mainstream economics can’t handle sustainability
Like some of us ecol-econ types, the Post-Autistic Economics group is trying to push mainstream economists toward more realistic and useful work.
After all, how do you value the goods consumed in terms of their contribution to sustainability, when your analytical tools focus solely on maximization of individual utility?
Short answer: You cannot…which explains why key questions are not addressed in standard economics texts.
Questions like:
- How large is the economic subsystem relative to the earth’s ecosystem?
- What is its maximum possible size?
- What is its most desirable size in terms of human welfare?
It also explains why neoclassical economists go to such great lengths to shutout other views, lest their unrealistically mathematical edifice collapses.
Mike Moffat has suggested that economics cannot be reformed, since the realism associated with more accurate assumptions also tends to undercut the mathematic tractability of current economic models.
Their choice of the word “autistic” harkens back to an older French meaning of “abnormal subjectivity, acceptance of fantasy rather than reality”.
Says Moffat,
“Economics needs to become less enamored with proofs and more enamored with realism.”
Aussie economist Steve Keen sees the aptness of the autism term as the strongest point of the critique (via forest policy):
“It asserts that neoclassical economics has the characteristics of an autistic child,” he says, because it “hangs on to its preconceptions, when serious analysis shows that they are untenable.”
Ecological economics, as more and more of us choose to practice it, is an approach to economics (rather than a branch of) economics that addresses the interdependence and co-evolution between human economies and natural ecosystems. It is a trans-discipline rather than a conventional discipline, and seeks greater inter-connections to solve complex issues facing humanity.
Deborah Campbell has an interesting report on how Harvard is responding to their students’ demands for new courses oriented to these big problems.
Published by Ken on January 18th, 2007 tagged Systems Thinking
3 Responses to “mainstream economics can’t handle sustainability”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 18th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Whilst I concur with your proposal that Economic model should be designed to align with sustainability rather than growth, I think it is unfortunate that ‘autism’ has been associated ecologically based systems.
Best wishes
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
[...] A ray of hope, though, comes from that transdisciplinary group of economists, ecologists, and others whose work falls under the heading, “ecological economics.” The blogosphere has seen some thoughtful posts recently comparing this group to their neoclassical counterparts who, oddly enough, include “environmental economists.” Many of those in the ecological camp push for a fundamental revamp of economic theory to account for the ecosystem and the economy’s being a part of it, as dependent upon it as any other aspect of human culture. They want an acknowledgment that economic growth, as it’s typically understood, cannot continue indefinitely in a finite ecosystem. They want it understood that such growth is unsustainable and destructive to our natural life support system. [2] [...]
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
…as do I.