The discussion was based on Professor Jackson’s central argument that building a new economic model fit for a low carbon world is ‘the most urgent task of our times’.

There was some discussion at the event about the extent to which getting to this economy ’fit for purpose’ depends on the state of our democracy.

In his book, Professor Jackson argues that “..we must ask searching questions about the balance of the institutions that characterize modern society. Do they promote competition or cooperation? Do they reward self-servicing behaviour or people who sacrifice their own gain to serve others? What signals do government, schools, the media, religious and community institutions send out to people? Which behaviours are supported by public investments and infrastructures and which are discouraged?“

Democracy itself has to be part of this enquiry. Indeed, a level-headed discussion on how to ensure that democracy is ‘fit for purpose’ in terms of its ability to deliver sustainable development needs to be given greater prominence in the discussion on progress to low carbon futures.

Looking at transformation of the economy without looking in tandem at democratic adaptation doesn’t make sense.

Any conversation on getting to an economy ‘fit for purpose’ will falter and fall unless some of the wider challenges of democratic decision-making for sustainable development are addressed.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the obstacles to economic transformation for sustainable development don’t lie only with economic actors such as businesses or with the pressures of international competition – but with the preferences of individual voters themselves.

For example, elected representatives can find it uncomfortable to move significantly ahead of the  curve of public opinion on environmental issues. David Miliband’s recently reported lamentations on public apathy about climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit reflect a growing debate about the relatioship between political leadership and public opinion on climate change.

Yet there are also some issues in the UK (capital punishment the most obvious) where considerations of morality or human decency allow politicians to pay less attention to opinion polls or public opinion.

Some groundbreaking if controversial environmental policy measures (London’s Congestion Charge is one example) have been implemented on the basis of clear election promises, with public consultation focusing on implementation rather than the principle of introducing  a measure.

A report on the history of the London Congestion charge explains that “The campaign for Mayor of London began in 1999 with four main candidates from each of the main political parties and an independent, Ken Livingstone. Of these candidates three made election promises to introduce a congestion charging scheme in Central London. Although this was a brave decision because congestion charging could be seen as a notoriously difficult policy to sell to voters, at the same time it demonstrated the high level of political commitment to the policy. However, for Ken Livingstone, this political gamble paid off and in May 2000 he was elected as Mayor of London.“

It would be very wrong to take these examples as special pleading for ‘less engagement with the public’ on environmental policy to facilitate implementation of controversial policy proposals. Far from it. For there is also evidence that when people are given full facts and a chance to deliberate before arriving at conclusions, they express greater support for action on issues like climate change than some recent opinion polls might otherwise suggest. 

A significant part of the problem – to the extent that opinion polls show that people may in effect prefer economic growth over sustainable development – may lie with how members of the public are invited to engage with formal democratic processes, and with how elected representatives themselves view the balance between visionary leadership, consultation, direct democracy (for example through referenda), and public participation of various kinds.

If we take seriously the challenge of pursuing an ‘economy fit for purpose’, we must also work out how to arrive at a ‘democracy fit for purpose’.