Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:49:58.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental economics and ecological economics: the contribution of interdisciplinarity to understanding, influence and effectiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2011

SHARON BEDER
SHARON BEDER*
Affiliation:
SSMAC, Faculty of Arts, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
*
*Correspondence: Dr Sharon Beder, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia e-mail: sharonb@uow.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper reviews developments in both environmental economics and ecological economics with respect to their progress towards environmental interdisciplinarity and towards providing solutions to environmental problems. The concepts, methods, theories and assumptions of each field of knowledge are reviewed and the extent to which they depart from the dominant neoclassical paradigm of economics is assessed. The contribution that interdisciplinarity has made to the success of each field is analysed in terms of understanding, influence and effectiveness and the constraints that it has imposed upon that success. Environmental economics has adopted the dominant economic neoclassical paradigm, including the power of the market to allocate environmental resources efficiently and in a socially optimal way. The solution to environmental problems is thus seen as a matter of ensuring that the environment is properly priced to reflect the relative scarcity of natural resources and assets and to ensure that environmental values are incorporated into the market. This specialized view of environmental problems is now reflected in government policy around the world including the use of extended cost benefit analyses, contingent valuations, environmental charges and emissions trading. Nevertheless, environmental problems continue to grow in severity and the solutions provided by environmental economists have proven ineffective. Thus lack of interdisciplinarity does not prevent a field of knowledge from gaining influence and dominance, however its effectiveness in terms of understanding environmental problems and solving them is impeded. Ecological economics seeks to incorporate the research of economists, ecologists, philosophers and social scientists, however its influence seems to be have been limited to areas in which it retains the standard economics framework, and this limits its effectiveness in terms of environmental solutions. Thus interdisciplinarity may increase understanding of the real world but it cannot overcome political and social barriers to translating that understanding into the widespread implementation of effective environmental measures.

