THE TRANSITION FROM THE NEOCLASSICAL GROWTH MODEL TO ECOLOGY

  • Michael SCHLAUCH
  • Gaia PALMISANO

Abstract

This paper examines the assumptions and conclusions of the neoclassical growth model put forth by Solow and many others. We investigate the origins of the paradigm of unlimited growth and technological progress and question their plausibility. In contrast, we develop a modified version of the neoclassical growth model where we consider non-human, environmental resources such as energy as an additional input factor and recognize their limited capacity to recover from human impact. Surprisingly, the same mathematical framework of the neoclassical growth model gets to the opposite conclusions - namely that long term growth cannot exceed a level in which nature begins to deplete.
Growth further that level as we might experience today leads to natural and economic disaster. Technological progress understood as productivity increase can only delay but not prevent this crisis. We compare these conclusions to the opposite hypothesis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Also we show how this model can lead to a greater understanding of present or future observations that are connected to environmental deficiency, such as social divergence and stagnating life satisfaction in developed countries.

References

[1] Aristotle. 1934. Nicomachean Ethics. Perseus Digital Library.
[2] Cezanne, W. 2005. Allgemeine Volkswirtschaftslehre. Munich: Oldenbourg, Sixth edition.
[3] Cole, M., Rayner, A., and Bates, J. 1997. The environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 2: 401–416.
[4] Heinberg, R. 2007. Peak everything: waking up to the centuries of declines. Canada: new society publishers.
[5] Mollison, B. 2002. Permaculture: A Designers’ Manual. Second Edition. Tyalgum Australia: Tagari Publications.
[6] Mota, R.P., and Dias, J. 2009. Determinants of CO2 emissions in open economies: testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis (1970-2000). MPRA, Paper No. 13342.
[7] Murray, J., and King, D. 2012. Oil’s tipping point has past. Nature, 481: 433–435.
[8] Panayotou, T. 2000. Economic Growth and the Environment. Working Papers Center for International Development at Harvard University.
[9] Perman, R., and Stern, D.I. 2003. Evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests that the Environmental Kuznets Curve does not exist. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47(3): 325–347.
[10] Selden, T.M., and Daqing, S. 1994. Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27: 147–162.
[11] Solow, R.M. 1956. A Contribution to the Theroy of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1): 65-94.
[12] Solow, R.M. 1992. An Almost Practical Step toward Sustainability. RFF Press.
[13] Stagl, S. 1999. Delinking Economic Growth from Environmental Degradation? A Literature Survey on the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis. Working Paper Series of the Research Focus Growth and Employment in Europe: Sustainability and Competitiveness - Vienna University of Economics, 6.
[14] Tanaka, H. 2006. Current State and Future of Japan’s Nuclear Power Program. In 31st WNA Symposium.
Published
2016-11-11
How to Cite
SCHLAUCH, Michael; PALMISANO, Gaia. THE TRANSITION FROM THE NEOCLASSICAL GROWTH MODEL TO ECOLOGY. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 1, p. 29-36, nov. 2016. ISSN 2068-7729. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jemt/article/view/387>. Date accessed: 28 mar. 2024.
Section
Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism

Keywords

growth; degrowth; limits of growth; ecological economics; neoclassical growth model; environmental Kuznets curve