See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289125506

A Critical Evaluation of “Think Globally, Act

Locally” and “Think Locally, Act Globally” in the
Context of Sustainable D....

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 500

2 authors:

Ishak Mohammed Balikisu Osman

King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals University of Birmingham
7 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ishak Mohammed on 24 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF “THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY” AND
“THINK LOCALLY, ACT GLOBALLY” IN THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

Sustainable development is a grand ideal around which vast literature continue to grow. Defined
as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987:43), the quest for sustainable development is espoused by a multitude of international and
local organizations, governments, think tanks and academics. Popularized by “Our Common
Future, 1987”, “Agenda 21, 1992” and more recently, “The Future We Want, 2012”, it is by far,
one of the world’s most important goals towards which collective regional and national actions
are sought (Kosloff and Trexler, 2003). In response to global environmental issues, two
important but contradictory exhortations — “think globally, act locally” and “think locally, act
globally” — have gained world-wide prominence (Devine-Wright, 2013).

While these catchphrases are open to myriad interpretations (Tisdell, 1996: and Wiener, 2007),
the former resonates a broad understanding of the world’s paradigmatically contemporary
problems including climate change, loss of biodiversity and ocean pollution and taking actions to
address such issues through local engagements. In contrast to this approach is a comprehensive
international regime — “think locally, act globally” — which posits that global environmental
challenges have little respect to jurisdictional boundaries. Consequently, the need to marshal the
necessary information and expertise to craft and harmonize their responses should be a global
prerogative.

In the discussions that follow, the paper evaluates and contrasts the two approaches —“think
globally, act locally” and “think locally, act globally” — within the context of sustainable
development. The inherent challenges of these schools of thought have also been identified and
recommendations for improving global environmental conditions highlighted.

1
Think Globally, Act Locally

The differentials in the complexity, character and spatial specificity of sustainable development
issues is what make an approach that reconciles local decisions with the interest of the wider
community particularly necessary (Hale and Mauzerall, 2004). Realizing that no one city, state
or nation can single-handedly resolve global environmental conditions, “think globally, act
locally” calls for concerted national and regional actions. If other nations do not act, little hope
exists of a possible reduction in the world’s ever more hostile climate and extreme weather
conditions. In the same respect, when any city or nation reduces its level of environmental
damage, the whole world stands to share in the benefits.

The 1990 ban on the sale and consumption of coal in the city of Dublin (Clancy et. al, 2002) and
the 2002 stringent traffic controls in South Korea (Lee, Son and Cho, 2007) typify bold national
initiatives to contribute to improved environmental conditions. Not only were these local actions
of beneficial impacts to the nations involved but also, such decisions represented their respective
local contributions to addressing global environmental challenges.

Notwithstanding the ethical significance the phrase conveys, there remains a high political
barrier for successful local-level actions. Given its global connotation, one would have expected
that most countries pursue sustainable development agenda through among others, changes in
resources consumption patterns and lifestyles. Nevertheless, the contrary is the state of affairs in
some countries. In the case of China, Bloomberg and Aggarwala (2008) argue that, while most
European and American cities are striving to reduce their respective levels of emissions, Beijing
has almost completed the switch in the opposite direction. Similar phenomenon is evident in
New Delhi, where they assert nearly a thousand cars are added to the city’s traffic daily.
Eventually, increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions into the atmosphere transcend
national boundaries, rendering local sustainable development efforts elsewhere worthless.

GHGs, by their nature, mix and impact globally (Nordhaus and Yang, 1996; Wiener, 2007). As a
result, sub-national investments in abatement actions pose local costs, yet yield practically no
substantial sub-national climate benefits. An approach that encourages nations to act locally
therefore yields a situation where each nation has an incentive to free ride on others’
investments, enjoying the global benefits without bearing the local costs. Eventually, a

2
“prisoners’ dilemma” effect (Lozano, 2007:371) and a “race to the bottom” (Oates and Portney,
2003:343) become the inevitable outcomes of such an approach;

While the “think globally and act locally” maxim has been justified on the basis of its potential
to stimulate “technological innovation” that could spillover to other unregulated areas (Wiener,
2007:1973), the non-existence of global sovereign to institute world-wide environmental
regulations makes the mantra less feasible and politically challenging. Similarly, encouraging
local actions would likely be thwarted due to internal costs, external leakages, legal obstacles and
conflicting national and sub-national objectives. In search for a more robust alternative therefore,
many writers (including Duerden, 1992; Tisdell, 1996; Eskeland and Xie, 1998; Betsill, 2000;
Kosloff and Trexler, 2003; Plummer, 2005; Wiener, 2007; Mazmanian, Jurewitz, and Nelson,
2013) have argued that a broader view — think locally, act globally — that advances an
international regime to sustainable development is necessary. This approach is the focus of the
next section.

Think Locally, Act Globally

Contrary to the discussions above, “think locally, act globally” advocates substantially for a
global regime to sustainable development where the mounting global environmental externality
problems could be addressed by all. In the case of climate change adaptation and mitigation, the
maxim argues for effective environmental policies where the responsibilities for sustainable
development efforts do not become the preserve of only the earnest few nations. Rather, a much
more comprehensive international version of the Kyoto protocol with increased partnership in
the number of abating countries – inclusive of all major present and future emitters – is essential.

Notwithstanding the ethics in the claims that, an international regime, as opposed to cumulative
local actions is the panacea to global environmental issues, it suffices to say that, global action
need not be necessarily universal (Burniaux et al, 2009). The inclusion of a substantially large
number of countries in sustainable development negotiations raises the transaction costs of
negotiation and renders measures less prolific and optimal especially if such negotiations involve
countries that have little influence on environmental degradation. Provided all the major present
and potential emitters are engaged, there would be higher hope for a sustainable world than the

3
contrary. In line with Wiener (2007), it is worth asserting that, an approach to sustainable
development that involves the United States of America, the European Union, Russia, Japan,
China, India, Australia, Canada, Indonesia and Brazil, which represent the major actors, would
suffice for the march towards sustainable development. The involvement of other major future
emitters including South Africa, Taiwan, South Korea, Argentina, Chile, Mexico and the oil
giants in the Middle East could also be a priority.

Similarly, a major hurdle one could anticipate with this approach to sustainable development is
the possibility of producing a global public good through the consents of a heterogeneously
diverse number of countries. What this suggests is that, the sustainable development policy
architecture must be a reflection of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency of collective rationalism
characterized by compensatory benefits including among others, biodiversity conservation,
energy security, climate protection and national co-benefits in public health.

Conclusion

Having examined the two maxims, “think globally, act locally” and “think locally, act globally”,
it suffices to admit that both approaches to sustainable development are not without positives and
negatives. Despite the valuable benefits associated with radical decentralization of sustainable
development efforts, such strategies have restricted collateral benefits of protecting the global
common. Similarly, to pursue an agenda that enjoins stakeholders to think locally and act
globally, would not be inexpensive especially in the face of the diverse number of participating
countries. Drawing conclusions about the relative effectiveness of the varied approaches
therefore requires a comprehensive comparison and aggregation of impacts.

Given the complexity of global environmental governance and the absence of a “silver bullet”
approach to sustainable development, complementary and mutually re-enforcing programmes to
protect both the local and global environment could be concurrently pursued. An effective local,
national and international partnerships characterized by a synergistic implementation of flexible
mechanisms such as Joint Implementations, Clean Development Mechanism, and International
Emissions Trading jointly with local-level strategies might have significant contribution to the
achievement of sustainable development goals.

4
Reference List

Betsill, M. M. (2000). Localizing Global Climate Change: Controlling Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in US Cities, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
[Online] Available at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/gea/pubs/2000-20.pdf (Accessed on: March
01, 2014)

Bloomberg, M. R. and Aggarwala, R. T. (2008) “Think Locally, Act Globally: How Curbing
Global Warming Emissions Can Improve Local Public Health”. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 35(5), 414-423.

Burniaux, J. M., Chateau, J., Dellink, R., Duval, R., and Jamet, S. (2009) “The Economics of
Climate Change Mitigation: How to build the necessary global action in a cost-effective manner”
No. 701, OECD Publishing [Online] Available at: http://www.oecd.org/eco/42945466.pdf
(Accessed: February 28, 2014)

Clancy, L., Goodman, P., Sinclair, H., and Dockery, D. W. (2002) “Effect of Air-pollution
Control on Death Rates in Dublin, Ireland: An Intervention Study”, The lancet, 360(9341), 1210-
1214.

Devine-Wright, P. (2013) “Think Global, Act Local? The Relevance of Place Attachments and
Place Identities in a Climate Changed World”, Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 61-69.

Duerden, F. (1992) “A Critical Look at Sustainable Development in the Canadian North”,

Arctic,. 45 (3), pp. 219-25.

Eskeland, G. S., and Xie, J. (1998). Acting Globally While Thinking Locally: Is the Global
Environment Protected by Transport Emission Control Programs? Working Paper 1975, World
Bank Publications.

Hale, T. N., and Mauzerall, D. L. (2004) “Thinking globally and acting locally: can the
Johannesburg Partnerships Coordinate Action on Sustainable Development?”, The Journal of
Environment and Development, 13(3), 220-239.

5
 Kosloff, L., and Trexler, M. (2003) “State Climate Change Initiatives: Think Locally, Act
Globally”, Natural Resources and Environment, 18(3), 46-50.

Lee, J. T., Son, J. Y., and Cho, Y. S. (2007) “Benefits of Mitigated Ambient Air Quality due to
Transportation Control on Childhood Asthma Hospitalization during the 2002 Summer Asian
Games in Busan, Korea”, Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 57(8), 968-
973.

Lozano, R. (2007) “Collaboration as a Pathway for Sustainability. Sustainable Development,

15(6), 370-381.

Mazmanian, D. A., Jurewitz, J., and Nelson, H. T. (2013) “The Paradox of ‘Acting Globally
While Thinking Locally’ Discordance in Climate Change Adaption Policy”, The Journal of
Environment and Development, 22(2), 186-206.

Nordhaus, W. D., and Yang, Z. (1996) “A Regional Dynamic General-equilibrium Model of

Alternative Climate-Change Strategies” American Economic Review, 86(4), 741-765.

Oates, W. E., and Portney, P. R. (2003) The political economy of environmental policy.
Handbook of environmental economics, 1, 325-354.

Plummer, R. (2005) “A Review of Sustainable Development Implementation through Local

Action from an Ecosystem Management Perspective”, Journal of Rural and Environmental
Health, 4, 33-40.

Tisdell, C. A. (1996) “Sustainable Development and Environmental Conservation: Major

Regional Issues with Asian Illustrations”, (Working Paper No. 5, pp. 1-24), [St. Lucia, Qld.]:
Department of Economics, University of Queensland.

Wiener, J. B. (2007) “Think Globally, Act Globally: The Limits of Local Climate Policies”,
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1961-1979.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford:
Oxford University Press

View publication stats