Abstract
This critical review will initially consider questions of time lags in policy innovation with reference to sustainability. The cultural genealogy of the concept of ‘Natural Capital’ will then be provided, a key reference point being the ‘Five Capitals’ approach in Jonathon Porrit’s 2005 book. I will suggest that what we have in the Five Capitals approach is a series of analogies conceived as a piece of social marketing of sustainability, primarily aimed at the business sector. I then consider some of the consequences of utilising the concept of ‘capital’. Centrally, does this conceptual strategy illegitimately morph into an ideological ‘naturalisation’ of ‘capital’ as an essential feature of the world? Does this construction support ‘capital’ as an ontology that claims universal status rather than a time-bound construction tied to a particular mode of society and historical period? The final arguments concern the question of appropriate transitional concepts for our current situation. What criteria might we apply to consider if a concept or framing is a good one to assist in transition? I conclude that ‘natural capital’ and the other analogical uses of the term import serious problems. Use with care, if at all: move beyond wherever possible.
This review has greatly benefitted from discussions that took place at the concluding conference in the ‘Debating Nature’s Value’ project. This event was distinguished by much real debate and exchange and I thank the varied participants whose points enriched my understanding, including those of editor Victor Anderson.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Some considerations of framing policy in the light of our systems knowledge can be found at http://convergence-alliance.org/download/converge/wp9/WP9_D41.pdf
- 2.
- 3.
This is why ‘natural’ discourses are a double-edged sword for environmental movements. Basing our claims in the systems sciences allows space for recognition of evolution and of spiritual dimensions of connectivity and the celebration of systems wisdom of indigenous societies.
- 4.
This title was a conscious reference to Fritz Schumacher’s Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if the World Matters in this sense referencing and claiming links to the Schumacher heritage of radical thought on environment and society.
- 5.
- 6.
The author has proposed a complementary four-cornered model of ‘good governance’ to include Civil Society, Business, Government and Sustainability sciences in the essential role of decision support.
- 7.
It is this reasoning that has led the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO,) to conclude that small-scale closed-loop farming is the way we should be seeking to feed the planet.
- 8.
The main argument of Yanis Varoufakis is that the global economy lacks a Keynsian wealth recycling system. His excellent book The Global Minotaur does not show any awareness of environmental extractive issues, however.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
References
Brechet, T., and Boulanger, P.M. 2002. European and global approaches: IDD overview, classification and characteristics of scientific tools for a Sustainable Development policy. In Proceedings EU Workshop on Development of scientific tools in support of Sustainable Development.
Dasgupta, P., and K.G. Maler. 2001. Wealth as a criterion for sustainable development. Stockholm: Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics.
Ford, L., and Kuetting, G. 2017. Global environmental governance in the Anthropocene: Breaking out of the enclosures? System Change, [S.l.], 1(1) July. ISSN 2396–7293. Available at: https://systemchange.online/index.php/systemchange/article/view/15. Date Accessed 31 May 2018.
Kenter, J.O., N. Jobstvogt, V. Watson, K.N. Irvine, M. Christie, and R. Bryce. 2016. The impact of information, value-deliberation and group-based decision-making on values for ecosystem services: Integrating deliberative monetary valuation and storytelling. Ecosystem Services 21 (Part B): 270–290.
Parker, J. 2014. Critiquing sustainability, changing philosophy. London: Routledge.
Pfeffer, J., and S. DeVoe. 2009. Economic evaluation: The effect of money and economics on attitudes about volunteering. Journal of Economic Psychology 30 (3): 500–508.
Porritt, J. 2007. Capitalism as if the world matters. London: Routledge.
Read, R., and M. Scott Cato. 2014. A price for everything: The natural capital controversy. Journal of Human Rights & Environment 5 (2): 153–167.
Roderick, I., and the CONVERGE Project Team. 2013. Report on how ranking of degree of convergence may be undertaken – calculating a convergence baseline. CONVERGE Deliverable 16. The Schumacher Institute for Sustainable Systems, Bristol, UK. http://convergence-alliance.org/download/converge/wp2/WP2_D16.pdf.
Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Brighton: IDS.
Spangenberg, J.H.C. 2016. Blind spots of interdisciplinary collaboration monetising biodiversity: Before calculating the value of nature, reflect on the nature of value. Trieste 3 (1): 115–128.
Teivainen, T. 2002. Enter economism, exit politics: Experts, economic policy and the damage to democracy. London: Zed Books.
Varoufakis, Y. 2015. The global minotaur. London: Zed Books.
Von Weizsacker, E.U., and A. Wijkman. 2017. Come on!: Capitalism, short-termism, population and the destruction of the planet. New York: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Parker, J. (2018). ‘Natural Capital’: Ontology or Analogy?. In: Anderson, V. (eds) Debating Nature's Value. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99244-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99244-0_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99243-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99244-0
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)