Finding common ground between ecological economics and post-Keynesian economics
Post-Keynesian economics and ecological economics have in common that they are considered to be 'heterodox' schools of thought. Aside from that, there has not been a strong connection between them. Previous books on post-Keynesian economics contain no chapter on environmental or ecological issues. This neglect has led leading ecological economists to criticize post-Keynesians for succumbing to the same growth paradigm as the neoclassical school. This paper argues that the two approaches are complementary in the sense that they each have different strong points. Ecological economics has correctly pointed out that the growth of the global economy may not be welfare-improving anymore, whereas post-Keynesians have gained valuable insights into the functioning of the capitalist growth process. To determine the feasibility of a synthesis between the two schools, the paper compares their approaches to the problems of production, consumption, and economic dynamics as well as the associated policy recommendations. It shows that on a theoretical level the two schools have much in common, but their policy conclusions differ with regard to the desirability of further growth. The paper concludes that a synthesis of both approaches may lead to a better understanding of how a capitalist economy operates in a natural environment with limits to growth and to better-informed policy advice.
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.
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.
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.:
- Marc Lavoie, 2006. "Do Heterodox Theories Have Anything in Common? A Post-Keynesian Point of View," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 3(1), pages 1-87â€“112.
- Kurz, Heinz D. & Salvadori, Neri, 2000. "Economic dynamics in a simple model with exhaustible resources and a given real wage rate," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-2), pages 167-179, July.
- David A. Spencer, 2006. "Work for all those who want it? Why the neoclassical labour supply curve is an inappropriate foundation for the theory of employment and unemployment," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 459-472, May.
- Luigi L. Pasinetti, 2005. "The Cambridge School of Keynesian Economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(6), pages 837-848, November.
- Shaikh, Anwar, 1974. "Laws of Production and Laws of Algebra: The Humbug Production Function," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 56(1), pages 115-120, February.
- Judson, D. H., 1989. "The convergence of neo-Ricardian and embodied energy theories of value and price," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 261-281, October.
- Solow, Robert M., 1997. "Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow-Stiglitz," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 267-268, September.
- Amable, Bruno & Henry, Jerome & Lordon, Frederic & Topol, Richard, 1994. "Strong hysteresis versus zero-root dynamics," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 43-47.
- Cleveland, Cutler J. & Ruth, Matthias, 1997. "When, where, and by how much do biophysical limits constrain the economic process?: A survey of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's contribution to ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 203-223, September.
- Fisher, Franklin M, 1971. "Aggregate Production Functions and the Explanation of Wages: A Simulation Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 53(4), pages 305-325, November.
- Paul Davidson & Laurence H. Falk & Hoesung Lee, 1974. "Oil: Its Time Allocation and Project Independence," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 5(2), pages 411-448.
- Jesus Felipe & J. S. L. McCombie, 2001. "The CES Production Function, the accounting identity, and Occam's razor," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(10), pages 1221-1232.
- Eichner, Alfred S & Kregel, J A, 1975. "An Essay on Post-Keynesian Theory: A New Paradigm in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 1293-1314, December.
- Martinez-Alier, J., 1997. "Some issues in agrarian and ecological economics, in memory of Georgescu-Roegen," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 225-238, September.
- Terry Barker & S. Serban Scrieciu & Tim Foxon, 2008. "Achieving the G8 50% target: modelling induced and accelerated technological change using the macro-econometric model E3MG," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(sup1), pages 30-45, December.
- Jesus Felipe & John McCombie, 2006. "The Tyranny of the Identity: Growth Accounting Revisited," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 283-299.
- Robinson, Joan, 1980. "Time in Economic Theory," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 219-229.
- Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1997. "Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 269-270, September.
- Gowdy, John M. & Ferreri Carbonell, Ada, 1999. "Toward consilience between biology and economics: the contribution of Ecological Economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 337-348, June.
- Eckhard Hein & Marc Lavoie & Till van Treeck, 2008.
"Some instability puzzles in Kaleckian models of growth and distribution: A critical survey,"
IMK Working Paper
19-2008, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.
- Eckhard Hein & Marc Lavoie & Till van Treeck, 2011. "Some instability puzzles in Kaleckian models of growth and distribution: a critical survey," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(3), pages 587-612.
- Costanza, Robert, 1989. "What is ecological economics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, February.
- Clive L Spash, 2009. "Social Ecological Economics," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
- Daly, Herman E., 1997. "Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 261-266, September.
- Jesus Felipe & J. S. L. McCombie, 2005. "WHY ARE SOME COUNTRIES RICHER THAN OTHERS? A SKEPTICAL VIEW OF MANKIW-ROMER-WEIL's TEST OF THE NEOCLASSICAL GROWTH MODEL," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 360-392, 07.
- Christensen, Paul P., 1989. "Historical roots for ecological economics -- Biophysical versus allocative approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 17-36, February.
- M. Ruth & K. Donaghy & P. Kirshen, 2006. "Introduction," Chapters, in: Regional Climate Change and Variability, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
- 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 2009-01, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
- Robinson, Joan, 1972. "The Second Crisis of Economic Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 1-10, May.
- Terry Barker, Haoran Pan, Jonathan Kohler, Rachel Warren, and Sarah Winne, 2006. "Decarbonizing the Global Economy with Induced Technological Change: Scenarios to 2100 using E3MG," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 241-258.
- Binswanger, Mathias, 2001. "Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound effect?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 119-132, January.
- Jesus Felipe & J. S. L. McCombie, 2005. "How Sound are the Foundations of the Aggregate Production Function?," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 31(3), pages 467-488, Summer.
- Stefan baumgärtner, 2004. "The Inada Conditions for Material Resource Inputs Reconsidered," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 307-322, November.
- Gowdy, John M. & Mayumi, Kozo, 2001. "Reformulating the foundations of consumer choice theory and environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 223-237, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:7:p:1488-1494. 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: (Dana Niculescu)
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.