Keywords

ecological economicsenvironmental economicsenvironmental solutionsinterdisciplinary progressneoclassical economicspolitical influence
Type
THEMATIC SECTION: Interdisciplinary Progress in Environmental Science & Management
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 38 , Issue 2: Thematic section. Interdisciplinary Progress in Environmental Science and Management , June 2011 , pp. 140 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, F. & Heinzerling, L. (2004) Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing. New York, NY, USA: The New Press.Google Scholar
Baumgärtner, S., Becker, C., Frank, K., Müller, B. & Quaas, M. (2008) Relating the philosophy and practice of ecological economics: the role of concepts, models, and case studies in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research. Ecological Economics 67: 384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumol, W.J. & Oates, W.E. (1988) The Theory of Environmental Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beder, S. (1996) Charging the earth: the promotion of price-based measures for pollution control. Ecological Economics 16: 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beder, S. (2006) Environmental Principles and Policies. Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press.Google Scholar
Beder, S. (2010) Business-managed democracy: the trade agenda. Critical Social Policy 20 (14): 496–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. (1991) Economics and the resolution of environmental questions. In: Environmental Backgrounder: Reconciling Economics with the Environment. Sydney, Australia: Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).Google Scholar
Bijker, W., Hughes, T. & Pinch, T., eds (1987) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chant, J., McFetridge, D. & Smith, D. (1990) The economics of the conserver society. In: Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation, ed. Block, W., pp. 1–94. Vancouver, Canada: Fraser Institute.Google Scholar
Commonwealth Government of Australia (1990) Ecologically Sustainable Development: A Commonwealth Discussion Paper. Canberra, Australia: AGPS.Google Scholar
Cooper, P. & Hart, A. (1992) The legitimacy of applying cost-benefit analysis to environmental planning. People and Physical Environment Research 41–42: 19–30.Google Scholar
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farberparallel, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P. & Van Den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.Google Scholar
Costanza, R., Cumberland, J., Daly, H., Goodland, R. & Norgaard, R. (2007) An introduction to ecological economics: chapter 2. In: Encyclopedia of Earth [www document]. URL http://www.eoearth.org/article/An_Introduction_to_Ecological_Economics:_Chapter_2Google Scholar
Daily, G.C., ed. (1997) Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Daly, H.E. & Cobb, J.B.J. (1989) For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston, MA, USA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Driesen, D.M. (1998) Free lunch or cheap fix? The emissions trading idea and the climate change convention. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Fall [www document]. URL http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3816/is_199810/ai_n8818794Google Scholar
Drury, R.T., Belliveau, M.E., Kuhn, J.S. & Bansal, S. (1999) Pollution trading and environmental justice: Los Angeles’ failed experiment in air quality policy. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 9 (2): 231–290.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, D. (1988) Why put a value on biodiversity? In: Biodiversity, ed. Wilson, E.O., Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P.L. & Montes, C. (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69: 1209–1218.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. (1994) The ethics of selling environmental indulgences. Kyklos 47 (4): 573–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.Google Scholar
Kelman, S. (1983) Economic incentives and environmental policy: politics, ideology, and philosophy. In: Incentives for Environmental Protection, ed. Schelling, T., pp. 291–331. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kosoy, N. & Corbera, E. (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69: 128–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, L. (2004) Inquiry into the international challenge of climate change: UK leadership in the G8 and EU. The Corner House, SinksWatch, Carbon Trade Watch [www document]. URL http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/envtaud.pdfGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, D. & Wajcman, J., eds (1985) The Social Shaping of Technology: How the Refrigerator Got its Hum. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Max-Neef, M.A. (2005) Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics 53: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, R. (2008) Environmental and ecological economics. In: Encyclopedia of Earth [www document]. URL http://www.eoearth.org/article/Environmental_and_ecological_economics?topic=49536Google Scholar
Nijkamp, P., Vindigni, G. & Nunes, P.A.L.D. (2008) Economic valuation of biodiversity: a comparative study. Ecological Economics 67: 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norgaard, R.B. (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69: 1219–1227.Google Scholar
Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Nijkamp, P. (2008) Introduction to the special issue on biodiversity and policy. Ecological Economics 67: 159–161.Google Scholar
Pearce, D., ed. (1991) Blueprint2: Greening the World Economy. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. (1994) The precautionary principle and economic analysis. In: Interpreting the Precautionary Principle, ed. O'Riordan, T. & Cameron, J., pp. 132–151. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. (2002) An intellectual history of environmental economics. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 27: 57–81.Google Scholar
Pearce, D., Markandya, A. & Barbier, E. (1989) Blueprint for Green Economy. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Rees, W.E. (1996) Revisiting carrying capacity: area-based indicators of sustainability. Population and Environment 17 (3): 195–215.Google Scholar
Repetto, R. (1989) Wasting assets: the need for national resource accounting. Technology Review January: 39–44.Google Scholar
Repetto, R., Dower, R., Jenkins, R. & Geoghegan, J. (1992) Green Fees: How a Tax Shift can Work of the Environment and the Economy. Washington, DC, USA: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Reyers, B., Roux, D.J. & O'Farrell, P.J. (2010). Can ecosystem services lead ecology on a transdisciplinary pathway? Environmental Conservation 37 (4): 501–511.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. & Ryan, S. (2002) A Review of economic instruments for environmental management in Queensland. CRC for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management, Queensland, Australia [www document]. URL http://www.coastal.crc.org.au/pdf/economic_instruments.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ropke, I. (2004) The early history of modern ecological economics. Ecological Economics 50: 293–314.Google Scholar
Ropke, I. (2005) Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s. Ecological Economics 55: 262–290.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, N. (1976) Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosewarne, S. (1993) Selling the environment: a critique of market ecology. In: Beyond the Market: Alternatives to Economic Rationalism, ed. Rees, S., Rodley, G. & Stilwell, F., pp. 59–76. Leichardt, NSW, Australia: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, T., ed. (1983) Incentives for Environmental Protection. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Self, P. (1990) Market ideology and good government. Current Affairs Bulletin 67 (4): 4–10.Google Scholar
Seneca, J. & Taussig, M. (1984) Environmental Economics. New Jersey, USA: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Shrader-Frechette, K. (2002) Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Solow, R,(1974) Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. Review of Economic Studies 42: 29–45.Google Scholar
Spash, C.L. (1993) Economics, ethics, and long-term environmental damages. Environmental Ethics 15 (2): 117–131.Google Scholar
Spash, C.L. (1999) The development of environmental thinking in economics. Environmental Values 8: 413–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavins, R. (1989) Harnessing market forces to protect the environment. Environment 31 (1): 5–7.Google Scholar
Stavins, R. & Whitehead, B. (1992) Dealing with pollution: market-based incentives for environmental protection. Environment 34 (7): 7–11, 29–42.Google Scholar
Steiner, H. (1992) Markets and the law: the case of environmental conservation. In: The Market and the State: Studies in Interdependence, ed. Moran, M. & Wright, M., pp. 43–58. Basingstoke, UK: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Thampapillai, D.J. (1991) Environmental Economics. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tietenberg, T.H. (1988) Environmental and Natural Resources. Glenview, IL, USA: Scott, Foresman and Co.Google Scholar
Tietenberg, T.H. (1990) Using economic incentives to maintain our environment. Challenge 33 (2): 42–46.Google Scholar
Waring, M. (1988) Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women are Worth. New Zealand: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
White, R. (1992) Towards a green economy: the market. In: Ecopolitics V, ed. Harding, R.. Sydney, Australia: University of NSW.Google Scholar