Sustainable Development and Economic Growth: An Interplay on an Evolving Globalized Stage



The goal of this paper is to present the reader with a brief background of the global experience with sustainable development in the past fifty years. Considering the broad range of issues involved with sustainable development, I decided to divide the paper into ten interconnected sections, each of which would be worthy of extensive analysis on its own.

I will begin by introducing the notion of sustainable development and introducing some of the questions that arise from with our ever-changing “new world order.” Following this will be a brief discussion of the first development experiences, which started as development assistance to help Europe recover following World War II. The success here provided confidence to expand assistance in other parts of the world. The third section covers the changes in the organization of society that provided the environment in which Western wealth and growth originated.

With this basic background of growth and development, I will then begin to present some of the more current issues concerning sustainable development. The fourth section addresses concerns that globalization will result in the extinction of individual cultures, with the world’s cultures ultimately being standardized. Section five is focused around knowledge inequalities and the technology gap between the developed countries and the developing ones. Multinational corporations are often accused of not contributing anything (in terms of such things as transferring management skills and technological knowledge) to the countries in which they operate. Section six briefly looks at these concerns. Inappropriate approaches towards growth also have severe consequences on the environment. A few of the environmental problems stemming from growth are the topics of section seven. Section eight raises questions about the measurement of the standard of living and discusses some recent ideas for improvement. This is followed by a short discussion of a fundamental question that should be asked when analyzing development experiments: does growth help the poor? With that question asked, I will end the paper with the convergence theory—that is, that the incomes of the late starters to growth converge quite rapidly with those of the leaders.

Sustainability in a Changing World

As economies grow and as a country’s national markets become increasingly interconnected in world markets, concerns of future events—such as an international “financial and economic meltdown”—as well as concerns for the well being of future generations arise. There are two major aspects of sustainable development that can be linked to these future concerns. The first is that for already developed countries, there is the desire to ensure that future generations enjoy at least the same material standard of living as we do today. For the developing countries, there is the hope to “catch up” with the developed countries in a relatively short period of time, while at the same time not loosing sight of the goal of sustainability. Sustainable development implies that “current needs are to be met as fully as possible while ensuring that the life opportunities of future generations are undiminished relative to the present” (Howarth 473). Perhaps the fundamental goals of sustainable development are to promote growth that will eliminate poverty, and to assist with stability. As a result of globalism—”a state of the world involving networks at multicontinental distances” (Keohane 104)—economic shocks travel across the globe “within seconds” (Beynon xii).

There have been many different approaches towards sustainable development, and these ideas are continually being reworked, analyzed, and expanded upon. There have also been many questions concerning the legitimacy and interest of development assistance. The past two centuries have shown incredible growth in wealth and the standard of living. These advances have not, however, been universal, and there has been a good deal of research aimed at explaining how some countries advance while others lag far behind. Among the proposed ideas are that the advance of the Western economies was a result of exploitation, including its use of slavery and colonialism at various points in its development. But this argument does not help answer the question whether growth is good, nor does the historical story of western growth fully support this claim concerning the West’s rise to wealth. These questions have, however, led to questions about whether growth leads to greater inequality—between countries and within them—or whether convergence is occurring. In other words, is growth really good for the poor? Has aid and development assistance succeeded in its goal to reduce poverty?

The Early Development Experiences

Following the Marshall Plan, which helped post-war Europe to recover, we have had a half century that has been called “a period of considerable international generosity.” Early on, Cold War competitive ideology also played a major role in spurring on the development experience, with the two main schools of thought concerning the means of achieving growth being the adoption of democracy and market economies, versus development aided by central planning and some form of authoritarianism (Sagasti 4). The “American Model” was fueled by a certain degree of overconfidence, public support for aid that was supposed to “modernize” what many considered “backward” economies, and a degree of fear of the powers of the Soviet Union. Similarly, the Soviet Union sought to strengthen its alliances by development assistance. “Soviet aid was seen as another weapon in the fight against Western capitalism” (Sagasti 20).

One of the interesting outcomes of these early development experiences stems from the perception that the countries being assisted were often considered to be culturally “backward.” The result of this view was that a country’s failure to “modernize” and conform to Western tradition and values was in part to blame for the backwardness of the economy in that country. Traditional ways were seen as a hindrance to economic progress, and were often disregarded and replaced by Western ideas (Sagasti 90). There are pros and cons to this argument. Much of the historical evidence points to the requirement of appropriate political systems, institutions, and values to encourage change and growth. Traditionalism, which asks us to accept the established order, is thus a hindrance to growth.

