Первой же целью устойчивого развития (ЦУР 1) мы ставили ликвидацию нищеты. Если бы мы сосредоточились на этой цели, а не на геополитической конкуренции и войне, то обнаружили бы, что конец бедности вполне достижим.
Наталья Гладких
Главный редактор журнала «Позитивные изменения»
“We Have the Technological and Economic Means to End Poverty.“ Interview with Professor Jeffrey Sachs
Jeffrey Sachs
DOI 10.55140/2782–5817–2023–3-S1–14–18
In the interview for Positive Changes Journal, Professor Sachs shared his vision for the economy of the future and talked about the reasons why we should strive for human wellbeing and have globally agreed goals, as well as whether humanity can ever end poverty and whether AI might help overcome inequality.
Jeffrey Sachs
It is no exaggeration to say that Jeffrey Sachs is one of the most famous economists in the world. According to Wikipedia, Professor Sachs has twice been named one of the 100 most influential world leaders by Time magazine, the New York Times has called him “probably the most important economist in the world,“ and according to The Economist he is one of the three most influential economists of the last decade[6]. His books on the end of poverty and world sustainable development strategies have become bestsellers. Currently he is Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University[7]. For many years in a row, Jeffrey Sachs is Special Adviser to UN Secretary-General on the combating poverty.
Many people say that it makes little sense to make predictions, given the times we are living in. Although you are probably used to making forecasts in turbulent periods – so we’ll still ask: What do you think the global economy can and should become in the near future?
We need to set clear goals, notably to achieve sustainable development in all parts of the world. This means that all regions of the world achieve economic wellbeing, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. The globally agreed Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework have established globally agreed goals, yet national governments are not on track to achieve these goals. Our global energies are being depleted by conflict and geopolitical tensions. We need to end the conflicts, achieve a true multi-polar world, and refocus on long-term investments in clean energy, education and health for all, and other key public investments for sustainable development.
In “The Price of Civilization“ you write about the importance of paying attention to the distant future and developing long-term plans. In the long run, what economic development model should we strive for and what should we do now to achieve it? We should strive for human wellbeing. That sounds simple, but in fact our political systems struggle for war, domination, hegemony, wealth, and many other misguided objectives. It would be enough to achieve peace, prosperity, justice, and environmental sustainability, without imperial objectives and without the unending risk of major war, even of nuclear war.
You were one of the creators of the Millennium Development Goals, which later became known around the world as Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). What can you say about the impact of this project – in your opinion, how has the world changed thanks to the emergence of the SDGs? It is important to have globally agreed goals.
They can set humanity on a proper path. Yet our political systems do not intensively pursue the goals, even when they have been globally agreed. We are still trying to surmount the realities of military competition and alliances, and harmful interstate competition. For example, in my view, NATO should have been ended at the same time that the Warsaw Pact military alliance was ended. Europe could have achieved collective security through the OSCE. Unfortunately, the US rejected that wise course of action.
One of the most pronounced trends in the last decade has been the movement toward a social economy. It seems to be a new way of looking at economics, one that fuses together developed and developing countries, left and right, liberal and conservative, private and public. In your opinion, how viable is this trend and can we say that the future is indeed bright for the social economy? The most successful political-economic system of the 20th century was Social Democracy, especially as carried out in Scandinavia. Central planning was not successful, and the Anglo-Saxon model of neoliberalism also fails in deep ways. Yet in the 21st century, the social democratic ethos is both admired and at threat. Inequality is widening, especially in the US. The US political system is in the hands of corporate lobbies. We have no accepted global model. China has had significant successes in rapid economic development, but also faces big challenges of inequality, and hence China is now experimenting with the concept of “Common Prosperity.“ I tend to favor the idea of Sustainable Development, meaning the merger of four key ideas: 1) economic wellbeing, based on the deployment of skills and technology; 2) social justice, based on universal access to public services, quality education, and fiscal redistribution; 3) environmental sustainability, especially directed at a safe climate, sharply reduced pollution, and conservation of biodiversity; and 4) global cooperation under the UN Charter, with a multipolar global politics.
Following up on the previous question, can we say that the line between for-profit and non-profit, state and non-state, will be erased in the future – and that the focus will be on the “public good“ through the “individual good“ and the good for the planet? We will have mixed economies, with distinct sectors (for-profit, not-for-profit, government, volunteer, community-based, and others). The profit motive will not and should not go away, but it should not crush the rest of the economy.
What do you see as the role of NGOs in promoting sustainable development, and how can they work effectively with governments and other stakeholders to achieve a positive impact?
NGOs, when they are truly non-governmental, can provide advocacy, engagement, education, volunteerism, culture, and human relations, in ways that the public and for-profit sectors cannot.
How far into the future, do you think, will the trend of mobilizing the individual as a subject of change in his/her territory continue – which is represented in the paradigm of initiative budgeting, rural development programs modelled after South Korea’s New Village Movement, and others that involve the mobilization of community power? Do such programs have a future?
The idea of “subsidiarity“ emphasizes that we all live in overlapping spheres of cooperation: family, neighborhood, community, metropolis, state, nation, region, and global. Different parts of our lives naturally function at different levels of engagement, some at the family or neighborhood level, and some truly at the global level. There is room for community-based action, to be sure. We live in communities. But there are many issues (e.g., global climate change, biodiversity protection, pollution, migration, war and peace) that must be addressed at levels of cooperation larger than
Official website of Professor Sachs: https://www.jeffsachs.org/
