Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards Sustainability Economics: Principles and Values

  • Published:
Journal of Bioeconomics Aims and scope

Synopsis

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References cited

  • 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.

  • Boulding Kenneth E. (1956). Knowledge in life and society. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding Kenneth E. (1970). Economics as a science. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown Judy A. (2000). Competing ideologies in the accounting and industrial relations environment. British Accounting Review 32:43–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza Robert. (ed) (1991). Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza Robert. (2006). Thinking broadly about costs and benefits in ecological management. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 22(2): 166–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW). Sustainability economics project. [online] URL: http://www.sustainableconomics.de

  • Faber Malte, Reiner Manstetten, Thomas Pedersen. (1997). Homo oeconomicus and Homo politicus: political economy, political interest and ecological interest. Kyklos 50:457–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fay Brian. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science: a multicultural approach. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro Fabrizio, Jeffrey Pfeffer, Robert I. Sutton. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: how theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review 30:8–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford David. (ed.) (1990). Understanding business markets Relationships, Networks. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullbrook Edward. (ed.) (2003). The crisis in economics. The Post-Autistic Economics Movement: The First 600 days. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullbrook Edward. (ed.) (2004). A guide to what’s wrong with economics. Anthem Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Funtowicz, Silvio & Jerome Ravetz. 2003. Post-normal science. ISEE encyclopaedia. [online] URL: http://www.ecoeco.org/publica/encyc_entries/pstNormSc.pdf

  • Hanley Nick, Andrew R Black. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis and the water framework directive in Scotland. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2(2):156–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics (ICAPE). [online] URL: http://www.icape.org

  • 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.

  • Jackson Norman, Pippa Carter. (2000). Rethinking organizational behaviour. Prentice Hall/Pearson Education, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakubowski Peter. (2000). Political economic person contra Homo oeconomicus – Mit PEP zu mehr Nachhaltigkeit. List forum für Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik 26(4):299–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapp K. William. (1950). The social costs of private enterprise. Schocken Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Korten David C. (2001). When corporations rule the world (second edition). Kumarian Press, Bloomfield, Conn

    Google Scholar 

  • Kras Eva. (2007). The blockage. Rethinking organizational principles for the 21st century. American Literary Press, Baltimore, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Mishan Ezra J. (1980). How valid are economic evaluations of allocative changes?. Journal of Economic Issues 14:143–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan Gareth. (1986). Images of organization. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Myrdal, Gunnar. 1972. Against the stream. Critical essays on economics. Vintage Books/Random House, New York. [1975 edition]

  • Myrdal Gunnar. (1978). Institutional economics. Journal of Economic Issues 14:771–783

    Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard Richard B. (1989). The case for methodological pluralism. Ecological Economics 1:37–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard Richard B. (1994). Development betrayed: the end of progress and a co-evolutionary revisioning of the future. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, Patricia E. 2007. Feminist ecological economics and sustainability. Journal of Bioeconomics 9(3), (this issue). doi:10.1007/s10818-007-9028-z.

  • Söderbaum, Peter. 1973. Positionsanalys vid planering och beslutsfattande. Ekonomisk analys på tvärvetenskaplig grund. Esselte Studium, Stockholm.

  • Söderbaum Peter. (1983). Ezra Mishan on economic evaluation: acomment. Journal of Economic Issues 17:206–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Söderbaum Peter. (2000). Ecological economics: a political economics approach to environment and development. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Söderbaum Peter. (2004a). Democracy, markets and sustainable development: the European Union as example. European Environment 14:342–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderbaum Peter. 2004b. Politics and ideology in ecological economics. ISEE encyclopaedia. [online] URL: http://www.ecoeco.org/publica/encyc_entries/PoliticsIdeolog y.pdf

  • 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: http://www.btinternet.com/~pae_news/review/issue 28.htm

  • Söderbaum Peter. (2005). Democracy, decision-making, and sustainable development: dam-construction as example. International Journal of Water 3(2):107–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderbaum Peter. (2006). Democracy and sustainable development – what is the alternative to cost- benefit analysis?. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2(2):182–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderbaum Peter. (2007). Issues of paradigm, ideology and democracy in sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 60: 613–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin Stephen. (1990). Cosmopolis: the hidden agenda. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  • Zadek Simon. (2001). The civil corporation: the new economy of corporate citizenship. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Mälardalen University, Box 883, 72123, Västerås, Sweden

    Peter Söderbaum

Authors
  1. Peter Söderbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Söderbaum.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Söderbaum, P. Towards Sustainability Economics: Principles and Values. J Bioecon 9, 205–225 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-007-9026-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-007-9026-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation