IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path

  • Rodrigues, João
  • Domingos, Tiago
  • Conceição, Pedro
  • Belbute, José

This paper extends the neoclassical growth model with natural capital by introducing two new concepts: allocation of natural capital and materialization. We consider that anthropogenic environmental impact is correlated with the throughput of the economy (materialisation). Materialisation is the material throughput per unit of economic activity. We capture the effect of the reduction of this throughput dematerialisation in the elasticities of materialisation and aggregate environmental impact. In our framework the fraction of natural capital devoted to production does not provide direct environmental services nor does it contribute to ecosystem functioning namely affecting the carrying capacity of natural capital.We analyse an optimal sustainable growth path, in the context of exogenous technological change. Our main conclusion is that the ratio of dematerialisation elasticities must equal the inverse of the share of natural capital in order to assure unbounded economic growth with constant natural capital.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

If 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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 54 (2005)
Issue (Month): 4 (September)
Pages: 382-396

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:54:y:2005:i:4:p:382-396
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Sergio Rebelo, 1999. "Long Run Policy Analysis and Long Run Growth," Levine's Working Paper Archive 2114, David K. Levine.
  2. Kaufmann, Robert K., 1995. "The economic multiplier of environmental life support: Can capital substitute for a degraded environment?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 67-79, January.
  3. Torras, Mariano & Boyce, James K., 1998. "Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets Curve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 147-160, May.
  4. Andreoni, James & Levinson, Arik, 2001. "The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 269-286, May.
  5. Azar, Christian & Holmberg, John, 1995. "Defining the generational environmental debt," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 7-19, July.
  6. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
  7. Rabl, Ari, 1996. "Discounting of long-term costs: What would future generations prefer us to do?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 137-145, June.
  8. Grossman, Gene M & Krueger, Alan B, 1995. "Economic Growth and the Environment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 110(2), pages 353-77, May.
  9. Loschel, Andreas, 2002. "Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 105-126, December.
  10. Rothman, Dale S., 1998. "Environmental Kuznets curves--real progress or passing the buck?: A case for consumption-based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-194, May.
  11. England, Richard W., 2000. "Natural capital and the theory of economic growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 425-431, September.
  12. Solow, Robert M., 1997. "Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow-Stiglitz," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 267-268, September.
  13. Toman, Michael & Kolstad, Charles, 2000. "The Economics of Climate Policy," Discussion Papers dp-00-40, Resources For the Future.
  14. Kraev, Egor, 2002. "Stocks, flows and complementarity: formalizing a basic insight of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 277-286, December.
  15. Wackernagel, Mathis & Rees, William E., 1997. "Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, January.
  16. Nelson, Robert H., 1997. "In memoriam: On the death of the 'market mechanism'," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 187-197, March.
  17. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
  18. Hinterberger, Friedrich & Luks, Fred & Schmidt-Bleek, Friedrich, 1997. "Material flows vs. 'natural capital': What makes an economy sustainable?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-14, October.
  19. England, Richard W., 1998. "Should we pursue measurement of the natural capital stock?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 257-266, December.
  20. Hart, Rob, 2002. "Growth, environment, and culture--encompassing competing ideologies in one 'new growth' model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 253-267, February.
  21. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 67-72, April.
  22. Hannon, Bruce, 1994. "Sense of place: geographic discounting by people, animals and plants," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 157-174, July.
  23. Alfred Endres & Volker Radke, 1999. "Land use, biodiversity, and sustainability," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 1-16, February.
  24. Harte, M. J., 1995. "Ecology, sustainability, and environment as capital," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 157-164, November.
  25. Cabeza Gutes, Maite, 1996. "The concept of weak sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 147-156, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:54:y:2005:i:4:p:382-396. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.