Journal of Bioeconomics

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 205–225 | Cite as

Towards Sustainability Economics: Principles and Values



Radical alternatives, in terms of our ideas about science in society, about economics, ideology and institutional arrangements, should be included among possibilities considered within the scope of a pluralistic philosophy. While all these aspects of our mental maps are interrelated and important, economics plays a key role in attempts to get closer to a sustainable society. Mainstream neoclassical economics is not enough. The tendency to exclusively rely on this particular theory is considered part of the problems faced. A ‘sustainability economics’ more in line with dominant ideas of democracy is proposed, emphasizing the ethical, ideological and political elements. Reference is made to institutional theory but the principles and concepts suggested are in many ways similar to other kinds of heterodox economics and developments in other social sciences. Neoclassical economics is used as a point of reference in pointing to alternative ideas about human beings, organizations, markets, decision- making, efficiency, rationality, progress in society and institutional change processes. Predilection for such an alternative conceptual framework (or for neoclassical economics) is not exclusively a scientific choice but as much a matter of political and ideological preferences. One paradigm may be dominant at a time, but because of the ideological specificity of each paradigm, competing theoretical perspectives should be accepted and even encouraged in a democratic society.


theory of science neoclassical economics institutional economics Political Economic Person ideological orientation Political Economic Organization democracy actor dialogue 

JEL Classification

B52 DO2 D60 Q56 Q57 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Borgström Hansson, Carina. 2003. Misplaced concreteness and concrete places: critical analyses of divergent discourses on sustainability. Lund University, Lund Studies in Human Ecology 7, Lund.Google Scholar
  2. Boulding Kenneth E. (1956). Knowledge in life and society. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  3. Boulding Kenneth E. (1970). Economics as a science. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown Judy A. (2000). Competing ideologies in the accounting and industrial relations environment. British Accounting Review 32:43–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costanza Robert. (ed) (1991). Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Costanza Robert. (2006). Thinking broadly about costs and benefits in ecological management. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 22(2): 166–173Google Scholar
  7. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW). Sustainability economics project. [online] URL:
  8. Faber Malte, Reiner Manstetten, Thomas Pedersen. (1997). Homo oeconomicus and Homo politicus: political economy, political interest and ecological interest. Kyklos 50:457–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fay Brian. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science: a multicultural approach. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferraro Fabrizio, Jeffrey Pfeffer, Robert I. Sutton. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: how theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review 30:8–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ford David. (ed.) (1990). Understanding business markets Relationships, Networks. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Fullbrook Edward. (ed.) (2003). The crisis in economics. The Post-Autistic Economics Movement: The First 600 days. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Fullbrook Edward. (ed.) (2004). A guide to what’s wrong with economics. Anthem Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Jerome R. Ravetz. 1991. A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. Pp. 137–152 in R. Costanza (ed.) Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Funtowicz, Silvio & Jerome Ravetz. 2003. Post-normal science. ISEE encyclopaedia. [online] URL:
  16. Hanley Nick, Andrew R Black. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the water framework directive in Scotland. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2(2):156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics (ICAPE). [online] URL:
  18. Harremoës, Poul, David Gee, Malcolm MacGarvin, Andy Stirling, Jane Keys, Brian Wynne & Sofia Guedes Vaz. (ed.) 2002. The precautionary principle in the 20th century: late lessons from early warnings. European Environmental Agency/Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson Norman, Pippa Carter. (2000). Rethinking organizational behaviour. Prentice Hall/Pearson Education, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  20. Jakubowski Peter. (2000). Political economic person contra Homo oeconomicus – Mit PEP zu mehr Nachhaltigkeit. List forum für Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik 26(4):299–311Google Scholar
  21. Kapp K. William. (1950). The social costs of private enterprise. Schocken Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Korten David C. (2001). When corporations rule the world (second edition). Kumarian Press, Bloomfield, ConnGoogle Scholar
  23. Kras Eva. (2007). The blockage. Rethinking organizational principles for the 21st century. American Literary Press, Baltimore, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  24. Löfstedt, Malin. 2005. Modell, människa eller människosyn? En analys av kritiska perspektiv på bilden av människan i neoklasisk ekonomisk teori. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala Studies in Social Ethics 31. Uppsala.Google Scholar
  25. Mishan Ezra J. (1980). How valid are economic evaluations of allocative changes?. Journal of Economic Issues 14:143–161Google Scholar
  26. Morgan Gareth. (1986). Images of organization. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Myrdal, Gunnar. 1972. Against the stream. Critical essays on economics. Vintage Books/Random House, New York. [1975 edition]Google Scholar
  28. Myrdal Gunnar. (1978). Institutional economics. Journal of Economic Issues 14:771–783Google Scholar
  29. Norgaard Richard B. (1989). The case for methodological pluralism. Ecological Economics 1:37–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norgaard Richard B. (1994). Development betrayed: the end of progress and a co-evolutionary revisioning of the future. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Perkins, Patricia E. 2007. Feminist ecological economics and sustainability. Journal of Bioeconomics 9(3), (this issue). doi: 10.1007/s10818-007-9028-z.
  32. Söderbaum, Peter. 1973. Positionsanalys vid planering och beslutsfattande. Ekonomisk analys på tvärvetenskaplig grund. Esselte Studium, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  33. Söderbaum Peter. (1983). Ezra Mishan on economic evaluation: acomment. Journal of Economic Issues 17:206–213Google Scholar
  34. Söderbaum Peter. (2000). Ecological economics: a political economics approach to environment and development. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Söderbaum, Peter. 2002. Business corporations, markets and the globalization of environmental problems. Pp. 179–200 in V. Havila, M. Forsgren & H. Håkansson (ed.) Critical Perspectives on Internationalisation. Pergamon, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  36. Söderbaum Peter. (2004a). Democracy, markets and sustainable development: the European Union as example. European Environment 14:342–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Söderbaum Peter. 2004b. Politics and ideology in ecological economics. ISEE encyclopaedia. [online] URL: y.pdf
  38. Söderbaum, Peter. 2004c. Nobelpriset i ekonomi hinder för nytänkande. Dagens Nyheter Debatt, 10 oktober. (In English: The Nobel Prize in economics – barrier for new thinking. Post-autistic economics review 28 (25 October 2004): article 5. [online] URL: 28.htm
  39. Söderbaum Peter. (2005). Democracy, decision-making, and sustainable development: dam-construction as example. International Journal of Water 3(2):107–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Söderbaum Peter. (2006). Democracy and sustainable development – what is the alternative to cost- benefit analysis?. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2(2):182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Söderbaum Peter. (2007). Issues of paradigm, ideology and democracy in sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 60: 613–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Toulmin Stephen. (1990). Cosmopolis: the hidden agenda. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  43. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  44. Zadek Simon. (2001). The civil corporation: the new economy of corporate citizenship. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessMälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden

Personalised recommendations