Re: post keynesian economics and environmetal sustainablity

["Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>]

I have always thought it was interesting that economists use
predator-prey models to study business cycles (e.g., Willi Semmler) and
ecologists use neoclassical economics to study things like optimal
foraging.  I told my ecologist friends, you can have those neoclassical
models--they may apply to the animal world, they don't to human society.

The field called "ecological economics" emerged as an alternative to
mainstream environmental economics, and it is very "pluralistic", but
generally tries to integrate social science and natural science. Some
have written on the relation of PK economics and ecological economics.
John Gowdy was one, I believe.  Eban Goodstein has also used some PK
stuff in his environmental work, including Nell's transformational
growth idea.  There was an article years ago in the JPKE by Peter
Bird(?) on PK vs. neoclassical with regard to environmental.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ric Holt [mailto:rholt@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 4:34 PM
To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: post keynesian economics and environmetal sustainablity





Why do you say that the predictions of science are made in an ergodic
world?  Human behaviors and decision-making are part of what
environmental policy makers must consider in their scenarios. I don't
see why it should be any different in economics and environmental.

I agree with you that there are inherent weaknesses with
decision-makers because we all are human and have prejudices, etc., but
my point is that the model system that say biologists use to understand
the natural world is very different from the model system that
neoclassical economists use to understand how the economy works. What if
we started to use more the metaphors from say biology in understanding
how the economy works and making environmental policy as compared to the
nonergodic and linear world of neoclassical economics?
-Ric