How to do 'doughnut procurement'? -- Re Raworth (2018)

(C) K Raworth.

Probably quite late — and thanks only to the recommendation of Prof Steve Schooner — I have now read Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics : Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist (Cornerstone 2018).

It is a fascinating book that makes a compelling case for a paradigm shift in the ways in which we approach Economics — and in particular consumption economics and economic growth — so that we can (quickly, urgently) move from unsustainable and unequitable economic structures and dynamics towards sustainable and fair ones. This is represented by the doughnut (and you must read the book to understand it but, once you do, it provides a very helpful mind map).

In short, in my reading, the book makes a compelling case for a quick acceleration towards sustainability and redistribution and, in developed countries, for degrowth.

I have been left wondering how to to do ‘doughnut procurement’, as it is challenging to apply the model to specific areas of economic activity (see eg this brief approach to ‘doughnut procurement’ in Amsterdam, with contributions from Raworth herself). But there are two or three ideas I would be interested in discussing:

1. What is the role of data and metrics in establishing both the ecological ceiling and the social foundation for ‘doughnut procurement’ and how to address their trade-offs — in the end, this is the perpetual clash between the tensions derived from scarcity (public budgets are not infinite and the needs of the society procurement is meant to satisfy tend to exceed them) and quality (in terms of the social and environmental ‘externalities’ of what is procured), except the book makes it clear that there is no such clash because both are dimensions of scarcity and, as such, the trade-offs need to be understood from a different perspective. I really wonder how to operationalise this in the context of award criteria in particular, as that seems to be where it all boils down to. Is MEAT capable of capturing this?

2. What time horizon must public buyers be mandated to report about? So far, there is limited accountability of the way public funds are spent and, in many ways, the reporting system is extremely short-termed: hardly any information is generated or published beyond award and, certainly, not much if at all beyond completion of public contracts even if a significant volume of ecological and social impacts are only ‘visible’ many years down the line (eg at disposal of acquired equipment).

3. Linked to that, what obligations need to be imposed on public buyers concerning the ownership (whether direct or imputed) of the assets (and the Xaas they can substitute them for) they procure, so that they engage in an adequate level of reassignment, refurbishment, recycling and minimisation of the waste resulting from procurements?

I never thought much about it, but it seems to me that public buyers have been (where at all) more concerned with trying to engage with ‘doughnut providers’ than in trying to become ‘doughnut buyers’, and I wonder if they really are in a much better position than you or me to make ‘doughnut choices’ in the absence of a legislative framework that eg completely prohibits the purchase of specific products (or specific packaging; single use plastics anyone?), and in the absence of adequate economic incentives/subsidies that make it possible for everyone to exercise ‘doughnut discretion’.

Could it be that by centering (or framing) the need to quickly boost (in exponential terms) the uptake of green and social procurement in the public, academic and political discourse around the exercise of discretion, we are falling into the same trap of soft law and self-regulation that has pervaded the corporate social responsibility movement? Is there really much justification for ‘procurement only’ legal requirements (eg environmental), rather than a more aggressive regulation of the entire economy to the extent that it affects the environment? How do we get procurement (geared towards buying, buying, buying) to degrow??

Well, I seem to have digressed quite a bit. But I hope there is some kernel of a fruitful discussion in the above. As ever, comments and challenges most welcome: a.sanchez-graells@bristol.ac.uk.

I am going on strike again -- in part, because I don't have time for blogging

Dear readers,

You may have noticed the very little activity of the blog since December, for which I must apologise. In part, this is due to the challenges of balancing family and work live, and a reflection of the competing demands on one’s time that wanting to be an involved parent implies. So, in part, this is a matter of personal choice.

However, the blogging inactivity is mainly the result of the very demanding workloads imposed on academics working at UK universities, as well as the lack of formal recognition of the value of activities such as blogging, which are not really seen as a useful tool for research dissemination and, in some aspects, co-production. The amount of work academics are expected to do in relation to teaching, marking and administration has been spiralling over the last few years. Working ‘normal’ hours does not come even close to keeping ever-growing to do lists in check, specially during term time or when working under the sword of Damocles that marking deadlines have become.

Finding time and headspace for research (or even basic continuous professional development, such as keeping abreast with CJEU case law or new scholarly papers, which I used to comment int his blog) alongside teaching is a constant challenge, except during much needed periods of research leave. And, even then, research has to be seen as productive (no space for random or even exploratory approaches that could not lead to tangible outputs). In this context, blogging is not really within the scope of the expected or ‘valued’ research activities, except as a ‘marketing add-on’ to raise the profile of one’s ‘serious publications’—which must still serve the demands of the current ‘publish or perish’ environment, and come in thick and fast.

In my view, this system not only encroaches on academic freedom broadly understood, but also devalues the role and attractiveness of an academic career. Academics should be left to carry out the intellectual activities they find most valuable, some of which are difficult to translate into measurable results (or impacts), at least in the short term.

The system is also a straitjacket that constraints creativity and perpetuates models of dissemination of academic research that are not really in keeping with the times and with the potential of social networks and digital platforms. All in all, if academics do not have time to think, research and communicate in the way they see fit (and, for me, this would mainly be through blogging), then everyone loses.

I am not advocating an academic life free from teaching or administration duties, not only because that would not be reasonable, but because it would also be incomplete and impoverishing. Teaching and research are mutually reinforcing and there are plenty positive contributions to be made by competent academic administrators. I am just saying that the current imbalance and pressures are not acceptable and enough is enough.

The excesses of workload models and the constraints of extremely rigid and poorly justified research evaluation exercises (most notably, the upcoming REF2021) are two main contributors to a degradation of the working conditions for academics employed in the UK. Such conditions are also worsened due to inequality, pay gaps, casualisation and an attack on the existing level of pension benefits. This is not the academia I want to be part of, and this is not the academia I want for future generations of academics.

I know that I am one of the very lucky ones and my complaints about workload and the dismissal of the value of some of my preferred academic activities are certainly puerile and even risible when compared to the hardship of colleagues on insecure and very badly paid contracts. There are very many fundamental aspects of the management of academic HR that need to change, radically and fast. Workload and academic freedom are however not irrelevant and, if we are not ambitious in getting all of this fixed at the same time, then we all stand to lose even more.

That is why I am going on strike again. To learn more about the UCU ‘four fights’ strike, please follow this link.

Thank you in advance for your understanding and support.

All the best,
Albert