Relating the philosophy and practice of ecological economics: The role of concepts, models, and case studies in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research

We develop a general and unifying methodology for ecological economics which integrates philosophical considerations on the foundations of ecological economics with an adequate operationalization. We argue that the subject matter and aims of ecological economics require a specific combination of inter- and transdisciplinary research, and discuss the epistemological position on which this methodology is based. In accordance with this understanding of inter- and transdisciplinarity and the underlying epistemological position, we develop an operationalization which comprises simultaneous analysis on three levels of abstraction: concepts, (generic) models and case studies. This provides a systematic and integral view on ecological economics, and thus allows one to see the relationship between contributions to the field that have so far been perceived as very heterogeneous and largely unrelated. At the same time, this methodological framework may provide orientation for the further development of ecological economics.     

A bibliometric account of the evolution of EE in the last two decades: Is ecological economics (becoming) a post-normal science?

In ecological economics the debate on formalism and formalization has been addressed in the context of a lively discussion on ecological economics as a ‘post-normal’ (versus ‘normal’) science. Using ecological economics (EE) as a ‘seed’ journal and applying bibliometric techniques to all (2533) the articles published in EE from January 1989 to December 2009, we analyze the evolution of the field of ecological economics aiming to shed light on this debate. We observe the predominance (and increased relevance) of certain research topics: ‘Methodological issues’, ‘Policies, governance and institutions’ and ‘Valuation’. Moreover, ‘Collective action’, ‘Technical change and the environment’ and ‘Values’ stand as emergent themes of research. Finally, we note that ecological economics experienced an ‘empirical turn’ reflected in a shift away from exclusively formalized papers towards exclusively empirical and, to a larger extent, ‘formal and empirical’ ones. The combination of the prominent and emergent topics and the ‘empirical turn’ mirrors the increasing awareness among researchers in the field of the need to address a key specificity of ecological economics — the interdependence of the economic, biophysical and social spheres. On this basis, we argue that at least through the lens of EE, ecological economics has evolved towards a post-normal science.     

Sustaining sustainability science: The role of established inter-disciplines

The establishment of new interdisciplinary fields such as ecological economics, human ecology or technology assessment can be interpreted as a logical consequence of striving for new sustainability sciences that address current global, multi-dimensional and multi-scale challenges. These set out to bridge the gap between the natural and the social sphere, between scientific analysis and societal action. This paper aims at re-assessing the contribution of established inter-disciplines to sustainable development. Journal articles of ecological economics, technology assessment and science and technology studies are evaluated and compared along several proposed features of sustainability science. The results converge in two crucial aspects. (1) Concise societal or political recommendations are not part of present day ‘normal science’, be it a disciplinary or an explicitly interdisciplinary research context. (2) Participatory exercises are rarely applied as a socio-politically embedded practice, despite a high interest in such exercises as an object of study and discussion.     

Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science

The ecological footprint is a measure of the resources necessary to produce the goods that an individual or population consumes. It is also used as a measure of sustainability, though evidence suggests that it falls short. The assumptions behind footprint calculations have been extensively criticized; I present here further evidence that it fails to satisfy simple economic principles because the basic assumptions are contradicted by both theory and historical data. Specifically, I argue that the footprint arbitrarily assumes both zero greenhouse gas emissions, which may not be ex ante optimal, and national boundaries, which makes extrapolating from the average ecological footprint problematic. The footprint also cannot take into account intensive production, and so comparisons to biocapacity are erroneous. Using only the assumptions of the footprint then, one could argue that the Earth can sustain greatly increased production, though there are important limitations that the footprint cannot address, such as land degradation. Finally, the lack of correlation between land degradation and the ecological footprint obscures the effects of a larger sustainability problem. Better measures of sustainability would address these issues directly.     

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.     

Relationship between ecological economics and circular economy, eco-industry, cleaner production, and other relevant categories

Eco-industry, circular economy, cleaner production, industrial ecology or industrial ecosystem and other subjects are all categories related to sustainable developinent. This paper studies the relations and differences between the four categories and sustainable development as well as ecological economics. Circular economy, eco-industry, industrial ecosystem and cleaner production were put forward during the revolution in “end treatment pattern” of traditional industrial society. Industrial ecology, eco-industry and circular economy theory are three content expansions of cleaner production. Ecological economics is of instructive function theoretically and methodologically for circular economy, eco-industrial, cleaner production and industrial ecology. Circular economy theory is easier to be accepted, compared with ecological economics theory. And circular economy in nature is the complete application of ecological economics theory.     

The status of economics as a naturalistic social science

Naturalistic social science is held frequently to be the mosteffective means of discovering social reality (e.g., Kincaid,H. 1996. Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences: AnalyzingControversies in Social Research, Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress; McIntyre, L. 1996. Laws and Explanation in the SocialSciences, Boulder, CO, Westview). This paper evaluates economicsas such a science. From Kincaid (1996), criteria for naturalismin social science are identified. The focus here is whetherrational, objective empirical methods exist for choosing economictheories; whether fair, cross and independent tests exist fortheories, assumptions and methodological norms; and whethereconomic theories chosen in these ways have public policy relevance.Examples from economics are related to each of these naturalisticcriteria. These encompass the relevance of econometrics to testingeconomic theories, the complications the non-natural-kind qualityof economic variables impose on testing, and the question ofwhether naturalistic methods reveal economic reality. The paperconcludes that the practice of economics does not, and is notable to, rely on naturalistic methods.     

龙海市外向型农业生态经济发展研究

分析我国东南沿海开放地区龙海市外向型生态农业发展基础与存在问题,提出实现该地区外向型农业生态经济对策与建议。     

The nature of heterodox economics

Heterodoxy serves as an umbrella term to cover the coming togetherof separate projects or traditions. In answering the question,‘what distinguishes heterodoxy from the orthodoxy?’,the author argues that matters of ontology are central. In answeringthe question, ‘how are the various traditions that makeup the modern heterodoxy to be distinguished from each other?’,the author defends criteria other than varying commitments tospecific substantive theories, policy measures or techniques(or basic units) of analysis.     

The economics of research,consulting, and teaching quality: theory and evidence from a technical university

We investigate the effect of both research and consulting on teaching quality in higher education, at the individual level. We propose a theoretical model in which academics allocate effort between the three activities, over a two period time horizon, under the assumption of positive spillovers from research to both consulting opportunities and teaching, and of life-cycle effects on incentives. Propositions from the model are tested against data from a mid-sized Italian engineering faculty. We find that teaching quality is negatively related to consulting and positively related to research experience. However, both relationships are not linear, due to the importance of several mediating factors, such as seniority and the role of scientific publications as a signal for attracting consulting opportunities.     

What topic modeling could reveal about the evolution of economics*

ABSTRACT

The paper presents the topic modeling technique known as Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), a form of text-mining aiming at discovering the hidden (latent) thematic structure in large archives of documents. By applying LDA to the full text of the economics articles stored in the JSTOR database, we show how to construct a map of the discipline over time, and illustrate the potentialities of the technique for the study of the shifting structure of economics in a time of (possible) fragmentation.     

The future of development economics: a methodological agenda

This paper discusses methodological differences between universalismand particularism in development economics by focusing on the‘East Asian Miracle’ debate. It proposes to builddevelopment economics as part of hetero-economics, not mono-economics,following Max Weber's methodology of social science, and suggestsdeveloping intermediate theories by abstracting directly fromgiven comparative settings. It also discusses the limitationsthat are inherent in this method, as well as ways to employthe method in actual analyses. This paper argues that the futuretask of development economics lies in recombining existing theoriesand developing new, complementing theories that will systematicallydelineate the diversity of developing countries.     

The core ideology of Ecological Marxism：Marx is the pioneer of internal factors theory of ecological environment

This paper from the unified visual angle of philosophy and economics has observed Marx＇s theory of ecological economics, clarified the misunderstanding on Marx＇s theory of nature and ecological environmental thought at home and abroad for a long time, studied systematically and deeply the Marx＇s thought that natural and ecological environment is external condition and internal elements of human social economic growth, confirmed firstly Marx is the forerunner who established the theory of internal cause of natural ecological environment. It is of far-reaching academic and practical significance.     

生态经济学的方法论

基于生态经济学和新古典经济学之间存在的历史渊源和理论差别,研究生态经济学的方法论,可以从其区别于新古典经济学方法的角度予以解析.生态经济学的方法论是多学科、多技术集成下的综合性方法,具有价值多元论、生态人假定、边际分析的替代性方法、不确定性的独特解决路径、市场价值和社会选择的严格区分、生产本质的新界定等特征.     

Situational logic in social science inquiry: From economics to criminology

Karl R. Popper proposed that the method of explanation in economics, or situational logic, should become the general model for analyses across the social sciences. This article makes good Popper's proposal by extending situational logic to a social problem outside the traditional scope of economics: crime. Specifically, the discussion reviews models developed by economist Gary S. Becker and criminologist Ronald V. Clarke. Becker's ‘economic approach’ to crime incorporates essential features of situational logic. Clarke's ‘situational crime prevention’ offers an even better demonstration; it explicitly incorporates the ideas of piecemeal social engineering and unintended social repercussions. Popper took situational logic from Menger and the Austrians, making this emerging area of criminology an extension of Austrian economics.

Application of ecological footprint in ecological industrial systems：a study case of maize-MSG production systems

To improve the comparability of the research results of ecological industry, the ecological footprint is appliedto analyze the resource utilization and environmental pollution in various subsystems, taking maize-MSG as a case.Results show that the production process from maize to MSG is a extended process of ecological footprint, and that theecological footprint of the maize production is the biggest; the extension of ecological footprint is followed by the increaseof footprint profit, which means that the extension of production chain is an important method to improve the resourcesprofit; the systems have a big proportion of the indirect energy ecological footprint; the air and water pollution in MSGsubsystem is the most serious. At last, it can be identified that ecological footprint is a good method to measure resourceutilization and environmental pollution in various subsystems of an integrated ecological industry.     

The unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics in economics

In this paper, I attempt to show that mathematical economicsis unreasonably ineffective. Unreasonable, because the mathematicalassumptions are economically unwarranted; ineffective becausethe mathematical formalisations imply non-constructive and uncomputablestructures. A reasonable and effective mathematisation of economicsentails Diophantine formalisms. These come with natural undecidabilitiesand uncomputabilities. In the face of this, I conjecture thatan economics for the future will be freer to explore experimentalmethodologies underpinned by alternative mathematical structures.The whole discussion is framed within the context of the celebratedWignerian theme: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematicsin the Natural Sciences.     

The modern foundations of Marx's monetary economics

The first chapters of Capital are still often ‘tlerated’, Mirowski (1986: 222) reminds us, as a ‘regrettable metaphysical residuum of [Max's] Hegelian [past]’. Such ‘tolerance’ has unfortunate consequences, howeve, not the least of which is Marx's reputation for ‘theoretical metallism’, simple and derivative. This paper builds on the recent efforts of de Brunhoff (1981), Lavoie (1983) and others to deconstruct, with support from Grundrisse and related texts, the important thrid chapter of Capital, Marx's account of the universal equivalent's four functions. As it is identified here, the chapter's core includes ‘pody-Keynesian’ elements– a reversal of the Ricardian view of the quantity equation, an effective demand principle in which capitalists’ dcisions about the recommitment of hoards assume a prominent role, and the deermination of interest rates, in the short term, on the basis of liquidity preference-– but does not include, in the conventional sense, a commodity theory of money.     

Bioeconomics as economics from a Darwinian perspective

Bioeconomics—the merging of views from biology and economics—on the one hand invites the 'export' of situational logic and sophisticated optimization developed in economics into biology. On the other hand, human economic activity and its evolution, not least over the past few centuries, may be considered an instance for fruitfully applying ideas from evolutionary biology and Darwinian theory. The latter perspective is taken in the present paper. Three different aspects are discussed in detail. First, the Darwinian revolution provides an example of a paradigm shift which contrasts most significantly with the 'subjectivist revolution' that took place at about the same time in economics. Since many of the features of the paradigmatic change that were introduced into the sciences by Darwinism may be desirable for economics as well, the question is explored whether the Darwinian revolution can be a model for introducing a new paradigm in economic theory. Second, the success of Darwinism and its view of evolution have induced economists who are interested in an evolutionary approach in economics to borrow, more or less extensively, concepts and tools from Darwinian theory. Particularly prominent are constructions based on analogies to the theory of natural selection. Because several objections to such analogy constructions can be raised, generalization rather than analogy is advocated here as a research strategy. This means to search for abstract features which all evolutionary theories have in common. Third, the question of what a Darwinian world view might mean for assessing long term economic evolution is discussed. Such a view, it is argued, can provide a point of departure for reinterpreting the hedonistic approach to economic change and development. On the basis of such an interpretation bioeconomics may not only go beyond the optimization-cum-equilibrium paradigm currently prevailing in economics. It may also mean adding substantial qualifications to the subjectivism the neoclassical economists, at the turn of the century, were proud to establish in the course of their scientific revolution.     

The basic theory of industrial ecological economics

There is a great difference between the new type industrialization road in China and the road of industrialization first, then informatization and at last ecologization in western developed countries. Industrial eco-economics is one of the critical branches of eco-economics. It is a subject of objective law of structural upgrading, functional optimization and highly efficient running of industrial eco-economic system, which is combined with industrial economic system and eco-system under the condition of intellectual economy and circular economy combinations. Meanwhile, it is a relatively weak subject in the research field of eco-economics in China for the time being. Taking the practice road of new type industrialization needs the guidance of industrial eco-economics. The modern industrial eco-economics in the 21st century must be adapted to the need of new type road of industrialization in China. The paper analyzes the status quo of research and the main contents of industrial eco-economics and tries to study some key theories of the branch subject.