enviro values

8/12/2019 Enviro Values

1/21

Environmental Values 6 : -

e te orse ress, am r ge, .

Environmental Economics, Ecological Economics,

and the Concept of Sustainable Development

niversitat utonoma e arce ona

ept o conomics an conomic istory

e aterra arce ona , pain

mai : ie e cc.ua .es

: This paper presents a systematic discussion, mainly for non-

econom sts, on econom c approac es to t e concept o susta na e eve op-

ment. s a rst step, t e concept o susta na ty s extens ve y scusse . s

secon step, t e argument t at t s not poss e to cons er susta na ty

on y rom an econom c or eco og ca po nt o v ew s e en e ; ssues suc

s econom c-eco og ca ntegrat on, nter-generat ona an ntra-generat ona

equ ty are cons ere o un amenta mportance. wo erent econom c ap-

proac es to env ronmenta ssues, .e. neo-c ass ca env ronmenta econom csn eco og ca econom cs, are compare . ome ey erences suc as wea

versus strong susta na ty, commensura ty versus ncommensura ty an

et ca neutra ty versus erent va ues acceptance are po nte out.

: eco og ca econom cs, post-norma sc ence, co-evo ut on, nst -

tut ona econom cs, susta na ty, ncommensura ty

.

e growt o wor popu at on an t e rap growt o econom c act v ty

ave cause env ronmenta stress n a soc o-econom c systems. ere s a

w e sc ent c consensus t at pro ems suc as t e green ouse e ect an

c mate c ange), ozone ep et on, ac ra n, oss o o vers ty, tox c po ut on

nd renewable and non-renewable resource depletion are clear symptoms of

env ronmenta unsusta na ty.

ra t ona neo-c ass ca econom cs ana yses t e process o pr ce ormat on

y cons er ng t e economy as a c ose system rms se goo s an serv ces,

n t en t ey remunerate t e pro uct on actors an , a our an cap ta ). t

s nterest ng to note t at w e c ass ca econom sts suc as a t us ),

car o ), ) an arx ) a c ear n t e r m n s t at


2/21

21

economic activity is bounded by the environment, neo-classical economics

omp ete y orgot t s mportant c aracter st c o rea wor econom es up t

t e sevent es w en t e e ate was starte on soc a an env ronmenta m ts to

econom c growt .1 e rea economy starte to e seen as an open sys emt at

n or er to unct on must extract resources rom t e env ronment an spose

arge amounts o waste ac nto t e env ronment yres an neese, ;

neese et a ., ).

e e support unct on o ecosystems e root, ) s connecte to

t e r p ys ca , c em ca , an o og ca ro e n t e overa system. cosystems

an e v e nto t ree categor es um, ):

natura env ronments or natura so ar-powere ecosystems open oceans,et an s, ra n orests, etc.);

omesticated environments or man-subsidised solar-powered ecosystems

agr cu ture an s, aquacu ture, woo an s, etc.); an

a r cate env ronments or ue -powere ur an- n ustr a systems c t es,

n ustr a areas, a rports, etc.).

It is evident that fabricated environments are not self-supporting or self-main-

ta n ng. o e susta ne t ey are epen ent on t e so ar-powere natura an

omest cate env ronments e-support ng ecosystems). tresscause y t esposa o wastes an po utants negat ve y a ects recyc ng, ee - ac oops

n contro mec an sms n t e e-support ng ecosystem an t ere y t e pro-

uct on an ma ntenance o env ronmenta goo s an serv ces. n t e e g t es,

t e awareness o actua an potent a con cts etween econom c growt an

t e env ronment e to t e concept o sustaina e eve opment .

.

Traditionally, Gross National Product (GNP) has been considered as the best per-

ormance n cator or measur ng nat ona economy an we are. ut resource

ep et on an egra at on are actore nto econom c tren s, w at emerges s

ra ca y erent p cture rom t at ep cte y convent ona met o s a y

n o , ). n env ronmenta terms, t e measure s p a n y e ect ve

ecause auc eux an onnor, ):

no account s ta en o env ronmenta estruct on or egra at on;

natura resources as suc are va ue at zero; an repa r an reme a expen ture suc as po ut on a atement measures,

ea t care, etc., are counte as pos t ve contr ut on to nasmuc as

t ey nvo ve expen tures o econom c goo s an serv ces.


3/21

21

Let us try to clarify some fundamental points of the concept of sustainable

eve opment . n econom cs y eve opment s meant t e set o c anges n t e

econom ca , soc a , nst tut ona an po t ca structure nee e to mp ement t e

trans t on rom a pre-cap ta st c economy ase on agr cu ture, to an n ustr a

cap ta st c economy resso, ). uc a e n t on o eve opment presents

two ma n c aracter st cs:

the changes needed are not only quantitative (GNP growth), but qualitative

too soc a , nst tut ona an po t ca ); an

t e on y poss e mo e o eve opment s t at o western n ustr a se

countr es. s mp es t at t e concept o eve opment s v ewe as a proc-

ess o cu tura us on towar t e est now e ge, t e est set o va ues, t eest organ sat on an t e est set o tec no og es.

e concept o susta na e eve opment as w e appea , part y ecause,

n contrast w t t e zero growt ea o a y ; a), t oes not set

econom c growt an env ronmenta preservat on n s arp oppos t on. at er,

usta na e eve opment carr es t e ea o a armon sat on or simu taneous

rea isation o econom c growt an env ronmenta concerns. or examp e,

ar er , p. ) wr tes t at susta na e eve opment mp es:

o maximise simultaneouslythe biological system goals (genetic diversity, resilience,biological productivity), economic system goals (satisfaction of basic needs, en-

ancement o equ ty, ncreas ng use u goo s an serv ces , an soc a system goa s

cultural diversity, institutional sustainability, social justice, participation).

s e n t on correct y po nts out t at susta na e eve opment s a mu ti i-

mensiona concept, ut as mu t cr ter a ec s on ana ys s teac es us see un a

) t s mposs e to max m se erent o ect ves at t e same t me.

or examp e, accor ng to actua soc a va ues n western countr es, av ng

car per two or t ree persons cou e cons ere a reasona e o ect ve n

ess eve ope countr es. s wou mp y a num er o cars ten t mes greater

t an at present, w t enormous consequences or g o a warm ng, ex aust on

o petro eum, oss o agr cu tura an , no se, pro uct on o an et

us cons er a stu y y t e n te at ons c te n resso ). n , t e

total world energy consumption was 10 terawatt-hours (TW-h). With no increase

n consumpt on n ess eve ope countr es, y t e w o e wor popu a-

t on wou nee - . t e consumpt on o t e w o e wor popu at on

were at t e eve o western countr es, t en y t wou e - . t s

c ear t at w e t e rst ypot es s s soc a y unsusta na e zero growt n

ess eve ope countr es), t e secon one s env ronmenta y unsusta na e nterms o ex aust on o natura resources an g o a po ut on).

t s ev ent ow cu t t s to mp ement t e ea o susta na e eve -

opment. rom an econom c po nt o v ew, t e costs an ene ts o econom c

growt are incommensura e urt ermore, eco ogy a one cannot exp a n


4/21

216

(e.g. by using the concept of carrying capacity) an important characteristic

uman e ngs: t e enormous erences n t e use o mater a s an energy

mong erent peop e an terr tor es. eograp ca str ut on s eterm ne

stor ca y, not o og ca y art nez- er, , ; art nez- er an

onnor, ).

e can synt es se t e ma n eatures o susta na e eve opment as o ows.

rst, an mportant c aracter st c s t e ssue o istri utiona equity, ot w t n

t e same generat on ntra-generat ona equ ty, e.g. t e ort - out v e)

n etween erent generat ons nter-generat ona equ ty). econ , an eco-

nom c-eco og ca ntegrat on s nee e , a ove a n terms o resource use an

po ut on em ss ons.

We could put the question, sustainable development of whom? Norgaard, p. ) wr tes, consumers want consumpt on susta ne , wor ers want o s

usta ne . ap ta sts an soc a sts ave t e r sms , w e ar stocrats an tec -

nocrats ave t e r crac es . e can conc u e t at env ronmenta management

s e ect ve y con ict ana ysisc aracter se y tec n ca , soc o-econom c, env -

ronmenta an po t ca va ue u gments. e concept o eco og ca str ut on

re ers to t e soc a , spat a , an tempora asymmetr es or nequa t es n t e use

y umans o env ronmenta resources an serv ces. us, t e terr tor a asym-

metr es etween2em ss ons an t e ur ens o ac ra n s an examp e o

spatia eco ogica istri ution; t e nter-generat ona nequa t es etween t een oyment o nuc ear energy an t e ur ens o ra oact ve waste s an examp e

f temporal ecological distribution In the USA, environmental racism is a

term use to escr e t e ocat on o po ut ng n ustr es or tox c waste sposa

tes n areas w ere poor peop e ve. s s an examp e o socia eco ogica

istri ution art nez- er an onnor, ).

n t e o ow ng sect ons we w exam ne ow tra t ona neo-c ass ca en-

v ronmenta econom cs an eco og ca econom cs er n tac ng t e ssue o

usta na e eve opment. n part cu ar, t e erence etween wea an rong

usta na ty w e stresse .

. -

. . asic rincip es

nv ronmenta econom cs can e cons ere as a part cu ar spec a sat on o

neo-c ass ca econom cs stu y ng two un amenta quest ons:

) t e pro em o env ronmenta externa t es; an) t e correct management o natura resources n part cu ar, t e opt ma nter-

generat ona a ocat on o non-renewa e resources).

rom an ep stemo og ca po nt o v ew, econom sts e ong ng to t e eo-


5/21

217

classical school take inspiration from Newtons mechanics. They tend to believe

n va ue neutra ty an o ect v ty an regar t e r arguments as sc ent c .

at ona ec s ons are connecte w t t e ex stence o opt ma so ut ons ase

on ca cu at ons n mone aryor ot er uni imensiona terms t e assumpt on o

comp ete commensura ty). t as to e note t at to put a prec se monetary

va ue to an env ronmenta externa ty mp es t e so ut on o very mportant

pro ems, e.g., uncerta nty connecte to t e env ronmenta mpact, correct t me

or zon an correct scount rate.

eo-c ass ca econom sts ave a qu te opt m st c v ew o tec no og ca

progress an econom c growt . ey genera y recogn se t at even t e pro-

uct on tec no og es o an economy can potent a y y e ncreases n output

commensurate with increases in inputs, overall output will be constrained bym te supp es o resources growt t eory w t ex aust e resources). ut t ese

m ts can e overcome y ec no ogica progress t e rate o tec no og ca

progress s g enoug to o set t e ec ne n t e per cap ta quant ty o natura

resource serv ces ava a e, output per wor er can r se n e n te y. stronger

tatement s t e o ow ng: even in t e a sence o any tec no ogica progress

ex austi e resources o not pose a un amenta pro em i repro uci e man-

ma e capita is su cient y su stituta e or natura resources asgupta an

ea , ; artw c , , ; o ow, a an ; t g tz, ).

s concept o su st tut on o more pro uct ve man-ma e cap ta or naturacap ta can e cr t c se rom many s es.

) cap ta eprec ates y a constant proport on, t e ex aust e resources

re essent a , s nce consumpt on s ou eventua y a to zero assum ng

no tec n ca c ange).

) an-ma e cap ta s not n epen ent o natura cap ta ; s nce resources are

requ re to manu acture cap ta goo s t e success o any attempt to su st -

tute cap ta or resources w e m te y t e extent to w c t e ncrease

n cap ta requ res an nput o resources. e ea o su st tut on m g t erescue we can emonstrate t at t e extra pro uct v ty n

Mman-ma e

cap ta ) outwe g s t e extra natura resources t at get use up n t e pro uc-

t on oM

t t s stage a we can say s t at t s s not o v ous earce

n urner, , p. ).

) m t to t e su st tuta ty etween man-ma e cap ta an natura

cap ta s t at natura cap ta as t e eature o mu t unct ona ty a t e e

upport unct ons), suc a eature s not s are y man-ma e cap ta earce

n urner, ).

e so ca e wea susta na ty concept earce an t nson, ) states t at

n economy can be considered sustainable if it saves more than the combined

eprec at on o natura an man-ma e cap ta . e can pass on ess env ronment

o ong as we o set t s oss y ncreas ng t e stoc o roa s an mac nery, or


6/21

21

ther man-made (physical) capital. Alternatively, we can have fewer roads and

actor es so ong as we compensate y av ng more wet an s or m xe woo an s

r more e ucat on urner et a ., , p. ). ea susta na ty s ase on

very strong assumpt on,per ect su stituta i ity etween t e erent orms

cap ta , so a t e cr t c sm presente a ove a so app es n t s case.

n er wea susta na ty con t ons, susta na ty s equ va ent to eav-

ng uture generat ons w t a tota stoc o cap ta not sma er t an t e one

en oye y t e present generat on. a eza ) notes t at t e concept o

wea susta na ty s not ng ut a y-pro uct o growt t eory w t ex aust-

e resources w en:

) t e e n t on o nter-generat ona equ ty s restr cte to a non- ec n ngeve o consumpt on per cap ta; an

(ii) the environment-economy relationship is restricted to the introduction of an

ggregate nput ca e natura cap ta nto t e pro uct on unct on.

n ee , wea susta na ty s s mp y a erent statement o t e so ca e

artw c - o ow ru e artw c , , ; o ow, , ), stat ng t at

n or er to ave a stream o constant eve o consumpt on per cap ta to n n ty,

oc ety s ou nvest a current returns rom t e ut sat on o t e ows rom

t e stoc o ex aust e resources. r t c sm o t e emp r ca resu ts o earce

n t nson s ca cu at ons can e oun n art nez- er ).

. . e earce- urner onstant atura apita u e

earce an urner ) a t oug t ey are ns e t e ramewor o convent ona

econom cs,2 ave a erent pos t on n approac ng env ronmenta pro ems.

ey evote t e r attent on to t e es ra ty an mean ng o ma nta n ng t e

natura cap ta stoc as a con t on or susta na e eve opment. a nta n ng

t e natura cap ta stoc s cons ere esira ema n y ecause t e ro e w c

natural environments play in supporting and sustaining economic systems is

overe y sc ent c uncerta nty. nce uncerta nty ex sts a out t e way n w c

env ronments unct on, e t er nterna y or n terms o t e r nteract ons w t

t e economy, a tra e-o o t e ene ts o su st tut ng man-ma e cap ta or

natura cap ta s not a rea st c one. oreover, most env ronmenta ec s ons

re c aracter se y rrevers ty: a m sta e s ma e, t s not poss e to

orrect t a terwar s t s qu te cu t to create a trop ca orest aga n). us

t e presence o uncerta nty an rrevers ty toget er s ou ma e uman

e ngs more c rcumspect a out g v ng up natura cap ta .

ut w at oes a constant natura cap ta stoc mean earce an urner, p. ) g ve our poss t es:

t e p ys ca quant ty o natura resource stoc s s ou rema n unc ange ;


7/21

219

the total value of the natural resource stocks should remain constant in real

terms stan ar econom c approac );

t e un t va ue o t e serv ces o t e natura resources, as measure y t e

pr ces o natura resources, s ou rema n constant n rea terms; an

t e va ue o t e resource w c ows rom t e natura resource stoc s ou

rema n constant n rea terms. ere resource ow s t e pro uct o pr ce

n quant ty use , t s poss e to a ow quant ty to ec ne ut t e pr ce to

r se, eep ng va ue constant.

earce an urner recogn se some o t e s ortcom ngs o eac o t ese e n t ons

o a constant stoc o natura cap ta , an ot er wea po nts ave een n cateby Victor (1991). Measurements of natural capital stock made exclusively in

p ys ca terms are pro emat c, accor ng to t ese aut ors, ecause o t e -

cu ty n a ng up erent p ys ca quant t es expresse n erent un ts. or

t s reason t e secon nterpretat on s o ere . y va u ng eac resource stoc

n money terms, t e tota va ue o natura cap ta can e measure . ne o v ous

pro em ere s t at many natura resources e.g., a r, water, w erness) o not

ave o serva e pr ces. us one wou nee to n mp c t or s a ow pr ces

n some way. ven t ose pr ces t at o ex st may not e use u ; t ey may e

ecte y mar et mper ect ons an taxes, an t ey may exc u e externa t es

nvo ve w t t e pro uct on an use o t e resource.

ere are a t ona pro ems n us ng mar et pr ces to va ue t e aggregate stoc o

natural capital. Resource prices or net prices reect conditions at the margin and to

use t ese to va ue ent re stoc s can g ve perverse resu ts. or examp e, t s poss e

for the real price or net price of a resource to rise over time at the same rate as (or

faster than) the rate of decrease in the physical stock of the resource..... This possibil-

ty s o more t an t eoret ca nterest. pr ce or net pr ce r ses as resource quant ty

is declining, the value of resource stocks as an indicator of sustainability can give

precisely the wrong policy signal to government. As long as the value of the stockrema ns constant or r ses, t e government, t roug t s n cator, w not perce ve

problem even though the ow of resource is becoming increasingly valuable (as

measured by price) and the physical stock is declining. (Victor, 1991, p. 204)

earce an urner s t r an ourt nterpretat ons o a constant stoc o natu-

ra cap ta a so ut se mar et pr ces an so s m ar cr t c sms ma e n re at on

to eep ng t e va ue o t e cap ta stoc constant app y. t oug t e ea o

constant natura cap ta stoc s qu te mportant an es ra e ma nta n ng

natura cap ta s an mportant prerequ s te or susta na ty), one as to a m tt at t e a ove cons erat ons emonstrate t at t e eve opment o re evant

indicators of sustainable development connected to this idea is quite difcult.

s s ma n y ecause t s ase on t e assumpt on o comp ete monetary

commensura i ity.


8/21

220

.

The linkages between ecosystems and economic systems are the focus of eco-

og ca econom cs. goo e n t on o w at s meant y co og ca conom cs

s t e o ow ng.

Increasing awareness that our global ecological life support system is endangered,

s orc ng us to rea se t at ec s ons ma e on t e as s o oca , narrow, s ort-term

riteria can produce disastrous results globally and in the long run. We are also be-

inning to realise that traditional economic and ecological models and concepts fall

s ort n t e r a ty to ea w t g o a eco og ca pro ems. co ogica economics

is a new rans-disciplinaryeld of study that addresses the relationships betweenecosystems and economic systems in the broadest sense..... Ecological economics

ers rom ot convent ona econom cs an convent ona eco ogy n terms

f breadth of its perception of the problem, and the importance it attaches to nvi-

onment-economy interactions.(Costanza et al., 1991, pp. 2-3)

s mp e sc eme o t e poss e sc ent c approac es to env ronment-

economy nteract ons can e oun n gure . e e t a concerns t ose ap-

proac es us ng severa eva uat on cr ter a or ana ys ng t e nteract ons etween

eco og ca an econom c systems, an t e r g t a t ose us ng a common

enom nator or t s eva uat on, suc as money or energy. co og ca econom csexp c t y re uses t e comp ete commensura ty para gm an recogn ses t e

ex stence o incommensura i ity etween econom c an env ronmenta aspects.

us a new sc ent c para gm s nee e .

. s mp e conceptua mo e o eco og ca an econom c per-

spect ves an approac es to env ronmenta ssues rom o e an a erger

, p. )

SYSTEMS

ECOLOGICAL BIOPHYSICAL

ECOLOGY

AND

ECONOMY

NEO-CLASSICAL

INSTITUTIONAL

AND OTHERECONOMIC

PERSPECTIVES

MULTIPLE

DENOMINATOR

EVALUATION

SINGLE

DENOMINATOR

EVALUATION

NATURALSCIENCES

SOCIAL

SCIENCES


9/21

221

. . pistemo ogica oun ations o co ogica conomics

. . . ost-norma science an institutiona economics

n any sc ence a para gm or pre-ana yt c v s on ex sts; researc as to start

omew ere, t us somet ng s g ven y a pre-ana yt c cogn t ve act. very o y

tarts s own researc rom t e wor o s pre ecessors. ccor ng to u n

), sc ent sts norma y are ust or nary peop e so ne t er t e mpecca e

trut -gat ers o t e pos t v st tra t on, nor t e ero c con ectura sts o opper)

concerne on y n so v ng researc puzz es w t n an unquest one ramewor

o concepts an met o s.

