Search

The aim of the article is to critically analyze Environmentally-Adjusted Multifactor Productivity (EAMP), by considering the Classical-Post-keynesian environmental framework Ecological Macroeconomics, integrated with the Evolutionary Environmental Economics. The paper introduces EAMP as rooted in in neoclassical economics and derived from Cobb-Douglas function with natural resources built by Solow (1974). I present theoretical critiques of EAMP's neoclassical assumptions by developing perspectives from heterodox Ecological Macroconomics literature. Finally, I discuss the shortcomings of EAMP's conceptual framework, making specific reference to the policy debate on Porter Hypothesis. The article puts in evidence how the assumptions of constant returns to scale, perfect competition and perfect input substitutability seriously alter the meaning and promise of sustainability policy. The analysis indicates that EAMP is a poor instrument to study complex issues regarding the promotion and effectiveness of green innovations and should therefore be abandoned to face the great challenges regarding the process of ecological transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compare the high degree of inequality in the Nordic countries to three countries with much lower Gini coefficients, which means a more equal distribution of wealth: Japan (0.631), Australia (0.658), and Italy (0.689). Land Value as Location Value Even though land is a free gift of nature, there is plenty of land where the location value is negative. That needs to be emphasized because it is so rarely understood: location has value relationally, which means that land in a city has value I only i because of the value contributed by surrounding activity. While it is possible that high marginal income tax rates and more public services might move society in the direction of greater wealth equality, the high Gini numbers for Nordic countries indicate that that policy direction is inadequate. [Extracted from the article]

Despite increasing evidence documenting the role of the outgoing audit of natural resources (OANRA) in environmental governance and enterprise innovation, little is known about its impact on enterprises' total factor productivity (TFP). To address this question, we treat the OANRA policy launched in 2014 in China as a quasi-natural experiment. We adopt a difference-in-differences-in-differences (DDD) method that exploits three-dimensional variations: city (i.e., OANRA cities versus non-OANRA cities), industry (i.e., more polluting industries versus less polluting ones), and year (i.e., before and after the OANRA policy). Employing a dataset of Chinese industrial listed companies from 2012 to 2019, we reveal that after the OANRA implementation, enterprises' TFP in more polluting industries of OANRA cities decreases by 4.0%. Our mechanism analysis shows that the OANRA restrains the TFP by reducing the financing scale of enterprises and increasing environmental investment of governments. Further, the heterogeneity analysis finds the inhibitory effect of the OANRA is more prominent in large-scale and state-owned enterprises, as well as enterprises located in eastern, low fiscal pressure, and high pollutant emission cities. Our findings provide support for the neoclassical economics hypothesis that the OANRA increases enterprises' compliance costs and decreases their productivity. • We study the relationship between the outgoing audit of natural resources assets (OANRA) and enterprise productivity. • We exploit the difference-in-differences-in-differences analyses and an instrumental variable design. • Evidence suggests enterprises' TFP in more polluting industries of OANRA cities decreases by 4.0%. • Evidence shows the OANRA restrains enterprises' TFP by reducing financing scale and increasing environmental investment. • Our study reveals the possible negative economic impacts of the OANRA and provides recommendations for policy optimization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article I argue that notions such as ecosystem services and strong sustainability can be best understood and developed within the theoretical framework advanced by the classical political economists, in which a circular conception of the economy is provided. I also argue that the development of notions such as ecosystem services and strong sustainability has been constrained by the dominance of neoclassical economics, which provides a linear conception of the economy and leads to an emphasis on weak sustainability, which in turn springs from an emphasis on substitutability and aggregate capital. When assessing the relevance of classical political economy for studying ecosystem services and strong sustainability I consider not only the contributions of the classical political economists, but also more recent contributions which draw upon the classical perspective, such as Piero Sraffa's and Amartya Sen's. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Economists inside and outside of the Austrian-school tradition have formulated a subjectivist theory of mineral resources. While von Mises () presented a rudimentary theory, institutionalist Zimmermann (1933 and after) provided an in-depth mind-centered approach distinct from the objective, neoclassical theory for minerals developed by Jevons (, ), Gray (), and Hotelling (). A full-fledged Austrian theory identifies the fixity/depletionism view of minerals as incompatible with entrepreneurship. Mineral resourceship, praxeologically akin to manufacturing, or the making of capital goods, demotes the distinction between depletable and nondepletable resources for the sciences of human action. Instead of nonreproducibility, the interplay of geography and institutions becomes the locus of mineral-resource theory, given the nonuniform distribution of deposits. An Austrian-institutional theory is more robust for explaining changes in mineral-resource scarcity than neoclassical depletionism, and offers a wide research agenda for current debates over resource production, usage, and future availability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a study which looks at the possibility of developing a biophysical basis for economics which can serve as a supplement to, or a replacement for, neoclassical economics. Critique of neoclassical economics; Why neoclassical economics assigns a low value to natural resources; Importance of energy to economic production.