Re: post keynesian economics and environmetal sustainablity

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Mat,
      Well, things are a bit more complicate than this.
But, a personal anecdote is that when I was a grad
student at the University of Wisconsin, great Mecca
of ecology, in 1970 I spent a summer poring over
the theoretical ecology lit searching for an alternative
to the annoying neoclassical econ theory.  At that
time I came to a similar conclusion as Mat, although
then it was not optimal foraging models but general
equilibrium ecological community models that
frustrated me.
      OTOH, it was the population ecologist (originally
a physicist) Robert May who really got the chaos theory
bandwagon going, which was already lurking about then.
      As regards predator-prey models in econ, the Willi
Semmler stuff is drawn from much earlier models.  The
original predator-prey models in econ date from 1967:
Richard M. Goodwin, "A Growth Cycle," in C.H. Feinstein,
ed., _Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth_,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paul A. Samuelson, "A Universal Cycle?" in R. Henn, ed.,
_Methods of Operations Research, III_, Muhlgasse: Verlag
Anton Hain.
     For anybody frothing at the mouth over how the predators
must be the capitalists and the prey the workers, I hate to
disappoint you.  In the Marxist Goodwin's more famous
model, it is the workers who are the predators, slowing
growth when the prey on the capitalists' profits with their
rising wage demands, thus slowing investment and growth...
     The Goodwin model was first shown to be potentially
chaotic by
Matti T. Pohjola, "Stable, Cyclic and Chaotic Growth: The
Dynamics of a Discrete Time Version of Goodwin's Growth
Cycle Model," Zeitschrift fur Nationalokonomie, 1981, vol.
41, pp. 27-38.
     Needless to say, there are plenty of ecological dynamics
models that do not use neoclassical optimization, although
some do.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Ric Holt" <rholt@xxxxxxx>; <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: post keynesian economics and environmetal sustainablity


> 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
>
>
>