Journal of Global Resources

Volume 3

July 2016
Page 75-80
ISSN: 2395-3160 (Print), 2455-2445 (Online)

9ROLE OF PUBLIC POLICIES AND LOCAL INITIATIVES IN SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENTVirendra Verma1 and Jyoti Jangir2
1

Associate Professor (Political Science)
Government Lohia College, Churu (Rajasthan)
Email: varma.virendra188@gmail.com
2

Assistant Professor, Goyanka Girls College, Laxmangarh (Rajasthan)

Abstract: Sustainable development continues to gain widespread popularity in policy debates.
Much of this popularity stems from an expectation that it can reconcile economic developmentwith the need to conserve natural resources, protect the environment and meet social
objectives (Gibbs, 1996). This paper explores how established local policy partnershipnetworks are coming to terms with these contested notions in their attempts to put sustainable
development into practice at the local level. We suggest that due to the highly contested
nature of the concept, these networks are facing problems in trying to unravel whatsustainable development actually means. Few organizations are grappling with the more
fundamental implications of the concept and, as a result, policies for sustainability are being
developed cheek by jowl with those of economic growth and competitiveness. The sustainable
development depends upon broad participation which goes beyond established partnershipnetworks and engages a much wider range of organizations and individuals
Key words: Public Policies, Sustainable Development, Local Initiatives
The term sustainable development was widely adopted by mainstream development agencies
following the publication in 1987 of Our Common Future by the World Commission on
Environment and Development (WCED) which stated that "sustainable development isdevelopment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. Even the narrow notion of physical sustainability implies
a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must be logically extended toequity within each generation" .The United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment (UNCED) was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992. The conference, also
known as the Earth Summit, attempted to put sustainable development at the top of theinternational agenda for the twenty-first century. The Rio Declaration on Environment andDevelopment enunciated 27 principles dealing with nations' rights and responsibilities inpursuing sustainable development.
Trends and Issues
There can be little dispute with the assertion that economic development; social development
and environmental protection are interdependent and essential components of sustainable
development. Recent trends however, suggest that they are often far from mutually75

reinforcing. Interrelationships among them are extremely complex and often highlycontradictory. In the modern world, outcomes in particular sub national, national andinternational context depend on interactions among diverse socioeconomic and ecologicalsystem at all levels. Economic development, social development and environmentaldegradation (or enhancements) are all social constructs. They are necessarily rather vague
concepts, as they imply normative values about what constitutes socioeconomic progress andenvironmental health. There has been little progress in reconciling these interdependent
objectives of sustainable development in particular social and ecological contexts. Making
them mutually reinforcing would require profound policy and institutional reforms at all levels. A
quick review of international report summarizing available data and analyses on social andeconomic development trends together with those on environmental degradation, despitesome positive achievements, overall trends with respect to sustainable development had
become more unfavorable than they had been in 1992.
Social Indicators"Social development", like the term "development" more generally when applied to humansocieties, has come to mean "progress" in approaching certain social goals. It is shorthand forcomplex processes of historical change. Institutions regulating social relations in production,
distribution and other activities are all restructured during social development. Different socialactors have many conflicting objectives. Diverse societies may endorse similar overarchinggoals, such as those currently implied by sustainable development, but their elites may havevery different views about priorities and the means for approaching them. For many socialgroups, social development simply means overcoming poverty. Social development, likeeconomic development is commonly interpreted in developing countries to mean catching up
with the already rich and developed. This implies improved living standards, including better
access to food, shelter, education, health, security and a clean environment. For many, it alsosuggests access to the lifestyles prevalent in rich industrial countries. For social groups thatare excluded from many of societies' privileges and benefits, social development implies their
being respected and included in society on equal terms with the more privileged. For manyothers, however, it still means only lifting average living standards for the whole nationalsociety without challenging and reforming established power relations between social classes,ethnic and religious groups, men and women, or among countries.
There are several widely used indicators of progress towards social development. A
good composite index in theory should be average life expectancy at birth, reflecting access tonutritious food, sanitation, health services and so forth. Access to education can be indicatedby literacy rates, school enrolments and the like. Gender discrimination is reflected in different
levels attained by males and females. Difference between social or occupational classes,
income levels or ethnic groups can reflect various kinds of social discrimination and prejudice.
In assessing trends in social welfare is that indicators of poverty, health, education, access toservices and so forth are commonly expressed in terms of percentages of a larger population.
World population more than tripled during the last century. In developing countries, population
increased by two thirds during only the last quarter of the twentieth century. Assuming the 30
per cent of their population was undernourished in 1975 and 25 per cent undernourished in76

2000, this meant a 17 per cent decrease in the rate of under nutrition in only 25 years. This
seems like good progress. The number of hungry people in these developing countries,
however, would have grown by over 300 million, or by well over one third. Moreover, if China
and a few other large countries in Asia making rapid progress in improving nutrition of the poor
are omitted, there was no gain in the proportion of people who were adequately nourished inmost developing countries. Improvements in social conditions at these aggregate levels may
conceal serious deteriorations for various countries and social groups. Indicators of life
expectancy, poverty, literacy and infant mortality all appear to have improved dramatically,
especially in developing countries. Population increased by 3.5 billion people, almost all indeveloping countries, during the last half-century. If the data of the high-level panel aretranslated into numbers of people suffering deprivation under these same headings, theoverall trends look less rosy.
During the last 50 years, the world's population increased by some 240 per cent. If one
looks at social welfare trends in low-income regions and countries such as those in sub Saharan Africa and the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, they are extremely
depressing. The apparent good results in reducing poverty for developing countries as a whole
can largely be attributed to China and a few other Asian countries. Both the social causes andthe impacts of environmental degradation are largely determined by institutionalized social
relations as well as by the policies of diverse social actors. In this respect, identifying the rolesof social actors, processes, structures and interactions in contributing to environmental
degradation and in determining its impacts on diverse social groups and ecological systems is
an essential step towards proposing remedial actions.
Ecological degradation, like sustainable development, is a social construct. There are
no absolute benchmarks of what constitutes a "natural environment" against which
degradation can be measured. The impacts of human activities are an integral component of"natural ecosystems." Perceptions of environmental health and of sustainable development
more broadly, require value judgments. The social issues such as reducing inequalities andpoverty among and within nations, as well as promoting production and consumption patterns
that are compatible with socially and ecologically sustainable economic growth, should begiven the highest possible priority.
The Role of Public Polices and Local Initiatives
Some two centuries ago, Malthus argued that rapidly expanding populations would soon bechecked by slower-growing food supplies accompanied by famines, plagues and violent
conflicts. Since then, the world population has increased nearly tenfold. Food supplies,
however, have grown even more rapidly. There are more people today suffering from hunger,
insecurity and extreme poverty than any time earlier, but the proportion of humanity who aredesperately poor and doomed to experience short and brutal lives has apparently decreased.
Public policies respond in large part to political pressures from the state's support groups andfrom others viewed as potential state supporters or dangerous opponents. So-called decision
makers, even in authoritarian states, are constrained by their needs for eventual broad politicallegitimacy. Policy reforms by governments usually require impetus from powerful social forces77

(that is, organized interest groups and their broader constituencies identified with theperceived interests of social class, status, ethnicity, religious affiliations, region and so forth).
Private organizations have purposes and policies ranging from expansion and profits ofbusiness enterprises to the altruism of a few NGOs.
A mantra of many environmentalists is "think globally, act locally."This emphasis on
local action, local solutions and local government is salutary if it is interpreted to mean thatsustainable development policies ultimately have to be implemented by agencies in specificlocalities at particular times. Moreover, in principle, the reforms have to enjoy some measureof local support and cooperation. In the same vein, one of the most thoughtful mid-twentiethcentury United States politicians, Tip O'Neill, famously stated that "all politics is local". He
certainly did not mean that national and international policies are of secondary importance.
After all, he was one of the most powerful national-level politicians in the United States for overtwo decades. But he knew that United States politicians have to count on local constituencies
in order to be effective.
Almost always and everywhere there is something that local residents, theirorganizations and local governments could do better to protect the livelihoods of the poor andtheir natural environment. But the limits on what local groups can do are often very narrow.
Sometimes there are almost no possibilities at all for constructive local initiatives that could beundertaken without provoking more violent repression, leaving people worse off. This isfrequently forgotten by progressive outsiders often romantically extolling the benefits ofdecentralization and democratic local governance. The benefits of democratic decentralization
are great and are a key goal of sustainable development. Advocates of decentralization,
however, often neglect the prevalence of inequitable repressive local power structures and theacute scarcity of resources in many localities, even if those available locally were equitably
distributed. Such issues require national and international actions as well as local ones.
There are always exceptions. When there are local government initiatives towardsustainable development in a large commercial estate context, however, they are unlikely tobe really local. Elites generally have local, national and, in some cases, cosmopolitan
identities. Their responses to environmental and poverty issue reflect more than local
perceptions and concerns. Initiatives taken by subordinate workers, tenants and others insocially polarized rural areas tend to be highly conflictive. Popular movements are often
brutally suppressed where local authorities believe their use of violence will be backed ortolerated by the national state and other powerful outside organizations. Where the state may
be more sympathetic to collective initiatives by the poor, however, positive changes towards
sustainable development can sometimes emerge following prolonged struggle. Opponents toreform rely heavily on fomenting divisions among popular movements that always include
groups with divergent as well as convergent interests in reform.
Local initiatives and programmes to improve livelihoods and control environmental
degradation at the level of metropolitan governments tend to reflect the concerns of each city's
political and economic elites and vocal middle classes. Their policies are sometimes modified78