Traditionalism and Growth: The Environment for Innovation

We can take the example of China’s experience as an illustration here. China had incredible science and technology, with inventions such as paper, iron casting and medicine hundreds of years in advance to Western Europe. Yet, starting in the 17th century, Western Europe took the lead, and by the 19th century, the economic gap between them was incredibly large. One explanation is that the Chinese leaders valued stability, and were thus often skeptical of new ideas. In addition, China kept herself very isolated from the rest of the world. Everything she needed could be found or produced within her boundaries. Thus, early Westerners were seen as barbarians who had nothing to offer her. Indeed, Chinese leaders felt they were offering a service to these backward traders by letting them establish ports in a country that was morally advanced (The Economist, Dec. 31 1999, p12).

By contrast, Western Europe saw institutional changes such as the separation of the economic sphere from political and religious control. The West’s growth was the result of a society that developed a set of institutions that were favorable to change. Four rights are cited by economic historians Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell as contributing to the environment for the growth that was to come for Western Europe. These were: the authority of individuals to form enterprises; “enterprises were authorized to acquire goods and hold them for resale at a profit or loss”; enterprises were given authority to determine the activities they engaged in and; property rights were more clearly defined, and the property of enterprises were made “immune from arbitrary seizure or expropriation by political authorities” (22). Traditionally, these rights and decisions were made in the political and religious spheres, where leaders were interested in maintaining the status quo.

At the same time this was happening, Western European markets were also freer from religious and political control than markets in other societies were. With the granting of authority to make the above-mentioned decisions to enterprises and the individuals who owned them, the owners were made responsible for the economic outcomes of their decisions. The markets in turn determined the success or failure of an innovation, as well as determined the rewards to innovation (Rosenberg 23).

It is interesting to note that what this setting resulted in was not technological progress due to scientific progress (although there was considerable scientific progress—again from the changed set of values which allowed for a shifting away from the binds of political and religious control). The advances of the mid 18th century to mid 19th century were brought about by “artisans or engineers with little or no scientific training. They were men of common sense, curiosity, energy and vast ingenuity…Their goal was not to understand, but…to make machines that worked better and…at lower cost.” Not all innovations succeeded, perhaps only as few as one per hundred. But the significant innovations involving political and economic institutions of the time provided increased incentive to try new ideas, and in doing so, prepared Western Europe for the changes which were going to accompany their upcoming growth (The Economist, Dec. 31 1999, p11).

Globalization and Cultural Identity

Recall the origin of the above discussion of Western Europe’s ability to promote growth and achieve its wealth. I began by pointing out that some of the early development projects tended to try to discard many traditions and values within the country receiving aid, with the justification that the existing traditions were “backward” and hindered progress. As noted, there is a con to this argument. Apart from the unattractiveness of the concept of a homogenous world culture, there are other problems with this…egotistical… view of development assistance. There is a certain degree of pretentiousness which may involve such a program which could likely lead to resentment of the donor countries by those receiving the aid.

As mentioned before, ideas concerning development have constantly been changing and adapting. Adapting is the key word here. One of the main problems with assuming one approach to be the only way to achieve success is that such a view does not account for variability, not only in individuals, but also in location. Rosenberg and Birdzell address this in the conclusion of their book on the history of Western growth, How the West Grew Rich. “We wish particularly to avoid any suggestion that the West’s historical path to wealth contains any simple formula that, if used in the Third World, would produce a similar outcome…. Another fundamental consideration is that the West has been remarkably willing to pay the price of growth, in the form of changing the whole structure and interpretation of Western life” (327-328).

Francisco Sagasti feels this penetration of Western culture is even more significant today, with the agent of distribution being modern telecommunication and other such technological advances. The “images of affluence” portrayed on television can create cultural tensions in the developing world. These images of Western life brings with it “pressures to standardize (Westernize?) aspirations and cultural values,” while at the same time, there is a growing desire to “reassert individuality and cultural identity” (53). This set of contradictory aspirations may play a significant role in addressing why certain development programs have had little or no effect on promoting growth. As a result of the acknowledgement that what is good for one is not necessarily best for everyone, we observe in more recent development approaches increased levels of “case-by-case” and “country-focus[ed]” attempts to try to address regional and cultural differences (Sagasti 16).

It is interesting to be able to observe this struggle between traditionalism and standardization on American television. One can observe, for example, the version of MTV that is broadcast in various parts of the world—including on the domestic international channels. While MTV Mexico or MTV Asia definitely tend to embrace American pop culture, the music is often definitely different and frequently employs each region’s respective traditional instruments. One can then question whether we are dealing with cultural degradation (should MTV be there in the first place?), or whether the transformation can be more appropriately termed selective cultural assimilation (whose MTV is it?). Building on the unattractiveness of a homogenous world culture, and the experience with things such as the various international versions of MTV, perhaps the emerging “global order” will be more like Jack Weatherford sees it: “We need to share some values such as commitment to fundamental human rights and basic rules of interaction, but we can be wildly different in other areas such as lifestyles, spirituality, musical tastes, and community life (290).

The Inequality of Knowledge

Whatever the situation, development programs have begun to address cultural concerns. As Sagasti points out, “Even international institutions like the World Bank, previously known to focus exclusively on economic and social questions, are beginning to pay attention to cultural questions” (55). The addressing of concerns of cultural degradation are not the only changes taking place. An additional host of issues such as human rights issues, environmental protection, relief assistance, labor rights concerns, education, leadership training, and the restriction of weapons trade are all topics that have become part of foreign development assistance. Many of these alternative foci are pursued by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which tend to “promote particular goals rather than the broader goal of development” (The Economist, Jan.29 2000, p27).

Often, however, many of these issues are crucial to the success of a sustainable development program. We can start this discussion with investments in human capital—specifically in the importance of knowledge for growth. The rate of change in knowledge generation and use has been increasingly rapid. “It took from the time of Christ to the mid-eighteenth century for knowledge to double. It doubled again 150 years later, and then again in only 50 years. Today it doubles every four or five years. More new information has been produced in the last 30 years than in the previous 5000” (David Linowes quoted in Sagasti 59). With the transformation of the importance of knowledge in the global economy today, property rights and ideas have transformed ideas into capital, and capital has always been a major economic barrier to entry (The Economist, Apr.08 2000, p17). Access to knowledge, increased incentives to create knowledge, and a promotion of the ability to make use of knowledge through education and training, will prove to be very valuable for a developing country in trying to achieve sustainable growth.

A reading of a textbook on macroeconomics will point out that capital accumulation cannot be the source of sustainable economic growth, but rather that growth “must ultimately be due to technological progress” (Blanchard 461). This is because with a given level of technology, capital eventually reaches a point of diminishing returns, where each increase in capital leads to smaller increases in output. Technological progress can change this by increasing the effectiveness of labor, making the existing capital more productive. Technological progress can also mean new products and different types of products. Much of what has pushed growth in recent years has been the result of innovation. “Innovation has become the industrial religion of the late 20th century” (Valery The Economist “Innovation Survey”, Feb. 20 1999 p5).

Well-defined property rights have been key players in contributor to providing incentives for innovation. It may also provide some explanation of what can be termed the “technology gap” between the developed countries and the developing ones. Professor Paul Romer, a “new growth” theorist, addresses some of these questions of knowledge, competition, and convergence in his essay The Origins of Endogenous Growth. Professor Romer points to five basic facts about economic growth in the neoclassical model of growth. Here are three of them. “Discoveries differ from other inputs in the sense that many people can use them at the same time.” Seen in this light, information is a nonrival good—the additional cost of providing ideas to another person are zero. “Technological advance comes from things that people do.” Discoveries will not be made if people do not pursue activities that lead to discoveries. “Many individuals and firms have market power and earn monopoly rents on discoveries” (Romer 12-13).

Professor Romer’s last fact is significant. Neoclassical growth models treated technology as a public good. With such treatment, it was difficult to explain why developing countries could not absorb the more productive technologies of the developed countries and then enjoy a period of rapid economic growth. Public goods are not only nonrival, but they are also nonexcludable. Firms and individuals typically control access to their information and use of their information “for at least some period of time,” making “economically important discoveries” not fully subject to the treatment offered by neoclassical growth theories (Romer 13). Temporary monopoly power in the form of property rights may play an important part in encouraging innovation (Romer 18). Professor Romer feels that deriving from his work with investments in human capital one can find a policy prescription for economic success which involves “more saving and more schooling” (20).

The Role of the Multinational Corporation

The findings of Romer and of others who have looked at the importance of knowledge and research on growth have been reflected in more recent growth experiences. Francisco Sagasti feels that “creating and consolidating scientific and technological capabilities in the developing regions” will be one of the major themes in the “development-cooperation” experiences of the years to come (148). Much of the controversy concerning multinational corporations, for example, is that their power combined with their drive for profits often lead to very exploitative working conditions. The ability for multinationals to easily shift from one country to another—based on features like the tax incentives, environmental regulations, and labor costs offered countries competing for investment—have led many to question whether globalization is ultimately going to lead to a race to the bottom (Ross 71; The Economist, Jan. 29 2000 p21; Breecher 19-27). Many people fear that these corporations are mostly engaging in production of goods which do not require much skilled labor, and as such, do not contribute much in the way of technological “know-how” transfers to the recipient country.

This is not quite the case. There is the argument that multinationals are more afraid of possible protest in their home countries than they are of “resentment abroad” (The Economist, Jan. 29 2000, p21). Nevertheless, “every so often, a multinational does something stupid,” but on the whole, they do achieve in success in creating jobs quickly, and these jobs often pay better than local firms do. They are also better at transferring technology, at least between the parent firm and their foreign counterparts (Greider 22).

Environmental Concerns and Sustainability

The United Nations feels that businesses are indeed their “Partners in Sustainable Development.” In a publication by that title, the United Nations discussed the role of business and industry in improvement of the production process (at home and abroad) “through the introduction of technologies that use resources more efficiently and minimize environmental impacts” (Alvarez-Rivero iv). While the UN does admit that there are great costs associated with research and development (R&D) involving cleaner production technologies, it points out that the long run benefits outweigh these costs, and that furthermore, the large market would help absorb the costs. In a number of case studies, the clean technologies not only had environmental benefits, but they also generally resulted in higher production efficiency (Alvarez-Rivero 1). One of the major obstacles to investment in cleaner production identified in the UN report is misinformation about the costs of environmental protection. Part of the misinformation stems from the difficulty in doing cost-benefit analyses involving environmental costs. The UN recommends increased use of environmental accounting—using a framework that would allow firms to internalize the environmental costs to better determine whether a given project would “meet their benchmark for rate of return on investment” (Alvarez-Rivero 6).

The effect of growth on the environment is an important one to look at when the goal is sustainable development. “Trade liberalization, per se, is not necessarily linked to either environmental degradation or environmental preservation.” It is likely, however, that trade can be an “effective agent” for sustainable development (Schultz 424). Environmental issues are of international concern and span many generations. Matters of intergenerational equity arise when considering environmental issues, because there is often a trade off to be made between “efficiency, [which] puts society on the utility possibilities frontier…[and] sustainability, [which] is a matter of distribution of assets across generations” (Howarth 473). There is also the concern that our placing a value on sacrificing something today for future generations may not be a value that is passed down through generations. We may be inclined to wonder about whether our efforts today may simply be foiled by acts of these future generations.

The environmental concerns regarding sustainability have many different aspects. These include problems stemming from agricultural practices, increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and concern about global warming. Improper farming techniques, for example, while embodying good intentions such as providing more abundant, cheaper food, has resulted in environmental damage in the form of soil degradation, pollution, water scarcity and biodiversity loss. Soil degradation is taking place as a result of over-planting and overgrazing, accompanied by poor drainage and improper irrigation techniques. Pollution arises from the widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides. In addition to contaminating water sources, it is also causing many biological problems “throughout food-chains…in both man and beast.” Water is running out as a result of inefficient use in farming. Farm practices such as intensive monoculture programs, deforestation, selective animal breeding, and genetically modified high yielding, fast growing crops, have had a severe impact on biodiversity. “Over a sixth of the 3,800 breeds of domestic animals that existed a century ago have disappeared” (El Feki The Economist “Agriculture and Technology Survey,” Mar. 25 2000 p11).

This is not to say that the situation concerning the environment is entirely bleak. The World Trade Organization, for example, has begun to include statements in its publications of interest in environmental issues and, as a more active stance, formed the Committee on Trade and the Environment in early 1994 (Schultz 425). There have also been environmental subsidy provisions that permit “governmental assistance to promote the adaptation of existing facilities to new environmental requirements (Schultz 429). Such acts as eco-labeling are being promoted by environmental groups and help raise public awareness and information about the goods that they consume. Perhaps the most well known case was the US ban on Mexican tuna that was not dolphin safe. At the time, tuna canners began a program labeling their products “dolphin safe.” Interestingly, such programs may “obviate the need for governmental product regulations,” by letting consumers express their environmental preferences by the informed choices they make in the marketplace (Schwartz 435).

