Since the introduction of the concept of “sustainable development” by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, a number of programs and policies have been offered, enacted, and pursued that profess to those ideals. The extent to which they actually accord with them, however, is the subject of a growing body of debate and literature. Some critics have argued that despite its promise, the concept of sustainable development has merely been reformulated and used to continue promoting the goal of economic growth as the primary measure of progress. This viewpoint argues that sustainable development can never be more than sustainable economic growth under the current growth development paradigm. This article examines these arguments through an analysis of sustainable development as pursued in the United States. It focuses on the sustainable development component of the U.S. government's comprehensive approach to solving urban problems through the creation of empowerment zones.
ByrneJ., & RichD. (1992). Toward a political economy of global change: Energy, environment, and development in the greenhouse. In ByrneJ. and RichD. (Eds.), Energy and environment: The policy challenge (pp. 269-300). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
The Clinton Administration Proposes a Second Round of Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. (1996). Available: http://www.ezec.gov/about/round2.htmlClinton: Prez Rails Against GOP, Pushes Brownfields Plan. (1996, March 12). Greenwire5(210). Available: http://www.ecology…RTICLES/gwo312.htm
LohmanL. (1995). Whose common future? In ConcaAlberty, & Dabelko (Eds.), Green planet blues: Enviornmental politics from Stockholm to Rio. (pp. 222-226). Boulder, CO: Westview.
MarshallA. (1938). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan. (Original work published 1890)
23.
MarxK. (1906). Capital, A critique of political economy. In The process of capitalist production (Vol. 1; pp. 405-422, 430-478). New York: Random House. (Original work published 1867)
24.
MumfordL. (1934). Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace
25.
MumfordL. (1964). Authoritarian and democratic technics. Technology and Culture 5, 1-8.
NorgaardR. (1994). Development betrayed: The end of progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of the future. New York: Routledge.
28.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (1996a). Answers to frequently asked questions about brownfields. Available: http://www.epa.gov…s/bf/answers.htm#1
The President's Community Enterprise Board. (1994, January). Building communities together: Empowerment zones and enterprise communities application guide. HUD—1445—CPD.
RosenbergN. (1972). Technology and American economic growth. New York: Sharpe.
33.
Schwartz-CowanR. (1985). The industrial revolution in the home. In MacKenzieD. & WajcamJ. (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (pp. 181-201). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
34.
ShivaV. (1992). The violence of the green revolution: The world agriculture, ecology, and politics. London: Zed.
WinnerL. (1982). Energy regimes and the ideology of efficiency. In Daniels & Rose (Eds.), Energy and transport (pp. 261-276).
38.
WinnerL. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
World Resources Institute. Policies and institutions: Natural resources accounting. In World Resources 1990-1991 (pp. 231-239). New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
ZimmermanA.D. (1995). Toward a more democratic ethic of technological governance. Science, Technology, and Human Values20 (1), 86-107.