o a env ronmenta ssues present new tas s or sc ence: sc ent sts now

tac e pro ems ntro uce t roug po cy ssues w ere typ ca y, acts arencertain, va ues in ispute, sta es ig , an ecisions urgent untow cz an

Ravetz, 1990, 1991, 1994). Thus Funtowicz and Ravetz have developed a new

ep stemo og ca ramewor ca e post-norma sc ence , w ere t s poss e

to ma e use o two cruc a aspects o sc ence n t e po cy oma n: ncertainty

n va ue con ict. e name post-norma n cates t at t e puzz e-so v ng

exerc ses o norma sc ence, n t e u n an sense, w c were so success u y

exten e rom t e a oratory o core sc ence to t e conquest o nature t roug

pp e sc ence, are no onger appropr ate or t e so ut on o env ronmenta

pro ems.eo-c ass ca econom cs as tra t ona y een a e to ma nta n ts cre ty

y re egat ng uncerta nt es n now e ge an comp ex t es n et cs rm y to t e

e nes. ut, uncerta nt es n nput n ormat on pro uce rre uc e uncerta nty

in conclusions; the relevant question of quality is the degree to which the recom-

men e po cy c o ces are ro ust aga nst t ose un er y ng uncerta nt es. s a

post-norma sc ence, eco og ca econom cs recogn ses t e presence, mportance

n eg t macy o erent va ue-comm tments or t e appropr ate management

o uncerta nty. t oes not c aim et ica neutra ity, nor an n erence to t e

po cy consequences o ts arguments.s sc ence ecame use n po cy, t was scovere t at ay-persons e.g.

u ges, ourna sts, sc ent sts rom anot er e , or ust c t zens) cou master

enoug o t e met o o ogy to ecome e ect ve part c pants n t e a ogue.

as c pr nc p e o post-norma sc ence s t at t ese new part c pants are n s-

pensa e. s extens on o t e peer commun ty s essent a or ma nta n ng t e

quality of the process of resolution of complex systems. Thus the appropriate

management o ua ity s enr c e to nc u e t s mu t p c ty o part c pants

n perspect ves. e cr ter a o qua ty n t s new context w , as n tra t ona

c ence, presuppose et ca pr nc p es. ut n t s case, e princip es wi eexp icit an wi ecome part o t e ia ogue.

ccor ng to untow cz an avetz ), t e tra t ona ana yt ca

pproac , mp c t y or exp c t y re uc ng a goo s to commo t es, can e

recogn se as one perspect ve among severa , eg t mate as a po nt o v ew an


10/21

222

s a reection of real power structures, but not the whole story. To choose any

part cu ar operat ona e n t on or va ue nvo ves ma ng a ec s on a out

w at s mportant an rea ; ot er e n t ons w re ect t e comm tments o

t er sta e o ers.

ne s ou note t at t e v ew t at, concern ng env ronmenta ssues, con-

cts etween nterests an ntereste part es are t e norma state o a a rs s

so s are y nst tut ona econom cs rom ey, , yr a , , ).

nst tut ona econom cs ocuses on actors, t e r wor v ews, a ts, etc., an on

nst tut ona arrangements. e atter term re ers to organ sat on, ru es o game,

power re at ons ps, ent t ements an ot er types o contro over resources

er aum, , p. ).

Some relationships between ecological economics and institutional economicsave een nvest gate y gu era- n ; ), aassen an psc oor

), psc oor an van er traaten ) an er aum ). e ma n

ommon po nts are recogn t on o t e mposs ty o a va ue ree sc ence,

emp as s on t e mportance o t e str ut on o property r g ts, an strong

r t c sm o monetary re uct on sm. ow muc s a song r wort o answer

t s quest on represents a new pro em o va uat on, one w ere measurements

annot preten to e n epen ent o met o o ogy an et cs.

The issue is not whether it is only the marketplace that can determine value, for

economists have long debated other means of valuation; our concern is with the as-

sumpt on t at n any a ogue, a va uat ons or numera res s ou e re uc e to

single one-dimension standard. (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994, p. 198)

am app, pro a y t e rst nst tut ona econom st w t env ronmenta

nterests, wrote n :

o p ace a monetary va ue on an app y a scount rate w c to uture ut t es or

disutilities in order to express their present capitalised value may give us a precise

monetary calculation, but it does not get us out of the dilemma of a choice and the

act t at we ta e a r s w t uman ea t an surv va . or t s reason, am nc ne

to consider the attempt at measuring social costs and social benets simply in terms

f monetary or market values as doomed to failure. Social costs and social benets

ave to e cons ere as extra-mar et p enomena; t ey are orne an accrue to

society as a whole; they are heterogeneous and cannot be compared quantitatively

mong t emse ves an w t eac ot er, not even n pr nc p e.

rom a p osop ca perspect ve, t s poss e to st ngu s etween t e

oncepts o strong commensura ty common measure o t e erent con-

sequences o an act on ase on a car na sca e o measurement), wea com-mensura ty common measure ase on an or na sca e o measurement),

trong compara ty t ere ex st a s ng e comparat ve term y w c a erent

ct ons can e ran e ) an wea compara ty one as to accept t e ex stence

con cts etween a erent consequences o an act on) e , ).


11/21

223

Clearly, traditional cost-benet analysis is based on the assumption of strong

compara ty, w ereas wea compara ty can e cons ere t e p osop ca

oun at on o mu t cr ter a eva uat on art nez- er et a ., ; un a et

., ; un a, ).

e met o s use n mu t cr ter a eva uat on are ase on necessar y re-

tr ct ve) mat emat ca assumpt ons as we as on n ormat on gat ere rom

t e ec s on-ma er. us t e concept o ec s on process as an essent a

mportance. ccor ng to mon , , ), a st nct on must e ma e

etween t e genera not on o rat ona ty as an a aptat on o ava a e means to

en s, an t e var ous t eor es an mo e s ase on a rat ona ty w c s e t er

u stant ve or proce ura . s term no ogy can e use to st ngu s etween

the rationality of a decision considered independently of the manner in whicht s ma e n t e case o su stant ve rat ona ty, t e rat ona ty o eva uat on

re ers exc us ve y to t e resu ts o t e c o ce) an t e rat ona ty o a ec s on

n terms o t e manner n w c t s ma e n t e case o proce ura rat ona -

ty, t e rat ona ty o eva uat on re ers to t e ec s on-ma ng process tse )

roger an un a, ).

o e sure, t e ana yst can great y n uence t e resu ts o a ec s on ana ys s,

ut t e a vantage o mu t cr ter a eva uat on s t at t e ac - ox e ects are

re uce to a m n mum eve : t us n pr nc p e t s a ways poss e to ust y or

e en t e ec s ons ta en. course a e ens e ec s on s not t e same ast e est poss e ec s on, ut at east t s a transparent ec s on. e ana yst

is generally subject to pressures of politicians or stake holders who want to

n uence t e outcome o t e eva uat on process.

