At first glance, the decision to review an article on ecological economics may seem to be counter-intuitive. After all, the field of environmental economics itself is relatively new and would appear to be, broadly encompassing. While mainstream in its approach, environmental economics has long been considered by some, lacking it its ability to deal with “the contemporary crises of environment/human interactions.” (Harris, 1995). At its inception, ecological economics was developed in an attempt to “modify the methods of economic analysis to make them more consistent with the biophysical laws which govern natural systems, and by extension, all human economic activity.” (Harris, 1995). Whereas, environmental economics are likely rooted in the application of economic analysis of environmental issues, ecological economics is based on and starts with “a recognition of the biophysical realities underlying the operations of the economic system.” (Harris, 1995).
Indeed, ecological economics, as a field found its genesis as part of “a response to the failure of mainstream economics to bridge the gap between economics and natural science.” (Gowdy, 2000). Apparently, prior to the development of this sub-discipline, environmental economics appeared to be focused on the interplay of market and market solutions, to the chagrin of ecologists and at the expense and to the “exclusion of the behavior of actual ecosystems and actual human behavior.” (Gowdy, 2000). The development of ecological economics, therefore, was an attempt to remedy policy failures with respect to actual environmental issues which had an actual impact.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Ecological Economics Paper".
Consequently, although new, ecological economics most assuredly has had an impact on the discipline of environmental economics and in this article review, I will demonstrate why this article, “Does Ecological Economics Have a Future?” by Blake Anderson and Michael M’Gonigle is relevant both to this course and to the discipline itself.
As the title of the article indicates, it seeks to explore the relevance of the field of ecological economics in the face of shifting environmental concerns. The field of ecological economics emerged in response to the strictly capitalistic focus of traditional environmental economics. Described by Anderson and M’Gonigle, as insurgent, ecological economics has, over the decades, “successfully stimulated on-going debate about the intersections of economics and ecology.” (Anderson & M’Gonigle, 2012). It is evident, based on this language, that this element of concern was pathologically missing from the field of environmental economics. In the great desire to apply economic theory to this burgeoning discipline of environmental policy, practitioners and theoreticians likely missed what should have been the core concern for all, namely the systems, both human and ecological which should be fundamental to the underlying field.
What is clear, based on Anderson and M’Gonigle’s article, is that this element was missing as the field of environmental economics was developing. Anderson and M’Gonigle successfully demonstrate that this field, which they refer to as insurgent, experienced great success in accomplishing its early vision. It attained a level of institutional acceptance, public policy relevance and most importantly, intellectual credibility. (Anderson & M’Gonigle, 2012). However, given the sharp decline in both our global economy and also ecologically, apparently this field is in inherent danger, which raises questions of its viability. Most notably among the ecological changes we have experienced, globally is the climate change. According to Anderson and M’Gonigle, “climate change has brought ecological economics to a time of reckoning that logically will lead to either its assimilation within mainstream economics or a transformational break from it.” (Anderson & M’Gonigle, 2012). In their opinion, climate change is the market failure to end all market failures and this in turn will result in an anemic academic field. As a result, they posit and believe that the field of ecological economics is destined to die out. They feel that, the only chance for the survival of this field is for ecological economists to become a movement of thought that is “counter-systemic”. (Anderson & M’Gonigle, 2012). They further express the view that in order for this to happen, the field will be forced to, essentially, restructure itself, moving, ideally to a post-capitalistic exploration of what can and must be included in a new formulation of this field.
I chose this article because of its relevance to the overall field of environmental economics. A purely capitalistic, market-focused approach to environmental economics seems inherently short-sighted, given the purported goals of this discipline. Environmental economics, as a sub-discipline of economics, critically examines the economic impact of environmental policies, whether they are global, national or local. To divorce such analysis from actual environmental concerns seems short-sighted. The original progenitors of the field of ecological economics got it right; as environmental economists, we need to consider the interplay between ecosystems, natural capital and the economic impact of environmental policies. I wanted to understand the genesis and development of this field as well as the reasons for its decline and prospects for the future.
I disagreed with the authors. While I understand the shift climate change has had in terms of environmental policies, I do not believe this alone, should be considered as evidence of a the decline of an entire field of thinking. The field of ecological economics intruded on environmental economics, which adapted for a new approach. Similarly, this field can and likely will be adaptable to the impact of climate change. This article is relevant to Environmental Economics because environmental economists cannot focus solely on the marketplace with little or no concern for ecosystems and concomitant human behavior.
