Economics as Science: Physical or Biophysical?

Chapter

Abstract

Economies exist independently of how we perceive or choose to study them. For more or less accidental reasons we have chosen over the past 100 years to consider and study economics as a social science. Before the late nineteenth century economists were more likely to ask “Where does wealth come from?” than are most mainstream economists today. In general, these earlier economists started their economic analysis with the natural biophysical world, probably simply because they had common sense but also because they deemed inadequate the perspective of earlier mercantilists who had emphasized sources of wealth as “treasure” (e.g., precious metals) derived from mining, trade, or plunder. In the first formal school of economics, the French Physiocrats looked to the biophysical world and especially land as the basis for generating wealth (e.g., Quesnay, 1758; see Christensen [1, 2]) focused on agriculture.

Keywords

Entropy Assure Expense Glean 

References

  1. 1.
    Christensen, P. 1994. Fire, Motion and Productivity: the proto-energetics of nature and economy in francois quesney. Pp 249–288 in P. Mirowski. Natural images in economic thought. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christensen, P. 1984. Hobbes and the physiological origins of economic science. History of Political Economy 21:4Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mirowski, P. 1984. More heat than light. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Worrell, DeLisle, 2010. Governor of the Central Bank of Barbados, in an address to the Barbados Economic Society (BES) AGM, Bridgetown, 30 June 2010.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henrich, J. et al., 2001. Cooperation, reciprocity and punishment in fifteen small-scale societies. American Econ. Review, 91: 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hall, C. 1991. An idiosyncratic assessment of the role of mathematical models in environmental sciences. Environment International. 17: 507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hall, C. and J. Gowdy, J. 2007. Does the emperor have any clothes? An overview of the scientific critiques of neoclassical economics. In G. LeClerc and pp. pp. 3–12 C. A. S. Hall (Eds.) Making world development work: Scientific alternatives to neoclassical economic Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedman, M. 1955. Essays in positive economics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hall, C.A.S., P.D. Matossian, C. Ghersa, J. Calvo and C. Olmeda. 2001. Is the argentine national economy being destroyed by the department of economics of the University of Chicago? pp. 483–498 in S. Ulgaldi, M. Giampietro, R.A. Herendeen and K. Mayumi (eds.). Advances in Energy Studies, Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Easterly, W. 2001. The elusive quest for growth: economists’ adventures and misadventures in the tropics: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. The MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall, C.A.S. and K. Klitgaard. (2006) The Need for a New, Biophysical-Based Paradigm in Economics for the Second Half of the Age of Oil. Journal of Transdisciplinary Research Volume: 1, Issue 1, 4–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Environmental & Forest Biology and Graduate Program in Environmental Science College of Environmental Science & ForestryState University of New YorkSyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Social SciencesWells CollegeAuroraUSA

Personalised recommendations