Search

Wereview impacts of climate change, energy scarcity, and economic frameworks on sustainability of natural and human systems in coastal zones, areas of high biodiversity, productivity, population density, and economic activity. More than 50% of the global population lives within 200 km of a coast, mostly in tropical developing countries. These systems developed during stable Holocene conditions. Changes in global forcings are threatening sustainability of coastal ecosystems and populations. During the Holocene, the earth warmed and became wetter and more productive. Climate changes are impacting coastal systems via sea level rise, stronger tropical cyclones, changes in basin inputs, and extreme weather events. These impacts are passing tipping points as the fossil fuel-powered industrial-technological-agricultural revolution has overwhelmed the source-sink functions of the biosphere and degraded natural systems. The current status of industrialized society is primarily the result of fossil fuel (FF) use. FFs provided more than 80%of global primary energy and are projected to decline to 50% by mid-century. This has profound implications for societal energy requirements, including the transition to a renewable economy. The development of the industrial economy allowed coastal social systems to become spatially separated from their dominant energy and food sources. This will becomemore difficult tomaintain with the fading of cheap energy. It seems inevitable that past growth in energy use, resource consumption, and economic growth cannot be sustained, and coastal areas are in the forefront of these challenges. Rapid planning and cooperation are necessary tominimize impacts of the changes associated with the coming transition. There is an urgent need for a new economic framework to guide society through the transition as mainstream neoclassical economics is not based on natural sciences and does not adequately consider either the importance of energy or the work of nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The challenge of sustainable development can be approached from different angles. In this essay it is argued that one also needs to examine the present close to monopoly position of neoclassical economic theory at university departments of economics in many parts of the world. An open debate is needed about paradigms in economics as well as ideological orientations. An alternative to neoclassical theory is outlined where individuals and organizations are regarded as political actors, each guided by an ideological orientation or mission. Reference is made to the 17 UN sustainable development goals suggesting that impacts need to be seen in multidimensional terms and an alternative definition of economics as "multidimensional management of limited resources in a democratic society" is proposed. It is argued that economics need to move away from its technocracy-oriented tendencies to democracy-oriented approaches. This is exemplified by a move away from neoclassical Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) to Positional Analysis as approach to decision-making and sustainability assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The renewed sociological interest in neo-liberalism is important for the development of Human-Centered Sustainable Economic and Social systems for the 21st century. This paper explores whether the critical enquiry of knowledge production in social science is suggesting a return to a form of enquiry which does not rely on the abstraction of the economy from society, history and polity. The paper suggests that the Cambridge School of classic political economy and its focus on embedding the economy into society, the fair distribution of economic surpluses and the pursuit of human well-being should form the conceptual basis of the alternative social and economic systems required to transition to sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On June 9–12, 2015, the International Conference of Research & Regulation 2015 was held in Paris. The theme of this international conference was “the theory of regulation in times of crises,” and around 200 experts and academics from all over the world attended this distinguished conference. Centering on this theme, the hosts selected over 170 papers from those submitted and divided them into 23 topics, among which topics such as reflection and criticism on the economics methodology, labor-management relations and capitalism crisis, financial system and development mode in the post-crisis era, sustainable development and global governance, capitalism diversity and East Asian economy are emphasized and discussed. Many academics who attended the conference also proposed a lot of useful ideas, suggestions for the development of regulation theory, as well as theories and proposals for criticism on neoclassical economics, the emergence system of economic crisis, improvement of global economy, environment and sustainable development, capitalism diversity and development of East Asian economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is this school called neoclassical economics? Does it exist? Should it? Where does the term ‘neoclassical economics’ come from, and is there any connection between any of the current interpretations of the term and its original meaning? How do we make sense of competing current interpretations? Is there a sustainable formulation? These and related questions are raised and answered in an attempt to bring clarity to ongoing economic discussion and debate, thereby to under-labour for a more relevant academic economics discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Some of the most important and urgent topics requiring economic analysis and policy advice are the problems of climate change and environmental sustainability, and what can be done to alter corporate and individual behaviour to deal with these issues. Neoclassical economists tend to focus on market solutions such as carbon trading, drawing on ideas of perfect rationality of actors and the appropriateness of ‘marginal’ analysis. To link such policies to the whole range of potential actions, from legislative and regulatory to changing individual behaviours, requires the economy and society to be analysed in its full complexity, recognising that ‘marginal’ analysis can be not just irrelevant but positively harmful when the need is for systemic shifts in economic and social trajectories. This article draws upon a seminar series on complexity economics to consider how heterodox economic analysis can be brought to bear on the issue of the environment, to develop a realistic policy agenda for change. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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]

It is crystal clear that the neoclassical economical theory, despite being probably the best growth model ever invented by man, tickled a cost of environmental degradation which can threaten our wealth and even our existence. For this reason, the concept of sustainable development (SD) is so empathic, being considered probably the best theoretical alternative invented by man to standard growth, because of its vision of a better world, where economics, society and environment are intimately linked. Thus, all human activities have to adapt to this new paradigm, in order to achieve its goals. From the economical perspective, production, consumption and trade must incorporate a kind of sustainable type of activity. In the recent years, growing demands in energy use and the increase of oil and coal prices, have led to the usage of new energy sources such as biomass, water, solar, wind and geothermal energy. This is why we propose in this paper to present an overview of international trade in biomass reported to the philosophy of SD. In short, we want to give an answer at two questions: how much is biomass trade sustainable and what risks may arise if the main source of energy used today, based on fossil fuels, will be totally substitute by biomass? To be sustainable, biomass, must meet certain criteria, such as: to possess a high capacity for regeneration, in a relatively short time; to offer a better efficiency compared with the traditional fossil fuel sources; to be less or non-polluting, to be used in solid, liquid and gaseous form; to have a broad applicability in production and consumption; to have a competitive level in terms of costs and prices for transport or storage, in both stages, as a raw material or as a finished product; to be a good substitute of traditional fuels (gasoline or diesel), without the necessity for structural changes of the of the engine. The article will conclude that the uprising trend of the EU biomass trade and consumption will continue, because of grown concerns of the EU Member States regarding the effects that greenhouse gas emissions have over the environment and over the quality of life standard, despite the critics which states that biomass production may have negative environmental effects, leading to massive deforestation and destruction of soil, water sources and natural habitat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the role of the relative efficiency of the free market and government intervention in handling economic woes. It mentions that the emergence of the financial and economic crisis has resulted to discussions over the virtues of the free market system and the role of the government in economic stabilization. Laissez-faire economics has turned into a neoclassical monetarism recommending policies such as the free market. It stresses that the government and market need to coexist and complement one another toward sustainability.

Abstract: The differing paradigms of ecological and neoclassical environmental economics have been described in various articles and books and are also embedded in different professional associations. However, we cannot take for granted that the paradigm debates described in the literature are actually mirrored in exactly the same way in the perceptions and opinions of researchers looking at sustainability from an economic perspective. This paper presents empirical results from a German case study on how economists and others involved in sustainability research from different schools of thought think about the issues of sustainability and economics, how they group around these issues, how they feel about the current scientific divide, and what they expect to be future topics of sustainability research. We analyze the data using cluster analysis. Based on a literature survey, we generated forty sustainability economics-related statements and asked 196 sustainability researchers about their degree of agreement or disagreement with these statements. In evaluating our survey results, we discuss to what extent the clusters that we identified do—or do not—represent the two schools of thought of ecological and neoclassical environmental economics. We also propose some fields of research that can help to bridge the gaps amongst sustainability economics researchers while clearly marking others that are more suitable for a scientific ‘competition of ideas’. Key results of the study are: We identify two primary scientific clusters, one clearly confirming the existence of the ecological-economics school of thought, and the other largely capturing the neoclassical environmental view. Yet, there are some surprising exceptions: Both schools of thought share a conceptual definition of sustainability that is integrative in considering ecological, societal and economic dimensions (‘three pillar concept’) and is geared at preserving the development potentials of society. We also find a shared critique of ‘pure economic growth’ strategies in our sample. These shared opinions may provide bridging concepts between the schools of thought. Also both clusters agree with respect to a wide range of future fields of sustainability economics research. Yet, the research agenda of the ecological-economics cluster contains a large number of additional topics, primarily related to social, distributional and evolutionary aspects of sustainable development. Strong divides between the clusters that seem to be more suitable for a scientific competition of ideas are primarily related to the question of how to achieve sustainability, including appropriate environmental policies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The paper builds up from a review of some expected, but other quite surprising results regarding country estimates for the year 2000 of genuine saving, a sustainability indicator developed by a World Bank research team. We examine this indicator, founded on neoclassical welfare theory, and discuss one of its major problems. Theoretical developments from ecological economics are then considered, together with insights from Georgescu-Roegen's approach to the production process, in search for an alternative approach. A model with potentially fruitful contributions in this direction is reviewed; it points the course efforts could take enable sustainability evaluations based on a more realistic set of interrelated monetary and biophysical indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

For several decades, business has operated according to the tenets of neoclassical economic theory, where the primary obligation of corporations is to maximize profit for shareholders. However, the larger social mandate for business has changed, represented by the rise of language such as "sustainable development", "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) and "stakeholder groups." Nevertheless, the theoretical shift implied by the use of such language has not occurred. Issues of sustainable development and CSR continue to be justified in the terms of neoclassical economic theory through the rationalization of "doing well by doing good". Within this economic paradigm, CSR cannot move beyond enlightened self-interest (acting in socially responsible ways in order to further one's own ends) because all behavior must be justified economically. This implies that corporate socially responsible behavior will simply cease when it becomes uneconomic, regardless of the impact on interrelated systems which in turn will re-impact the business realm. Faced with bitter realities arising from complex interactions among social, political, cultural, economic and natural environments, we may better comprehend and negotiate these problems by moving out of a neoclassical economic justification of the stakeholder model of the corporation to an inter-systems model, shifting from a narrow comprehension of a single economic independent system analyzed apart from its larger context to a fuller understanding of business as one of a number of interrelated systems. Operational differences between the old and new mandates are described, and two ways to practically shift towards the new mandate are identified as a modified version of scenario planning and the introduction of the voice of the critic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers directions for the continuing dialogue between business ethicists and environmental philosophers. I argue that a theory of corporate social responsibility must be consistent with, if not derived from, a model of sustainable economics rather than the prevailing neoclassical model of market economics. I use environmental examples to critique both classical and neoclassical models of corporate social responsibility and sketch the alternative model of sustainable development. After describing some implications of this model at the level of individual firms and industries, I offer an ethical justification of the sustainability alternative that is derived from the same values that underlie traditional market economics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]