A matter of opinion—How ecological and neoclassical environmental economists and think about sustainability and economics

The differing paradigms of ecological and neoclassical environmental economics have been described in various articles and books and are also embedded in different professional associations. However, we cannot take for granted that the paradigm debates described in the literature are actually mirrored in exactly the same way in the perceptions and opinions of researchers looking at sustainability from an economic perspective. This paper presents empirical results from a German case study on how economists and others involved in sustainability research from different schools of thought think about the issues of sustainability and economics, how they group around these issues, how they feel about the current scientific divide, and what they expect to be future topics of sustainability research.We analyze the data using cluster analysis. Based on a literature survey, we generated forty sustainability economics-related statements and asked 196 sustainability researchers about their degree of agreement or disagreement with these statements. In evaluating our survey results, we discuss to what extent the clusters that we identified do—or do not—represent the two schools of thought of ecological and neoclassical environmental economics. We also propose some fields of research that can help to bridge the gaps amongst sustainability economics researchers while clearly marking others that are more suitable for a scientific ‘competition of ideas’. Key results of the study are: We identify two primary scientific clusters, one clearly confirming the existence of the ecological-economics school of thought, and the other largely capturing the neoclassical environmental view. Yet, there are some surprising exceptions: Both schools of thought share a conceptual definition of sustainability that is integrative in considering ecological, societal and economic dimensions (‘three pillar concept’) and is geared at preserving the development potentials of society. We also find a shared critique of ‘pure economic growth’ strategies in our sample. These shared opinions may provide bridging concepts between the schools of thought. Also both clusters agree with respect to a wide range of future fields of sustainability economics research. Yet, the research agenda of the ecological-economics cluster contains a large number of additional topics, primarily related to social, distributional and evolutionary aspects of sustainable development. Strong divides between the clusters that seem to be more suitable for a scientific competition of ideas are primarily related to the question of how to achieve sustainability, including appropriate environmental policies.     

A socio-technical framework for assessing the viability of carbon capture and storage technology

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is seen as a key technology to tackle climate change. The principal idea of CCS is to remove carbon from the flue gases arising from burning fuels for electricity generation or industrial applications and to store the carbon in geological formations to prevent it from entering the atmosphere. Policy makers in several countries are supportive of the technology, but a number of uncertainties hamper its further development and deployment. The paper makes three related contributions to the literatures on socio-technical systems and technology assessment: 1) It systematically develops an interdisciplinary framework to assess the main uncertainties of CCS innovation. These include technical, economic, financial, political and societal issues. 2) It identifies important linkages between these uncertainties. 3) It develops qualitative and quantitative indicators for assessing these uncertainties. This framework aims to help decision making on CCS by private and public actors and is designed to be applicable to a wider range of low carbon technologies. The paper is based on a systematic review of the social science literature on CCS and on insights from innovation studies, as well as on interviews about assessment of new technologies with experts from a range of organisations and sectors.     

Regional sustainability: How useful are current tools of sustainability assessment at the regional scale?

Sustainability assessment methods are primarily aimed at global, national or state scales. However, modelling sustainability at finer spatial scales, such as the region, is essential for understanding and achieving sustainability. Regions are emerging as an essential focus for sustainability researchers, natural resource managers and strategic planners working to develop and implement sustainability goals. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of current sustainability assessment methods - ecological footprint, wellbeing assessment, ecosystem health assessment, quality of life and natural resource availability - at the regional scale. Each of these assessment methods are tested using South East Queensland (SEQ) as a case study. It was selected because of its ecological and demographic diversity, its combination of coastal and land management issues, and its urban metropolitan and rural farm and non-farm communities. The applicability of each of these methods to regional assessment was examined using an evaluation criteria matrix, which describes the attributes of an effective method and the characteristics that make these methods useful for regional management and building community capacity to progress sustainability. We found that the methods tested failed to effectively measure progress toward sustainability at the regional scale, demonstrating the need for a new method for assessing regional sustainability.     

