Applying methodological pluralism to wildlife and the economy
Methodological pluralism is important when we study complex systems. We aim to show that methodological pluralism yields additional insight by applying it to a specific question: how are the economy and wildlife related in developed and developing countries? We identify three possible ingredients of methodological pluralism: (1) using both qualitative and quantitative information; (2) tapping the potential of history to illuminate slow-moving variables; and (3) explicitly synthesizing either individually or in groups, by thinking about the corresponding system. We illustrate with examples.
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.:
- Norgaard, Richard B., 1989. "The case for methodological pluralism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 37-57, February.
- Manner, Mikko & Gowdy, John, 2010. "The evolution of social and moral behavior: Evolutionary insights for public policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 753-761, February.
- Gual, Miguel A. & Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A review and proposal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 707-717, February.
- Geoffrey Jones & Tarun Khanna, 2006. "Bringing history (back) into international business," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 37(4), pages 453-468, July.
- Dinda, Soumyananda, 2004. "Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 431-455, August.
- Koenker,Roger, 2005.
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521845731, April.
- Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
- Swanson, Timothy M, 1994. "The Economics of Extinction Revisited and Revised: A Generalised Framework for the Analysis of the Problems of Endangered Species and Biodiversity Losses," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(0), pages 800-821, Supplemen.
- World Bank, 2007. "World Development Indicators 2007," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 8150.
- Norgaard, Richard B., 2004. "Learning and knowing collectively," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 231-241, June.
- World Bank, 2006. "World Development Indicators 2006," World Bank Publications, The World Bank, number 8151.
- Richard Damania & Randy Stringer & K. Ullas Karanth & Brad Stith, 2003. "The Economics of Protecting Tiger Populations: Linking Household Behavior to Poaching and Prey Depletion," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(2), pages 198-216.
- M. Ruth & K. Donaghy & P. Kirshen, 2006. "Introduction," Chapters, in: Regional Climate Change and Variability, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Dayal, Vikram, 2006. "A microeconometric analysis of household extraction of forest biomass goods in Ranthambhore National Park, India," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 145-163, June.
- Czech, Brian & Krausman, Paul & Devers, Patrick, 2000. "Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States," MPRA Paper 2306, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Robert E. Lucas Jr., 2003. "Macroeconomic Priorities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 1-14, March.
- Skonhoft, Anders, 1998. "Resource utilization, property rights and welfare--Wildlife and the local people," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 67-80, July.
- Shultz, Steven & Pinazzo, Jorge & Cifuentes, Miguel, 1998. "Opportunities and limitations of contingent valuation surveys to determine national park entrance fees: evidence from Costa Rica," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(01), pages 131-149, February.
- Solow, Robert M, 1985. "Economic History and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 328-31, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:8:p:1610-1616. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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.