Ecological, Heterodox and Neoclassical Economics: Investigating the Differences
AbstractHow heterodox are ecological economists and how ecological are heterodox economists? How do both differ, if at all, from neoclassical economists when addressing environmental problems? In 2009 we probed such questions by conducting an international survey at economic conferences on the environment and sustainability. This paper reports on surveys conducted at conferences of the European Society for Ecological Economics, the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economics, and the Association of Heterodox Economists. A key aim was to gain insight into the extent to which ecological economics can be described as a distinct field of research from orthodox environmental and resource economics. Conflict within the field has meant a prevalence of neoclassical articles and thought mixed in amongst more heterodox work. The question then arises are those participating in ecological economics ideologically and methodologically similar to those schools of thought falling under the heterodox economic umbrella or the orthodox? In addressing this question problems are identified with economic understanding of environmental problems and the lack of communication across schools and disciplines. Suggestions are made as to how we might, as a community of concerned scholars and activists, move forward.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 26292.
Date of creation: 29 Oct 2010
Date of revision:
Ecological economics; heterodox; neoclassical; methodology; ideology;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General
- Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
- B59 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - Other
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-11-13 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENV-2010-11-13 (Environmental Economics)
- NEP-EVO-2010-11-13 (Evolutionary Economics)
- NEP-HPE-2010-11-13 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
- NEP-MIC-2010-11-13 (Microeconomics)
- NEP-NEU-2010-11-13 (Neuroeconomics)
- NEP-PKE-2010-11-13 (Post Keynesian Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Clive L. Spash, 2011. "Social Ecological Economics: Understanding the Past to See the Future," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(2), pages 340-375, 04.
- Tony Lawson, 2006. "The nature of heterodox economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 483-505, July.
- Clive L Spash & Heinz Schandl, 2009. "Growth, the Environment and Keynes: Reflections on Two Heterodox Schools of Thought," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems 2009-01, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
- Clive L Spash, 2009. "Social Ecological Economics," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems 2009-08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
- Clive L. Spash, 1999. "The Development of Environmental Thinking in Economics," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 8(4), pages 413-435, November.
- Ropke, Inge, 2004. "The early history of modern ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 50(3-4), pages 293-314, October.
- Peter E. Earl, 2005. "Economics and psychology in the twenty-first century," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(6), pages 909-926, November.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.