Finding common ground between ecological economics and post-Keynesian economics
Post-Keynesian economics and ecological economics have in common that they are considered to be ‘heterodox’ schools of thought. Aside from that, there has not been a strong connection between them. Previous books on post-Keynesian economics contain no chapter on environmental or ecological issues. T...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecological economics 2010-05, Vol.69 (7), p.1488-1494 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1494 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 1488 |
container_title | Ecological economics |
container_volume | 69 |
creator | Kronenberg, Tobias |
description | Post-Keynesian economics and ecological economics have in common that they are considered to be ‘heterodox’ schools of thought. Aside from that, there has not been a strong connection between them. Previous books on post-Keynesian economics contain no chapter on environmental or ecological issues. This neglect has led leading ecological economists to criticize post-Keynesians for succumbing to the same growth paradigm as the neoclassical school.
This paper argues that the two approaches are complementary in the sense that they each have different strong points. Ecological economics has correctly pointed out that the growth of the global economy may not be welfare-improving anymore, whereas post-Keynesians have gained valuable insights into the functioning of the capitalist growth process.
To determine the feasibility of a synthesis between the two schools, the paper compares their approaches to the problems of production, consumption, and economic dynamics as well as the associated policy recommendations. It shows that on a theoretical level the two schools have much in common, but their policy conclusions differ with regard to the desirability of further growth. The paper concludes that a synthesis of both approaches may lead to a better understanding of how a capitalist economy operates in a natural environment with limits to growth and to better-informed policy advice. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.002 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_753825625</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0921800910000972</els_id><sourcerecordid>744702807</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-2deac9e4dda03123d2dfae981788537ef97db16da191e0a2d67193921a251ff63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM1u3CAUhVGVSp2kfYXKu648vYDNz65VlKRVRsomWSMC11NGNrjgSTRvXybTpssgHUBwzhF8hHymsKZAxdfdGl0aq-KaQT0EvgZg78iKKslbQUGckRVoRlsFoD-Q81J2ACCE5itydx2iD3HbuDRNKTbbnPbRN4-4PCPG5tictsHZ8biNaQquNLYa5lSW9hYPEUuw8f_lR_J-sGPBT3_XC_JwfXV_-aPd3N38vPy-aV0vu6VlHq3T2HlvgVPGPfODRa2oVKrnEgct_SMV3lJNESzzQlLN6x8s6-kwCH5Bvpx655x-77EsZgrF4TjaiGlfjOy5Yr1g_dvOrpPAFMjqFCeny6mUjIOZc5hsPhgK5oja7Mw_1OaI2gA3FXUNbk7BjDO61xTW8WI3T4Zboet0qHpJchuqZNVcRTulDO10Z34tU637dqrDCvApYDbFBYwOfcjoFuNTeOtFfwC5SqUQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>744702807</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Finding common ground between ecological economics and post-Keynesian economics</title><source>RePEc</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Kronenberg, Tobias</creator><creatorcontrib>Kronenberg, Tobias</creatorcontrib><description>Post-Keynesian economics and ecological economics have in common that they are considered to be ‘heterodox’ schools of thought. Aside from that, there has not been a strong connection between them. Previous books on post-Keynesian economics contain no chapter on environmental or ecological issues. This neglect has led leading ecological economists to criticize post-Keynesians for succumbing to the same growth paradigm as the neoclassical school.
This paper argues that the two approaches are complementary in the sense that they each have different strong points. Ecological economics has correctly pointed out that the growth of the global economy may not be welfare-improving anymore, whereas post-Keynesians have gained valuable insights into the functioning of the capitalist growth process.
To determine the feasibility of a synthesis between the two schools, the paper compares their approaches to the problems of production, consumption, and economic dynamics as well as the associated policy recommendations. It shows that on a theoretical level the two schools have much in common, but their policy conclusions differ with regard to the desirability of further growth. The paper concludes that a synthesis of both approaches may lead to a better understanding of how a capitalist economy operates in a natural environment with limits to growth and to better-informed policy advice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0921-8009</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6106</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.002</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Consumer theory ; Consumption theory ; Ecological economics ; Ecological economics Post-Keynesian economics Heterodox economics Production theory Consumer theory ; Environmental economics ; Heterodox economics ; Post-Keynesian economics ; Post-Keynesianism ; Production theory</subject><ispartof>Ecological economics, 2010-05, Vol.69 (7), p.1488-1494</ispartof><rights>2010 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-2deac9e4dda03123d2dfae981788537ef97db16da191e0a2d67193921a251ff63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-2deac9e4dda03123d2dfae981788537ef97db16da191e0a2d67193921a251ff63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.002$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,3994,27905,27906,45976</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeecolec/v_3a69_3ay_3a2010_3ai_3a7_3ap_3a1488-1494.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kronenberg, Tobias</creatorcontrib><title>Finding common ground between ecological economics and post-Keynesian economics</title><title>Ecological economics</title><description>Post-Keynesian economics and ecological economics have in common that they are considered to be ‘heterodox’ schools of thought. Aside from that, there has not been a strong connection between them. Previous books on post-Keynesian economics contain no chapter on environmental or ecological issues. This neglect has led leading ecological economists to criticize post-Keynesians for succumbing to the same growth paradigm as the neoclassical school.
This paper argues that the two approaches are complementary in the sense that they each have different strong points. Ecological economics has correctly pointed out that the growth of the global economy may not be welfare-improving anymore, whereas post-Keynesians have gained valuable insights into the functioning of the capitalist growth process.
To determine the feasibility of a synthesis between the two schools, the paper compares their approaches to the problems of production, consumption, and economic dynamics as well as the associated policy recommendations. It shows that on a theoretical level the two schools have much in common, but their policy conclusions differ with regard to the desirability of further growth. The paper concludes that a synthesis of both approaches may lead to a better understanding of how a capitalist economy operates in a natural environment with limits to growth and to better-informed policy advice.</description><subject>Consumer theory</subject><subject>Consumption theory</subject><subject>Ecological economics</subject><subject>Ecological economics Post-Keynesian economics Heterodox economics Production theory Consumer theory</subject><subject>Environmental economics</subject><subject>Heterodox economics</subject><subject>Post-Keynesian economics</subject><subject>Post-Keynesianism</subject><subject>Production theory</subject><issn>0921-8009</issn><issn>1873-6106</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM1u3CAUhVGVSp2kfYXKu648vYDNz65VlKRVRsomWSMC11NGNrjgSTRvXybTpssgHUBwzhF8hHymsKZAxdfdGl0aq-KaQT0EvgZg78iKKslbQUGckRVoRlsFoD-Q81J2ACCE5itydx2iD3HbuDRNKTbbnPbRN4-4PCPG5tictsHZ8biNaQquNLYa5lSW9hYPEUuw8f_lR_J-sGPBT3_XC_JwfXV_-aPd3N38vPy-aV0vu6VlHq3T2HlvgVPGPfODRa2oVKrnEgct_SMV3lJNESzzQlLN6x8s6-kwCH5Bvpx655x-77EsZgrF4TjaiGlfjOy5Yr1g_dvOrpPAFMjqFCeny6mUjIOZc5hsPhgK5oja7Mw_1OaI2gA3FXUNbk7BjDO61xTW8WI3T4Zboet0qHpJchuqZNVcRTulDO10Z34tU637dqrDCvApYDbFBYwOfcjoFuNTeOtFfwC5SqUQ</recordid><startdate>20100501</startdate><enddate>20100501</enddate><creator>Kronenberg, Tobias</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100501</creationdate><title>Finding common ground between ecological economics and post-Keynesian economics</title><author>Kronenberg, Tobias</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c574t-2deac9e4dda03123d2dfae981788537ef97db16da191e0a2d67193921a251ff63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Consumer theory</topic><topic>Consumption theory</topic><topic>Ecological economics</topic><topic>Ecological economics Post-Keynesian economics Heterodox economics Production theory Consumer theory</topic><topic>Environmental economics</topic><topic>Heterodox economics</topic><topic>Post-Keynesian economics</topic><topic>Post-Keynesianism</topic><topic>Production theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kronenberg, Tobias</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Ecological economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kronenberg, Tobias</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Finding common ground between ecological economics and post-Keynesian economics</atitle><jtitle>Ecological economics</jtitle><date>2010-05-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1488</spage><epage>1494</epage><pages>1488-1494</pages><issn>0921-8009</issn><eissn>1873-6106</eissn><abstract>Post-Keynesian economics and ecological economics have in common that they are considered to be ‘heterodox’ schools of thought. Aside from that, there has not been a strong connection between them. Previous books on post-Keynesian economics contain no chapter on environmental or ecological issues. This neglect has led leading ecological economists to criticize post-Keynesians for succumbing to the same growth paradigm as the neoclassical school.
This paper argues that the two approaches are complementary in the sense that they each have different strong points. Ecological economics has correctly pointed out that the growth of the global economy may not be welfare-improving anymore, whereas post-Keynesians have gained valuable insights into the functioning of the capitalist growth process.
To determine the feasibility of a synthesis between the two schools, the paper compares their approaches to the problems of production, consumption, and economic dynamics as well as the associated policy recommendations. It shows that on a theoretical level the two schools have much in common, but their policy conclusions differ with regard to the desirability of further growth. The paper concludes that a synthesis of both approaches may lead to a better understanding of how a capitalist economy operates in a natural environment with limits to growth and to better-informed policy advice.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.002</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0921-8009 |
ispartof | Ecological economics, 2010-05, Vol.69 (7), p.1488-1494 |
issn | 0921-8009 1873-6106 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_753825625 |
source | RePEc; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Consumer theory Consumption theory Ecological economics Ecological economics Post-Keynesian economics Heterodox economics Production theory Consumer theory Environmental economics Heterodox economics Post-Keynesian economics Post-Keynesianism Production theory |
title | Finding common ground between ecological economics and post-Keynesian economics |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T11%3A08%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Finding%20common%20ground%20between%20ecological%20economics%20and%20post-Keynesian%20economics&rft.jtitle=Ecological%20economics&rft.au=Kronenberg,%20Tobias&rft.date=2010-05-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1488&rft.epage=1494&rft.pages=1488-1494&rft.issn=0921-8009&rft.eissn=1873-6106&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E744702807%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=744702807&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0921800910000972&rfr_iscdi=true |