. . . e coevo utionary para igm

ere s a constant an act ve nteract on o t e organ sms w t t e r env -

ronment; organ sms are not s mp y t e resu ts ut t ey are a so t e causes o

t e r own env ronments: t s s t e ma n t es s o t e coevo utionary para igmorgaar , ; ow y, ). conom c eve opment can e v ewe as a

process o a aptat on to a c ang ng env ronment w e tse e ng a source

o env ronmenta c ange. owever, coevo ut on oes not mp y c ange n a

part cu ar rect on .e., progress).

n o ogy, coevo ut on re ers to t e pattern o evo ut onary c ange o two

c ose y nteract ng spec es w ere t e tness o t e genet c tra ts w t n eac

pec es s arge y governe y t e om nant genet c tra ts o t e ot er. o-ca e

coevo ut onary o ogy was starte w t a stu y on t e rec proca a aptat on

o utter es an p ants r c an aven, ).n rea wor soc et es,

people survive to a large extent as members of groups. Group success depends on

culture: the system of values, beliefs, artifacts, and art forms which sustain social


12/21

22

rganisation and rationalise action. Values and beliefs which t the ecosystem survive

nd multiply; less t ones eventually disappear. And thus cultural traits are selected

muc e genet c tra ts. t t e same t me, cu tura va ues an e e s n uence ow

people interact with their ecosystem and apply selective pressure on species. Not only

have people and their environment coevolved, but social systems and environmental

systems have coevolved. (Norgaard, 1994, p.41)

gr cu ture egan etween ve an ten t ousan years ago w en t ere

were approx mate y ve m on peop e n t e wor . e ncre e ncreas ng

popu at on was on y poss e t roug an ncrease n t e e ect veness w t

w c peop e nteracte w t t e r env ronment t roug c anges n now e ge,

tec no ogy an soc a organ sat on. ccor ng to orgaar , t e ncrease nmater a we - e ng an n t e rate o popu at on ur ng t e past century can e

un erstoo as a process o coevo ut on. t n ustr a sat on, soc a systems

evolved to facilitate development through the exploitation of coal and petro-

eum. oc a systems no onger coevo ve to nteract more e ect ve y w t

env ronmenta systems.

Hydrocarbons freed societies from immediate environmental constraints but not from

u t mate env ronmenta constra nts t e m ts o t e y rocar ons t emse ves an

f the atmosphere and oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases

ssociated with fossil fuel economies. (Norgaard, 1994, p.44)

rom t e coevo ut onary para gm t e o ow ng essons can e earne :

) A priori, different models of coevolution are possible, then no unique optimal

eve opment pat ex sts. e spat a mens on s a ey eature o susta n-

e eve opment.

) e respect o cu tura vers ty s o a un amenta mportance. n env -

ronmenta management oca now e ge an expert se e ng t e resu t o

ong coevo ut onary process) somet mes are more use u t an experts

p n ons.

) oevo v ng systems ave parts an re at ons w c c ange n un ore-

eea e ways. t any po nt n t me, t ey can e escr e e an ecosystem,

ut over t me t ey are as unpre cta e as t e evo ut on o e tse .

It has to be noted that the principles of the coevolutionary paradigm, institutional

econom cs an post-norma sc ence re n orce one anot er. ey s are t e ssues

va ue con cts, emocrat sat on o sc ence an uncerta nty. ost-norma sc -

ence an nst tut ona econom cs emp as se t e mportance o ncommensur-

ty an ec s on ma ng processes; coevo ut on un er nes t e mportanceeconomy-env ronment nteract ons.


13/21

22

. . conomy- nvironment nteractions

. . . e issue o sca e

ystem c approac es to env ronmenta ssues cons er t e re at ons ps etween

t ree systems: t e econom c system, t e uman system an t e natura system

asset, ). e econom c system nc u es t e econom c act v t es o man,

uc as pro uct on, exc ange an consumpt on. ven t e scarc ty p enomenon,

uc a system s e c ency or ente . e uman systemcompr ses a act v t es

o uman e ngs on our p anet. t nc u es t e sp eres o o og ca uman e e-

ments, o nsp rat on, o aest et cs, an o mora ty w c const tute t e rame

o uman e. nce t s c ear t at t e econom c system oes not const tute t e

ent re uman system, one may assume t at t e econom c system s a su systemo t e uman system. na y, t e natura system nc u es ot t e uman system

nd the economic system (Nijkamp and Bithas, 1995).

rom t e eco og ca econom c perspect ve, t e expans on o t e econom c

u system s m te y t e s ze o t e overa n te g o a ecosystem, y ts

epen ence on t e e support susta ne y ntr cate eco og ca connect ons

w c are more eas y srupte as t e sca e o t e econom c su system grows

re at ve to t e overa system. nce t e uman expans on, w t t e assoc ate

exp o tat on an sposa o waste an po utants, not on y a ects t e natura

env ronment as suc , ut a so t e eve an compos t on o env ronmenta ypro uce goo s an serv ces requ re to susta n soc ety, t e econom c su system

w e m te y t e mpacts o ts own act ons on t e env ronment o e,

). centra ssue t en s: oes any optima sca eex st or t e economy

This point has especially been tackled by Daly.

e term sca e s s ort an or t e p ys ca sca e or s ze o t e uman

presence n t e ecosystem, as measure y popu at on t mes per cap ta resource

use a y, , p. ). e stan ar econom cs po nt o v ew a out econom c

growt seems qu te opt m st c. ut as an economy grows, t ncreases n sca e.

ca e as a max mum m t e ne e t er y t e egenerative or a sorptivecapacity o t e ecosystem, t ere ore unt t e sur ace o t e eart eg ns to grow

t a rate equa to t e rate o nterest a y, , p. ), one s ou not ta e

t s opt m st c att tu e too ser ous y. us t e concept o strong sustaina i ity

s nee e . uc a e n t on s ase on t e assumpt on t at certa n sorts o

natura cap ta are eeme cr t ca , an not rea y su st tuta e y man-ma e

capital (Barbier and Markandya, 1990). In particular, the characterisation of

usta na ty n terms o t e strong cr ter on o non-negat ve c ange over t me

n stoc s o spec e natura cap ta prov es a strong ust cat on or eve -

opment o non-monetary n cators o eco og ca susta na ty ase on irectp ysica measuremento mportant stoc s an ows auc eux an onnor,

; auc eux an o , ).


14/21

226

By means of this concept, we are left with bio-physical indicators, or satel-

te accounts o var at ons n natura patr mony, not ntegrate n money terms

w t n nat ona ncome account ng. owever, e n a st o n cators t ere

wou a ways e a story o sc ent c researc an po t ca controversy. oreo-

ver, one s ou note t at a st o n cators s ar rom e ng a st o targets or

m ts or t ose n cators. so, a quest on ar ses, ow cou suc n cators

e aggregate ten, some n cators mprove w e ot ers eter orate. t as

to e note t at t s s t e c ass ca con ctua s tuat on stu e n mu t cr ter a

eva uat on t eory, n part cu ar noncompensatory met o s are qu te re evant,

nce compensa ty mp es su st tuta ty etween erent types o cap ta

auc eux et a . ; un a, ).

. . . e entropy aw an t e economic process

nergy ana ys s s very mportant or stu y ng t e re at ons ps etween economy

n env ronment. nergy- ase va uat on may appear to e a newcomer n t e

e o econom cs: some peop e wou n ts or g ns n t e energy cr s s;

t ers ent y t w t eorgescu- oegen s e entropy aw an t e economic

process. Yet in actual fact, attempts to base theories of economic measurement

r va ue on var ous concepts o energy ave a ong story e n t em. ar-

t nez- er ) s ows t at t ere s a tra t on o cross- ert sat on etweeneconom cs, t ermo ynam cs an eco ogy, ue to t e wor o sc ent sts suc as

evons, aus us, o o ns , e es, o y an ot ers. owever, energy s

not a su st tute or money n or er to reac a new concept o commensura ty,

s t was t eor se y t e energy t eor es o va ue n t e sevent es an n t e

e g t es on t s po nt see auc eux an et ); rows )).

nce t e mean ng o t e entropy aw or t e econom c process s a muc

scusse su ect, ere we w o ow c ose y eorgescu- oegen s term no ogy.

ass ca t ermo ynam cs ea s w t energy ut on y w t energy n u . o

thermodynamic concept makes any sense if applied to a microscopic element. Ane ectron as no eat, no temperature, no pressure, an no entropy. e entropy

oncept can e e ne as o ows: n an so ate t ermo ynam c system t e

va a e energy cont nuous y an rrevoca y egra es nto an equa quant ty

unava a e energy, so t at t e tota energy rema ns constant w e t e una-

va a e energy ten s to a max mum eorgescu- oegen, , p. ), w ere

va a e energy s t e one t at umans cou use or t e r purposes; unava a e

energy s energy t at umans cannot use n any way; an an iso ate system s

t e one t at can exc ange ne t er energy nor matter w t ts env ronment. e

entropy aw can e app e ne t er to a c ose systemt at can exc ange on yenergy w t t e env ronment nor to an open sys em t at can exc ange ot

energy an matter w t ts surroun ngs.

s matter ex sts, e energy, n two states: ava a e an non-ava a e, an

nce matter-energy enters t e econom c process n a state o ow entropy an


15/21

227

comes out of it in a state of high entropy, Roegen states his controversial fourth

aw as o ows: n a c ose system as t e art pract ca y s) mec an ca wor

cannot procee at a constant rate orever eorgescu- oegen, , p. ),

or more s mp y, matter cannot e comp ete y recyc e . consequence o t s

aw s t at a programme ase on t e su st tut on o terrestr a energy y so ar

energy suc as a y s stea y state, cannot wor . nterest ng scuss ons o t e

mean ng an consequences o t e so-ca e ourt aw can e oun n ayum

, , ).

egar ng tec no og ca progress, eorgescu- oegen s qu te pess m st c.

e e nes romet ean tec n ques as t ose t at a ow o ta n ng a surp us o

accessi eenergy gett ng more access e energy t an t at use n t e operat on).

A new technology requires a new Promethean technique, not just one alreadyam ar a ternat ve. e romet ean tec n que t at save t e woo cr s s was

t e steam eng ne, ut nowa ays ne t er contro e us on nor rect armesse

o ar energy ave t e c aracter st cs o a romet ean tec n que.

ccor ng to eorgescu- oegen ), a tec no ogy s v a e an on y

t can ma nta n t e correspon ng mater a structure w c supports ts resource

n s n unct ons, an consequent y t e uman spec es.

tec no ogy t at raws own rrep acea e stoc s, or generates rre ucu e po -

lution, or violates the ability of funds to provide assimilative and restorative services,

is not viable. The relevance of all this to weak sustainability is that all production

processes are c aracter se y n ows ron ature an out ows o waste to ature

which are limitational. (Gowdy and OHara, 1996)

gure ustrates t e eco og ca econom cs concept on o t e econom c

ystem as a part o t e overa ecosystem.

. e economy em e e n soc a nst tut ons an n t e

ecosystem ource: scuss ons w t . art nez- er)

solar

energy

and incomedistribution

solar &industrialenergy

naturalresources

degradedresources

degraded

energy

recycling

thermalenergy

propertyrights, power

economicsystem


16/21

22

5. CONCLUSIONS

From the above discussion, the following conclusions may be drawn:

) atura e-support ng ecosystems are negat ve y a ecte y t e sposa o

astes rom t e econom c system. t e economy-env ronment nteract ons

re ta en nto account, mme ate y a roa quest on a out t e capa ty

t e natura env ronments to susta n t e economy ar ses.

) u st tut on o more pro uct ve man-ma e cap ta or natura cap ta s not

n accepta e answer to env ronmenta pro ems.

) e ea o ma nta n ng t e natura cap ta stoc s mportant an e-ra e; un ortunate y t s very cu t to operat ona se. ts ma n pro em

s connecte w t t e poss ty o va u ng env ronmenta goo s n money

terms strong commensura ty).

v) nv ronmenta pro ems are very comp ex an c aracter se y sc ent c

uncerta nty. ny met o try ng to operat ona se t e concept o susta na e

eve opment s necessar y a secon est approac .

v) In economic theory, three main conictual values can be identied: allo-

at on, str ut on an sca e. n an operat ona ramewor , t s means t at an

x aust ve ana ys s as to ta e nto cons erat on e c ency cr ter a, et ca

r ter a an eco og ca cr ter a, so a mu t mens ona para gm s nee e .

v ) co og ca econom cs recogn ses t at eco og ca an econom ca ra-

t ona ty are not su c ent to ea to correct ec s ons, t us env ronmenta

ec s ons must e ta en y us ng a emocrat c sc ent c-po t ca ec s on

.

e can ent y t e ma n erences etween convent ona env ronmenta

econom cs an eco og ca econom cs n re at on to t e concept o susta na e

eve opment as o ows:

ENVIRONMENT L ECONOMICS

pretends to be value free

there is a precise world-wide meaning ofconomic development

strong comparability based on weakr strong commensurability is a key

principle

weak sustainability is the only possibleperationalisation of the concept of

sustainable development

ECOLOGIC L ECONOMICS

values are always inherentinterdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarityare key principles

co-evolution and diversity are the keyissues of sustainability

incommensurability, multidimensionalityand weak comparability are key guidingprinciples

strong sustainability operationalised bymeans of bio-physical indicators


17/21

229

Traditional monetary evaluation methods such as cost-benet analysis are

ase on p enomena suc as consumer s surp uses, mar et a ures, eman

curves w c are ust a part a po nt o v ew, s nce connecte w t one nst tut on

on y: mar ets. rom an eco og ca econom cs po nt o v ew, ssues connecte

w t act ons outs e o mar ets an e av our o peop e erent rom t e c ass

o consumers s ou e ta en nto account. uc n an ange, )

n a post-norma sc ence ramewor , any recommen at ons w c emerge

ou e e ens e to t e tec n ca expert, ut a so to po t c ans, t e me a

n t e var ous sta e o ers. s oes not mp y t at a consensus w e

reac e . n ee , t e poss ty o rreconc a e erences s recogn se an

catere or y promot ng a p ura ty o approac es. co og ca econom cs may

be understood as cross-disciplinary in the horizontal axis, integrating disciplinaryperspect ves on t e ssue at sta e, an as p ur -part c patory on t e vert ca ax s,

ntegrat ng t e even y eg t mate perspect ves o t e erent sta e- o ers an

oc a actors concerne y t e ssue see gure ).

. ert ca an or zonta ntegrat on n co og ca conom cs

ource: aste s an un a, )

ne s ou note t at t e ssue o va ue- ree sc ence s mportant n rea -

wor env ronmenta po cy. or examp e, av earce c a ms t at s wor or

t e ntergovernmenta ane on mate ange ), w ere ves o peop e

n r c nat ons are va ue up to teen t mes g er t an t ose n poor countr es,

s a matter o sc ent c correcteness versus po t ca correctness ew c ent st,

ugust, ). s t rea y a matter o va ue- ree sc ent c correctness to use

valuations based on assessments of a communitys willingness and ability topay to avo r s s o eat e mposs ty o e m nat ng va ue con cts n

env ronmenta po cy an t e ca or a p ura ty o approac es creates a c ear

nee or env ronmenta p osop ers an et c sts to p ay an mportant ro e n

eco og ca econom cs.

Social

Actors(policy-makers, NGOs, citizens, etc.)

Disciplines(economics, ecology, physical sciences,philosophy, etc.)


18/21

230

Comments by Joan Martinez-Alier and two anonymous referees are gratefuly acknowl-e ge .

Here we do not enter in details regarding the so called growth debate. The interested

reader can refer to: Galbraith, 1959; Hirsch, 1977; Hueting, 1980; Meadows et al., 1972;

Mishan, 1967 and 1976; Nordhaus and Tobin, 1972; Scitovsky, 1976.

n t s text oo we s ow ow we can use t e ma n o y o econom c t oug t to er ve

mportant propos t ons a out t e n ages etween t e economy an t e env ronment.

at er t an oo ng or some erent econom cs , we are see ng to expan t e o-

rizons of economic thought (Pearce and Turner, 1990, p. 30).

Martinez-Alier (1987) shows that the increase in productivity of modern agriculturedepends on the underestimation of energetic inputs from fossil fuels, the low value given

to t e contam nat on cause y pest c es an t e oss o o vers ty.

gu era- n , . . ome notes on t e m suse o c as c wr t ngs n econom cs on

t e su ect o common property, co ogica conomics, : - .

Aguilera-Klink, F. (ed.) 1996.Economa de los recursos naturales: un enfoque institu-

ional. Madrid: Fundacin Argentaria, Economia y Naturaleza (in Spanish).

Ayres, R.U. and Kneese, A.V. 1969. Production, consumption and externalities, merican

conomic eview59 - .

ar er, . . . e concept o susta na e econom c eve opment, nvironmenta

onservation : - .

Barbier, E.B. and Markandya, A. 1990. The conditions for achieving environmentally

sustainable growth, uropean conomic eview 34 659-69.

resso, . . Per un economia ecologica.Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientica (in

ta an .

rom ey, . . . conomic interests an institutions. e conceptua oun ations

f public policy.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Castells, N. and Munda, G. 1996. International environmental issues: towards a new

integrated assessment approach, in Proceedings of Inaugural Conference of the

European branch of the International Society for Ecological Economics , Paris.

a eza, uts . . n t e concept o wea susta na ty, co ogica conomics

: - .

Costanza, R.; Daly, H.E. and Barthlomew, J.A. 1991. Goals,agenda and policy recom-

mendations for ecological economics, in R. Costanza (ed.),Ecological Economics:

he science and management of sustainability, pp. 1- 20. New York: Columbia

University Press.

a y, . . . tea y-state economics. an ranc sco, : reeman.a y, . . an o , . . . or t e common goo : re irecting t e economy towar

ommunity, the environment and a sustainable future.Boston: Beacon Press.

Daly, H.E. 1991a. Steady-state economics 2nd edition), Washington, DC: Island

ress.


19/21

231

Daly, H.E. 1991b. Elements of environmental macroeconomics, in R. Costanza (ed.),

Ecological Economics: the science and management of sustainability, pp. - .

ew or : o um a n vers ty ress.asgupta, . an ea , . . conomic t eory an ex austi e resources. am r ge

University Press.

Duchin, F. and Lange, G.M. 1994. The future of the environment.Oxford University

ress.

r c , . an aven, . . utter es an p ants: a stu y n coevo ut on, vo ution

- .

Faucheux, S. and Pilet, G. 1994. Energy metrics: on various valuation properties of en-

ergy, in R. Pethig (ed.), Valuing the environment. Methodological and measurement

issues.Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Faucheux, S.; Froger, G. and Munda, G. 1994. Des outils d aide la decision pour lamu t mens ona t systm que: une app cat on au ve oppement ura e, evue

nternationa e e ystmique, o. n renc .

Faucheux, S. and Nol, J.F. 1995.Economie des ressources naturelles et de l environ-

nement. Paris: Armand Colin, (in French).

Faucheux, S. and OConnor, M. 1997. Weak and strong sustainability, in S. Faucheux

nd M. OConnor (eds), Valuation for sustainable development: Methods and policy

in icators. ers ot: war gar.

o e, . an a erger, . . ecent tren s n n ng t e natura env ronment an

the economy, in C. Folke and T. Kaberger (eds),Linking the natural environment and

he economy: Essays from the Eco-Eco Group pp. 273- 300. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Folke, C. 1991. Socio-economic dependence on the life-supporting environment, in C.

Folke and T. Kaberger (eds), in ing t e natura environment an t e economy:

ssays rom t e co- co roup, pp. - . or rec t: uwer.

roger, . an un a, . . et o o ogy or env ronmenta ec s on support, n .

Faucheux and M. OConnor (eds), Valuation for sustainable development: Methods

and policy indicators.Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. 1990. Uncertainty and quality in science for policy.

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

untow cz, . . an avetz, . . . new sc ent c met o o ogy or g o a env -

ronmenta ssues, n . ostanza e . , co ogica conomics,pp. - . ewYork: Columbia.

Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. 1994. The worth of a songbird: ecological economics

s a post-normal science,Ecological Economics10 - .

Galbraith, J.K. 1959. e a uent society. ew or : oug ton- n.

eorgescu- oegen, . . e entropy aw an t e economic process. arwar

University Press.

Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1984. Feasible recipies and viable technologies, Atlantic Eco-

nomic Journal 12 21-30.

Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1993. Thermodynamics and we, the humans, in J.C. Dragan,

. . e ert an . . emetrescu e s , ntropy an ioeconomics. an: -

.

de Groot, R.S. 1992. Functions of nature. Groningen: olters-Noordhoff.

Gowdy, J.M. 1994.Coevolutionary economics: the economy, society and the environment.

Boston: Kluwer.

Gowdy, J.M. and OHara, S. 1996. Weak sustainability and viable technologies, paper

su m tte to co ogica conomics.


20/21

232

Hartwick, J.M. 1977. Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible

resources, merican conomic eview 7(5): 972-4.

artw c , . . . u st tut on among ex aust e resources an nter-generat onaequ ty, eview o conomic tu ies - .

Hirsch, F. 1977.Social limits to Growth.Harward University Press.

Hueting, R. 1980.New scarcity and economic growth: more welfare through less produc-

ion Amsterdam: North-Holland.

app, . . . ocia costs, economic eve opment, an environmenta isruption,

n . . mann e . , n vers ty ress o mer ca, on on repr nte , .

Klaassen, G.A.J. and Opschoor, J.B. 1991. Economics of sustainability or the sustaina-

bility of economics: different paradigms,Ecological Economics4 93-115.

Kneese, A.; Ayres, R. and dArge, R. 1970. Economics and the environment: a materials

balance approach,Resource for the Future,Washington DC.u n, . . . e structure o scienti c revo utions. n vers ty o cago ress.

a t us, . . n essay on t e princip e o popu ation, repr nte y acm an,

London, 1909.

Martinez-Alier, J. 1987.Ecological Economics. Oxford: asil Blackwell.

Martinez-Alier, J. 1994.De la economia ecolgica al ecologismo popular. Barcelona:

ICARIA (in Spanish).

art nez- er, . . e env ronment as a uxury goo or too poor to e green,

co ogica conomics : - .

Martinez-Alier, J. and OConnor, M. 1996. Ecological and economic distribution

onicts, to appear in R. Costanza, J. Martinez-Alier and O. Segura (eds), Gettingdown to Earth: practical applications of ecological economics. Washington, DC:

Island Press/ISEE.

art nez- er, .; un a, . an e , . . ncommensura ty o va ues n

eco og ca econom cs, n procee ings o naugura on erence o t e uropean

ranch of the International Society for Ecological Economics Paris.

Marx, K. 1867. Capital,reprinted by Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1970.

Mayumi, K. 1991. A critical appraisal of two entropy theoretical approaches to resources

nd environmental problems, and a search for an alternative, in C. Rossi and E. Tiezzi

e s , co ogica p ysica c emistry,pp. - . mster am: sev er.

ayum , . . e new para gm o eorgescu- oegen an t e tremen ous speef increase in entropy in the modern economic process, The Journal of Interdisci-

linary Economics4 101-29.

Mayumi, K. 1993. Georgescu-Roegens fourth law of thermodynamics, the modern

energet c ogma, an eco og ca sa vat on, n . onat , . osent no, . asagn ,

. oro, . tea an . c ra e s , ren s in eco ogica p ysica c emistry.

Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Meadows, D.H.; Meadows, D.L.; Randers, J. and Behrens, W.W. 1972. The limits to

growth.New York: Universe Books.

Mill, J.S. 1857. Principles of political economy. ondon: Parker.

s an, . . . e cost o economic growt . on on: tap es ress.

s an, . . . e economic growt e ate: an assessment. on on: eorge en

nd Unwin.

Mirowski, P. 1989.More heat than light. Cambridge University Press.

Munda, G.; Nijkamp, P. and Rietveld, P. 1994. Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for

environmental management,Ecological Economics10 - .


21/21

233

Munda, G. 1995.Multicriteria Evaluation in a Fuzzy Environment. Theory and Appli-

cations in co ogica conomics. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

un a, . . ost- ene t ana ys s n env ronmenta ntegrate assessment: somemet o o og ca ssues, co ogica conomics, ort com ng.

Myrdal, G. 1973.Against the stream. Critical essays on economicsNew York: Random

ouse.

Myrdal, G. 1978. Institutional economics, . con. ssues12 - .

Nijkamp, P. and Bithas, K. 1995. Scenarios for sustainable cultural heritage planning:

case stu y o ymp a, n . occoss s an . amp e s , anning or our

cultural heritage. Aldershot: Avebury.

Nordhaus, W.D. and Tobin, J. 1972. Is growth obsolete?, inNational Bureau of Economic

Research, Economic Growth, Fiftieth Anniversary Colloquium,vol. 5. New York.

Norgaard, R.B. 1994.Development Betrayed. ondon: Routledge.um, . . . co ogy an our en angere i e-support systems. un er an , :

nuaer ssoc ates.

ONeill, J. 1993.Ecology, policy and politics London: Routledge.

Opschoor, J.B. and van der Straaten, J. 1993. Sustainable development: an institutional

pproach,Ecological Economics (3): 203-22.

asset, . .Leconomique et le vivant. Paris: Payot (in French).

earce, . . an urner, . . . conomics o natura resources an t e environment.

ew or : arvester eats ea .

Pearce, D.W. and Atkinson, G.D. 1993. Capital theory and the measurement of sus-

tainable development: an indicator of weak sustainability,Ecological Economics8 103-8.

car o, . . rincip es o po itica economy an taxation veryman e t on,

on on .

c tovs y, . . e joy ess economy x or n vers ty ress.

Simon, H.A. 1972. Theories of Bounded Rationality. Decision and Organization edited

by C.B. Radner and R. Radner. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Simon, H.A. 1978. On how to Decide What to Do. The Bell Journal of Economics9:

494-507.

mon, . . . eason in uman airs. tan or n vers ty ress.

er aum, . . eoc ass ca an nst tut ona approac es to eve opment an t eenvironment,Ecological Economics5 127-44.

Solow, R.M. 1974a.The economics of resources or the resources of economics, merican

conomic eview 4: - .

o ow, . . . ntergenerat ona equ ty an ex aust e resources, eview o

conomic tu ies : - .

Solow, R.M. 1986. On the intergenerational allocation of natural resources, candinavian

Journal of Economics88 1): 141-9.

Stiglitz, J.E. 1979. A neoclassical analysis of the economics of natural resources, in V.K.

Smith (ed.), Scarcity and growth reconsidered, pp. 37- 65. Baltimore: The Johns

op ns n vers ty ress.

urner, . .; earce, . . an ateman, . . nvironmenta economics: an e emen-

ary introduction. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Victor, P.A. 1991. Indicators of sustainable development: some lessons from capital

theory,Ecological Economics 4: 191-213.

enviro values

Documents