Provisioning systems for a good life within planetary boundaries

The concept of provisioning systems has recently emerged as a promising way to understand the differences between levels of resource use and social outcomes observed across societies. However, the characteristics of provisioning systems remain poorly understood. Here, we make a new contribution to conceptualising provisioning systems and to understanding differences in the resource efficiency with which they achieve social outcomes. We define a provisioning system as a set of related elements that work together in the transformation of resources to satisfy a foreseen human need. We analyse six theories in terms of their contribution to understanding provisioning systems within the biophysical and social constraints of Raworth’s “Safe and Just Space” framework. We find that most of these theories fail to prioritise human needs and well-being, and do not incorporate explicit environmental limits. However, they provide important insights that we draw upon to identify six important provisioning system elements (households, markets, the commons, the state, techniques, and material stocks). Based on the theories, we also identify two important relationships between elements, namely feedbacks and power relations. We further propose the concept of “appropriating systems” as a component of provisioning systems. Appropriating systems reduce the resource efficiency of human well-being via rent extraction, and act as a barrier to meeting human needs at a sustainable level of resource use. We combine these concepts into a new framework, and discuss applications to energy systems

Who Do Heterodox Economists Think They Are?

This paper attempts to engage with the established debate on the nature of heterodox economics. However, it starts from the position that previous attempts to classify and identify heterodox economics have been biased towards a priori definition. The paper aims to inform the discussion of the nature of heterodoxy with some empirical analysis. The paper examines survey data collected from a small/medium-sized sample of AHE members on the core concepts in economics. The paper applies factor analysis to the data. It also applies principles of biological taxonomy, and thence cluster analysis to the problem. The paper finds that within the self-identified community of self-identified heterodox economists there is little agreement as to whether members are pluralist, or what their attitude is to the mainstream. Indeed, there is little agreement on any core concepts or principles. The paper argues that there is little structure to heterodox economics beyond that provided by pre-existing (or constituent) schools of thought. Based on this study, heterodox economics appears a complex web of interacting individuals and as a group is a fuzzy set. These results would lead us to question further strict distinctions between heterodox, mainstream and pluralist economists. © 2011 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc