Blaming either governments or corporations exclusively for social and environmental collapses under a perfect market paradigm shift avoidance oversimplifies a complex issue. Both entities play significant roles in shaping policies, regulations, and practices affecting these systems (Bäckstrand & Lövbrand, 2016). Governments are responsible for setting and enforcing regulations to protect society and the environment, while corporations must prioritize ethical and sustainable practices (Amaeshi et al., 2016). Failure often stems from a lack of collaboration and accountability between them, highlighting the need for shared responsibility and cooperative solutions (Bansal & Hoffman, 2012). Thus, assigning blame should focus on encouraging collaboration rather than attributing sole responsibility.

Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2016). Researching the Politics of Climate Change: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go from Here? WIREs Climate Change, 7(1), 23-42.

Amaeshi, K., Adegbite, E., Ogbechie, C., & Idemudia, U. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility in Challenging and Non-enabling Institutional Contexts: Do Institutional Voids Matter? Journal of Business Ethics, 134(1), 135-153.

Bansal, P., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Business and the Natural Environment. Oxford University Press.

Good day Federico, thank you for taking the time to comment.

Those references/citations do not hold in this line of thinking as the market under paradigm shift avoidance is different than the market below or the one above it, as it is a DWARF MARKET: There can be dwarf green markets, dwarf red markets, and dwarf sustainability markets.

In perfect markets, there is no government intervention for them to work UNLESS there is market failure: FREE MARKETS

In Dwarf markets, you need PERMANENT government intervention for them to work: non-free markets

So the responsibility jn the face of system collapse flips in the dwarf market word as a result of perfect paradigm shift avoidance: Responsibility and the working of the market flip under paradigm shift avoidance: The dwarf market is neither a higher level perfect market nor the old lower level market. For example, a dwarf green market is neither a perfect green market nor a traditional market a la Adam Smith.

So the question is: Under perfect market paradigm shift avoidance, who is to be blamed if social and/or environmental systems collapse, governments or corporations? Why?

What do you think? Why.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Federico, you may find the following article interesting, it has some related good food for thoughts. You can take a look a it when you have time.

The Flipping of Traditional Economic Thinking: Contrasting the Working of Dwarf Green Market Thinking with that of Green Market Thinking to Highlight Main Differences and Implications

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334535200_The_Flipping_of_Traditional_Economic_Thinking_Contrasting_the_Working_of_Dwarf_Green_Market_Thinking_with_that_of_Green_Market_Thinking_to_Highlight_Main_Differences_and_Implications

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

In response to the above question, my thinking is that in every nation, there are three sectors - the public sector (which is government), the private sector (which is corporations/businesses), and the civic sector ( which is the civil society- citizens); and statutorily, each of the sectors has their assigned roles, obligations and responsibilities in nation building, national economic growth and sustainable development. Constitutionally, government has the mandate to create the enabling environment - make policies/laws, design empowerment programmes/ intervention projects with monitoring mechanisms to ensure corporations/ businesses and citizens strive.

Therefore, government should be held responsible in a disruptive economy and not businesses which they ought to supervise to ensure compliance to their established operational policies and guidelines.

Alphonsus Nwoye

Alphonsus, I appreciate you took the time to comment. You described there the environment under perfect markets, AND the role of governments then in terms of DUTIES depends on whether there is a market FAILURE or not. If there is market failure leading to environmental problems, then the government must intervene to restore the working of the perfect market using SCIENCE BASED PARADIGM SHIFTS. If they do not intervene, then they are accountable for not employing proactive action that can at least lessen social and environmental and financial pain. BUT you cannot blame the government for the market failure under perfect market thinking, CORPORATIONS AND CONSUMERS ARE RESPONSIBLE.

So, under perfect market system social and environmental responsibility falls on corporations and consumers as the government here is as you described a kind of facilitator of efficient perfect market activity and as a market corrector and enforcer when the perfect market goes into market failure.

Notice that a perfect market can be a perfect traditional market, a perfect green market, a perfect red market, and a perfect sustainability market.

BUT Alphonsus, this question is about PARADIGM SHIFT AVOIDANCE where you do not have perfect markets, you have DWARF MARKETS, such as dwarf green markets like carbon pricing instead of perfect green markets…. AS in dwarf markets, like dwarf green markets, the government set the policy the markets HAVE to follow, then responsibility passes from corporations and consumers to governments AS goverments are using AUTHORITARIAN rule to set up dwarf markets/NON-FREE MARKETS as they, knowing or not, do not wish to move to higher level perfect markets like going from perfect market thinking/A FREE MARKET to perfect green market thinking/A FREE MARKET as the world appeared to be ready to do in 2012 RIO + 20/UNCSD 2012.

So under dwarf markets that exist during paradigm avoidance period RESPONSIBILITY FOR MARKET FAILURE falls on governments who are not not just MARKET OVERSEERS AND enforcers now, but they are in conflict of interest AS THEY are overseeing themselves and you should not expect governments to fine or jail themselves for the failure of their dwarf market….they are promoting and policing....

Your comment is within perfect traditional market thinking, but the theory holds for any perfect market. But the question is about dwarf markets like dwarf green markets/markets under permanent government intervention. Hopefully, now you can see the difference between the role of governments in different markets, and then you can see the role of corporations and consumers in terms of responsibility in those same markets….

Alphonsus, you may find the following papers interesting as they relate to all governments finding out in 1987 WCED that they were overseeing economies under socio-environmental sustainability failure and what they did trying to address the market failure created by blindly following Adam Smith market theory since 1776.

Sustainability thoughts 192: What are the sustainability consequences of assuming that flawed paradigms are golden paradigms? The case of the perfect traditional market.

Article Sustainability thoughts 192: What are the sustainability con...

Sustainability thoughts 194: How can we show that the sustainable development solutions to the socio-environmental sustainability problem created by traditional market thinking by 1987 are both partial and without clear priority solutions?

Article Sustainability thoughts 194: How can we show that the sustai...