Advertisement

The Aggregation Problem: Implications for Ecological and Biophysical Economics

  • Blair Fix
Commentary
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

This article discusses the aggregation problem and its implications for ecological economics. The aggregation problem consists of a simple dilemma: when adding heterogeneous phenomena together, the observer must choose the unit of analysis. The dilemma is that this choice affects the resulting measurement. This means that aggregate measurements are dependent on one’s goals, and on the underlying theory. Using simple examples, this article shows how the aggregation problem complicates tasks such as calculating indexes of aggregate quantity, and how it undermines attempts to find a singular metric for complex issues such as sustainability.

Keywords

Aggregation GDP Capital stock Natural capital Sustainability indexes 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

The author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abel AB (1983) Optimal investment under uncertainty. Am Econ Rev 73(1):228–233Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman F (2008) Critique of cost-benefit analysis, and alternative approaches to decision-making. Technical Report, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres R, Warr B (2005) Accounting for growth: the role of physical work. Struct Change Econ Dyn 16(2):181–209Google Scholar
  4. Ayres RU, Warr B (2010) The economic growth engine: how energy and work drive material prosperity. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaudreau BC (1998) Energy and organization: growth and distribution re-examined. Greenwood Publishing Group, WestwoodGoogle Scholar
  6. Blas J, Wallis W (2014) Nigeria almost doubles GDP in recalculation. Financial TimesGoogle Scholar
  7. BLS (2010) Frequently asked questions about hedonic quality adjustment in the CPI: U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt OR (1964) Optimal resource use over time with an application to ground water. Manag Sci 11(1):80–93Google Scholar
  9. Cleveland C, Costanza R, Hall C, Kaufmann R (1984) Energy and the US economy: a biophysical perspective. Science 225(4665):890–897Google Scholar
  10. Cohen AJ, Harcourt GC (2003) Retrospectives: whatever happened to the Cambridge capital theory controversies? J Econ Perspect 17(1):199–214Google Scholar
  11. Costanza R, Daly HE (1992) Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv Biol 6(1):37–46Google Scholar
  12. Daly H, Farley J (2011) Ecological economics: principles and applications. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Daly HE, Cobb JB (1994) For the common good: redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamond PA, Hausman JA (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? J Econ Perspect 8(4):45–64Google Scholar
  15. Dilke OAW, Dilke OAW (1987) Mathematics and measurement. University of California Press, BerkeleyzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Dixit AK (1990) Optimization in economic theory. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixon JA, Hamilton K (1996) Expanding the measure of wealth. Finan Dev 33(4):15Google Scholar
  18. Dodds S (1997) Towards a ‘science of sustainability’: improving the way ecological economics understands human well-being. Ecol Econ 23(2):95–111Google Scholar
  19. Dore MH (1996) The problem of valuation in neoclassical environmental economics. Environ Ethics 18(1):65–70Google Scholar
  20. Eberle WD, Hayden FG (1991) Critique of contingent valuation and travel cost methods for valuing natural resources and ecosystems. J Econ Issues 25(3):649–687Google Scholar
  21. Eckstein Z, Wolpin KI (1985) Endogenous fertility and optimal population size. J Pub Econ 27(1):93–106Google Scholar
  22. Edgeworth FY (1887) Measurement of Change in Value of Money I. First memorandum presented to the British Association for the Advancement of Science reprinted in his papers relating to political economy 1:198–259Google Scholar
  23. Felipe J, Fisher FM (2003) Aggregation in production functions: what applied economists should know. Metroeconomica 54(2–3):208–262zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Feynman RP (1974) Cargo cult science. Eng Sci 37(7):10–13Google Scholar
  25. Fix B (2015) Rethinking economic growth theory from a biophysical perspective. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Forrest A (2017) The death of diesel: has the one-time wonder fuel become the new asbestos? The GuardianGoogle Scholar
  27. Forster BA (1980) Optimal energy use in a polluted environment. J Environ Econ Manag 7(4):321–333.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(80)90025-X Google Scholar
  28. Georgescu-Roegen N (1971) The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Ghose T (2015) Volkswagen Scandal: why is it so hard to make clean diesel cars? Live Sci 24:2015Google Scholar
  30. Giampietro M, Allen TFH, Mayumi K (2006) The epistemological predicament associated with purposive quantitative analysis. Ecol Complexity 3(4):307–327Google Scholar
  31. Giampietro M, Mayumi K, Sorman A (2013) Energy analysis for a sustainable future: multi-scale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Goulder LH, Mathai K (2000) Optimal CO2 abatement in the presence of induced technological change. J Environ Econ Manag 39(1):1–38zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Hall C, Klitgaard K (2012) Energy and the wealth of nations: understanding the biophysical economy. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Hall C, Lindenberger D, Kummel R, Kroeger T, Eichhorn W (2001) The need to reintegrate the natural sciences with economics. Bioscience 51(8):663–673Google Scholar
  35. Hannon B, Joyce J (1981) Energy and technical progress. Energy 6(2):187–195Google Scholar
  36. Harcourt GC (2015) On the Cambridge, England, critique of the marginal productivity theory of distribution. Rev Radical Political Econ 47(2):243–255.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613414557915 Google Scholar
  37. Hodgson GM (2005) The fate of the Cambridge capital controversy. In: Arestis P, Gabriel Palma J, Sawyer MC (eds) Capital controversy, post Keynesian economics and the history of economic thought. Routledge, London, pp 112–125Google Scholar
  38. Jerven M (2012) Lies, damn lies and GDP. The GuardianGoogle Scholar
  39. Jerven M (2014) Economic growth and measurement reconsidered in Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia, 1965–1995. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Karras G (1996) The optimal government size: further international evidence on the productivity of government services. Econ Inquiry 34(2):193–203Google Scholar
  41. Kaufmann RK (1992) A biophysical analysis of the energy/real GDP ratio: implications for substitution and technical change. Ecol Econ 6(1):35–56Google Scholar
  42. Keen S (2001) Debunking economics: the naked emperor of the social sciences. Zed Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Kondepudi D, Prigogine I (1998) Modern thermodynamics: from heat engines to dissipative structures. Wiley, ChichesterzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Koopmans TC (1965) On the concept of optimal economic growth. Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 163Google Scholar
  45. Kubiszewski I, Costanza R, Franco C, Lawn P, Talberth J, Jackson T, Aylmer C (2013) Beyond GDP: measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecol Econ 93:57–68Google Scholar
  46. Kummel R (1982) The impact of energy on industrial growth. Energy 7(2):189–203Google Scholar
  47. Kummel R (1989) Energy as a factor of production and entropy as a pollution indicator in macroeconomic modelling. Ecol Econ 1(2):161–180Google Scholar
  48. Kummel R, Strassl W, Gossner A, Eichhorn W (1985) Technical progress and energy dependent production functions. J Econ 45(3):285–311zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Kummel R, Lindenberger D, Eichhorn W (2000) The productive power of energy and economic evolution. Indian J Appl Econ 8(2):1–26Google Scholar
  50. Kwerel E (1977) To tell the truth: imperfect information and optimal pollution control. Rev Econ Stud 44:595–601zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Linden E (2018) The economics Nobel went to a guy who enabled climate change denial and delay. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-linden-nobel-economics-mistake-20181025-story.html
  52. Messac L (2018) Outside the Economy: Women’s Work and Feminist Economics in the Construction and Critique of National Income Accounting. J Imperial Commonwealth Hist 46(3):552–578.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2018.1431436 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. Mill JS (1848) Principles of political economy. George Routledge and Sons, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  54. Mirowski P (1991) More heat than light: economics as social physics, physics as nature’s economics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Nitzan J (1992) Inflation as restructuring. A theoretical and empirical account of the US experience. PhD thesis, McGill UniversityGoogle Scholar
  56. Nitzan J, Bichler S (2009) Capital as power: a study of order and creorder. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Nordhaus WD (1992) An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science 258(5086):1315–1319Google Scholar
  58. Nordhaus WD (2007) A review of the Stern review on the economics of climate change. J Econ Lit 45(3):686–702Google Scholar
  59. OECD (2004) The economic impact of ICT. measurement, evidence and implications. Technical report, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  60. Petley BW (1983) New definition of the metre. Nature 303(5916):373–376Google Scholar
  61. Popper K (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson & Co., New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. Prigogine I, Stengers I, Toffler A (1984) Order out of chaos. Bantam Books, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  63. Robinson J (1953) The production function and the theory of capital. Rev Econ Stud 21(2):81–106Google Scholar
  64. Robinson J (1962) Economic philosophy. Aldine Pub. Co., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  65. Samuelson PA (1938) A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behaviour. Economica 5(17):61–71Google Scholar
  66. Samuelson PA (1948) Consumption theory in terms of revealed preference. Economica 15(60):243–253Google Scholar
  67. Sandmo A (1976) Optimal taxation: an introduction to the literature. J Publ Econ 6(1–2):37–54Google Scholar
  68. Smith GD, Hart C, Upton M, Hole D, Gillis C, Watt G, Hawthorne V (2000) Height and risk of death among men and women: aetiological implications of associations with cardiorespiratory disease and cancer mortality. J Epidemiol Commun Health 54(2):97–103Google Scholar
  69. Solow RM (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q J Econ 70(1):65–94Google Scholar
  70. Steindel C (1995) Chain-weighting: the new approach to measuring GDP. Current issues in economics and finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York 1(9)Google Scholar
  71. Stern N, Peters S, Bakhshi V, Bowen A, Cameron C, Catovsky S, Crane D, Cruickshank S, Dietz S, Edmonson N (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. HM Treasury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. Vidal J (2015) The rise of diesel in Europe: the impact on health and pollution. The GuardianGoogle Scholar
  73. Vining DR, Elwertowski TC (1976) The relationship between relative prices and the general price level. Am Econ Rev 66(4):699–708Google Scholar
  74. Viscusi WK, Aldy JE (2003) The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertainty 27(1):5–76zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. Waring M (1999) Counting for nothing: what men value and what women are worth. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  76. Whelan K (2002) A guide to US chain aggregated NIPA data. Rev Income Wealth 48(2):217–233Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.York UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations