(C) K Raworth.
Probably quite late — and thanks only to the recommendation of Prof Steve Schooner — I have now read Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics : Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist (Cornerstone 2018).
It is a fascinating book that makes a compelling case for a paradigm shift in the ways in which we approach Economics — and in particular consumption economics and economic growth — so that we can (quickly, urgently) move from unsustainable and unequitable economic structures and dynamics towards sustainable and fair ones. This is represented by the doughnut (and you must read the book to understand it but, once you do, it provides a very helpful mind map).
In short, in my reading, the book makes a compelling case for a quick acceleration towards sustainability and redistribution and, in developed countries, for degrowth.
I have been left wondering how to to do ‘doughnut procurement’, as it is challenging to apply the model to specific areas of economic activity (see eg this brief approach to ‘doughnut procurement’ in Amsterdam, with contributions from Raworth herself). But there are two or three ideas I would be interested in discussing:
What is the role of data and metrics in establishing both the ecological ceiling and the social foundation for ‘doughnut procurement’ and how to address their trade-offs — in the end, this is the perpetual clash between the tensions derived from scarcity (public budgets are not infinite and the needs of the society procurement is meant to satisfy tend to exceed them) and quality (in terms of the social and environmental ‘externalities’ of what is procured), except the book makes it clear that there is no such clash because both are dimensions of scarcity and, as such, the trade-offs need to be understood from a different perspective. I really wonder how to operationalise this in the context of award criteria in particular, as that seems to be where it all boils down to. Is MEAT capable of capturing this?
What time horizon must public buyers be mandated to report about? So far, there is limited accountability of the way public funds are spent and, in many ways, the reporting system is extremely short-termed: hardly any information is generated or published beyond award and, certainly, not much if at all beyond completion of public contracts even if a significant volume of ecological and social impacts are only ‘visible’ many years down the line (eg at disposal of acquired equipment).
Linked to that, what obligations need to be imposed on public buyers concerning the ownership (whether direct or imputed) of the assets (and the Xaas they can substitute them for) they procure, so that they engage in an adequate level of reassignment, refurbishment, recycling and minimisation of the waste resulting from procurements?
I never thought much about it, but it seems to me that public buyers have been (where at all) more concerned with trying to engage with ‘doughnut providers’ than in trying to become ‘doughnut buyers’, and I wonder if they really are in a much better position than you or me to make ‘doughnut choices’ in the absence of a legislative framework that eg completely prohibits the purchase of specific products (or specific packaging; single use plastics anyone?), and in the absence of adequate economic incentives/subsidies that make it possible for everyone to exercise ‘doughnut discretion’.
Could it be that by centering (or framing) the need to quickly boost (in exponential terms) the uptake of green and social procurement in the public, academic and political discourse around the exercise of discretion, we are falling into the same trap of soft law and self-regulation that has pervaded the corporate social responsibility movement? Is there really much justification for ‘procurement only’ legal requirements (eg environmental), rather than a more aggressive regulation of the entire economy to the extent that it affects the environment? How do we get procurement (geared towards buying, buying, buying) to degrow??
Well, I seem to have digressed quite a bit. But I hope there is some kernel of a fruitful discussion in the above. As ever, comments and challenges most welcome: a.sanchez-graells@bristol.ac.uk.