Value, Capital and Nature. Rethinking the foundations of ecological economics

Ecological economists aim to study the interrelations between ecological and economic systems, with a view to promoting changes towards sustainability. They agree that the nature of global environmental crises is systemic and rooted in economic dynamics. Yet, core economic categories, such as prices, profits, money and their interrelations with ecological destruction, are surprisingly undertheorized. The ‘economic’ becomes either tied to neoclassical economics or remains neglected. Marxian Political Economy has the potential to address this gap, but is mostly ignored in ecological economics, especially in what it is best at: explaining dynamics of the capitalist system as a whole. This PhD advocates a more systemic and theoretically grounded ecological economics. I find that neoclassical economic reasoning is rooted much deeper in ecological economics than often assumed. I present a critique of the neoclassical underpinnings of ecological economics, and a Marxian alternative. I identify the Marxian understanding of ‘value’ and ‘capital’ as the missing core of ecological economics: a realistic understanding of the capitalist system, spelled out from basics in simple and abstract terms. I explain these foundations and integrate them with a system dynamics understanding of global ecological destruction, social crises and barriers to social change. I conclude that ecological economics needs to be grounded in a realistic understanding of capitalism – if it aspires to meet its own ambitions. Economic theory and methodology are powerful political tools towards this end: they expose or conceal root causes of social ecological problems and offer better or worse guidance on how to act. Pragmatism about the role of theory and methodology is dangerous, more often than not, because it promotes the reproduction of power relations that prevent, instead of encourage, sustainability transitions. I argue for the need to break with existing prejudices against the Marxian approach and take it seriously as realistic economic theory

Roots, Riots, and Radical Change—A Road Less Travelled for Ecological Economics

In this paper, we put forward a new research agenda for ecological economics, based on three realisations. We then show how these can be connected through research and used to generate insights with the potential for application in broader, systemic change. The first realisation is that the core ambition of ecological economics, that of addressing the scale of human environmental resource use and associated impacts, often remains an aspirational goal, rather than being applied within research. In understanding intertwined environmental and social challenges, systemic approaches (including system dynamics) should be revitalised to address the full scope of what is possible or desirable. The second realisation is that the focus on biophysical and economic quantification and methods has been at the expense of a comprehensive social understanding of environmental impacts and barriers to change—including the role of power, social class, geographical location, historical change, and achieving human well-being. For instance, by fetishising growth as the core problem, attention is diverted away from underlying social drivers—monetary gains as profits, rent, or interest fuelled by capitalist competition and, ultimately, unequal power relations. The third realisation is that ecological economics situates itself with respect to mainstream (neoclassical) economics, but simultaneously adopts some of its mandate and blind spots, even in its more progressive camps. Pragmatic attempts to adopt mainstream concepts and tools often comfort, rather than challenge, the reproduction of the very power relations that stand in the way of sustainability transitions. We consider these three realisations as impediments for developing ecological economics as an emancipatory critical research paradigm and political project. We will not focus on or detail the failings of ecological economics, but state what we believe they are and reformulate them as research priorities. By describing and bringing these three elements together, we are able to outline an ambitious research agenda for ecological economics, one capable of catalysing real social change

A corridors and power-oriented perspective on energy-service demand and needs satisfaction

In this article, we explore the concept of consumption corridors as it might apply to energy use, with specific attention to both wellbeing and power relations. We employ the distinction between energy provisioning and human-need satisfaction to explore different configurations of energy use, as well as their possible dynamics. Specifically, we draw on past research documenting the benefits of decoupling our thinking about energy services and needs satisfaction and use it as a basis to identify scenarios characterized by different degrees of access to energy services and levels of resource demand. We then translate this perspective to the logic of sustainable consumption corridors. We delineate how minimum and maximum consumption standards would relate to combinations of energy-service demand and needs-satisfier access. Finally, we explore how power dynamics, specifically exercises of discursive power, might move societal trajectories toward sustainable combinations of energy provisioning and needs satisfaction or away from them

Die absolute Entkoppelung ist möglich

Die EU strebt in ihrer Strategie „Europa 2020“ eine absolute Entkopplung der Wirtschaftsleistungen vom Verbrauch natürlicher Ressourcen an. Doch ist Wirtschaftswachstum mit einer gleichzeitigen Reduktion der Ressourcennutzung möglich

Commons-based peer production for degrowth? - The case for eco-sufficiency in economic organisations

Degrowth advocates radical reduction in society's matter-energy throughput. Organisations have received little attention in this discourse. In the context of sustainability much emphasis has been put on the concept of eco-efficiency, disregarding the rebound effect. In contrast, eco-sufficiency emphasises producing and consuming enough. This article operationalises eco-sufficiency as an indicator for degrowth and focuses on how eco-sufficiency orientations manifest in a commons-based peer production organisation. The studied case of WindEmpowerment shows only marginal manifestations of eco-sufficiency in its orientation. Commons-based peer organisations must actively aim to reduce matter-energy throughput by adopting an eco-sufficiency orientation to fit degrowth

Scientists’ warning on affluence

For over half a century, worldwide growth in affluence has continuously increased resource use and pollutant emissions far more rapidly than these have been reduced through better technology. The affluent citizens of the world are responsible for most environmental impacts and are central to any future prospect of retreating to safer environmental conditions. We summarise the evidence and present possible solution approaches. Any transition towards sustainability can only be effective if far-reaching lifestyle changes complement technological advancements. However, existing societies, economies and cultures incite consumption expansion and the structural imperative for growth in competitive market economies inhibits necessary societal change

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