Research on the sustainable development of ecotourism in protected areas： a review

Due to the unique function of protected areas in species and nature resources conservation, sustainability has become the primary consideration in the development of ecotourism in protected areas. This paper focuses on this issue, and reviews the current literatures in this field, tries to give a comprehensive review which can also be organized in logical sense, classifies three major paradigms about the current research： research on the development of ecotourism in protected areas, research on the external indicators which affect the sustainability of ecotourism in protected areas, researches on the assessment of sustainability of ecotourism in protected areas, and finally points out that the further study in this field must be carried out by inter-disciplines, such as cultural economics and ecological economics.     

Influencing the perception of what and who is important in ecological economics

In a recent article using citation analysis Hoepner et al. (2012) make strong claims to have identified the most influential works, authors, journals and institutions in a hypothetical field they call environmental and ecological economics. This paper shows that their work is biased by its framing, far from the non-subjective approach they claim and highly sensitive to minor data errors. More than this the exercise can be seen as another example of how ecological economics is susceptible to suppression by a dominant mainstream economic perspective which attempts to override, belittle and dismiss a whole range of alternative thought, including that which is heterodox, interdisciplinary, from the natural sciences and based in the non-economic social sciences. Ecological economics is not the same as agricultural, resource or environmental economics, and if it were it would be pointless. Neither can it be understood or treated as a subfield of resource and environmental economics, as done by Hoepner et al. (2012). I argue that the study promotes a limited perspective on social, environmental and economic problems that includes an implicit political and ideological framing. What is most influential, important or high quality in ecological economics is certainly not defined by such work.     

Feminist Ecological Economics and Sustainability

Synopsis New developments in feminist ecological economics and ecofeminist economics are contributing to the search for theories and policy approaches to move economies toward sustainability. This paper summarizes work by ecofeminists and feminist ecological economists which is relevant to the sustainability challenge and its implications for the discipline of economics. Both democracy and lower material throughputs are generally seen as basic principles of economic sustainability. Feminist theorists and feminist ecological economists offer many important insights into the conundrum of how to make a democratic and equity-enhancing transition to an economy based on less material throughput. These flow from feminist research on unpaid work and caring labor, provisioning, development, valuation, social reproduction, non-monetized exchange relationships, local economies, redistribution, citizenship, equity-enhancing political institutions, and labor time, as well as creative modeling approaches and activism-based theorizing.      

Kenneth Boulding's Theories of Evolutionary Economics and Organizational Change: A Reconstruction

I identify a discrepancy between Kenneth Boulding's wide-ranging contributions to evolutionary economics and his professed ecological approach to it. I argue that Boulding has undersold his true contributions to evolutionary economics by trying to embed them into the ecological approach. I endeavor to overcome this discrepancy by differentiating between two types of evolutionary change analyzed in Boulding's writings: ecological change and civilizational change. In contrast to ecological change, civilizational change entails the possibility for the evolving system to overstrain the carrying capacity of the environment, thus suggesting the precarious relationship between civilizational complexity and sustainability. This argument sheds new light on Boulding's theory of “social organizers,” such as exchange, threat, and the integrative system. Boulding's understanding of civilizational change envisages the key role of threat and exchange in enabling civilizational complexity, while the integrative system is called upon to make this complexity sustainable.     

西方可持续性经济学研究的主要理论问题及其评价

可持续性经济学是20世纪60年代以来在西方经济学界逐渐形成并发展起来的一门新兴的、交叉型和应用型经济学科。尽管西方经济学界对可持续性经济学从概念、特征、研究范畴、研究方法和制度背景等诸多方面并没有形成一个统一而明确的认识,但可持续性经济学的有关理论已成为可持续发展实践的基础和重要指导。通过对西方可持续性经济学研究的主要理论问题进行梳理与评价,一方面可以揭示西方在该学科领域一些关键理论问题上的研究进展,另一方面也为我国构建具有中国特色、适合中国国情的可持续性经济学的理论和实践提供借鉴。     

技术经济学课程教学改革实践研究

技术经济学是一门技术和经济相交叉的边缘学科,具有很强的实践性。该课程的学习对学生加强经济管理知识,完善知识结构,提高综合素质,树立市场观念,都具有重要意义。长期以来,技术经济学课程传统的教学方式与单一的考试模式,易导致学生缺乏学习积极性,不利于学生自主学习能力和创新能力的培养。根据创新人才培养要求,通过北京建筑大学技术经济学课程教学改革实践,对技术经济学从教学内容、教学方式及考核方式等方面进行改革,总结出"讲授+案例+实践"三位一体的教学模式,新的教学模式以培养学生创新意识和实践能力为目标,大大提高学生理论联系实际的能力,锻炼学生解决实际问题的能力,开发学生学习的主动性和创新思维,并改变原有的单一考核方式为全过程、多角度评价,对于提高技术经济学课程教学效果具有积极的作用。     

Measuring national economic performance without using prices

Recent years have seen increasing awareness of the deficiencies of conventionally defined national income as a measure of a nation's overall economic performance. Alternative measures have been proposed involving either the modification of national income accounting conventions, or the abandonment of national income itself in favour of something such as the Genuine Progress Indicator, GPI. However, such alternatives, like national income itself, all involve the use of monetary valuation for aggregation. This paper proposes a new approach to the measurement of national economic performance, which follows naturally from ecological economics as the study of economic activity rooted in a proper appreciation of its material circumstances, and which does not involve using prices for aggregation. The paper gives some results for three variants of the new approach, and compares and discusses them. While this new approach does not purport to provide a single definitive assessment of the sustainability of current economic activity, which is an infeasible goal, it could provide useful inputs to relevant research activity, and to policy analysis and debate.     

The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?

Ecological economics and its policy recommendations have become overwhelmed by economic valuation, shadow pricing, sustainability measures, and squeezing Nature into the commodity boxes of goods, services and capital in order to make it part of mainstream economic, financial and banking discourses. There are deeper concerns which touch upon the understanding of humanity in its various social, psychological, political and ethical facets. The relationship with Nature proposed by the ecological economics movement has the potential to be far reaching. However, this is not the picture portrayed by surveying the amassed body of articles from this journal or by many of those claiming affiliation. A shallow movement, allied to a business as usual politics and economy, has become dominant and imposes its preoccupation with mainstream economic concepts and values. If, instead, ecological economists choose a path deep into the world of interdisciplinary endeavour they will need to be prepared to transform themselves and society. The implications go far beyond the pragmatic use of magic numbers to convince politicians and the public that ecology still has something relevant to say in the 21st century.     

Specifying “regime” — A framework for defining and describing regimes in transition research

It is more and more agreed by research and policy that a long-term sustainability of industrialized societies cannot be achieved without fundamental changes at the level of different societal subsystems, such as the agricultural, transportation or water management systems. This view has lead to an increase in the amount of research carried out about the so-called “transitions”. Transitions comprise long-term, fundamental change in societal subsystems and are seen as encompassing co-evolutionary and mutually reinforcing processes in the economic, technological, institutional and socio-cultural domains. Transition research aims at understanding transitions and at finding methods that facilitate change directed towards societal goals (so-called “transition management”).This paper adds to the growing body of concepts of this young research strand. It suggests a framework for defining and describing “regimes”, the systems resulting from the broad and interdisciplinary view taken by transition research. The concept “regime” is of central importance for transition research, since it defines the level of societal systems on which transitions are mainly analysed. What actually is “the regime” to be researched and possibly managed is however usually not given through clear system boundaries but is a matter of framing and deliberation. In order to guide processes of regime identification, the paper develops five defining characteristics of regimes and gives a definition based on them. Further a method useful to structure and graphically represent knowledge about a regime is introduced. Such a structuring of knowledge is an important first step to understand how a regime “works”.     

Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies

Technology assessment (TA) has developed into a method that puts a strong emphasis on facilitating interfaces between supply of science and technology and the demand for useful applications. Recently, we also see that TA becomes an integral part of science and technology programs, for instance in nanotechnology. The basic aim of the latter is to articulate the needs, wishes, and constraints, for example from professional users, already in the emerging stage of technological development. TA methods come in many different forms, although they are often different versions of a limited set of ‘basic approaches’ adapted to specific conditions with the overall aim to improve societal embedding. The thrust of this paper lies in the development and results of a variant of constructive TA (CTA), addressing technological development in an early phase in order to bypass the Collingridge dilemma by developing and testing scenarios including options for the further development of emerging technologies.How to support a broad selection of relevant actors effectively with CTA in such a way that they are enabled to play their role in innovation processes of emerging technologies? This is the main research question taken up in this paper. To take on this challenge we develop, apply, and evaluate an intervention we named the 3-step constructive technology assessment (CTA) approach. We will apply the approach to a nanotechnology related topic, Lab-on-a-chip technology. By assessing the effects and evaluating the proposed approach, we also want to contribute to the development of new methodological insights relevant for the TA community.     

Towards Sustainability Economics: Principles and Values

Synopsis  Radical alternatives, in terms of our ideas about science in society, about economics, ideology and institutional arrangements, should be included among possibilities considered within the scope of a pluralistic philosophy. While all these aspects of our mental maps are interrelated and important, economics plays a key role in attempts to get closer to a sustainable society. Mainstream neoclassical economics is not enough. The tendency to exclusively rely on this particular theory is considered part of the problems faced. A ‘sustainability economics’ more in line with dominant ideas of democracy is proposed, emphasizing the ethical, ideological and political elements. Reference is made to institutional theory but the principles and concepts suggested are in many ways similar to other kinds of heterodox economics and developments in other social sciences. Neoclassical economics is used as a point of reference in pointing to alternative ideas about human beings, organizations, markets, decision- making, efficiency, rationality, progress in society and institutional change processes. Predilection for such an alternative conceptual framework (or for neoclassical economics) is not exclusively a scientific choice but as much a matter of political and ideological preferences. One paradigm may be dominant at a time, but because of the ideological specificity of each paradigm, competing theoretical perspectives should be accepted and even encouraged in a democratic society.      

Teaching (un)sustainability? University sustainability commitments and student experiences of introductory economics

The three largest public universities in British Columbia, Canada have signed the Talloires Declaration, committing themselves to promoting sustainability and creating expectations that they will integrate sustainability across the curriculum in order to improve students' environmental literacy and stewardship. About 40% of North American university students take a mainstream introductory economics course; few of these students take economics at more advanced levels. As such, introductory economics courses are an important vehicle for students to learn economic theory; they have the potential to contribute to the knowledge that students can mobilize to foster sustainability. Interviews were held with 54 students who had recently completed an introductory level mainstream economics course at one of the three universities. Students reported that introductory economics courses place little emphasis on the environment and sustainability, they recalled course content with normative connotations that are problematic from a sustainability perspective and they described how discussion of the limitations of mainstream theory was set aside. Student reports of the insights introductory economics offers into environmental problems imply that these courses are failing to substantively increase students' understanding of sustainability and linkages between the environment and the economy. Findings suggest that current introductory economics curriculum undermines the universities' sustainability commitments.     

Commodity Prices and the New Inflation

The intention of the article is to explore trends in economics and sociology, as well as other science disciplines, like history, psychology and anthropology, and investigate the interdisciplinary exchanges that have taken place, leading to convergences and divergences between academic subjects. The “imperialism of economics” is increasingly approaching traditional academic fields of history, psychology, and sociology. However, the article concludes that sociology’s public reputation may have declined, while simultaneously economics is shifting its attention to the social dimension of economic behavior and moving toward the other social sciences; a process which has been coined “social-scienciation.” The argument is that those developments can also be seen as chances to upgrade the social sciences “around” economics. The described process also aligns with recent talk about a need for interdisciplinary studies when this article adopts a different take on the issues of interdisciplinarity and embeddedness.     

