Search

The article focuses on Edmond Malinvaud and growth theory in the 1950s and 1960s and shared perception of the inhabitants of those economic lands who were concerned with economic growth in the 1960s. It mentions growth in the context of planning and economic policy and economists organizing the developments in the field of economic growth. It also mentions same opposition between neoclassical and Keynesian growth models.

Stephen Marglin and Tariq Banuri argue that the debate between neoclassical and ecological economists over the limits to growth cannot be resolved by appealing to their empirical analyses, but by using the framework of environmental justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This article develops an ecological economic interpretation of the Jevons effect. Moreover, it is argued that under the neoclassical paradigm there are no elements with which to foresee the long-term existence of this phenomenon. The objective of these arguments is to demonstrate that the Jevons effect can be used to compare the ability of neoclassical and ecological economics describing the social appropriation of nature. This is elaborated in two steps. First, we show the importance of the thesis that the economy cannot be cut off from the biophysical materiality of what is produced to give consistency to the so-called Khazzoom–Brookes postulate. It is made clear that this supposition is exogenous to the neoclassical paradigm. Second, the supposition of the biophysical materiality of what is produced is utilized to make an ecological economic interpretation of the Jevons effect. Afterwards, a comparison is made between the neoclassical and the ecological economic perspectives. This comparison leads to the following conclusions: (i) the persistent presence of the Jevons effect in the long run is an anomaly in the neoclassical paradigm; (ii) the observation of the non-existence of the Jevons effect is a refutation of the supposition that economic growth and biophysical materiality are not separable, a central thesis defended by ecological economists. This situation makes possible to use the Jevons effect as a ‘laboratory test’ to compare the ability of neoclassical and ecological economic paradigms to describe the social appropriation of nature. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article explores the ability of ecological economics to serve as a useful analytical platform for the examination of economic issues by progressive economists and scholars. Progressive scholars and ecological economists share similar perspectives, analysis, and values as they are both concerned with the impact of the neoclassical growth model on the global community. It emphasizes on economic growth and development as the prescription for the alleviation of poverty and human suffering.

This article examines the prospect of economic growth and evaluates the scope of such growth potential, contrasting a view of finite growth potential with a view of presumably infinite growth potential. Neoclassical economists adhere to the belief that it is desirable for a nation's economy to be ever growing larger; however, the author references the work of classical economists such as J. S. Mill, who discussed the nongrowing economy. The nature of gross domestic product (GDP) is considered, and numerous elements of environmental economics are discussed.