Nationalising local sustainability: Lessons from the British wartime Utility furniture scheme

Abstract

Analyses of sustainable design and commodity networks often make a priori assumptions about the capacity of markets to provide solutions to environmental problems; and have a tendency to celebrate local scales of action. This paper offers a contrasting account, in which the national state sought to carefully manage scarce natural resources and to ensure equitable consumption at a time of deep crisis. We utilise the historical example of the British wartime Utility furniture scheme in order to draw out three lessons for sustainable and equitable environmental practice. First, we argue that national states do not simply provide an institutional backdrop to sustainable production but rather can act as important organising agents. Second, the paper emphasises that sustainability is best achieved through interventions across a commodity network, beyond simply modifications to a single node such as design. Finally, we underscore the value of 'pragmatic centralism' in environmental decision-making, calling attention to the collaborative practices that underpinned the scheme. The example of Utility's adaptive responses-borne out of crisis, scarcity and shortage during wartime-offers much that is of intrinsic interest to current concerns about resource consumption and the drivers of sustainability in commodity networks.

Refurnishing Homes in a Bombed City: Moral Geographies of the Utility Furniture Scheme in London

“…In this paper, we extend our previous analysis of the pragmatic character of the scheme 3 to foreground the moral geographies of Utility. In doing so, we make four important contributions.…”

Sustainable Local Development: Consolidated Framework for Cross-Sectoral Cooperation via a Systematic Approach

“…Pinch and Reimer [77] concentrated on the "British wartime Utility furniture scheme" that was driven by a "need to eliminate waste" (p.93); wherein, the use and consumption of scarce natural resources are managed based on social need and welfare, by the national state, which acts as the organising agent. Further, the authors argued on assimilating pragmatic centralism in practice, which involved "a cross-sector response, with multiple participants, organised by a state at a national level but also working through localised routines and procedures" [77] (p.91).…”