by Peter Freund and George Martin
Since its birth over a century ago, the automobile has become an icon of freedom, progress and modernity throughout most of the world. Automobile ownership is used as an indicator of economic development. The car is the leading mass produced durable good in the world. In mature developed countries, it has become the dominant transport modality--indeed, in parts of the United States the only viable means of everyday mobility. Most significantly, the successful realization of individualized automobile consumption for the great majority of populations in places like the US has structured general perceptions of what is the most desirable and the most practical use of technology (Freund and Martin 1996:3).
Countries of the South are rapidly adopting Western modes of consumption such as mass automobile ownership and use. This trend raises issues of what constitutes material prosperity, the good life, and, concomitantly, what development is. But what, then, should we mean by development? And how do we measure higher living standards? Are the living standards of a family in Bangkok raised, for example, when their cash income rises enough so that they can purchase an automobile- -when the pleasure of car ownership is offset by the loss of free time caused by the need to work more hours, or even take a second job, to pay for the car and all its attendant costs, by the longer commuting time caused by other motorists exercising their freedom, by lung cancer, by the generalized urban blight of jammed roads, car parks, petrol stations, used-car lots, drive-in fast-food franchises, brown skies and howling car alarms? Is this a higher standard of living? Evidently not just bourgeois economists but even market-socialists and many Marxists think so, for few bother to question the nature of development per se (Smith 1997:28).
It is this replication of auto-centered transport, etched in concrete and asphalt, that is the embodiment of a transport dream to which many in the world aspire. However, the car represents more than transport--the mass consumption of automobiles has transformed the physical structure of landscapes, contributed to atmospheric degradation, and led to changes in the social organization of communities.
Countries of the South are rapidly adopting Western modes of consumption such as mass automobile ownership and use. This trend raises issues of what constitutes material prosperity, the good life, and, concomitantly, what development is. But what, then, should we mean by development? And how do we measure higher living standards? Are the living standards of a family in Bangkok raised, for example, when their cash income rises enough so that they can purchase an automobile- -when the pleasure of car ownership is offset by the loss of free time caused by the need to work more hours, or even take a second job, to pay for the car and all its attendant costs, by the longer commuting time caused by other motorists exercising their freedom, by lung cancer, by the generalized urban blight of jammed roads, car parks, petrol stations, used-car lots, drive-in fast-food franchises, brown skies and howling car alarms? Is this a higher standard of living? Evidently not just bourgeois economists but even market-socialists and many Marxists think so, for few bother to question the nature of development per se (Smith 1997:28).
It is this replication of auto-centered transport, etched in concrete and asphalt, that is the embodiment of a transport dream to which many in the world aspire. However, the car represents more than transport--the mass consumption of automobiles has transformed the physical structure of landscapes, contributed to atmospheric degradation, and led to changes in the social organization of communities.
similar posts:
No comments:
Post a Comment