Structured pluralism in ecological economics — A reply to Peter Söderbaum's commentary

Abstract

Peter Söderbaum argues in his commentary, concerning my article on sustainability economics (Remig 2015), for more open and radical ecological economics. I agree with that statement. However, I reject Söderbaum's interpretation that my arguments foster mainstreamed ecological economics or dictatorship. In my critique of sustainability economics, I raised several issues that have remained unspecified and that potentially lead to unsustainable development patterns, once put into practice. Söderbaum does not reply to these conceptual challenges of sustainability economics. In this commentary, I argue that “structured pluralism” (Dow, 2004) is a constituent element of ecological economics. I welcome Peter Söderbaum's proposal for a discussion about the definition of economics and suggest to rely on Ronald Coase's proposal to define economics as a science that studies the working of the economic system. I conclude that sustainability economics in its current form is closer to neoclassical than ecological economics.

Introduction

Ecological economics is, up to now, the relevant school of an economic analysis of sustainable development and socio-ecological systems. It has established a community, journals, societies, conferences, and chairs at universities. During the existence of the field for more than a quarter of a century – with roots that reach back far further (Martinez-Alier, 1990) – there have always been discussions where the academic discipline should evolve to. One of the most recent discussions is the one about sustainability economics proposed by Baumgärtner and Quaas, 2010a, Baumgärtner and Quaas, 2010b. Söderbaum (2015) replied to my survey article on sustainability economics (Remig, 2015). I welcome the opportunity to continue the discussion about sustainability and ecological economics. I agree with many points Peter Söderbaum raises in his article. Nevertheless, I disagree with some of his core ideas.

I strongly reject his claim that my argument leads to unified, “mainstreamed” ecological economics and dictatorship (Söderbaum, 2015, p. 423). In my critique of sustainability economics, I raised several conceptual issues that have remained unspecified and that potentially result in unsustainable development patterns, once put into practice. Therefore, we need to develop a strong and sound theoretical founding for ecological economics and for sustainability economics. Söderbaum (2015) does not contribute to unravel the veil of fuzziness around the concept of sustainability and unfortunately misreads my argument: “In this community [of ecological economists] we should, according to Remig, reduce all versions of ecological economics to one paradigm which is clearly specified and presented.” (p.420) On the contrary, my image of the “big tent” of ecological economics (Howarth, 2008, Spash and Ryan, 2012) illustrates the co-existence of varieties of ecological economics that have developed in contrast to the monolithic version of neoclassical economics. I fully agree with Söderbaum's (2015, p. 420) main argument “that it is natural and more constructive to expect ‘varieties of economics’ and also ‘varieties of ecological economics’.” Thus, I here argue for a “structured pluralism” (Dow, 2004) in ecological economics.

As I highlighted in my review paper (Remig, 2015), the relationship between sustainability economics and ecological economics is conceived differently by different authors in the debate. Diverse methodological and ontological foundations of sustainability economics thus co-exist. Söderbaum (2015) sees in the new concept a promising term: “I somehow felt that ‘sustainability economics’ was an appropriate term for more radical versions of ecological economics. I certainly accept that other ecological economists may use the term differently or may prefer to abandon it altogether.” (p.423) Even though Baumgärtner and Quaas (2010a) also see in sustainability economics an alternative to ecological economics, I doubt that they share Söderbaum's understanding about sustainability economics. Their idea is less critical and less radical than current ecological economics because they borrow much more from neoclassical resource and environmental economics (see Section 4).

In the following, I respond to several other points, Peter Söderbaum raised. I agree that a discussion about the definition of economics is necessary and propose to refer to Ronald Coase's systemic understanding of economics (Section 2). I also argue that structured pluralism is a core feature of ecological economics (Section 3). By comparing neoclassical, sustainability, and ecological economics, I conclude that Baumgärtner and Quaas' understanding of sustainability economics is closer to neoclassical than to ecological economics (Section 4).