The initiators of the new reputational organisation
of ecological economics shared this basic perspective
on the embeddedness of the economy in nature, the
importance of considering nature as a life-support
system, and the need for understanding ecological and
economic systems and their interactions in terms of
flows of energy and matter. The field was born out of
a frustration with the lack of ability of the established
disciplines to take in this perspective. In addition to
the basic perspective, a number of other related ideas
or core beliefs can be said to characterize ecological
economics at the time of the establishment of the new
reputational organization:
– The idea of the economy’s embeddedness in nature
and the idea of scale imply that there are limits to
the material growth of the economy. It is a core
belief that these limits have to be taken seriously
and that several environmental problems are
critical. The economy has already reached or
exceeded the maximum sustainable scale.
– Transdisciplinary work is essential to meet the
challenge of understanding environmental problems
and suggesting ways to overcome these
problems. None of the established disciplines
provides a sufficiently wide perspective.
– Pluralism is a key word in the early position
papers. This is related to the call for transdisciplinary
work, as the reputational organizations of the
established disciplines tended to dismiss transdisciplinary
contributions.
– Related to the emphasis on nature as a life-support
system, there is an awareness of the basic
ignorance we face in our understanding of nature
and of the interactions between humans and their
environment. We do not only have to deal with
uncertainty, but also with the more basic ignorance
that we don’t know what we don’t know. Important
relationships are unknown, so we should be careful
with regard to large-scale experiments that might
have serious unforeseen consequences. Furthermore,
the complexity calls for a dpost-normal
scienceT, where multiple perspectives and an
extended array of actors are included in the process
of providing scientific knowledge (Funtowicz and
Ravetz, 1991, 1994).
– Systems thinking in a broad sense was shared
baggage for several of the initiators, particularly
those coming from the natural sciences, but also for
some of the economists. Related to systems
thinking is a common focus on dynamic and
evolutionary processes. The development in systems
theory from the late 1960s and early 70s
stressing the importance of bifurcations and chaos
supported the belief that we face basic ignorance.
– Considering the interests of future generations, the
scale of the economy has to be limited, and
therefore, the issue of equity and distribution
comes to the fore. Because of the environmental
limits, the poor cannot be cared for by continuing
economic growth, so the ethical challenge to take
care of other human beings calls for an increased
focus on redistribution.
– Many of the initiators were concerned about the
deterioration of the environment not only because
of the consequences for human beings, but also
because of the belief that nature has value in itself.
Even if we imagine an earth without the human
species, it matters whether other parts of nature
continue to exist.
– Some of the initiators, particularly those with a
social science background, but also some of the
natural scientists, emphasized that the economy is
embedded in a broader social and cultural system,
that nature, economy, society and culture co-evolve,
that human behaviour cannot be understood only in
terms of dthe economic manT, so the need for
including social and institutional perspectives was
emphasized. This view emphasizes the need for
transdisciplinarity and pluralism in relation to social
sciences other than economics