[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-01702401.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The role of natural resources in production: Georgescu-Roegen/ Daly versus Solow/ Stiglitz

Author

Listed:
  • Quentin Couix

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract
This paper proposes a historical and epistemological account of one of the key controversy between natural resources economics and ecological economics, lasting from early 1970s to the end of 1990s. It shows that the theoretical disagreement on the scope of the economy's dependence to natural resources, such as energy and minerals, has deep methodological roots. On one hand, Solow's and Stiglitz's works are built on a "model-based methodology", where the model precedes and supports the conceptual foundations of the theory and in particular the assumption of "unbounded resources productivity". On the other hand, Georgescu-Roegen's counter-assumption of "thermodynamic limits to production", later revived by Daly, rest on a methodology of "interdisciplinary consistency" which considers thermodynamics as a relevant scientific referent for economic theory. While antagonistic, these two methodologies face similar issues regarding the conceptual foundations that arise from them, which is a source of confusion and of the difficult dialogue between paradigms.

Suggested Citation

  • Quentin Couix, 2018. "The role of natural resources in production: Georgescu-Roegen/ Daly versus Solow/ Stiglitz," Post-Print halshs-01702401, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01702401
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01702401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01702401/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    2. Mayumi, Kozo & Giampietro, Mario & Gowdy, John M., 1998. "Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz Revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 115-117, November.
    3. Levallois, Clément, 2010. "Can de-growth be considered a policy option? A historical note on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and the Club of Rome," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2271-2278, September.
    4. Ayres, Robert U., 2007. "On the practical limits to substitution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 115-128, February.
    5. Castle, Emery N., 1997. "A comment on Georgesu-Roegen, Daly, Solow and Stiglitz," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 305-306, September.
    6. Daly, Herman E., 1990. "Toward some operational principles of sustainable development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-6, April.
    7. Hartwick, John M, 1977. "Intergenerational Equity and the Investing of Rents from Exhaustible Resources," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(5), pages 972-974, December.
    8. Roxana Bobulescu, 2012. "The making of a Schumpeterian economist: Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 625-651, August.
    9. Kozo Mayumi & John M. Gowdy (ed.), 1999. "Bioeconomics and Sustainability," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1347.
    10. Daly, Herman E., 1997. "Reply to Solow/Stiglitz," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 271-273, September.
    11. Cleveland, Cutler J. & Ruth, Matthias, 1997. "When, where, and by how much do biophysical limits constrain the economic process?: A survey of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's contribution to ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 203-223, September.
    12. Common, Mick, 1997. "Is Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz the important point?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 277-279, September.
    13. Solow, Robert M., 1997. "Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow-Stiglitz," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 267-268, September.
    14. Mauro Boianovsky & Kevin D. Hoover, 2009. "The Neoclassical Growth Model and Twentieth-Century Economics," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 41(5), pages 1-23, Supplemen.
    15. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, 1970. "The Economics of Production," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 60(2), pages 1-9, May.
    16. Partha Dasgupta & Geoffrey Heal, 1974. "The Optimal Depletion of Exhaustible Resources," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 41(5), pages 3-28.
    17. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, 1988. "Closing Remarks: About Economic Growth--A Variation on a Theme by David Hilbert," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(3), pages 291-307, Supplemen.
    18. Clark, Colin W., 1997. "Renewable resources and economic growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 275-276, September.
    19. Clément Levallois, 2010. "Can de-growth be considered a policy option? : A historical note on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and the Club of Rome," Post-Print hal-02313162, HAL.
    20. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, 1986. "The Entropy Law and the Economic Process in Retrospect," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 3-25, Jan-Mar.
    21. Guido Erreygers, 2009. "Hotelling, Rawls, Solow: How Exhaustible Resources Came to Be Integrated into the Neoclassical Growth Model," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 41(5), pages 263-281, Supplemen.
    22. Jesus Felipe & John S.L. McCombie, 2013. "The Aggregate Production Function and the Measurement of Technical Change," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1975.
    23. Ayres, Robert U., 1999. "The second law, the fourth law, recycling and limits to growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 473-483, June.
    24. Bobulescu, Roxana, 2015. "From Lotka's biophysics to Georgescu-Roegen's bioeconomics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 194-202.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Quentin Couix, 2018. "From Methodology to Practice (and Back): Georgescu-Roegen's Philosophy of Economics and the Flow-Fund Model," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 18021, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Quentin Couix, 2019. "Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 1341-1378, November.
    2. Toman, Michael & Pezzey, John C., 2002. "The Economics of Sustainability: A Review of Journal Articles," RFF Working Paper Series dp-02-03, Resources for the Future.
    3. François Allisson & Antoine Missemer, 2020. "Some Historiographical Tools for the Study of Intellectual Legacies," Post-Print halshs-02931492, HAL.
    4. V.Martinet & L. Doyen, 2003. "Sustainable management of an exhaustible resource:a viable control model," THEMA Working Papers 2003-36, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    5. Daniele Schilirò, 2019. "Sustainability, Innovation, and Efficiency: A Key Relationship," Palgrave Studies in Impact Finance, in: Magdalena Ziolo & Bruno S. Sergi (ed.), Financing Sustainable Development, chapter 0, pages 83-102, Palgrave Macmillan.
    6. Mircea Sˇveanu, 2014. "Energy and the Economics of Sustainability. The Entropy Paradox," Management of Sustainable Development, Sciendo, vol. 6(1), pages 1-5, August.
    7. Mircea Saveanu, 2014. "Sustainability as a Resource Distribution Constraint," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 10(2), pages 139-151, April.
    8. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    9. Adrian Boos, 2015. "Genuine Savings as an Indicator for “Weak” Sustainability: Critical Survey and Possible Ways forward in Practical Measuring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-37, April.
    10. Andrei V. Bazhanov, 2009. "A constant-utility criterion linked to an imperfect economy affected by irreversible global warming," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2009_03, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    11. van Geldrop, Jan & Withagen, Cees, 2000. "Natural capital and sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 445-455, March.
    12. Y. Hossein Farzin, 2010. "Sustainability, Optimality, and Development Policy," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 262-281, May.
    13. Mubashir Qasim, 2018. "Some Links between Sustainability and Well-Being," Working Papers in Economics 18/13, University of Waikato.
    14. Bazhanov, Andrei, 2008. "Maximin-optimal sustainable growth in a resource-based imperfect economy," MPRA Paper 16245, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Jul 2009.
    15. Anca Elena Gheorghica, 2012. "The Emergence Of La Decroissance," CES Working Papers, Centre for European Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, vol. 4(1), pages 60-75, March.
    16. Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh, 1999. "Materials, Capital, Direct/Indirect Substitution, and Mass Balance Production Functions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(4), pages 547-561.
    17. Florian Fizaine, 2021. "La croissance verte est-elle durable et compatible avec l’économie circulaire ? Une approche par l’identité IPAT," Post-Print hal-03884377, HAL.
    18. Koji Tokimatsu & Louis Dupuy & Nick Hanley, 2019. "Using Genuine Savings for Climate Policy Evaluation with an Integrated Assessment Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 281-307, January.
    19. Eugenio Figueroa B. & Enrique Calfucura T., 2002. "Depreciación del Capital Natural, Ingreso y Crecimiento Sostenible: Lecciones de la Experiencia Chilena," Working Papers Central Bank of Chile 138, Central Bank of Chile.
    20. Couix, Quentin, 2020. "Georgescu-Roegen's Flow-Fund Theory of Production in Retrospect," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    natural resources; thermodynamics; growth; sustainability; model; theory; methodology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B22 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought since 1925 - - - Macroeconomics
    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • Q32 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Exhaustible Resources and Economic Development
    • Q43 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy and the Macroeconomy
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01702401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.