Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Triple Bottom Line or Trilemma? Global Tradeoffs Between Prosperity, Inequality, and the Environment
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Stockholm Resilience Centre. Future Earth, Sweden; The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2322-5459
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 112024 (English)In: World Development, ISSN 0305-750X, E-ISSN 1873-5991, Vol. 178, article id 106595Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

A key aim of sustainable development is the joint achievement of prosperity, equality, and environmental integrity: in other words, material living standards that are high, broadly -distributed, and low -impact. This has often been called the triple bottom line. But instead, what if there is a trilemmathat inhibits the simultaneous achievement of these three goals? We analysed international patterns and trends in the relationships between per -capita gross national income, the Gini coefficient for income distribution, and per -capita ecological footprint from 1995 to 2017, benchmarking them against thresholds from the existing literature. A dynamicanalysis of the trajectories of 59 countries and a staticanalysis of a larger sample of 140 countries found that none met the triple bottom line, and that instead there were widespread tradeoffs among the three indicators. These tradeoffs, leading to divergent national trajectories and country clusters, show that common pair -wise explanations such as Kuznets Curves do not adequately capture important development dynamics. In particular, while only a few countries simultaneously met the thresholds for prosperity and equality on the one hand and equality and environment on the other, none did for prosperity and environment. Moreover, inequality likely makes resolving this critical tradeoff more difficult. Our findings suggest that mitigating the sustainability trilemma may require countries - especially those that are already prosperous - to prioritize economic redistribution and environmental stewardship over further growth.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2024. Vol. 178, article id 106595
Keywords [en]
Inequality, Environment, Sustainability, Development Studies
National Category
Economics and Business
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-228991DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106595ISI: 001204375300001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85186684617OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-228991DiVA, id: diva2:1856819
Available from: 2024-05-08 Created: 2024-05-08 Last updated: 2024-05-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Rocha, JuanLindkvist, EmilieSchill, CarolineFolke, Carl

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Rocha, JuanLindkvist, EmilieSchill, CarolineFolke, Carl
By organisation
Stockholm Resilience Centre
In the same journal
World Development
Economics and Business

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 120 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf