Improving human well-being over time is a broader goal than increasing economic
growth that focuses primarily on material comfort. This has some important
implications. Since social and environmental assets also affect human
well-being directly, a strict policy of "grow now, clean up later" has costs
for today's generation, costs that often fall disproportionately on today's
poor.49
Moreover, any serious attempt at poverty reduction requires, at a minimum,
durable economic growth-not economic growth in fits and starts. This means
paying enough attention to social and environmental concerns to ensure that
durable growth is not jeopardized.
And while there is potential for substituting assets over a range, there are
limits to such substitution (see earlier section on this topic), perhaps even
more from the perspective of people's well-being than of production. So to
ensure that the well-being of future generations is not compromised, some
attention has to focus on environmental concerns-in particular the avoidance of
irreversibilities that may matter for future well-being.
The way the economy grows-the pace and pattern of growth-can matter for the
well-being of both the current generation and that generation's children and
grandchildren. Developing countries do not have to follow the path of
development traversed in the last century by the industrial countries.
Technological options have improved and it is now possible to avoid repeating
the mistakes of industrial countries in their development (i.e., the use of
lead in gasoline). On the other hand, some options open to industrial countries
in their development phase are not open to developing countries now (land-labor
ratios, extent of global competition, and so on).
What do these considerations imply for a country's development strategy-or how
does a country balance the objectives of addressing environmental concerns and
pursuing economic growth? Over the longer term, economic growth is unlikely to
be sustained unless enough attention is paid to environmental assets. But over
the short to medium term it may be possible to do so, on the grounds that such
short-term growth could generate more resources for addressing environmental
concerns later. Indeed, having limited resources usually makes it necessary to
choose priorities between tradeoffs. But the priorities will not always favor
growth over attention to environmental assets in the short run, or vice versa.
The appropriate ranking of priorities will vary by locale (region or nation)
and at different times, depending on the issue and on several other factors.
What environmental depletion or degradation has already taken place? How
important is the asset in either the production process or in utility directly?
Are the poor particularly vulnerable if the issue is left unattended?
Three broad cases can be distinguished for different emphasis and sequencing:
Simultaneously addressing environmental concerns along with economic growth,
even in the short run
Placing a higher priority on economic growth, while addressing environmental
concerns that can be dealt with at relatively low cost in the short run
Placing a higher priority on maintaining or restoring the environment in the
short run.