by strong pressures from organized groups of the poor, depending partly on national andinternational contexts. Nonetheless, urban sustainable development policies usually benefit
the urban non-poor disproportionately in spite of their declared objectives. This is now widelyrepeated conventional wisdom. The poor and their civil society organizations need to be active
participants. This view is supported both by practical experience and in theory.
Conclusion
The emergence of sustainable development within policy frameworks has opened up new
possibilities to tackle a range of established problems, such as environmental degradation,
under-employment and lack of democratic participation. Moreover, round tables onsustainability, Local Agenda 21 initiatives, citizens’ forums and the prospect of electedassemblies and mayors have created the potential for renewed dialogue and the exchange ofideas. Established policy networks are particularly entrenched and retain responsibility forputting into place policy on sustainable development. Moreover, such networks continue to berestricted by the guidelines of the central government and as a result have limited scope fordeveloping innovative and locally sensitive policies. Developing mechanisms and institutions
within localities and regions to actively engage a wider cross-section of the population insustainable development, which is an important step in overcoming such limitations.
References
1. Atkinson, R. (1999) Discourses of partnerships and empowerment in contemporary
British regeneration, Urban
2. Bandyopadhyay, J. and V.Shiva, 1988. "Political economy of ecologicalmovements.”Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 24, 11 June, pp. 1953-1958.
3. Barraclough, Solon L. 2001. Toward Integrated and Sustainable Development?
Overarching Concerns, Programme Paper No. 1, UNRISD, Geneva.
4. Coulson, A. (1999) How green is Blair’s government? , Local Economy, 14(3), pp. 194–
199.
5. DETR (1997) Building Partnerships for Prosperity: sustainable growth, competitivenessand employment in the English regions, Cm. 3814 (London, The Stationery Office).
6. DETR (1999) A Better Quality of Life. A Strategy for Sustainable Development for theUK, Cm. 4345 (London, The Stationery Office).
7. Dobson, A. (2000) Green Political Thought (London, Routledge).
8. Douthwaite, R. (1996) Short Circuit: strengthening local economies for security in an
unstable world (Dartington, Green Books).
9. Friends of the Earth (1998) Regional Dimensions of Sustainability (London,Sustainable Development Research Unit).
10. Friends of the Earth North East (1999) Response to: draft regional planning guidancein the North East (Newcastle, Friends of the Earth).
11. Garmise, S. & Rees, G. (1997) The role of institutional networks in local economic
development. A new model for governance? , Local Economy, 12(2), pp. 104–119.
12. Geddes, M. (2000) Tackling social exclusion in the European Union? The limits to thenew orthodoxy of local partnership, International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 24(2), pp. 782–801.
13. Gibbs, D. (1996) Integrating sustainable development and economic restructuring: arole for regulation theory?, Geoforum, 27(1), pp. 1–10.

7914. Gibbs, D. (1997) Urban sustainability and economic development in the United
Kingdom: exploring the contradictions, Cities, 14(4), pp. 203–208.
15. Gibbs, D. (1998) Regional development agencies and sustainable development ,Regional Studies, 32(4), pp. 365–381.
16. Gibbs, D. (2000) Ecological modernisation, regional development and regionaldevelopment agencies, Geoforum, 31, pp. 9–19.
17. Gibbs, D., Longhurst, J. & Braithwaite, C. (1998) Struggling with sustainability: weakand strong interpretations of sustainable development within local authority policy,
Environment and Planning A, 30,
18. Kothari, R. (1995) Poverty, Human Consciousnes s and the Amnesia of Development(London, Zed Books).
19. Marquand, D. & Tomaney, J. (2000) Democratising England (London, Regional Policy
Forum).
20. Miller, E. (1999) Partners in regeneration: constructing a local regime for urban
management?, Policy and Politics, 27(3), pp. 343–358.
21. New Economics Foundation (1999) Community Works! A Guide to Community
Economic Action (London, New Economics Foundation).
22. One North East (1999) Regional Economic Strategy for the North East. Unlocking Our
Potential (Newcastleupon-Tyne, ONE).
23. Pearce, D. & Barber, E. B. (2000) Blueprint for a Sustainable Economy (London,Earthscan).
24. Pearce, D., Markandja, A. & Barbier, E. (1989) Blueprint for a Green Economy(London, Earthscan).
25. Pepper, D. (2000) Environmentalism, in: Browning, G., Halcli, A. & Webster, F. (Eds)
Understanding
26. Satterthwaite, David. 2002, "Local governance and sustainable development.”Equityfor a Small Planet. IIED issue paper for the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment, IIED.
Studies, 36(1), pp. 59–72.
27. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Report.
Oxford University Press, New York.
28. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). 2000. Visible
Hands: Taking Responsibility for Social Development. UNRISD, Geneva.
29. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common
Future. WCED and Oxford University Press, Oxford.

80