Search

Abstract: To answer the question “How to be an Ecological Economist”, we must start by defining the field of Ecological Economics. Mainstream Economics altogether lacks the concepts required to deal adequately with nature, justice and time. It was the absence of these three concepts in this otherwise great social science that led to the establishment of Ecological Economics. The interest in nature, justice and time is its defining characteristic. The main thesis of this paper is that our field is a fragile institution and that the professional existence of an ecological economist is no less fragile. However, this very fragility also represents freedom, scope for free thinking, conceptualising and research. Nevertheless, to be able to really use and in turn enjoy the full scope of this freedom, an ecological economist needs certain specific characteristics, in particular what is termed in the German philosophical tradition “Urteilskraft” and in English “power of judgement”. A description of these characteristics is developed in this paper, providing an answer to the question “How to be an ecological economist?” [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

There has been a considerable revival of interest in models of the type discussed by Ramsey as early as 1928. In the new discussion about the Ramsey approach to the problem of optimal growth the question has been raised whether there always exists an optimal accumulation program in such a model. It turned out that this question is quite difficult to answer. What Ramsey did, was to maximize an integral over the whole nonnegative part of the time axis. Chakravarty has pointed out in [2] that this integral need not converge even if the policy proposed by Ramsey (as being optimal) is adopted. The question is whether this divergence of the integral indicates that there exists no optimal policy. The divergence certainly compels us to find other methods than just maximizing an integral subject to certain constraints. But, as will be seen in this paper and as is implied in an unpublished paper by Koopmans, the divergence of the utility integral does not necessarily mean that no optimal program of accumulation exists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article deals with the role of time in causal models in the social sciences. The aim is to underline the importance of time-sensitive causal models, in contrast to time-free models. The relation between time and causality is important, though a complex one, as the debates in the philosophy of science show. In particular, an outstanding issue is whether one can derive causal ordering from time ordering. The article examines how time is taken into account in demography and in economics as examples of social sciences in which considerations about time may diverge. We then present structural causal modeling as a modeling strategy that, while not essentially based on temporal information, can incorporate it in a more or less explicit way. In particular, we argue that temporal information is useful to the extent that it is placed in a correct causal structure, thus further corroborating the causal mechanism or generative process explaining the phenomenon under consideration. Despite the fact that the causal ordering of variables is more relevant than the temporal order for explanatory purposes, in establishing causal ordering the researcher should nevertheless take into account the time-patterns of causes and effects, as these are often episodes rather than single events. For this reason in particular, it is time to put time at the core of our causal models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Time in modem economics is treated either as money or as a resource. Time is scarce and as such it is economically rational to save it. The economic approach to time ensures the acceleration of economic processes. This in turn damages the reproductive cycles of social life and the natural environment. This paper argues that a future sustainable economy must be based on a new understanding of time. It must care for and protect socio-environmental needs for more lime, for time cycles and for rhythms. The development of such a 'new economy of time' requires a broader concept of economic rationality. With this goal in mind, the traditional economic approaches to time are criticized and five aspects of a 'new' economy of time discussed. Finally, the question of the constructors of the 'new economy of time' is raised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Air pollution damages health by promoting the onset of some non-communicable diseases (NCDs), putting additional strain on the National Health Service (NHS) and social care. This study quantifies the total health and related NHS and social care cost burden due to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in England.Method and Findings: Air pollutant concentration surfaces from land use regression models and cost data from hospital admissions data and a literature review were fed into a microsimulation model, that was run from 2015 to 2035. Different scenarios were modelled: (1) baseline 'no change' scenario; (2) individuals' pollutant exposure is reduced to natural (non-anthropogenic) levels to compute the disease cases attributable to PM2.5 and NO2; (3) PM2.5 and NO2 concentrations reduced by 1 μg/m3; and (4) NO2 annual European Union limit values reached (40 μg/m3). For the 18 years after baseline, the total cumulative cost to the NHS and social care is estimated at £5.37 billion for PM2.5 and NO2 combined, rising to £18.57 billion when costs for diseases for which there is less robust evidence are included. These costs are due to the cumulative incidence of air-pollution-related NCDs, such as 348,878 coronary heart disease cases estimated to be attributable to PM2.5 and 573,363 diabetes cases estimated to be attributable to NO2 by 2035. Findings from modelling studies are limited by the conceptual model, assumptions, and the availability and quality of input data.Conclusions: Approximately 2.5 million cases of NCDs attributable to air pollution are predicted by 2035 if PM2.5 and NO2 stay at current levels, making air pollution an important public health priority. In future work, the modelling framework should be updated to include multi-pollutant exposure-response functions, as well as to disaggregate results by socioeconomic status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. The effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for chronic pain is often limited, and there is growing concern about the adverse effects of these treatments, including opioid dependence. Nonpharmacological approaches to chronic pain may be an attractive alternative or adjunctive treatment. We describe the effectiveness of a novel, theoretically based group pain management support intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain.Methods and Findings: We conducted a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) trial across 27 general practices and community musculoskeletal services in the UK. We recruited 703 adults with musculoskeletal pain of at least 3 mo duration between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2012, and randomised participants 1.33:1 to intervention (403) or control (300). Intervention participants were offered a participative group intervention (COPERS) delivered over three alternate days with a follow-up session at 2 wk. The intervention introduced cognitive behavioural approaches and was designed to promote self-efficacy to manage chronic pain. Controls received usual care and a relaxation CD. The primary outcome was pain-related disability at 12 mo (Chronic Pain Grade [CPG] disability subscale); secondary outcomes included the CPG disability subscale at 6 mo and the following measured at 6 and 12 mo: anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), pain acceptance (Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire), social integration (Health Education Impact Questionnaire social integration and support subscale), pain-related self-efficacy (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire), pain intensity (CPG pain intensity subscale), the census global health question (2011 census for England and Wales), health utility (EQ-5D-3L), and health care resource use. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle, accounted for clustering by course in the intervention arm, and used multiple imputation for missing or incomplete primary outcome data. The mean age of participants was 59.9 y, with 81% white, 67% female, 23% employed, 85% with pain for at least 3 y, and 23% on strong opioids. Symptoms of depression and anxiety were common (baseline mean HADS scores 7.4 [standard deviation 4.1] and 9.2 [4.6], respectively). Overall, 282 (70%) intervention participants met the predefined intervention adherence criterion. Primary outcome data were obtained from 88% of participants. There was no significant difference between groups in pain-related disability at 6 or 12 mo (12 mo: difference -1.0, intervention versus control, 95% CI -4.9 to 3.0), pain intensity, or the census global health question. Anxiety, depression, pain-related self-efficacy, pain acceptance, and social integration were better in the intervention group at 6 mo; at 12 mo, these differences remained statistically significant only for depression (-0.7, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.2) and social integration (0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). Intervention participants received more analgesics than the controls across the 12 mo. The total cost of the course per person was £145 (US$214). The cost-utility analysis showed there to be a small benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.0325, 95% CI -0.0074 to 0.0724), and on the cost side the intervention was a little more expensive than usual care (i.e., £188 [US$277], 95% CI -£125 [-US$184] to £501 [US$738]), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £5,786 (US$8,521) per QALY. Limitations include the fact that the intervention was relatively brief and did not include any physical activity components.Conclusions: While the COPERS intervention was brief, safe, and inexpensive, with a low attrition rate, it was not effective for reducing pain-related disability over 12 mo (primary outcome). For secondary outcomes, we found sustained benefits on depression and social integration at 6 and 12 mo, but there was no effect on anxiety, pain-related self-efficacy, pain acceptance, pain intensity, or the census global health question at 12 mo. There was some evidence that the intervention may be cost-effective based on a modest difference in QALYs between groups.Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry 24426731. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the approaches adopted by various schools of economic thought towards dealing with space and time. Each school has its own approach, though their treatment of time and space has generally been implicit. These spatial and temporal factors determine, right from the start, the way both reality and the explanatory frameworks which are supposed to take account of that very reality are looked at. The purpose of examining these various economic approaches is to clarify the view of space and time that is reflected in their premises. These ultimately determine the sometimes radical differences that emerge when looking at various theoretical traditions. In the first section, a number of contributors to equilibrium theory (from Walras to Krugman) are brought together. The approaches they use are characterised by their historical relationships with physics and mathematics. In short, their view is that space is exogenous, unchangeable, objective and abstract. The second section concentrates on schools of thought rather than specific contributors. Institutional and territorial economics have developed different conceptions of space and time, drawing their inspiration from social science and complexity theory. Space and time are always concrete. Space is marked by contrasts: it is both specific and generic, given and constructed, endogenous and exogenous. Finally, in the context of territorial economics and complexity theory, the part played by those engaged in research and modelling is addressed in terms of the way space is constructed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 1950s, Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) was already a well-respected intellectual, with important contributions to monetary theory, the theory of business cycles, the methodology of economics, and capital theory. Furthermore, [...]