In addition, international economic relations are increasingly being formed conditional on adopting environmental protection measures. A few countries have already begun to position themselves “to compete in what will be one of the most dynamic markets of the future, environmentally sound technologies. Being able to provide environmentally friendly technologies is rapidly becoming a source of competitive advantage in the global search for new markets” (Sagasti 50). Studies have also found that “while increased economic output tends to be associated with higher CO2 emissions, a rising standard of living also slows down population growth and leads to reduced energy consumption per unit of output” (DeCanio 41). One thing that is key to success, however, is the rate of change at which new policies for promoting environmental sustainability are enforced. As Lester Brown points out, “This is not a spectator sport…the central issue [to the environmental challenges] is the need to restructure the global economy quickly” (20-21).

The Change of the Worldwide Standard Living

The measurement of a country’s standard of living also needs to be addressed when talking about sustainable development. Traditionally, economics has relied on real per capita GDP as their measure of the standard of living. Naturally, such view leads to a bias “toward economic growth as a policy objective, rather than striving for balanced human development” (Easterlin 8 ). More recently, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has begun to annually report a human development index (HDI), which includes such measures of human welfare as health, education, and democratic freedom. This is a result of a recent evolution of development-cooperation that illustrates the concept of “sustainable human development.” “Sustainable human development” aims to provide current and future generations not only the opportunity to expand (and support) their capabilities in the economic realm, but also to expand capabilities and put them to their best uses in the political, social, cultural and environmental realm (Sagasti 17). While over the past 100 years “the gap between the richest and poorest countries has widened dramatically” in material standards, the HDI measurement of standards of living show a sharp decrease in global inequality over the past 50 years (The Economist, Apr.15 2000, p86).

The last two centuries have seen what has been termed by Richard Easterlin, “A revolution of the human condition.” In making this statement, he is referring not only to the incredible material transformation that has taken place, but also in terms of basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter, as well as in terms of conditions that enhance the life experience, such as improved health and education (7). In an intensive study aimed at finding out “what people want out of life,” the findings were that while living level—or one’s material position—was a major concern in many of the counties, concerns of family, health, values, and work were also important to many (Easterlin 9). While some of these measures clearly have upper limits (for example, literacy has an upper value of 100 percent), there is still a lot of room for advances in quality the quality of life (Easterlin 23).

Growth for the Poor

Easterlin begins his essay with a qualification, “Although the picture is not one of universal progress…” (7). This brings us back to the question of inequality and growth mentioned at the beginning of this paper. Earlier this year, prior to the meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, demonstrators were gathering to protest acts by these institutions which protestors claimed “impoverish and oppress the majority of the world’s peoples…while enriching themselves and corporations” (The Economist, Apr. 15 2000, p76). The complaint by many people who oppose globalization is not so much that globalization is bad for growth, but rather that the rewards of growth are only observed by the rich. There is the feeling that the rich get richer and the poor get left out, thus increasing inequality (The Economist, May 27 2000, p82).

A recent paper by David Dollar and Aart Kraay for the World Bank comes to different conclusions. Their findings show that while growth is slower for the poor in the early stages of development, and faster in the later stages. Additionally, they found that “growth spurred by open trade or other macro policies…benefits the poor as much as it does the typical household” (27). Among the macroeconomic policies often recommended for growth are political stability, openness to trade, deregulation, good rule of law, and fiscal discipline (Dollar 5).

Convergence Revisited

There is much to say in favor of development and foreign aid when one looks at the general picture of growth today. Given the right set of standards, which include the macroeconomic policies suggested by Dollar and Kraay, we would expect later starting countries growing at fast initial growth. In convergence theory, “the late entrants have much higher initial growth rates than the early entrants but do not surpass their income levels” (Lucas Jr. 161). This argument builds on the idea that knowledge is cumulative, and makes use of the shaky assumption discussed earlier that knowledge is a public good. There may be a need for a revision, however. “Digital technology allows the dream to become a reality: quite simply, it provides a way of capturing information and transmitting it at a fraction of the cost previously” (Beynon 111). Many more people around the world are gaining access to information more easily and less expensively than before. Thus, the monopolization of ideas is likely to be weaken, lowering one of the major barriers to entry, and allowing us to see whether convergence will indeed occur.

The convergence theory also expects high levels of inequality, and according to Robert Lucas Jr.’s model, it expects a long phase of increasing inequality. According to his model, this phase has already occurred, with the constant phase of inequality (a time when inequality is neither growing nor shrinking) were the years 1960 to 1990. The proximity of his data to the current time, however, makes it difficult to determine conclusively whether the recent convergence that he observes in his model will continue (165).


In this paper I have presented only a very small portion of what sustainable development involves (I didn’t even begin to talk about population pressures!). I have also refrained from getting into particular issues about how one should promote the goal of sustainable development. This is because there is no straightforward prescription of policies that can be made. One of the complications is that certain countries are more prepared for growth than others. They may have a culture that encourages education, or they may have a stable government dedicated towards helping its constituents improve the value of their life. Countries at different stages of development will have different needs. Spending money under the name of aid will do little to assist development if the institutions necessary to make use of the aid are not in place.

Simply put, decisions regarding development should be made on a case by case basis. At the same time, a global awareness of the goal of sustainability needs to be encouraged. This starts at the local level. For example, as advanced as the United States is, there is still considerable room for, and more importantly, need for improvements. This can be in the form of improved energy efficiency, or in the form of improved education. It can come from improving the level of trust within our society (ask an American about their politicians for a feel of this). Finally, one should not make the mistake of expecting progress to immediately follow change. The process of growth has been a slow, relatively steady one. We should try to ensure that it can maintain this stability.

The global play is still being written. The major characters are still in development. The ending has yet to be determined.

Works Cited

  • Alvarez-Rivero, and Theresa Olvida eds. Business and the United Nations: Partners in Sustainable Development. New York, United Nations Publications, 1999.
  • Beynon, Robert Ed. The Routledge Critical Dictionary of Global Economics. New York, Routledge, 1999.
  • Blanchard, Olivier. Macroeconomics. New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1997.
  • Breecher, Jeremy and Tim Costello. Global Village or Global Pillage: Economic Reconstruction from the Bottom Up. Boston, South End Press, 1994.
  • Brown, Lester R., et al. State of the World 2000. New York, W. W. Norton & Co., 2000.
  • DeCanio, Stephen. “International Cooperation to Avert Global Warming: Economic Growth, Carbon Pricing, and Energy Efficiency,” The Journal of Environment and Development, vol. 1, no. 1, Summer 1992.
  • Dollar, David, and Aart Kraay. Growth is Good for the Poor. Washington, DC, The World Bank, March 2000.
  • Easterlin, Richard A. “The Worldwide Standard of Living Since 1800,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 14, no. 1, Winter 2000.
  • El Feki, Shereen. “A Survey of Agriculture and Technology,” The Economist, March 25th 2000.
  • Greider, William. One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1997.
  • Howarth, Richard B. and Richard B. Norgaard. “Environmental Valuation under Sustainable Development,” The American Economic Review, vol. 82, no. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, May 1992.
  • Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye Jr. “Globalization: What’s New? What’s Not? (And So What?),” Foreign Policy, Spring 2000.
  • Lucas Jr., Robert E. “Some Macroeconomics for the 21st Century,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 14, no. 1, Winter 2000.
  • Romer, Paul M. “The Origins of Endogenous Growth,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 8, no. 1, Winter 1994.
  • Rosenberg, Nathan, and L. E. Birdzell, Jr. How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World. New York, Basic Books, 1986.
  • Ross, Andrew. No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade, and the Rights of Garment Workers. New York, Verso, 1997.
  • Sagasti, Francisco, and Gonzalo Alcalde. Development Cooperation in a Fractured Global Order: An Arduous Transition. Ottawa, Canada, International Development Research Center, June 1999.
  • Schultz, Jennifer. “The GATT/WTO Committee on Trade and the Environment—Toward Environmental Reform,” American Journal of International Law, vol. 89, no. 2, April 1995.
  • The Economist. “A Century of Progress.” April 15th 2000.
  • The Economist. “Growth is Good.” May 27th 2000.
  • The Economist. “The Road to Riches.” December 12th 1999.
  • The Economist. “The World’s View of Multinationals.” January 29th 2000.
  • The Economist. “Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?” April 8th 2000.
  • Valery, Nicholas. “A Survey of Innovation in Industry,” The Economist, February 20th 1999.
  • Weatherford, Jack. Savages and Civilization: Who will Survive? New York, Random House, 1994.

No Responses Yet to “Sustainable Development and Economic Growth: An Interplay on an Evolving Globalized Stage”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: