Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

May 20, 2009 |  6 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Florian  Kuhne

Is Western Civilization in a State of Decline?

Florian Kuhne: The global financial crisis is just one of many issues the West is facing which could mean it has met the “limits of growth”. Capitalism is overstretched and finite resources are running out. Affluence will start to level out across the world and the west could face a decline in living standards.

In times rocked by the worst crisis since the 1920s, one may question whether Western civilization is able to maintain its status and power. Almost forty years ago, the Club of Rome published a survey - called "The Limits to Growth" - on the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and finite resource supplies. It concluded: If the current growth rate of the world's population, industrialization, pollution, production of food, and exploitation of resources continues, the limits to growth would be reached within the next hundred years. The authors updated the study in 2004 and predicted the collapse of world system would occur by 2030, if we continued with "business as usual."

Analysis of the current developments worldwide may lead to the conclusion that the West faces a historical setback and deterioration in its standards of living. Not only because of the collapse of many financial systems and parts of capitalism itself, but also because this crisis is directly linked with other phenomena we face, firstly climate change. Below are some arguments, why the industrialized countries must become accustomed to the idea of a decline in standards.

In a News Magazine article called "A Darker Future for Us", Robert J. Samuelson outlines the implications of the economic crisis and says the US (and linked to it, the European) economy always was geared toward progress and expansion. "We Americans are progress junkies." But Americans (as well as Europeans) need to adjust to the end of these expectations. Not only are we facing the financial crisis, but we will also need to deal with other issues such as the "aging society, runaway health spending, global warming."

All this leads to the assumption that we may bury belief in a society which is built on an endlessly growing economy fuelling more and more prosperity. "We may now be on the cusp of a new era that frustrates these widespread expectations. [...] Americans do not have a divine right to rapid economic growth."

Worldwide, globalization, acceleration of capital, and capitalism in general (which needs prosperity and expansion to function) have met limits. In search for new markets, capitalism has circled the world and taken possession of every market possible. For now, an end to this expansion seems possible. What will happen then? Will it be the way Samuelson predicts? "Down that path lies 'affluent deprivation.' To use an old but apt cliche: people will fight over pieces of a fairly fixed economic pie rather than sharing ever-larger pieces of an expanding pie."

If we assume that the worldwide standard of living evens out at a roughly similar level, there is no way to escape a decline in Western prosperity and wealth. Today, people all over the world ask themselves why they are excluded from the distribution of affluence. With the expected turnovers in global economy and the obvious failure of some parts of the system, the distribution of the "welfare-pie" will be challenged, if not the system itself.

Other expansion ending phenomena, which are directly linked to "The Limits to Growth" by the Club of Rome, may also come along. An article at Peak Oil News warns about the effect finite oil resources will have: "The problem lies in our ability to comprehend this looming catastrophe and act quickly enough to avoid a complete economic collapse."

How will change take place? How can the Western world arrange itself? And what are possible scenarios for a potential decline of economy and wealth? Last but not least there is a moral question: Might the West keep its advantageous position because of its unique development, innovations and business sense or is it not just fair when people in Bangladesh or elsewhere may live at the same level like people in Italy in the distant future?

Three basic ideas result from this:

  1. Search for new markets seems to come to an end; capitalism has met a limit of expansion.
  2. The West will face a decline in living standards.
  3. Conditions will align, not at our level but at a middle-rate level, lower than that we are used to.

Florian Kuhne is New History, Political Science and Anthropology student at Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.

Related materials from Atlantic-Community.org:

 

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Member deleted

May 20, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The three results derived are certainly possible, unless newly created wealth in real terms comes into force for a new era quickly like that of the semiconductors, internet, PC and etc., such as, but not limited to :

(1) Clean energy revolution.

http://americhina.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/next-big-thing/

http://americhina.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/45/

(2) High risk IT research and development, in some respect, related to health care.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/608&f...

Along with the G20 and G192 guidelines for reforms :

http://www.g20.org/about_working_groups.aspx

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/63/838&referer=ht...


 
Bernhard  Lucke

May 22, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Congratulations, Mr. Kuhne, a very nice article! Nothing really to add... except that I would like to express my concern how rarely the perspective of stagnation or a shrinking economy is considered in the public discussion. "Growth" seems the only answer to all problems, but rarely it is asked how this can happen if the available share of resources and the population are shrinking.

Considering how enormously the productivity increased during the last 20 years, it could be strange that we work more and gain less.... but in the above described context, that makes perfectly sense. And it brings back not only the limits of growth, but also Marx, who was always re-discovered in times of crisis.

The real dilemma is that western society is not prepared to deal with shrinking economies. All promises of luck are centered around material goods, and I wonder what might replace them. There is a risk that this will end in very intense fights of those who own against those who want their share.
 
Marek  Swierczynski

May 25, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Have we (the West) really reached the limits of growth? Not neccesarily. What happened was that we have reached the frontier of growth in a particular growth-pattern or system. We may well discover new patterns and systems in which the growth may continue - it may require a few years and another crisis to come upon us, but there's still room for development - the world as we know it hasn't ended yet. The more squeezed we feel by the crisis, the more fed up we are by the past growth-system and look for a new one. India and China - and hopefully also Africa - may offer a way out of it although it may require a change of economical currents. The world's axis will certainly change and the sooner we accept it and adapt, the better.
 
Donald  Stadler

May 26, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Bravo, Marek. I think we face a pattern last seen during the 1970's, although I think this bout may be worse than the 70's were. But not as bad as the 30's.

I don't believe it is a crisis of the past two years. When it began will differ according to your perspective. US manual workers could argue that it began as early as 1974, when the first major US plant shutdown since the Great Depression occured. Many knowledge workers in the US and the UK might date the decline from 2001 or 2002 (the dot,bomb and telecoms crashes). Only finance industry workers would date it from last year, I think.

Old paradigm way pst it's sell-by date. New paradigms needed. What they will be nobody knows as yet, though many will take the opprtunity to trot out their favorite hobbyhorse they have been banging on about forever and dub it the 'new wave'. Most of them will be almost completely wrong. Human nature rarely changes.....
 
Florian  Kuhne

May 28, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank you for your comments,
I hoped for a discussion like this because I am not certain about that prediction. For example, it may be possible, that growth can be maintained by growing productivity. But it is the markets which may come to ending growth. No part of the world can be spoken of as isolated market. Another problem in the sense of redistribution is, that wealth may be reallocated from the relative poor to the absolute poor instead of from the rich to the poor.
I did not mean to describe an "end time scenario", but tried to push a discussion about what can be changed or what needs to be changed inside the actual system or maybe for a new one. Also, I meant to create awareness for the "new players" like China. There, growth will last the next years and so the Chinese will earn more and spend more, so that the wheel of growth may rotate further, but for how long? And, as a last point, will that (f. e. Chinese) wheel still provide growth in "the West"?
Please feel free to answer, I would be glad to discuss a little further.
 
Donald  Stadler

May 29, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
In one sense the relative decline of the West is locked-in and happening. The economic and military rise of China and India mean that the relative share of wealth and power of the traditional West is declining.

To determine whether that marks a permanent decline, I think you need to look at the strategic situation facing each power or group of countries in turn. The vulnerabilities of the US have been exhaustively document, and much of that analysis is true.

What often seems to be missing in the currewnt climate are two things - consideration of the enduring strengths of the US (including it's strategic position, demographic strengths, and obviously military and commercial strength, including the strength of being probably the most self-sufficient major power). Not utterly self-sufficient, but more so that China/India, and more so than the EU in many important respects.

The current vogue in such analysis often seems to assume that the US has only weaknesses and few strengths, while also seeming to assume that China and the EU have only strengths and few weaknesses. This is obviously nonsense, and indeed many of these assumptions are being punctured by current events. The wise analysts will eventually catch up, they always do sooner or later.... ;)
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Anna  Przybyll
Anna Przybyll
"A wise old owl lived in an oak The more he..."

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?