 305. Scitovsky, T., 1976/1992. The Joyless Economy: The Psychology of Human Satisfaction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 334. Smith, G.A., 1993. The purpose of wealth: A historical perspective. In: Daly, H.E., Townsend, K.N. (Eds.), Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 183 – 209. Stern, P., Dietz, T., Ruttan, V., Socolow, R., Sweeney, J., 1997. Environmentally Significant Consumption: Research Directions. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p. 143. The Royal Society of London and the United States National Academy of Sciences, 1997. Towards Sustainable Consumption. The Royal Society, London. Turner, B.L., Clark, W.C., Kates, R.W., Richards, J.F., Mathews, J.T., Myer, W.B., 1990. The Earth as Transformed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere over the Past 300 Years. Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 713. Ulanowicz, R.E., 1997. Ecology: The Ascendent Perspective. Columbia University Press, New York, p. 201. Wilk, R., 1998. Emulation, imitation, and global consumerism. Organization and Environment 11, 314 – 333. Wilkins, D., 19 January 1997. Building boom: Boon or bane? Ann Arbor News, Michigan, p. 1. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 400 pp. World Resources Institute, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme, 1998. World Resources, 1998 – 99. Oxford University Press, New York, 369 pp.