For more information visit http://www.triplebottomlineapproach.com and http://www.democracyandconflict.com.

As a civilisation we haven’t needed to create a vast, centrally-planned bureaucracy to define the value of, say, gold or celebrity ringtones. The market for modern art is not wildly volatile despite the huge difference between how much it’s valued by Charles Saatchi vs the bloke in the pub.

So I can’t see why Anonymous believes it’s not possible for governments or NGOs to help build a set of market prices to drive the economic internalisation of externalities, without scary state control.

The EU with its Emissions Trading Scheme, the UK with its CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, or the US with its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, or NGOs like the Fairtrade Foundation, Transfair USA etc with fairly traded goods, or Marine Stewardship Council with its sustainable fish are all creating “technocratic” valuations of social/environmental goods and bads. They are also policing the trade in these goods/bads. And marginal costs are going down over time.

So is this a problem of real bureaucratic deadweight or is it just one of perception?

The problem is often in the application of solutions. Take, for instance, the idea of individual economic agents applying the concept of a “triple bottom line” (income + aggregate net impact of externalities).

For the sake of brevity, consider this only at the corporate level. Not only would there have to be agreement over the value of the environmental/social impact externality when translated in less “multi-dimensional” financial terms but, moreover, there would have to be some way to enforce its proper application. This would easily require expanding the role of governments or quasi-government agencies staffed by technocrats able to perform an oversight role (science-trained? un-corrupt?). It would also require someone to police both the corporations and the technocrats themselves. One can easily envisage a situation where this requires a wholesale revisit of our political and economic system on a national and global scale with the end result being, perhaps, something a bit closer to that of a centrally-planned economy.

Unfortunately, in the West (and now most of the rest of the world), the mere mention of that considered almost unthinkable (even “evil” by some). Just look at Obama’s situation. He can’t even fix a few small problems and his approval rating already indicates he will lose congressional support in November, rendering him a lame duck president barely two years into his mandate. Why? Because he’s a “dirty communist” (i.e. healthcare bill). It’s ridiculous. And this was a man who galvanized practically everyone around him at the start….