Resilience in the Dynamics of Economy-Environment Systems

The ecological concept of resilience has begun to inform analysis of change in economy-environment systems. The linkages between resilience and the stability of dynamical systems are discussed, along with its role in understanding of the evolution of such systems. Particular linkages discussed include those between resilience, biodiversity and the sustainability of alternative states. Recent developments in modelling the resilience of joint economy-environment systems suggest the advantages of analysing change in the system as a Markov process, the transition probabilities between states offering a natural measure of the resilience of the system in such states. It is argued that this ‘emergent property’ of the collaboration between ecology and economics has far-reaching implications for the way we think about, model and manage the environmental sustainability of economic development.     

Relative and absolute scarcity of nature. Assessing the roles of economics and ecology for biodiversity conservation

Our aim in this essay is to identify and analyze some of the difficulties with interdisciplinary integration of economic and ecological contributions to the study of biodiversity loss. We develop our analysis from a widely accepted definition of economics which is based on the concept of scarcity. Taking a closer look at this notion, we find that economics actually limits itself to a very particular aspect of scarcity, which we denote as relative scarcity. We describe in what respect the economic approach towards biodiversity is based on this notion, and also reflect on the specific understanding of the relation of humans and nature behind the economic approach. We then turn to absolute scarcity as another notion of scarcity, and show that this is not within the scope of economics, but has been a theme of ecology and ecological economics. We describe in which way ecological and ecological–economic approaches towards biodiversity are based on the idea of absolute scarcity, and also reflect on the specific understanding of the human–nature relationship behind this notion of scarcity. Against this background, we discuss the roles of economics and ecology for nature conservation. We conclude that the interdisciplinary integration of ecology and economics requires a philosophical underpinning, and suggest a framework for further research.     

Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability

The last two decades have seen the development of an array of techniques and practices aimed at promoting sustainability. For many, results have been disappointing. There are charges that supposedly new organisational approaches remain embedded in managerialist, functionalist and anti-dialogic frameworks that are a significant part of the problem. Similarly the technocratic scientization of public policy is viewed as ill-equipped to deal with the social, economic and ecological issues currently facing neo-liberal societies. In this paper we seek to interpret these frustrations and identify pathways that move beyond this. Specifically, we argue that the gap between sustainability rhetoric and sustainability practices can be reconceptualised through the practice of science as post-normal and through developing the notion of post-normal sustainability technologies (PNSTs). The exponents of post-normal science show why stakeholder engagement in sustainability (and other scientific) issues is critical for the legitimacy and quality of decisions and the admission of complexity in decision-making and accountability processes. Building on this now well-established foundation we seek to characterise, and give examples of, PNSTs as tools for achieving this participation; wherein stakeholders assume expertise and interact with those possessing more traditional forms of expertise in order to co-produce knowledge about sustainability. Recognition of ideological and value diversity is also central to the post-normal sustainability agenda and with PNSTs, the values-based nature of the issues involved is articulated in a way that seeks to bring politics openly into the picture. To this end we identify processes that are emerging in the literature and in practice that will enable PNSTs. These include extended peer communities and multi-actor heuristics, agonistic processes and new characterisations of citizenship that support moves to sustainability. In so doing, we believe that PNSTs offer “clumsy solutions” for “wicked problems” that can be engaged with in both the research and practice arenas as significant contributions to addressing urgent needs.     

Linking material and energy flow analyses and social theory

The paper explores the potential of Habermas' theory of communicative action to alter the social reflexivity of material and energy flow analysis. With his social macro theory Habermas has provided an alternative, critical justification for social theory that can be distinguished from economic libertarianism and from political liberalism. Implicitly, most flow approaches draw from these theoretical traditions rather than from discourse theory. There are several types of material and energy flow analyses. While these concepts basically share a system theoretical view, they lack a specific interdisciplinary perspective that ties the fundamental insight of flows to disciplinary scientific development. Instead of simply expanding micro-models to the social macro-dimension social theory suggests infusing the very notion of flows to the progress of disciplines. With regard to the functional integration of society, material and energy flow analyses can rely on the paradigm of ecological economics and at the same time progress the debate between strong and weak sustainability within the paradigm. However, placing economics at the centre of their functional analyses may still ignore the broader social integration of society, depending on their pre-analytic outline of research and the methods used.