[Marxism] Ecological Economics vs The Misevaluation of Value by the Traditionalists

["Tony Abdo" <gojack10@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is clear that the valuation system of traditional capitalist and marxist
economists is failing to provide the world with a true picture of the sorry
state of world economic production.   Ecological economics is an attempt to
count the value of nature's capital into the picture of real total value, as
opposed to just purely quantifying commodity value that has traditionally
been the only thing measured.

Below, I have put several comments by ecological economists describing this
new and developing economic theory.  Without a new economic theory, we will
have little ability to measure the new world that we have already been moved
into by world capitalism.  Marxists need to incorporate this effort by the
ecological economists into their own standard doctrines about the struggle
between classes being all central to political theory.  Marx and Engels will
not do it for us. They are both long dead, and our world should not be as
theirs.

Tony Abdo
```````````
(Commentary by David Bengston in explanation to the basic question)

An anonymous questioner recently asked: "What is ecological economics?"
As an ecological economist, I feel a responsibility to reply.

First, ecological economics (EE) is not traditional natural resource &
environmental economics.  Ecological economics is a departure from the
traditional ways economists view environmental issues # a new paradigm.

Robert Costanza, President of the International Society for Ecological
Economics, has a concise definition: #Ecological Economics addresses the
relationships between ecosystems and economic systems.# (Costanza
1989:1). The relationships & linkages between ecosystems & economic
systems are what most (if not all) of the environmental issues we face
revolve around # from the spotted owl to global warming.  All call for
an EE approach.

EE can be viewed as an attempt to bring together some of the insights from
economics with the insights of ecology to provide a new, richer, more
realistic
& more relevant perspective on economic/ecological systems & interactions.

The following statement by John Proops is a good statement of the
rationale for EE:  #Economists are increasingly coming to recognize that
the study of human activities on a finite planet, in the long-run,
requires a different set of concepts to those useful for the economic
analysis of households, firms, and nation states in the short- and
medium-run.  In a complementary way, ecologists, and other natural
scientists, are increasingly recognizing that economic activity is here
to stay; human activities are coming to dominate the global ecosystem,
and ecosystem analysis which does not explicitly include economic
activities makes less and less sense.  The stage seems to be set for a
coming together of these two disciplines so that problems of resource
use and pollution in the global ecosystem can be discussed and assessed
in a conceptual framework worthy of these problems.# (Proops
1989:73-74).

There are at least 6 major themes of EE that distinguish it from
conventional (neoclassical) economic approaches to natural resources &
the environment:

SUSTAINABILITY.  Traditional economic analysis focuses on the goals of
allocative efficiency and growth.  Ecological economists maintain that
the integrity and sustainability of the ecosystem are essential to
future economic well-being, and that the criterion of sustainability
should be built into economic models and policies.

MULTIPLE VALUES, BROADER NOTIONS OF VALUE.  Economic value is limited to
two narrow types:  Value in exchange (market price) and value in use
(willingness to pay or willingness to accept compensation).  As someone
once observed, #Economic value is a species of the genus value.# EE
proposes a much broader theory of value that includes social, aesthetic,
life support, intrinsic, and energy values, in addition to traditional
economic value.

INTERGENERATIONAL EQUITY.  In conventional economics, decisions about
how to use resources over time are treated as investment questions, as
if all resources belonged to the present generation.  The practice of
discounting future values in economics means that a resource 10 years
from now is only about half as valuable as that same resource today
(depending on the discount rate).  Ecological economists believe that
the future should not be so heavily discounted, and that we need to make
decisions that won#t compromise the quality of life (or life itself) for
future generations.

UNCERTAINTY.  Another theme of Ecological Economics is uncertainty #
recognition that there are fundamental uncertainties and high levels of
risk surrounding large scale or irreversible changes in the environment.
For example, we don#t know with any precision what the future impacts of
increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will be.
In the face of such uncertainty, the prudent course is to proceed with
caution:  #One does not run blindly through a dark landscape that may
contain crevasses. One assumes they are there and goes gingerly and with
eyes wide open, at least until one can see a little better.# (Costanza
1989:5).

METHODOLOGICAL PLURALISM.  Sole reliance on any one analytical framework
or method would provide an incomplete picture of the relationships
between ecosystems and economic systems.  As Christopher Stone notes,
summarizing the view of Paul Feyerabend, #... the history of sciences
reveals an incompleteness and even inconsistency of each framework which
should be regarded as routine and inevitable, and... a pluralism of
theories and metaphysical viewpoints should be nourished as a means of
advancing on the truth.#

LAND ETHIC.  Utilitarianism # the philosophical doctrine that considers
utility as the criterion of action and the useful as good # is the
philosophical base of traditional economics and traditional forestry.
In contrast, the philosophical underpinning of EE is an environmental or
land ethic:  #When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may
begin to use it with love and respect.# (Leopold 1966: xviii).
`````````````````````````
(and definiton by Alex Steffen)

Ecological economics is the study of the economic value of intact natural
systems, and the true (dollar) cost of their destruction. It's an exploding
field, but usually pretty dry stuff, downright desicated even. Lissa Harris
has done us all a favor by putting together three profiles of leaders in the
field which are not only readable, but somewhat entertaining.

"Compared to pork bellies and Palm Pilots, most goods and services provided
by the environment are peculiar and ill-behaved: They don't respect property
rights, they may take millennia to turn a profit, they benefit those who pay
for them and those who don't alike. Neoclassical economists -- the
intellectual scions of Adam Smith -- have generally been content to treat
the environment as a particularly vexing sector of the overall economy,
developing a group of theories collectively known as environmental economics
to sort out the thorny problems presented by goods that don't fit the market
mold.

"But recently, a group of mavericks known as 'ecological economists' have
begun to hammer out a new paradigm that stands economic theory on its head.
Rather than the environment being a subset of the economy, they argue, the
market is a subset of the global environment, and all the goods and services
we trade ultimately depend on natural resources and processes."
-----------------------------------
http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/harrisintro040803.asp

The Wealth of Nature
A three-part series profiling ecological economists by Lissa Harris
08 Apr 2003

In 1776, the year the Scottish economist Adam Smith invented free-market
economics with his book The Wealth of Nations, the total population of the
globe was less than 700 million people. The coal-hauling locomotives and
steamships that were to drive the Industrial Revolution were still 30 years
off. Free-market economic theory grew and flourished in an era of abundant
natural resources, in which the commodities that were the most rare -- and
thus the most precious -- were the products of human technology. Nature was
so bountiful that economists could afford to leave her out of their
calculations.

Fast-forward to 2003. The world's population has increased nearly tenfold.
We are awash in technology, but our natural resources are rapidly dwindling.
No longer can we rely on the infinite bounty of nature to provide healthy
soil, clean air, and potable water. Yet even as the value of the environment
to society becomes more and more apparent, so also does the inability of
markets to recognize that value.

The Wealth of Nature
Robert Costanza
Joshua Farley
Herman Daly

And it's easy to see why. Compared to pork bellies and Palm Pilots, most
goods and services provided by the environment are peculiar and ill-behaved:
They don't respect property rights, they may take millennia to turn a
profit, they benefit those who pay for them and those who don't alike.
Neoclassical economists -- the intellectual scions of Adam Smith -- have
generally been content to treat the environment as a particularly vexing
sector of the overall economy, developing a group of theories collectively
known as environmental economics to sort out the thorny problems presented
by goods that don't fit the market mold.

But recently, a group of mavericks known as "ecological economists" have
begun to hammer out a new paradigm that stands economic theory on its head.
Rather than the environment being a subset of the economy, they argue, the
market is a subset of the global environment, and all the goods and services
we trade ultimately depend on natural resources and processes. Ecological
economists, while still personae non gratae in most university economics
departments and major economic policy-setting institutions, are slowly
gaining in influence, both in academia and among the general public.

In a special series, we profile three practitioners of the new science:

Robert Costanza, director of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and
the man who became famous for putting a price tag on the biosphere. In 1997,
Costanza was lead author of a paper that declared the value of the services
provided by the world's ecosystems to be almost twice that of the combined
GNPs of all the nations of the world. The study made international news,
prompting headlines like "How Much is Nature Worth? For You, $33 Trillion."

Joshua Farley, a researcher at the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics,
and a staunch crusader for the new paradigm. In 1996, Farley prized a
doctorate in economics from the clutches of a committee of old-guard
economists. Now he is making it his mission to literally rewrite the book
for the next generation, coauthoring (with Herman Daly) the first textbook
in ecological economics.

Herman Daly, the founding father and reigning guru of ecological economics.
A former insider at the World Bank who is now one of its sharpest critics,
Daly is the co-founder of the journal Ecological Economics and author of
over 100 books and articles, including Steady-State Economics and Beyond
Growth.

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism