sustainability-logo

Journal Browser

Journal Browser

A Research Agenda for Ecological Economics

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (30 April 2019) | Viewed by 72468

Special Issue Editors

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, The University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
Interests: ecological economics; ecosystem services; system sustainability; monetary systems; policy; service learning; common assets; steady state economy; economic globalization; economic development; ecological restoration; ecosystem valuation; quality of life
McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Interests: ecological economics; complex systems; socioecological ideology; cognitive affective mapping; local economic development; environmental sociology; polanyian re-embedding; restrained joyful living

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

In response to our biophysical and social predicaments, Ecological Economics (EE) emerged during the 1970s and 1980s as a transdisciplinary paradigm grounding the study and application of economics within the biophysical realities of a complex, finite world and the moral obligations of a just society. Since then, the field of EE has come far, but numerous challenges remain. Most important, economic growth increasingly threatens global life support functions, while failing to meet the basic needs of much of the world’s population.

While EE is fundamentally a problem-driven transdiscipline that adopts whatever tools and theories are required to address critical ecological and social challenges, there is growing dissension within EE over methodological pluralism. Specifically, there is concern over the excessive reliance on conventional market models of the economy and the corresponding emphasis on the monetization and commodification of nature, and on the role of heterodox economic theories, generating internal disputes that undermine our ability to collaborate towards common goals. EE increasingly acknowledges the transformative role of monetary and financial systems, as well as other economic institutions, but there is little agreement over their specific impacts and how they must be transformed to achieve a sustainable and just society. Finally, EE has made little progress toward a coherent theory of change—how to transform our research into the necessary cultural transition. These challenges contribute to methodological incoherence and loss of the moral imperative that once existed in EE.

The goal of this Special Issue is to solicit recommendations for a research agenda from established experts in the field, and perhaps more importantly, from the coming generation of ecological economists who will tasked with its implementation. We now find ourselves at an interesting moment in time—original contributors to the discipline are retiring and new scholars are emerging with desires to contribute to the field in a meaningful way. For your submission, we ask that you:

  1. Consider and remember the roots of EE through Daly and Farley’s “call for a return to the beginnings of economics as a moral philosophy explicitly directed toward raising the quality of life of this and future generations”.
  2. Co-author papers with students, emerging scholars, and those with whom you have significant cross-over. If we receive abstracts with significant cross-over, we may ask the authors to write a collaborative paper.
  3. Clearly identify the debate, discourse, or research agendas that you deem important and valuable for the future of EE.
  4. Consider sketching the outlines of a doctoral thesis built on your proposed agenda, which would potentially increase your article’s usefulness to the next generation of ecological economists and hence its impact.

Please submit your abstract at: cansee.ca/futures

Prof. Dr. Josh Farley
Dr. Katie Kish
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Ecological economics
  • Research agendas
  • Ecosystem services
  • Economic sociology
  • Ecological economic policy
  • Socioecological systems
  • Emerging debates
  • Just Distribution of Wealth and Resources

Published Papers (9 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

23 pages, 1294 KiB  
Article
Livelihood, Market and State: What does A Political Economy Predicated on the ‘Individual-in-Group-in-PLACE’ Actually Look Like?
by Stephen Quilley and Katharine Zywert
Sustainability 2019, 11(15), 4082; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11154082 - 29 Jul 2019
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 5208
Abstract
Ecological economics has relied too much on priorities and institutional conventions defined by the high energy/throughput era of social democracy. Future research should focus on the political economy of a survival unit (Elias) based upon Livelihood as counterbalance to both State and Market. [...] Read more.
Ecological economics has relied too much on priorities and institutional conventions defined by the high energy/throughput era of social democracy. Future research should focus on the political economy of a survival unit (Elias) based upon Livelihood as counterbalance to both State and Market. Drawing on the work of Polanyi, Elias, Gellner and Ong, capitalist modernization is analyzed in terms of the emergence of a society of individuals and the replacement of the survival units of place-bound bound family and community by one in which the State acts in concert with the Market. The operation of welfare systems is shown to depend upon ongoing economic growth and a continual flow of fiscal resources. The politics of this survival unit depends upon high levels of mutual identification and an affective-cognitive ‘we imaginary’. Increasing diversity, a political rejection of nationalism as a basis for politics and limits to economic growth, are likely to present an existential threat to the State–Market survival unit. A reversal of globalization, reconsolidation of the nation-state, a reduction in the scope of national and global markets and the expansion of informal processes of manufacture and distribution may provide a plausible basis for a hybrid Livelihood–Market–State survival unit. The politics of such a reorientation would straddle the existing left–right divide in disruptive and unsettling ways. Examples are given of pre-figurative forms of reciprocation and association that may be indicative of future arrangements. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A Research Agenda for Ecological Economics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 289 KiB  
Article
From the Anthropocene to Mutual Thriving: An Agenda for Higher Education in the Ecozoic
by Ivan Vargas Roncancio, Leah Temper, Joshua Sterlin, Nina L. Smolyar, Shaun Sellers, Maya Moore, Rigo Melgar-Melgar, Jolyon Larson, Catherine Horner, Jon D. Erickson, Megan Egler, Peter G. Brown, Emille Boulot, Tina Beigi and Michael Babcock
Sustainability 2019, 11(12), 3312; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11123312 - 15 Jun 2019
Cited by 26 | Viewed by 7309
Abstract
Higher education in the global North, and exported elsewhere, is complicit in driving the planet’s socio-ecological crises by teaching how to most effectively marginalize and plunder Earth and human communities. As students and activists within the academic system, we take a firm stand [...] Read more.
Higher education in the global North, and exported elsewhere, is complicit in driving the planet’s socio-ecological crises by teaching how to most effectively marginalize and plunder Earth and human communities. As students and activists within the academic system, we take a firm stand to arrest this cycle, and to redirect education toward teaching how to create conditions for all life to thrive. In this paper, we articulate a research and education agenda for co-constructing knowledge and wisdom, and propose shifts in the ‘ologies from the current, destructive modes to intended regenerative counterparts. We offer to shift from an ontology of separation to that of interconnectedness; from an epistemology of domination to that of egalitarian relationship; and from an axiology of development to that of plural values for world- and meaning-making. Such paradigm shifts reflect the foundational aspirations of the consilient transdiscipline of ecological economics. We analyze several introductory university textbooks in economics, law, and natural sciences, to demonstrate how destructive ‘ologies are taught in North American universities, and how such teaching implicitly undermines critical inquiry and effective challenge. Our strategy for change is to provide a new theoretical framework for education: the regenerative ‘ologies of the Ecozoic’, based on biophysicality, embedded relationality, pluralism, and the sustainable well-being of all members in the community of life. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A Research Agenda for Ecological Economics)
30 pages, 649 KiB  
Article
The Case for Studying Non-Market Food Systems
by Sam Bliss
Sustainability 2019, 11(11), 3224; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11113224 - 11 Jun 2019
Cited by 16 | Viewed by 6800
Abstract
Markets dominate the world’s food systems. Today’s food systems fail to realize the normative foundations of ecological economics: justice, sustainability, efficiency, and value pluralism. Drawing on empirical and theoretical literature from diverse intellectual traditions, I argue that markets, as an institution for governing [...] Read more.
Markets dominate the world’s food systems. Today’s food systems fail to realize the normative foundations of ecological economics: justice, sustainability, efficiency, and value pluralism. Drawing on empirical and theoretical literature from diverse intellectual traditions, I argue that markets, as an institution for governing food systems, hinder the realization of these objectives. Markets allocate food toward money, not hunger. They encourage shifting costs on others, including nonhuman nature. They rarely signal unsustainability, and in many ways cause it. They do not resemble the efficient markets of economic theory. They organize food systems according to exchange value at the expense of all other social, cultural, spiritual, moral, and environmental values. I argue that food systems can approach the objectives of ecological economics roughly to the degree that they subordinate market mechanisms to social institutions that embody those values. But such “embedding” processes, whether through creating state policy or alternative markets, face steep barriers and can only partially remedy food markets’ inherent shortcomings. Thus, ecological economists should also study, promote, and theorize non-market food systems. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A Research Agenda for Ecological Economics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 275 KiB  
Article
Roots, Riots, and Radical Change—A Road Less Travelled for Ecological Economics
by Elke Pirgmaier and Julia K. Steinberger
Sustainability 2019, 11(7), 2001; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11072001 - 04 Apr 2019
Cited by 45 | Viewed by 20348
Abstract
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 [...] Read more.
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. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A Research Agenda for Ecological Economics)
29 pages, 332 KiB  
Article
Transcending the Learned Ignorance of Predatory Ontologies: A Research Agenda for an Ecofeminist-Informed Ecological Economics
by Sarah-Louise Ruder and Sophia Rose Sanniti
Sustainability 2019, 11(5), 1479; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11051479 - 11 Mar 2019
Cited by 24 | Viewed by 7814
Abstract
As a necessarily political act, the theorizing, debating and enacting of ecological economies offer pathways to radical socio-economic transformations that emphasize the ecological and prioritize justice. In response to a research agenda call for ecological economics, we propose and employ an ecofeminist frame [...] Read more.
As a necessarily political act, the theorizing, debating and enacting of ecological economies offer pathways to radical socio-economic transformations that emphasize the ecological and prioritize justice. In response to a research agenda call for ecological economics, we propose and employ an ecofeminist frame to demonstrate how the logics of extractivist capitalism, which justify gender biased and anti-ecological power structures inherent in the growth paradigm, also directly inform the theoretical basis of ecological economics and its subsequent post-growth proposals. We offer pathways to reconcile these epistemological limitations through a synthesis of ecofeminist ethics and distributive justice imperatives, proposing leading questions to further the field. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A Research Agenda for Ecological Economics)
20 pages, 334 KiB  
Article
Toward an Ecological Monetary Theory
by Joe Ament
Sustainability 2019, 11(3), 923; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11030923 - 12 Feb 2019
Cited by 14 | Viewed by 9756
Abstract
Money is the most ubiquitous institution on the planet and lays the foundation for human civilization. As such it should underlie economic theory. Due to the dualized nature of Western culture, however, mainstream economic theory assumes that money is simply a value relation [...] Read more.
Money is the most ubiquitous institution on the planet and lays the foundation for human civilization. As such it should underlie economic theory. Due to the dualized nature of Western culture, however, mainstream economic theory assumes that money is simply a value relation to make barter efficient. This theory is manifest in orthodox monetary theory and policy. Ecological economics understands the problems attendant to modern money but has heretofore not developed a theory of money of its own. In order to make its economic theory and policy prescriptions viable, this paper argues that ecological economics must develop a theory of money that is simultaneously rooted in an understanding of money’s socio-history, and an ontological reimagining of dualized Western culture. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A Research Agenda for Ecological Economics)

Review

Jump to: Research

17 pages, 891 KiB  
Review
A Research Agenda for the Future of Ecological Economics by Emerging Scholars
by Kaitlin Kish and Joshua Farley
Sustainability 2021, 13(3), 1557; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13031557 - 02 Feb 2021
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 3420
Abstract
As a discipline, ecological economics is at a turning point and there is a need to develop a new research agenda for ecological economics that will contribute to the creation and adoption of new economic institutions. There are still considerable environmental issues and [...] Read more.
As a discipline, ecological economics is at a turning point and there is a need to develop a new research agenda for ecological economics that will contribute to the creation and adoption of new economic institutions. There are still considerable environmental issues and a new generation of scholars ready to tackle them. In this paper and Special Issue, we highlight the voices of emerging scholars in ecological economics who put social justice squarely at the center of ecological economic research. The papers in this issue remain true to the central focus of economic downscaling while calling for greater emphasis on culture and society. We acknowledge that methodological and intellectual pluralism inherently entail tensions but strive to find shared normative foundations to collectively work toward socio-ecological transformations. In this editorial, we emphasize the need for further attention to social aspects of ecological economics and evolutionary approaches to further strengthen cooperation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A Research Agenda for Ecological Economics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 645 KiB  
Review
Paying Attention: Big Data and Social Advertising as Barriers to Ecological Change
by Kaitlin Kish
Sustainability 2020, 12(24), 10589; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su122410589 - 18 Dec 2020
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 5150
Abstract
Big data and online media conglomerates have significant power over the behavior of individuals. Online platforms have become the largest canvas for advertising, and the most profitable commodity is users’ attention. Large tech companies, such as Facebook and Alphabet, use historically effective psychological [...] Read more.
Big data and online media conglomerates have significant power over the behavior of individuals. Online platforms have become the largest canvas for advertising, and the most profitable commodity is users’ attention. Large tech companies, such as Facebook and Alphabet, use historically effective psychological advertisement tactics in tandem with enormous amounts of user data to effectively and efficiently meet the needs of their customers, who are not the end-users, but the corporations competing for advertising space on users’ screens. This commodification of attention is a serious threat to socio-ecological sustainability. In this paper, I argue that big data and social advertising platforms, such as Facebook, use commodified attention to take advantage of psycho-social neuroticisms and commodity fetishism in modern individuals to perpetuate conspicuous consumption. They also contribute to highly fragmented information ecologies that intentionally obscure scientific facts regarding ecological emergencies. The commitment to stakeholders and growth economics makes social advertising conglomerates a significant barrier to a socio-ecological future. I provide a series of solutions to this problem at the institutional, research, policy, and individual levels and areas for future sustainability research. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A Research Agenda for Ecological Economics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 639 KiB  
Review
Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition
by Michael B. Wironen, Robert V. Bartlett and Jon D. Erickson
Sustainability 2019, 11(4), 1023; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su11041023 - 16 Feb 2019
Cited by 20 | Viewed by 5537
Abstract
Ecological economics arose as a normative transdiscipline aiming to generate knowledge and tools to help transition the economy toward a scale which is sustainable within the bounds of the earth system. Yet it remains unclear in practice how to legitimize its explicitly normative [...] Read more.
Ecological economics arose as a normative transdiscipline aiming to generate knowledge and tools to help transition the economy toward a scale which is sustainable within the bounds of the earth system. Yet it remains unclear in practice how to legitimize its explicitly normative agenda. One potential means for legitimation can be found in deliberative social and political theory. We review how deliberative theory has informed ecological economics, pointing to three uses: first, to support valuation of non-market goods and services; second, to inform environmental decision-making more broadly; third, to ground alternative theories of development and wellbeing. We argue that deliberation has been used as problem-solving theory, but that its more radical implications have rarely been embraced. Embracing a deliberative foundation for ecological economics raises questions about the compatibility of deeply democratic practice and the normative discourses arguing for a sustainability transition. We highlight three potential mechanisms by which deliberation may contribute to a sustainability transition: preference formation; normative evaluation; and legitimation. We explore each in turn, demonstrating the theoretical possibility that deliberation may be conducive in and of itself to a sustainability transition. We point to a series of challenges facing the “scaling up” of deliberative systems that demand further empirical and theoretical work. These challenges constitute a research agenda for a deeply democratic sustainability transition and can inform the future development of ecological economics and other normative, critical transdisciplines. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue A Research Agenda for Ecological Economics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop