Abstract
This paper builds on the critique that Renaud Filleule addresses in this issue to radical ecological economics – known also as socio-ecological economics (SEE) – and more specifically to the works of one of his most famous representatives, Clive Spash. Filleule builds his critique from Austrian economics. I adopt a broader perspective. Indeed, although Austrian economics identifies key caveats of SEE, one may challenge its whole scientific substance on more general grounds. True, Clive Spash’s works are keen on putting forth methodological arguments to institute SEE not only as a scientific theory but also as the major paradigm in ecological economics. However, such arguments are unconvincing, amounting to activism-in-disguise of science, as reflected in Spash’s semantic ambiguity, his misconception of social science and overstated claims and pointless ordering of scientific knowledge. Moreover, Spash’s critique of economic growth is not only empirically wrong – as correctly noticed by Filleule – but also conceptually irrelevant. This is because defective theories necessarily lead to wrong or insignificant statements.
References
Acemoglu, D., and J. A. Robinson. 2013. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. London: Profile Books Ltd.10.1355/ae29-2jSearch in Google Scholar
Baumol, W. J. 2002. The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400851638Search in Google Scholar
Collier, A. 1998. “Explanation and Emancipation.” In Critical Realism: Essential Readings, edited by M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, and A. Norrie, 444–72. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Ecologist (The). 1972. Changer ou Disparaître. Paris: Fayard.Search in Google Scholar
Filleule, R. 2023. “The Poverty of Radical Ecological Economics: A Critique of Clive Spash from the Viewpoint of the Austrian School.” Journal des Économistes et des Études Humaines 29 (1): 21–43.Search in Google Scholar
International Panel for Climate Change. 2021. The Physical Science Basis. Sixth Assessment Report: Technical Summary.Search in Google Scholar
Koonin, S. E. 2021. Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t, and Why it Matters. Dallas: BenBella Books.Search in Google Scholar
Levrel, H., and V. Martinet. 2021. “Ecological Economists: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” Ecological Economics 179: 106694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106694.Search in Google Scholar
Lomborg, B. 2020. “Welfare in the 21st Century: Increasing Development, Reducing Inequality, the Impact of Climate Change, and the Cost of Climate Policies.” Technical Forecasting & Social Change 156: 119981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119981.Search in Google Scholar
Meadows, D. H., D. L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W. W. Behrens. 1972. The Limits to Growth: a Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books.10.1349/ddlp.1Search in Google Scholar
Mises, L. von. 1998 [1949]. Human Action. A Treatise on Economics. Auburn: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Search in Google Scholar
Piazza, P. V. 2019. Homo Biologicus : la liberté est dans nos gènes. Paris: Albin Michel.Search in Google Scholar
Pielke, R.A.Jr. 2019. “Tracking Progress on the Economic Costs of Disasters under the Indicators of the Sustainable Development Goals.” Environmental Hazards 18 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2018.1540343.Search in Google Scholar
Queinnec, E., and P. Desrochers. 2018. “Can Entrepreneurship Be Sustainable without Being Sustainability-Driven: Some Historical Perspective.” In Research Handbook of Finance and Sustainability, edited by S. Boubaker, D. Cumming, and D. K. Nguyen, 160–78. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781786432636.00017Search in Google Scholar
Spash, C. L. 2012. “New Foundations for Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics 77: 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.004.Search in Google Scholar
Spash, C. L., and A. Ryan. 2012. “Economic Schools of Thought on the Environment: Investigating Unity and Division.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 36: 1091–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bes023.Search in Google Scholar
Taleb, N. N. 2007. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. New York: Random House.Search in Google Scholar
Tol, R. J. 2017. “The Structure of the Climate Debate.” Energy Policy 104: 431–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.005.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
