Metrics

  • citations in SCIndeks: 0
  • citations in CrossRef:0
  • citations in Google Scholar:[]
  • visits in previous 30 days:15
  • full-text downloads in 30 days:11

Contents

article: 9 from 493  
Back back to result list
2021, vol. 14, iss. 3, pp. 85-105
The comparison of the conventional development and sustainable development model
aKosovo and Metohija Academy of Applied Studies, Leposavić
bUniversity 'Union - Nikola Tesla', Faculty of Economics and Finance, Belgrade
cAlfa University, Faculty of Trade and Banking 'Janićije i Danica Karić', Belgrade

emaillabovic.bojan@gmail.com, dragangagivujovic@gmail.com, bobandasickg@gmail.com
Keywords: ecosystem; sustainability; sustainable development; conventional model
Abstract
Great ideas usually start out as rather simple ideas. In social sciences, the ideas which impact the lives of the millions and which direct policies must be available to all, not only to the elite. Only in this way can they properly permeate institutions from the global to the local level and become an integral part of human lives. The model of sustainable development challenges the conventional model of development. Namely, the conventional approaches simplify development by observing it as global modernization modeled after the example of industrialized, developed countries. Sustainability does not simply require balancing, i.e. compromising between inherently conflicting forces. It is rather a positive imperative which connects social, economic, and ecological benefits. Sustainable development advocates for the ethical position that the stock of natural resources must be preserved for the future generations and that the value of all social benefits and costs, including the depletion of natural resources, must be included in accounting systems for the development performances to be properly measured. This paper covers a wide gap between the theoretical interpretation of sustainable development and the current situation in the world. The paper presents some critical views which perceive sustainable development as an illusion, but also gives arguments which claim that sustainable development has no alternative.
References
Baker, S. (2006) Sustainable Development. Routledge
Bostrom, M. (2012) A Missing Pillar? Challenges in Theorizing and Practicing Social Sustainability: Introduction to the Special Issue. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 8(1): 3-14
Chan, K.M.A., Gould, R.K., Pascual, U. (2018) Editorial Overview: Relational Values: What are They, and What's the Fuss About?. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35: A1-A7
Gudmundsson, H., Hall, R.P., Marsden, G., Zietsman, J. (2016) Sustainable Transportation: Indicators, Frameworks, and Performance Management. Springer
Kates, R.W., Parris, T., Leiserowitz, A. (2005) What is Sustainable Development? Goals, Indicators, Values and Practice. Environment, 47: 8-21
Kemp, R., Martens, P. (2007) Sustainable Development: How to Manage Something That Is Subjective and Never Can Be Achieved?. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 3(2): 5-14
Labadi, S., Logan, W. (2016) Urban Heritage, Development and Sustainability: International Frameworks, National and Local Governance. Routledge
Martens, P. (2006) Sustainability: Science or Fiction?. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 2(1): 36-41
Murphy, K. (2012) The Social Pillar of Sustainable Development: a Literature Review and Framework for Policy Analysis. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 8(1): 15-29
Naess, P. (2001) Urban Planning and Sustainable Development. European Planning Studies, 9(4): 503-524
Purvis, M., Grainger, A. (2013) Exploring Sustainable Development: Geographical Perspectives. New York: Earthscan Publications Limited
Roosa, S.A. (2008) Sustainable Development Handbook. USA: The Fairmont Press, Inc
Voigt, C. (2009) Sustainable Development as a Principle of International Law: Resolving Conflicts Between Climate Measures and WTO Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
 

About

article language: English
document type: Review Paper
DOI: 10.5937/etp2103085L
received: 09/08/2021
revised: 06/09/2021
accepted: 14/09/2021
published in SCIndeks: 06/11/2021
Creative Commons License 4.0