The Neoclassical and Ecological Economic Approaches to Sustainable Development.
The term sustainable development is very much in vogue and is often inanely (even superficially) used by many individuals or societies trying to gain favour. However, its popularity is not without reason; ethical considerations and to a lesser extent, fear has cast it in the spotlight.
Within an economics context, the neoclassical and ecological schools have explored the topic vigorously, and based on their individual beliefs, recommend different policy ideals to ensure that sustainable development is indeed realised. Though both schools hotly contest each other, both agree that sustainable development is an indispensable goal if we intend to improve intragenerational and intergenerational equity and efficiency.
A workable definition of sustainable development is provided by Asheim, “Sustainable development is a requirement to our generation to manage the resource base such that the average quality of life we ensure ourselves can potentially be shared by all future generations” (1991: ch14).
This definition does not make explicit reference to a particular type of resource base (man-made or natural); thus it appears equally applicable to both schools of thought and succinctly captures the objective of sustainable development. The manner in which this objective is pursued is what distinguishes the Ecologists from the Neo-classicalists.
Before delving into the mechanics and ideologies of the respective schools, I must admit that I appreciate more, the arguments of the Ecological economists than those of Neo-classical descent. In my, albeit novice opinion, I find the Neo-classical theory fits to neatly to be realistic. In true Neo-classical style, most idiosyncrasies are assumed away. Furthermore, I have been taken by Daly’s exposé’s and the legitimacy of his propositions. Not only is his writing eloquent and humorous, but he makes valid points and identifies a variety of ‘logical glitches’ in the Neo-classical theory that are too serious to be ignored.
Within an economics context, the neoclassical and ecological schools have explored the topic vigorously, and based on their individual beliefs, recommend different policy ideals to ensure that sustainable development is indeed realised. Though both schools hotly contest each other, both agree that sustainable development is an indispensable goal if we intend to improve intragenerational and intergenerational equity and efficiency.
A workable definition of sustainable development is provided by Asheim, “Sustainable development is a requirement to our generation to manage the resource base such that the average quality of life we ensure ourselves can potentially be shared by all future generations” (1991: ch14).
This definition does not make explicit reference to a particular type of resource base (man-made or natural); thus it appears equally applicable to both schools of thought and succinctly captures the objective of sustainable development. The manner in which this objective is pursued is what distinguishes the Ecologists from the Neo-classicalists.
Before delving into the mechanics and ideologies of the respective schools, I must admit that I appreciate more, the arguments of the Ecological economists than those of Neo-classical descent. In my, albeit novice opinion, I find the Neo-classical theory fits to neatly to be realistic. In true Neo-classical style, most idiosyncrasies are assumed away. Furthermore, I have been taken by Daly’s exposé’s and the legitimacy of his propositions. Not only is his writing eloquent and humorous, but he makes valid points and identifies a variety of ‘logical glitches’ in the Neo-classical theory that are too serious to be ignored.