Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Steady State Economics.


                                                           Comments due by April 23, 2019

(The following are the major arguments against economic growth as presented by Herman Daly, arguably one of the most influential Ecological Economics and the popularizer of Steady State Economics)

Pascal's Wager Revisited
The growthmania position rests on the hypothesis that technological change can become entirely problem solving and not at all problem creating and can continually perform successively more impressive encores as resources are depleted. There is sufficient evidence to make reasonable people quite doubtful about this hypothesis. Yet it cannot be definitely disproved. There is a certain amount of faith involved, and faith is risky. Let us then take a completely agnostic position and apply the logic of Pascal's wager and statistical decision theory. We can err in two ways: we can accept the omnipotent technology hypothesis and then discover that it is false, or we can reject it and later discover that it is true. Which error do we most wish to avoid? If we accept the false hypothesis, the result will be catastrophic. If we reject the true hypothesis, we will forgo marginal satisfactions and will have to learn to share, which, though difficult, might well be good for us. If we later discover that the hypothesis is true we could always resume growth. Thus even in the agnostic case, it would seem prudent to reject the omnipotent technology hypothesis, along with its corollary that reproducible capital is a near-perfect substitute for resources.
The Fallacy of Exponentially Increasing Natural Resource Productivity
The orthodox position argues that exponential technological progress, as measured in two-factor production functions is usually accompanied by exponential increases in resource throughput (depletion and pollution). It is of little comfort to contemplate increasing productivity of labor and capital if it is at the continuing expense of resource productivity and if resources are the ultimately scarce factor. Robert Solow has defended growth by directly appealing to increasing resource productivity. Solow concludes that "there is really no reason why we should not think of the productivity of natural resources as increasing more or less exponentially over time" (1973, p. 51). This remarkable conclusion, if true, would be a boon to those who advocate limiting the throughput of resources, because it would mean that such a limit is totally consistent with continued exponential growth in GNP and is therefore not such a radical proposal. The resource flow could be stabilized and GNP could continue to grow exponentially as a resource productivity (i.e., GNP/resource flow) increased exponentially. Why, then, does limiting the resource flow provoke such strong opposition from growth economists?

In his Richard T. Ely Lecture to the American Economic Association, Solow went as far as to proclaim not only the conditional possibility, but the empirical likelihood that "the world can, in effect, get along without natural resources" (1974, p. 11). Solow elaborates that this is so if we have a "backstop technology," such as breeder reactors, which will mean that "at some finite cost, production can be freed of dependence on exhaustible resources altogether" (1974, p. 11). Apparently, the world cannot get along without all natural resources as he first suggested, but only without exhaustible ones. Just how to build and maintain a backstop technology of breeder reactors (the only example offered) without exhaustible resources such as copper, zirconium, tungsten, and iron, not to mention initial stocks of enriched uranium or permanent depositories for radioactive wastes, is not explained by Solow.
The Ever Expanding Service Sector and "Angelized GNP"
Advocates of growth frequently appeal to the increasing importance of services, which, it is assumed, can continue to grow indefinitely, since such activities are presumable nonpolluting and nondepleting. Thus while agriculture and industry will be limited by their necessary pollution and depletion flows, services are allegedly not so limited and will continue to grow. Therefore, an ever larger fraction of total GNP will originate in the service sector, and consequently the pollution and depletion flows per average dollar of GNP will fall continuously. Presumably, we will approach a nonphysical "angelized GNP."

The flaw in this view is that there are limits to how high the proportion of services to goods can rise in the product mix without provoking a shift in the terms of trade in favor of goods and against services to such an extent that goods production would again expand and service production contract. Historically, employment in the service sector has grown relative to total employment, because productivity and total output of industry and agriculture have increased vastly. Once total output of physical goods is restricted, service sector growth will be increasingly restrained by a progressive deterioration in its terms of trade vis-a-vis physical goods.
Misleading Views on Misallocation and Growth
Many growth economists (Beckerman, 1974, p. 20) have argued that in order to prove that the growth rate is excessive it is necessary to show that the resource misallocation at any point of time takes the form of excessive investment. This reflects a commonly held position among economists that the market will automatically limit growth at some optimal rate. But we must first ask just what "misallocation," or more specifically "excess investment," means in the context of the statement. It means that more is being invested and less consumed out of current production than would be the case under freely competitive markets and consumer sovereignty. Misallocation is defined with respect to the competitive market equilibrium of the plans of savers with the plans of investors, not with respect to physical relations of the economy with the ecosystem. Excessive "disinvestment" of geological capital (depletion), excessive pollution and destruction of ecosystems, and excessively onerous technologies are all consistent with the condition that savers in the aggregate are planning to see just what investors in the aggregate are planning to invest. The market seeks its behavioral equilibrium without regard for any ecological limits that are necessary to preserve bio1 physical equilibrium. There is no reason to expect that a short-run behavioral equilibrium will coincide with a long-run (or even a short-run) biophysical equilibrium. In fact, it is clear that under present institutions the two will not coincide. The behavioral equilibrium between planned saving and planned investment nearly always occurs at positive levels of net saving and investment. Positive net investment means growth, which means an increasing throughput and increasing biophysical disequilibrium.
Orthodox growth economists are likely to reply that if only we could internalize all true ecological costs into money prices, then market equilibrium would coincide with ecological equilibrium. This is a bit like Archimedes saying that if only he had a fulcrum and a long enough lever he could move the world.
What Second Law?
In an article defending growth, Harvard economist Richard Zeckhauser tells us that "Recycling is not the solution for oil, because the alternate technology of nuclear power generation is cheaper" (1973, p. 117, n. 11). The clear meaning of the sentence is that recycling oil as an energy source is possible but just happens to be uneconomical, because nuclear energy is cheaper. The real reason that energy from oil, or any other source, is not recycled is of course the entropy law, not the relative price of nuclear power. This nonsensical statement is not just a minor slip-up that we can correct and forget; it indicates a fundamental lack of appreciation of the physical facts of life. No wonder Zeckhauser is unconvinced by limits to growth arguments; if he is unaware of the entropy law he could not possibly feel the weight of the arguments against which he is reacting in his article.
An article entitled "The Environment in Economics: A Survey" Begins with the words: "Man has probably always worried about his environment because he was once totally dependent on it" (Fisher and Peterson, 1976, p. 1). The implication is that man is no longer totally dependent on his environment, or at least that he has become less dependent. Presumably, technology has made man increasingly independent of his environment. But, in fact, technology has merely substituted nonrenewable resources for renewables, which is more an increase than a decrease in dependence. How could man possibly become more independent of his environment without shutting off exchanges with the environment or reducing depletion and pollution, rather than increasing them? For man to exist as a closed system, engaging in no exchanges with the environment, would require suspension of the second law. Man is an open system. What was man three months ago is now environment; what was environment yesterday is man today. Man and environment are so totally interdependent it is hard to say where one begins and the other ends. This total interdependence has not diminished and will not in the future, regardless of technology.
Zero Growth and the Great Depression
 A condition of nongrowth can come about in two ways: as the failure of a growth economy, or as the success of a steady-state economy. The two cases are as different as night and day. No one denies that the failure of a growth economy to grow brings unemployment and suffering. It is precisely to avoid the suffering of a failed growth economy (we know growth cannot continue) that we advocate a SSE. The fact that an airplane falls to the ground if it tries to remain stationary in the air simply reflects the fact that airplanes are designed for forward motion. It certainly does not imply that a helicopter cannot remain stationary.
Conclusions from the Growth Debate
To a large degree, the growth debate involves a paradigm shift of a gestalt switch--a change in the preanalytic vision we bring to the problem. Conversion cannot be logically forced by airtight analytical demonstrations by either side, although dialectical arguments can sharpen the basic issues. But as the growing weight of anomaly complicates thinking within the growth paradigm to an intolerable degree, the steady state view will become more and more appealing in its basic simplicity. In any case, orthodox economics will not easily recover from the weaknesses that some of its leading practitioners have revealed in their efforts at self-defense. It is, to say the least, doubtful that "the world can, in effect get along without natural resources." But it is certain that the world could do very well indeed without "the orthodox economists whose common sense has been insufficient to check their faulty logic."


10 comments:

  1. This piece makes me think a lot about ecological economics. It disputes a lot of the ideas of growth economists and discusses whether economic growth should be ceased altogether. I personally am against the growth economists, and would have to align more with the idea of decreased economic growth, if not stopping it all together. In other words, instead of focusing on how humans can continue to grow economically in greener ways, we should focus on why humans should STOP economically pushing altogether. Why try to handle a problem when you can simply make it go away altogether? Instead of looking at the market from a human-centered aspect, we should look at through an ecocentric lens. This article brought me to the realization that maybe we are talking about the wrong things. I could be biased since I have very little background knowledge in economics, but a lot in environmental studies, but this piece makes me wonder if I would be better off advocating for the rights of nature than how to internalize externalities and what project will have the highest cost benefit ratio. Why undergo a project at all if there are high environmental costs of any kind? We are on the edge of decay! I know economic growth is important, but a living in a healthy planet is essential to life. There were all kinds of forms of life in existence before the concept of money was created. In other worlds, people can survive without a growing economy; we cannot survive without a healthy environment. The article brought up a series of interesting points that really resonated with me. First, the environment and man are interdependent. Since the the world is an open system, humans will always depend on the environment. So the idea that technology could make humans independent of the environment and natural resources is ridiculous. Also, a growth economy could create a depression or worse, especially in our environmental conditions. The governments of the world should establish a sustainable economy that is static and un growing. Now is not the time for economic growth it is the time for ecological stability and sustainability. After all, nature has the right to exist just as much as we have the right to live off of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As an emerging discipline, the theoretical system of ecological economics is still somehow imperfect and its discipline status is very low. It is still far away from the mainstream of economics. Ecological economics show the relationship between economic balance and ecological balance, in my opinion its important to use as a scale in economic development. We live in this earth, we have to consider the health of the planet while developing the economic. According to economist Robert Costanz(1978), ecological economics is a discipline that discusses the relationship between ecological system and economic system in a broader scope. It mainly emphasizes the relationship between people's social and economic activities and the changes of resources and environment brought by them, and the mutual infiltration and combination of economics and ecology. Ecological economics is not just a short-term economic benefits, but also emphasize the long-term ecological benefits and the inter generational equity allocation of resources and the natural environment, the research of ecological protection, resource saving, pollution treatment and so on all is a long-term strategic problem, finally focuses on the goal of sustainable development of the entire human society.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What this piece brought to light for me was the fundamental lack of understanding that apparently many orthodox economists have with regards to an environmental view of economics. The fact that some believe that humans can continue to exist well without resources, renewable or not, is astounding and disappointing. With regards to Pascal's Wager, I understood where it came from somewhat. While technological innovation is generally a good thing in society, I can understand where it would scare some people reliant on manual labor or some other type of labor for their income. For example, in the manufacturing sector many jobs have been replaced by machinery that used to require physical human labor to complete, as a result of the technological innovation that made such things possible, many factory employees lost their jobs and their incomes along with it. But even given this, the fact is that technology provides the luxury of optimized efficiency, which in a capitalist economy will always be sought after no matter what. Profits will always come before people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The divide and separation of beliefs between growth economists and ecological economists is vast and there seems to be no thought whatsoever put into the ecological damage of growth. Certain economists in this article seem to completely miss the point of the efforts of ecological economists. I think one of the biggest issues they face is the fact that many of the possible solutions are not provable beyond a reasonable doubt that make people believe it is necessary to lessen their quality of life. It is a bit funny though because, at the end of the day, all of these economic scenarios we look at are just estimates and nothing can be said for certain. So, the response of a growth economist is to make hypothesis in order to disprove the likelihood that, at some point growth needs to stop. There is clearly the need to find a way to produce past our world’s limits and, in a perfect world, there could be a way but the fact is that certain resources are exhaustible, services cannot sustain themselves past the lifespan of these exhaustible natural resources and “cheaper” cannot be an explanation for an ecological endeavor especially if it has no benefit whatsoever. Why does a hypothesis that suggests that we can sustain our economy past its limits have the same impact as suggesting anti emission solutions and more? It’s actually clearly stated in the terms of Pascal’s Wager, if you think about it. The wager that if we don’t make a change there MIGHT be the possibility of total chaos and havoc but that if we change our way of life now, we could avoid this chaos. The possibility of healthy growth should always outweigh the possibility of the downfall but that is not always the case.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pascal believed in the growth of technology not being affected by the amount of resources and believed that we could become more independent from the earth's resources through technology. I believe that in order to protect our futures, a realistic pessimist approach is necessary. If we look at the two outcomes, we should always hope for the best and prepare for the worst. It is a foolish thought to expect the world to continue to provide for us so extensively when we have only depleted our resources and caused harm. Until it can be proven that technology is a acceptable replacement for resources, it is important for us to conserve and reduce our use of the resources we do have, for our future.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The overarching theme of the following passages is that technology just might be the solution to exhaustible resources eventually running out of supply. Although technology might seem to be a problem creator, advancements could potentially make technology a problem solver and keep the natural resources that are diminishing around or even replace them with more efficient technology. But if these questions are not asked, there will be no solutions to come from simply continuing the methods we still have started and normalized in this country and all over the world. For our future is important to consider all the options for improvement which maybe will have to be technology since it is limitless and there are always advancements and people creating new way to make systems more efficient. It is kind of scary that people in power believe at the cost of damaging the quality of life, more money is to be made which essentially is not bettering anything but the materialism in this world that plagues the entire human race. Our environment is being destroyed and if people don't start to find different ways to collaborate instead of ignore - solutions can be made.
    -Miranda Baldo

    ReplyDelete
  7. This article exposed the divide within scientists, where some believe the human race could continue to sustain life even if we had no more natural resources. To me that is just ridiculous and paints a picture of flying cars and everyone wearing metallic attire. The beauty of the Earth is the life that comes with it: plants, animals, weather, different climates, etc. We all need to work together regardless of our opinions to save what's left of our lovely planet. With ecological vs growth economics, I will always choose ecological. We need to stop focusing on how we can continue to grow and sustain a consumer lifestyle and transition to realizing that our planet is deteriorating due to our obsession of having things. Instead of finding the loophole to how we can still grow, we need to find the loophole that can reverse climate change. Since yesterday was Earth day I read a lot of interesting pieces, but the one thing that stood out to me the most was about sustainability in fashion. Someone wrote that instead of searching for new clothes that are "good for the environment" (which they still aren't) we need to just shop in our own closet and wear the things we already have. This directly relates to the issue of economic growth, as it's engraved in our society that we NEED the newest things. But as I said before, our focus needs to shift on what needs to be done rather than how can we replace our consumer habits.

    -Lilliana Fenner

    ReplyDelete

  8. It was shocking to read that some economists believe that we can survive without resources. Technology has a significant impact on economy. I think that the impact technology has on economy is positive because technology has a positive influence on the market economy. Majority of the population uses and invests their money into technology. Technology is also able to provide us with calculations and costs of which country is hurting our planet. It’s an incredible thing that technology can do. Thanks to technology we can see that we are consuming more than what we can produce. The con of technology is that it replaces human labor with machines. However, I view this as a pro because it gets a lot of things done faster and more efficiently. The amount of money we put into salaries for workers to get the labor done is the same that we can put into a machine, that will long term bring great results. I’m not saying that we should replace all jobs with machines because that would destroy our economy. There should be a balance with machinery rates, so that the unemployment rate doesn't go up too much. Technology is also renewable, such as solar, wind, tidal, etc. because they are all generated by the sun. It can supply a great amount of energy just like electricity. For example, I’ve read in an article that a lot of houses are getting solar panel roofs, which provide electricity through the sun. Although, there is no way to know what works best for sure. I don't think that the “the market can automatically limit growth at some optimal rate” because the market is unpredictable. The best method is to try out several hypotheses at a time and see which works best.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We as humans can not function without natural resources. We need water to keep ourselves hydrated and to nourish the plants that we consume in order to sustain ourselves. Without having natural resources we would slowly begin to deplete due to lack of nourishment and hunger which would be a result of a lack of resources. Economics is what helps our society function but it can also lead to a crisis that causes a decrease in monetary exchange which results in our economy to worsen. If there is a lack of monetary exchange then there is a lack ability to help sustain ourselves. This is an extreme case where consumerism is taken advantage of until there is no more money to circulate around. If we keep focusing on consumerism rather than preserving and figuring out ways of longevity for our natural resources then we as humans may not survive another century.

    ReplyDelete
  10. While steady state economy tries to find a balance between the population and production, I feel as though equally distributing natural resources cannot be done in reality. Some people just do not have the funds for it depending on what kind of living conditions they are in. This seems like a great way to achieve sustainability, but I don’t feel confident in it with the increasing demands the world brings. Some people just do not have enough capital. How do you expect these types of people to have economic growth when they are so far in a hole? I do believe that animals and human rely on the environment as well as the environment relies on us. We use the environment for food and shelter. The environment uses us to take care of it to keep providing food and shelter. I do agree that technological innovation can harm us by taking away people’s jobs. While it may be good for the environment, it hurts people’s financial situation. In my lifetime I have currently witness that with CVS’s. CVS has been having less live people cashiers and implementing machines to scan your own items and bag your own items. Now if I go into the CVS near my house, it would have one live person cashing out items and everyone would be lined up to the machines.

    ReplyDelete