The description “bio‐economics” is currently being claimed by two opposing schools of thought. For one group of economists, led by Kenneth Boulding, Herman Daly and Nicholas…
Abstract
The description “bio‐economics” is currently being claimed by two opposing schools of thought. For one group of economists, led by Kenneth Boulding, Herman Daly and Nicholas Georgescu‐Roegen, the term is chosen to emphasise the biological foundations of our economic activity. They remind us that the human species, as members of the animal kingdom, live as other species do, by taking low entropy from the natural environment and discharging it back into that environment as high‐entropy waste. The economic system is thus viewed as a sub‐set of larger processes taking place in the natural world. This school questions the reductionism typical of modern science and seeks to build an alternative approach based on a holistic view of nature and society.
Among biologists it is generally recognized that market activity is having a devastating effect on the biological world. The current worldwide loss of biodiversity may be of the…
Abstract
Among biologists it is generally recognized that market activity is having a devastating effect on the biological world. The current worldwide loss of biodiversity may be of the same order of magnitude as the five mass extinctions which have decimated life on earth during the past 500 million years. One reason for the current crisis is that decisions about resource use are increasingly made from the narrow perspective of market exchange. Decisions made in this context necessarily place a lower value on preservation than those made in a broader social context. Although the phenomenon of discounting generally works against biodiversity conservation, policies may be devised to use discounting to implement land use policies which will take effect in the relatively distant future.
Many of the early debates about economic methodology, marginalismversus discontinuous change, stasis versus turbulence, co‐operationversus competition, were at base questions of…
Abstract
Many of the early debates about economic methodology, marginalism versus discontinuous change, stasis versus turbulence, co‐operation versus competition, were at base questions of general scientific methodology. During the past 20 years or so there has been a virtual revolution in the field of evolutionary biology. This revolution has had a profound impact on the philosophy of science; an impact which is beginning to be felt in the field of economics. The purpose of this article is to analyse some past controversies in economic methodology in the light of recent developments in evolutionary biology.
Details
Keywords
John M. Gowdy and Raluca Iorgulescu Polimeni
This paper draws upon the work of Georgescu‐Roegen to outline some theoretical alternatives to standard welfare theory, and to examine the policy implications of discarding the…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper draws upon the work of Georgescu‐Roegen to outline some theoretical alternatives to standard welfare theory, and to examine the policy implications of discarding the Walrasian core of neoclassical economics.
Design/methodology/approach
Current work in behavioral economics and game theory shows that economic behavior depends on social context, a point understood by social economists for a hundred years or more. This work is related to Georgescu's contributions to utility theory and bioeconomics.
Findings
Neoclassical welfare economics continues to dominate economic theory and policy even though its theoretical foundations, economic man and perfect competition, have been discredited by mainstream theorists. Economic processes take place in specific social contexts and also coevolve with the biophysical universe.
Practical implications
Although modern economics is incorporating many of Georgescu's insights about human preferences it has yet to come to grips with the fact that human economic activity is shaped by its biophysical context. It is believed this should be a major focus of future economic research.
Originality/value
Provides further insights into welfare theory and bioeconomics.
Details
Keywords
Neo‐classical utility theory has withstood several decades of sustained criticism. Its success has been due (1) to the ability of the theory to represent an essentially…
Abstract
Neo‐classical utility theory has withstood several decades of sustained criticism. Its success has been due (1) to the ability of the theory to represent an essentially non‐analytical process by analytical methods, and (2) to the fact that the theory was developed for, and applied to, advanced market economies where the simplifying assumptions are most appropriate. It is argued below that the neo‐classical formulation is inappropriate in societies where agrarian traditions predominate and that, consequently, economic policies based on such an approach have frequently been misdirected.
Examines the impact of humans on the Earth, and how natural resourcesare related to economic wellbeing. Links evolution and increases inpopulation to natural causes. Discusses the…
Abstract
Examines the impact of humans on the Earth, and how natural resources are related to economic wellbeing. Links evolution and increases in population to natural causes. Discusses the co‐evolution of nature and society, and the unsustainable system that humans have created. Shows how incompatible a market economy is with the preservation of the environment and biodiversity. Concludes that nature will have an impact on policy and cites some examples of this in the USA.
Details
Keywords
Carl McDaniel and John M. Gowdy
Resource use policy based on standard (neoclassical) economic theory is driven by the assumption that “getting the prices right” is the key to sustainable resource use. Although…
Abstract
Resource use policy based on standard (neoclassical) economic theory is driven by the assumption that “getting the prices right” is the key to sustainable resource use. Although most neo‐classical economists now agree that market prices may substantially undervalue biological features, the prevailing view is that “correct” market prices can be established through enlightened intervention in private markets. Using the examples of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, the American bison, and the passenger pigeon, we show that neither very high nor very low prices can ensure the survival of a particular species. With these cases as background, we compare and contrast three policy approaches to sustainability: weak sustainability, strong sustainability and Georgescu‐Roegen’s concept of a viable technology.
Details
Keywords
J.C. Dragan and M.C. Demetrescu
The purpose of this volume is to offer a guide to the thought of Nicholas Georgescu‐Roegen; a guide which may be understood by a wide intellectual audience. Dragan and Demetrescu…
Abstract
The purpose of this volume is to offer a guide to the thought of Nicholas Georgescu‐Roegen; a guide which may be understood by a wide intellectual audience. Dragan and Demetrescu have succeeded admirably in their task. They have given us a much‐needed overview of Georgescu‐Roegen's life's work, including a brief biography and a comprehensive bibliography of works by and about Georgescu‐Roegen.
This register of current research in social economics has been compiled by the International Institute of Social Economics. The register does not claim to be comprehensive but is…
Abstract
This register of current research in social economics has been compiled by the International Institute of Social Economics. The register does not claim to be comprehensive but is merely an aid for research workers and institutions interested in social economics. The register will be updated and made more comprehensive in the future but this is largely dependent on the inflow of information from researchers in social economics. In order to facilitate this process a standardised form is to be found on the last page of this register. Completed forms, with attached sheets as necessary, should be returned to the compiler: Dr Barrie O. Pettman, Director, International Institute of Social Economics, Enholmes Hall, Patrington, Hull, N. Humberside, England, HU12 OPR. Any other comments on the register will also be welcome.
Sustainability has become an important catch‐word in several fields that has stimulated an important body of work on a wide variety of topics ranging from economic development and…
Abstract
Sustainability has become an important catch‐word in several fields that has stimulated an important body of work on a wide variety of topics ranging from economic development and agricultural production to social equity and biodiversity. Few generalizations can be made about such a diverse body of work. However, one can say with some confidence that this reflection has come about in large part from a sense that certain activities constitute a threat to human well‐being through the destruction of the necessary conditions of human survival. This fact has contributed to a rampant pessimism regarding prospects for the future and a rethinking of the meaning of sustainability in the fields noted above. However, acknowledging that sustainability is a rich concept in current thinking about economy, environment, and ecology does not mean that it is clearly understood. Indeed, the opposite is true. For example, John Pezzey, in a recent World Bank study, identified twenty‐seven definitions of sustainability. Even a summary survey of the work about sustainability shows that the term is a multidimensional concept that comprises of a number of interrelated elements, including ecological, environmental, economic, technological, social, cultural, ethical, and political dimensions.