Editing Ecological economics (section)

== History and development ==
The antecedents of ecological economics can be traced back to the [[Romantics]] of the 19th century as well as some [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] political economists of that era. Concerns over population were expressed by [[Thomas Malthus]], while [[John Stuart Mill]] predicted the [[Steady-state economy#John Stuart Mill's concept|desirability of the ''stationary state'' of an economy]]. Mill thereby anticipated later insights of modern ecological economists, but without having had their experience of the social and ecological costs of the [[Post–World War II economic expansion]]. In 1880, [[Marxian economics|Marxian economist]] [[Sergei Podolinsky]] attempted to theorize a [[labor theory of value]] based on [[embodied energy]]; his work was read and critiqued by [[Karl Marx|Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bellamy Foster|first1=John|first2=Paul|last2=Burkett|title=Ecological Economics and Classical Marxism: The "Podolinsky Business" Reconsidered|journal=Organization & Environment|date=March 2004|volume=17|issue=1|pages=32–60|url=http://johnbellamyfoster.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2014/07/OandE-2004-Foster-Burkett-32-60.pdf|access-date=31 August 2018|doi=10.1177/1086026603262091|s2cid=146544853|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180831104237/http://johnbellamyfoster.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2014/07/OandE-2004-Foster-Burkett-32-60.pdf|archive-date=31 August 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref> [[Otto Neurath]] developed an ecological approach based on a [[natural economy]] whilst employed by the [[Bavarian Soviet Republic]] in 1919. He argued that a [[market system]] failed to take into account the needs of future generations, and that a socialist economy required [[calculation in kind]], the tracking of all the different materials, rather than synthesising them into money as a [[Value-form#General form of value|general equivalent]]. In this he was criticised by [[neo-liberal]] economists such as [[Ludwig von Mises]] and [[Freidrich Hayek]] in what became known as the [[socialist calculation debate]].<ref name="between science and politics">[[Nancy Cartwright|Cartwright Nancy]], [[J. Cat]], [[L. Fleck]], and [[T. Uebel]], 1996. Otto Neurath: philosophy between science and politics. [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

The debate on energy in economic systems can also be traced back to [[Nobel Prize in Chemistry|Nobel prize]]-winning [[radiochemistry|radiochemist]] [[Frederick Soddy]] (1877–1956). In his book ''[[Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt]]'' (1926), Soddy criticized the prevailing belief of the economy as a perpetual motion machine, capable of generating infinite wealth—a criticism expanded upon by later ecological economists such as Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12zencey.html Zencey, Eric. (2009, April 12). Op-ed. ''New York Times'', p. WK9.] Accessed: December 23, 2012.</ref>

European predecessors of ecological economics include [[K. William Kapp]] (1950)<ref>Kapp, K. W. (1950) ''The Social Costs of Private Enterprise''. New York: Shocken.</ref> [[Karl Polanyi]] (1944),<ref>Polanyi, K. (1944) ''The Great Transformation''. New York/Toronto: Rinehart & Company Inc.</ref> and [[Romania]]n economist [[Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen]] (1971). Georgescu-Roegen, who would later mentor Herman Daly at [[Vanderbilt University]], provided ecological economics with a modern conceptual framework based on the material and energy flows of economic production and [[Consumption (economics)|consumption]]. His ''magnum opus'', ''[[Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen#Magnum opus on The Entropy Law and the Economic Process|The Entropy Law and the Economic Process]]'' (1971), is credited by Daly as a fundamental text of the field, alongside Soddy's ''Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt''.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Georgescu-Roegen |first1=Nicholas |date=1971 |title=The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. |url=https://archive.org/details/entropylawe00nich |format=Full book accessible at Scribd |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0674257801 }}</ref> Some key concepts of what is now ecological economics are evident in the writings of [[Kenneth Boulding]] and [[E. F. Schumacher]], whose book ''[[Small Is Beautiful]] &ndash; A Study of Economics as if People Mattered'' (1973) was published just a few years before the first edition of [[Herman Daly]]'s comprehensive and persuasive ''[[Steady-state economy#Herman Daly's concept of a steady-state economy|Steady-State Economics]]'' (1977).<ref name=":0">Schumacher, E.F. 1973. ''Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered''. London: Blond and Briggs.</ref><ref>Daly, H. 1991. ''Steady-State Economics'' (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.</ref>

The first organized meetings of ecological economists occurred in the 1980s. These began in 1982, at the instigation of Lois Banner,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Røpke | first1 = I | year = 2004 | title = The early history of modern ecological economics | journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 50 | issue = 3–4| pages = 293–314 | doi = 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.012 | bibcode = 2004EcoEc..50..293R }}</ref> with a meeting held in Sweden (including [[Robert Costanza]], [[Herman Daly]], [[Charles A S Hall|Charles Hall]], Bruce Hannon, [[H.T. Odum]], and David Pimentel).<ref name=EarlyHistory/> Most were ecosystem ecologists or mainstream environmental economists, with the exception of Daly. In 1987, Daly and Costanza edited an issue of ''Ecological Modeling'' to test the waters. A book entitled ''Ecological Economics'', by [[Joan Martinez Alier]], was published later that year.<ref name=EarlyHistory>Costanza R. (2003). [http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/costanza.pdf Early History of Ecological Economics and ISEE]. Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics.</ref> Alier renewed interest in the approach developed by Otto Neurath during the [[interwar period]].<ref name = "Ecological economics">Martinez-Alier J. (1987)''Ecological economics: energy, environment and society''</ref>  The year 1989 saw the foundation of the [[International Society for Ecological Economics]] and publication of its journal, ''[[Ecological Economics (journal)|Ecological Economics]]'', by [[Elsevier]]. [[Robert Costanza]] was the first president of the society and first editor of the journal, which is currently edited by Richard Howarth. Other figures include ecologists [[C.S. Holling]] and [[H.T. Odum]], biologist Gretchen Daily, and physicist [[Robert Ayres (scientist)|Robert Ayres]]. In the [[Marxian economics|Marxian]] tradition, sociologist [[John Bellamy Foster]] and CUNY geography professor [[David Harvey (geographer)|David Harvey]] explicitly center ecological concerns in [[political economy]].

Articles by Inge Ropke (2004, 2005)<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Røpke | first1 = I | year = 2004 | title = The early history of modern ecological economics ''Ecological Economics'' 50(3-4) 293-314. Røpke, I. (2005) Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s | journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 55 | issue = 2| pages = 262–290 | doi = 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.010 | bibcode = 2005EcoEc..55..262R | s2cid = 67755032 }}</ref> and [[Clive Spash]] (1999)<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.clivespash.org/1999_Spash_EV_Development.PDF |last1=Spash|first1= C. L. |year=1999|title= The development of environmental thinking in economics. |journal=Environmental Values|volume= 8|issue=4|pages= 413–435 |access-date=2012-12-23 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221084752/http://www.clivespash.org/1999_Spash_EV_Development.PDF |archive-date=2014-02-21 |doi=10.3197/096327199129341897 }}</ref> cover the development and modern history of ecological economics and explain its differentiation from resource and environmental economics, as well as some of the controversy between American and European schools of thought. An article by [[Robert Costanza]], David Stern, Lining He, and Chunbo Ma<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Costanza | first1 = R. | last2 = Stern | first2 = D. I. | last3 = He | first3 = L. | last4 = Ma | first4 = C. | year = 2004 | title = Influential publications in ecological economics: a citation analysis | journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 50 | issue = 3–4| pages = 261–292 | doi = 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.06.001 | bibcode = 2004EcoEc..50..261C }}</ref> responded to a call by Mick Common to determine the foundational literature of ecological economics by using citation analysis to examine which books and articles have had the most influence on the development of the field. However, citations analysis has itself proven controversial and similar work has been criticized by [[Clive Spash]] for attempting to pre-determine what is regarded as influential in ecological economics through study design and data manipulation.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Spash | first1 = C. L. | year = 2013 | title = Influencing the perception of what and who is important in ecological economics | journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 89 | pages = 204–209 | doi = 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.028 | bibcode = 2013EcoEc..89..204S }}</ref> In addition, the journal ''Ecological Economics'' has itself been criticized for swamping the field with mainstream economics.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Spash | first1 = C. L. | year = 2013 | title = The Shallow or the Deep Ecological Economics Movement? | url = http://epub.wu.ac.at/4024/1/Spash_2013_EE_Shallow_or_Deep.pdf| journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 93 | pages = 351–362 | doi = 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.016 | bibcode = 2013EcoEc..93..351S | s2cid = 11640828 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Anderson | first1 = B. | last2 = M'Gonigle | first2 = M. | year = 2012 | title = Does ecological economics have a future?: contradiction and reinvention in the age of climate change | journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 84 | pages = 37–48 | doi = 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.009 | bibcode = 2012EcoEc..84...37A }}</ref>

=== Schools of thought ===
Various competing schools of thought exist in the field. Some are close to resource and environmental economics while others are far more heterodox in outlook. An example of the latter is the ''European Society for Ecological Economics''.  An example of the former is the Swedish ''Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics.'' [[Clive Spash]] has argued for the classification of the ecological economics movement, and more generally work by different economic schools on the environment, into three main categories.  These are the mainstream new resource economists, the new environmental pragmatists,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.clivespash.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Spash_NEP_2009_EV.pdf|title=The New Environmental Pragmatists, Pluralism and Sustainability|website=clivespash.org
|access-date=10 April 2023|date=April 2015}}</ref> and the more radical social ecological economists.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.clivespash.org/2011_Spash_AJES_Social_Ecol_Econ.pdf |title=Spash, C.L. (2011) Social ecological economics: Understanding the past to see the future. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70, 340-375 |access-date=2014-01-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140107122030/http://www.clivespash.org/2011_Spash_AJES_Social_Ecol_Econ.pdf |archive-date=2014-01-07 }}</ref> International survey work comparing the relevance of the categories for mainstream and heterodox economists shows some clear divisions between environmental and ecological economists.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Jacqui Lagrue |title=Spash, C.L., Ryan, A. (2012) Economic schools of thought on the environment: Investigating unity and division |journal=Cambridge Journal of Economics |volume=36 |issue=5 |pages=1091–1121 |date=2012-07-30 |doi=10.1093/cje/bes023 |hdl=10.1093/cje/bes023 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> A growing field of radical social-ecological theory is degrowth economics.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nelson |first=Anitra |date=2024-01-31 |title=Degrowth as a Concept and Practice : Introduction |url=https://commonslibrary.org/degrowth-as-a-concept-and-practice-introduction/ |access-date=2024-02-24 |website=The Commons Social Change Library |language=en-AU}}</ref>[[Degrowth]] addresses both biophysical limits and global inequality while rejecting neoliberal economics. Degrowth prioritizes grassroots initiatives in progressive socio-ecological goals, adhering to ecological limits by shrinking the human ecological footprint (See Differences from Mainstream Economics Below). It involves an equitable downscale in both production and consumption of resources in order to adhere to biophysical limits. Degrowth draws from [[Marxian economics]], citing the growth of efficient systems as the alienation of nature and man.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Klitgaard|first1=Kent A.|last2=Krall|first2=Lisi|date=December 2012|title=Ecological economics, degrowth, and institutional change|url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800911004897|journal=Ecological Economics|language=en|volume=84|pages=247–253|doi=10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.008|bibcode=2012EcoEc..84..247K }}</ref> Economic movements like degrowth reject the idea of growth itself. Some degrowth theorists call for an "exit of the economy".<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Schwartzman|first=David|date=March 2012|title=A Critique of Degrowth and its Politics|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10455752.2011.648848|journal=Capitalism Nature Socialism|language=en|volume=23|issue=1|pages=119–125|doi=10.1080/10455752.2011.648848|s2cid=56469290|issn=1045-5752}}</ref> Critics of the degrowth movement include new resource economists, who point to the gaining momentum of sustainable development. These economists highlight the positive aspects of a green economy, which include equitable access to renewable energy and a commitment to eradicate global inequality through sustainable development (See Green Economics).<ref name=":1" /> Examples of heterodox ecological economic experiments include the Catalan Integral Cooperative and the Solidarity Economy Networks in Italy. Both of these grassroots movements use communitarian based economies and consciously reduce their ecological footprint by limiting material growth and adapting to [[regenerative agriculture]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chiengkul|first=Prapimphan|date=May 2018|title=The Degrowth Movement: Alternative Economic Practices and Relevance to Developing Countries|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0304375418811763|journal=Alternatives: Global, Local, Political|language=en|volume=43|issue=2|pages=81–95|doi=10.1177/0304375418811763|s2cid=150125286|issn=0304-3754}}</ref>

==== Non-traditional approaches to ecological economics ====
Cultural and heterodox applications of economic interaction around the world have begun to be included as ecological economic practices. E.F. [[E. F. Schumacher|Schumacher]] introduced examples of non-western economic ideas to mainstream thought in his book, [[Small Is Beautiful|''Small is Beautiful'']], where he addresses neoliberal economics through the lens of natural harmony in [[Buddhist economics]].<ref name=":0" /> This emphasis on natural harmony is witnessed in diverse cultures across the globe. ''Buen Vivir'' is a traditional socio-economic movement in South America that rejects the western development model of economics. Meaning G''ood Life'', ''Buen Vivir'' emphasizes harmony with nature, diverse pluralculturism, coexistence, and inseparability of nature and material. Value is not attributed to material accumulation, and it instead takes a more spiritual and communitarian approach to economic activity. [[Ecological Swaraj]] originated out of India, and is an evolving world view of human interactions within the ecosystem. This train of thought respects physical bio-limits and non-human species, pursuing equity and social justice through direct democracy and grassroots leadership. Social well-being is paired with spiritual, physical, and material well-being. These movements are unique to their region, but the values can be seen across the globe in indigenous traditions, such as the [[Ubuntu philosophy|Ubuntu Philosophy]] in South Africa.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kothari|first1=Ashish|last2=Demaria|first2=Federico|last3=Acosta|first3=Alberto|date=December 2014|title=Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the Green Economy|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1057/dev.2015.24|journal=Development|language=en|volume=57|issue=3–4|pages=362–375|doi=10.1057/dev.2015.24|s2cid=86318140|issn=1011-6370}}</ref>

=== Differences from mainstream economics ===
Ecological economics differs from mainstream economics in that it heavily reflects on the ecological footprint of human interactions in the economy. This footprint is measured by the impact of human activities on natural resources and the waste generated in the process. Ecological economists aim to minimize the ecological footprint, taking into account the scarcity of global and regional resources and their accessibility to an economy.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/teacher_resources/webfieldtrips/ecological_balance/eco_footprint/|title=Ecological Footprint - WWF|access-date=2020-11-12|website=wwf.panda.org}}</ref> Some ecological economists prioritise adding natural capital to the typical [[capital asset]] analysis of land, labor, and financial capital. These ecological economists use tools from [[mathematical economics]], as in mainstream economics, but may apply them more closely to the natural world. Whereas mainstream economists tend to be technological optimists, ecological economists are inclined to be technological sceptics. They reason that the natural world has a limited [[carrying capacity]] and that its resources may run out. Since destruction of important environmental resources could be practically irreversible and catastrophic, ecological economists are inclined to justify cautionary measures based on the [[precautionary principle]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Costanza | first1 = R | year = 1989 | title = What is ecological economics? | url = http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Costanza_EE_1989.pdf | journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 1 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–7 | doi = 10.1016/0921-8009(89)90020-7 | bibcode = 1989EcoEc...1....1C }}</ref> As ecological economists try to minimize these potential disasters, calculating the fallout of environmental destruction becomes a humanitarian issue as well. Already, the Global South has seen trends of mass migration due to environmental changes. [[Climate refugees]] from the [[Global South]] are adversely affected by changes in the environment, and some scholars point to global wealth inequality within the current [[Neoliberalism|neoliberal]] economic system as a source of this issue.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Integrating Southern Perspectives {{!}} degrowth.info|url=https://www.degrowth.info/en/2017/10/integrating-southern-perspectives/|access-date=2020-11-12|language=en-US}}</ref>

The most cogent example of how the different theories treat similar assets is [[tropical rainforest]] ecosystems, most obviously the Yasuni region of [[Ecuador]].  While this area has substantial deposits of [[bitumen]] it is also one of the most diverse ecosystems on Earth and some estimates establish it has over 200 undiscovered medical substances in its genomes – most of which would be destroyed by logging the forest or mining the bitumen.  Effectively, the instructional capital of the genomes is undervalued by analyses that view the rainforest primarily as a source of wood, oil/tar and perhaps food. Increasingly the [[carbon credit]] for leaving the extremely [[emission intensity|carbon-intensive]] ("dirty") bitumen in the ground is also valued – the government of Ecuador set a price of US$350M for an oil lease with the intent of selling it to someone committed to never exercising it at all and instead preserving the rainforest.

While this natural capital and ecosystems services approach has proven popular amongst many it has also been contested as failing to address the underlying problems with mainstream economics, growth, market capitalism and monetary valuation of the environment.<ref>Martinez-Alier, J., 1994. Ecological economics and ecosocialism, in: O'Connor, M. (Ed.), Is Capitalism Sustainable? Guilford Press, New York, pp. 23-36</ref><ref>Spash, C.L., Clayton, A.M.H., 1997. The maintenance of natural capital: Motivations and methods, in: Light, A., Smith, J.M. (Eds.), Space, Place and Environmental Ethics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, pp. 143-173</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Toman | first1 = M | year = 1998 | title = Why not to calculate the value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital | journal = Ecological Economics | volume = 25 | pages = 57–60 | doi = 10.1016/s0921-8009(98)00017-2 }}</ref>  Critiques concern the need to create a more meaningful relationship with Nature and the non-human world than evident in the instrumentalism of shallow ecology and the environmental economists [[commodification]] of everything external to the market system.<ref>{{cite book | last1=O'Neill | first1=John | author-link=John O'Neill (philosopher)| title=Ecology, policy, and politics : human well-being and the natural world | publisher=Routledge | location=London New York | year=1993 | isbn=978-0-415-07300-4 | oclc=52479981 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = O'Neill | first1 = J.F. | year = 1997 | title = Managing without prices: On the monetary valuation of biodiversity | journal = Ambio | volume = 26 | pages = 546–550 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Vatn | first1 = A | year = 2000 | title = The environment as commodity | journal = Environmental Values | volume = 9 | issue = 4| pages = 493–509 | doi = 10.3197/096327100129342173 | doi-broken-date = 1 November 2024 }}</ref>