DOCSLIB.ORG

Value, Capital and Nature

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by White Rose E-theses Online Value, Capital and Nature Rethinking the foundations of ecological economics Elke Pirgmaier Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of PhD in Economics The University of Leeds Leeds University Business School & School of Earth and Environment September 2018 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his/her own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. The work in chapter 2 of the thesis has appeared in the following publication: Pirgmaier, E. (2017). The Neoclassical Trojan Horse of Steady-State Economics, Ecological Economics 133, 52-61. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. The right of Elke Pirgmaier to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. © 2018 The University of Leeds and Elke Pirgmaier ii Acknowledgements Writing a PhD is not an individual achievement. This PhD would not have been possible without the continuous intellectual and emotional support of several wonderful people. Above all, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisors: Andrew Brown, Julia Steinberger and David Spencer, for allowing me to explore bigger questions, providing so much of their time and energy and for being genuinely nice people. Andy, you have been a continuous and invaluable source of support in many ways. Thanks for opening doors for me, to Marxian economics, dialectics, the importance of clear and systematic thinking, and the madness of mainstream economics. Thanks for always having an open ear when I needed it. Julia, it is rare to meet someone like you. Your sharp intellect, generosity, directness, humour and dedication to fight injustices is unparalleled. David, thanks for being straightforward and playing devil’s advocate many times; your critical attitude and comments crucially helped me to rethink ideas. Learning from and with you all has been a tremendous privilege. Many thanks to my colleagues – Lina Brand-Correa, Tim Foxon, Lukas Hardt, Elena Hofferberth, Will Lamb, Andrew Mearman, Dan O’Neill and Beth Stratford – for critical comments on various parts of the PhD. You have substantially helped me to develop ideas further. Special thanks to Marta for a tremendous effort to put the PhD together. A big thank you to my friends, who have made this PhD journey such a pleasant and warm experience in Leeds: Anna, Astrid, Beth, Blandine, Ersilia, Flo, Jefim, Joel, Joy, Lucia, Marta and Sophia. Special thanks to Gauthier for innumerable debates and supporting me in so many ways throughout the last four years; to Elena for motivating and supporting me in our joint venture to fight for a better economics; to Andrew for being a long time caring friend and mentor. Will, I would like to thank you for seeing and believing in me, for your love, enthusiasm and energy, even in your absence. Kweku, thanks for helping me in the last stretch of the PhD, especially with proofreading and providing healthy food and green tea. I would also like to thank my parents, Helga and Gerhard, who have always encouraged me to go my own way and oppose what I think is wrong. iii iv Abstract Ecological economists aim to study the interrelations between ecological and economic systems, with a view to promoting changes towards sustainability. They agree that the nature of global environmental crises is systemic and rooted in economic dynamics. Yet, core economic categories, such as prices, profits, money and their interrelations with ecological destruction, are surprisingly undertheorized. The ‘economic’ becomes either tied to neoclassical economics or remains neglected. Marxian Political Economy has the potential to address this gap, but is mostly ignored in ecological economics, especially in what it is best at: explaining dynamics of the capitalist system as a whole. This PhD advocates a more systemic and theoretically grounded ecological economics. I find that neoclassical economic reasoning is rooted much deeper in ecological economics than often assumed. I present a critique of the neoclassical underpinnings of ecological economics, and a Marxian alternative. I identify the Marxian understanding of ‘value’ and ‘capital’ as the missing core of ecological economics: a realistic understanding of the capitalist system, spelled out from basics in simple and abstract terms. I explain these foundations and integrate them with a system dynamics understanding of global ecological destruction, social crises and barriers to social change. I conclude that ecological economics needs to be grounded in a realistic understanding of capitalism – if it aspires to meet its own ambitions. Economic theory and methodology are powerful political tools towards this end: they expose or conceal root causes of social ecological problems and offer better or worse guidance on how to act. Pragmatism about the role of theory and methodology is dangerous, more often than not, because it promotes the reproduction of power relations that prevent, instead of encourage, sustainability transitions. I argue for the need to break with existing prejudices against the Marxian approach and take it seriously as realistic economic theory. v vi Table of Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................iii Abstract....................................................................................................................................v Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................vii List of Tables.............................................................................................................................x List of Figures............................................................................................................................x 1 Introduction ............................................................................ 1 1.1 The argument of this thesis........................................................................................ 1 1.2 The state of ecological economics.............................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Common ground................................................................................................. 2 1.2.2 A missing core?................................................................................................... 7 1.2.3 A united but fragmented community................................................................. 9 1.3 The untapped potentials of Marxian Political Economy............................................ 10 1.3.1 Theory and methodology fit for purpose ......................................................... 10 1.3.2 Uneasy relations............................................................................................... 11 1.3.3 Lost in translation............................................................................................. 13 1.4 Aims, ambition and architecture of the thesis.......................................................... 14 1.4.1 Aims.................................................................................................................. 14 1.4.2 Research questions........................................................................................... 16 1.4.3 PhD structure.................................................................................................... 17 2 Contradictions....................................................................... 19 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 19 2.2 The ambiguous nature of steady-state theory.......................................................... 22 2.2.1 Allocation and perfect markets: the adoption of neoclassical microeconomics .. ...................................................................................................................... 23 2.2.2 Unrealistic, flawed and inconsistent theoretical underpinnings ...................... 24 2.2.3 The narrow confines of neoclassical economics............................................... 29 2.2.4 The neglect of interdependencies, dynamics and change................................ 30 2.3 The logic of steady-state economics......................................................................... 32 vii 2.3.1 Unrealistic vs. realistic thinking ........................................................................ 33 2.3.2 Externality vs. systemic thinking....................................................................... 34 2.3.3 Equilibrium vs. evolutionary thinking ............................................................... 35 2.3.4 Biophysical vs. monetary thinking .................................................................... 36 2.3.5 Open vs. closed systems thinking..................................................................... 37 2.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................39 2.5 Conclusions...............................................................................................................42 3 Value......................................................................................44
Recommended publications
  • Keynesianism: Mainstream Economics Or Heterodox Economics?

    Keynesianism: Mainstream Economics Or Heterodox Economics?

    STUDIA EKONOMICZNE 1 ECONOMIC STUDIES NR 1 (LXXXIV) 2015 Izabela Bludnik* KEYNESIANISM: MAINSTREAM ECONOMICS OR HETERODOX ECONOMICS? INTRODUCTION The broad area of ​​research commonly referred to as “Keynesianism” was estab- lished by the book entitled The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money published in 1936 by John Maynard Keynes (Keynes, 1936; Polish ed. 2003). It was hailed as revolutionary as it undermined the vision of the functioning of the world and the conduct of economic policy, which at the time had been estab- lished for over 100 years, and thus permanently changed the face of modern economics. But Keynesianism never created a homogeneous set of views. Con- ventionally, the term is synonymous with supporting state interventions as ensur- ing a higher degree of resource utilization. However, this statement is too general for it to be meaningful. Moreover, it ignores the existence of a serious divide within the Keynesianism resulting from the adoption of two completely different perspectives concerning the world functioning. The purpose of this paper is to compare those two Keynesian perspectives in the context of the separate areas of mainstream and heterodox economics. Given the role traditionally assigned to each of these alternative approaches, one group of ideas known as Keynesian is widely regarded as a major field for the discussion of economic problems, whilst the second one – even referred to using the same term – is consistently ignored in the academic literature. In accordance with the assumed objectives, the first part of the article briefly characterizes the concept of neoclassical economics and mainstream economics. Part two is devoted to the “old” neoclassical synthesis of the 1950s and 1960s, New Keynesianism and the * Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu, Katedra Makroekonomii i Badań nad Rozwojem ([email protected]).
  • The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour

    The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour

    1RNIA SAN DIEGO THE EIGHT TO THE WHOLE PRODUCE OF LABOUR THE EIGHT TO THE WHOLE PBODUCE OF LABOUK THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY OF LABOUR'S CLAIM TO THE WHOLE PRODUCT OF INDUSTRY BY DK. ANTON MENGEK PROFESSOR OF JURISPRUDENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA TRANSLATED BY M. E. TANNER WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND BIBLIOGRAPHY BY H. S. FOXWELL, M.A. PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON ; LECTURER AND LATE FELLOW OF ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE Hontion MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1899 A II rights reserved INTRODUCTION DR. ANTON MENGER'S remarkable study of the cardinal Dr doctrine of revolutionary socialism, now for the first W time published in English, has long enjoyed a wide reputation on the Continent; and English students of social philosophy, whether or not they are familiar with the original, will welcome its appearance in this trans- lation. The interest and importance of the subject will not be disputed, either by the opponents or the advocates of socialism ; and those who know how exceptionally Dr. Menger is qualified for work of this kind, by his juristic eminence, and his profound know- ledge of socialistic literature, will not need to be told that it has been executed with singular vigour and ability. Hitherto, perhaps because it was not generally accessible to English readers, the book has not received in this country the notice that it has met with elsewhere. Yet there are reasons why it should be of peculiar interest to English economists. The particular method of criticism adopted by Dr.
  • Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic Thomas Sargent, ,, ^ Neil Wallace (P

    Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic Thomas Sargent, ,, ^ Neil Wallace (P

    Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic Thomas Sargent, ,, ^ Neil Wallace (p. 1) District Conditions (p.18) Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review vol. 5, no 3 This publication primarily presents economic research aimed at improving policymaking by the Federal Reserve System and other governmental authorities. Produced in the Research Department. Edited by Arthur J. Rolnick, Richard M. Todd, Kathleen S. Rolfe, and Alan Struthers, Jr. Graphic design and charts drawn by Phil Swenson, Graphic Services Department. Address requests for additional copies to the Research Department. Federal Reserve Bank, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480. Articles may be reprinted if the source is credited and the Research Department is provided with copies of reprints. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis or the Federal Reserve System. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review/Fall 1981 Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic Thomas J. Sargent Neil Wallace Advisers Research Department Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and Professors of Economics University of Minnesota In his presidential address to the American Economic in at least two ways. (For simplicity, we will refer to Association (AEA), Milton Friedman (1968) warned publicly held interest-bearing government debt as govern- not to expect too much from monetary policy. In ment bonds.) One way the public's demand for bonds particular, Friedman argued that monetary policy could constrains the government is by setting an upper limit on not permanently influence the levels of real output, the real stock of government bonds relative to the size of unemployment, or real rates of return on securities.
  • Inflation Theory: a Critical Literature Review and a New Research Agenda

    Inflation Theory: a Critical Literature Review and a New Research Agenda

    Chapter 8 Inflation Theory: A Critical Literature Review and a New Research Agenda The social and economic upheavals associated with the collapse of the ‘golden age’ of capitalism stimulated important developments in the Marxian analyses of inflation.1,2 However, the interest of Marxian researchers in developing the insights of the 1970s and 1980s has declined sharply recently, along with their numbers and influence.3 This is largely due to the shift of the economic debate towards the mainstream, especially since the mid-1970s, the changing inter- ests some of the best-known non-mainstream researchers, and the long-term decline in inflation since the 1980s, which is often presented as one of the most remarkable achievements of the neoliberal (or neomonetarist) economic poli- cies (Arestis and Sawyer 1998). This essay claims that Marxian inflation theory deserves to be rediscovered, and investigated more fully, for three reasons. First, inflation poses an intrigu- ing theoretical challenge. Analyses inspired by the quantity theory of money usually have unacceptably weak foundations (especially perfect competition, full employment, and costless adjustment between static equilibria), while non-mainstream (especially Marxian) contributions are promising, but remain relatively undeveloped. Second, advances in the understanding of inflation can easily be extended to the study of deflation, and both are very important at this point in time (Moseley 1999). Third, inflation and conventional anti-inflation policies usually have high economic and social costs. They often lead to higher unemployment, lower real wages, higher rates of exploitation and to a shift the income distribution and the balance of social forces towards capital and, especially, towards financial interests.
  • Thomas Hodgskin and Economic Progress; a Radical Reconstruction of His Endogenous Growth Theory

    Thomas Hodgskin and Economic Progress; a Radical Reconstruction of His Endogenous Growth Theory

    THOMAS HODGSKIN AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS; A RADICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF HIS ENDOGENOUS GROWTH THEORY F.G. Day PhD 2009 THOMAS HODGSKIN AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS; A RADICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF HIS ENDOGENOUS GROWTH THEORY Frederick George Day A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Manchester Metropolitan University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Economics The Manchester Metropolitan University June 2009 1 Declaration I confirm that no part of this thesis has been submitted for the award of a qualification at this or any other university. 2 Abstract By means of a close reading of early 19th century economic works, and by reconstructing aspects of Thomas Hodgskin‘s political economy, this thesis presents an exposition of those parts of his work that contributed to his position on growth. Rather than concentrating on his ideas on capital, we have centred on his concept of political economy as a science concerned with labour as the sole creator of wealth. We present his political economy as having labour as its focal point within a hypothetical pure market economy. From here he sought a foundation to economic growth derived from human action rather than capital or other material circumstances. Hodgskin saw human knowledge and the use of technology as the starting point that would, from his perspective, lead inevitably to those economic conditions that produce improvements in economic welfare and by doing so allow for an increase in population. In order to demonstrate his ideas on growth, we reconstruct his concepts of what was natural and artificial to equate to the modern notions of endogenous and exogenous.
  • A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory

    A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory

    2021 A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory Steven Globerman fraserinstitute.org Contents Executive Summary / i 1. Introducing Modern Monetary Theory / 1 2. Implementing MMT / 4 3. Has Canada Adopted MMT? / 10 4. Proposed Economic and Social Justifications for MMT / 17 5. MMT and Inflation / 23 Concluding Comments / 27 References / 29 About the author / 33 Acknowledgments / 33 Publishing information / 34 Supporting the Fraser Institute / 35 Purpose, funding, and independence / 35 About the Fraser Institute / 36 Editorial Advisory Board / 37 fraserinstitute.org fraserinstitute.org Executive Summary Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a policy model for funding govern- ment spending. While MMT is not new, it has recently received wide- spread attention, particularly as government spending has increased dramatically in response to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and concerns grow about how to pay for this increased spending. The essential message of MMT is that there is no financial constraint on government spending as long as a country is a sovereign issuer of cur- rency and does not tie the value of its currency to another currency. Both Canada and the US are examples of countries that are sovereign issuers of currency. In principle, being a sovereign issuer of currency endows the government with the ability to borrow money from the country’s cen- tral bank. The central bank can effectively credit the government’s bank account at the central bank for an unlimited amount of money without either charging the government interest or, indeed, demanding repayment of the government bonds the central bank has acquired. In 2020, the cen- tral banks in both Canada and the US bought a disproportionately large share of government bonds compared to previous years, which has led some observers to argue that the governments of Canada and the United States are practicing MMT.
  • Modern Monetary Theory: a Marxist Critique

    Modern Monetary Theory: a Marxist Critique

    Class, Race and Corporate Power Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 1 2019 Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique Michael Roberts [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower Part of the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Roberts, Michael (2019) "Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique," Class, Race and Corporate Power: Vol. 7 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. DOI: 10.25148/CRCP.7.1.008316 Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol7/iss1/1 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Class, Race and Corporate Power by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique Abstract Compiled from a series of blog posts which can be found at "The Next Recession." Modern monetary theory (MMT) has become flavor of the time among many leftist economic views in recent years. MMT has some traction in the left as it appears to offer theoretical support for policies of fiscal spending funded yb central bank money and running up budget deficits and public debt without earf of crises – and thus backing policies of government spending on infrastructure projects, job creation and industry in direct contrast to neoliberal mainstream policies of austerity and minimal government intervention. Here I will offer my view on the worth of MMT and its policy implications for the labor movement. First, I’ll try and give broad outline to bring out the similarities and difference with Marx’s monetary theory.
  • Neoclassicism and the Separation of Ownership and Control

    Neoclassicism and the Separation of Ownership and Control

    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2009 Neoclassicism and the Separation of Ownership and Control Herbert J. Hovenkamp University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons, Corporate Finance Commons, Economic History Commons, Economic Theory Commons, Industrial Organization Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Securities Law Commons Repository Citation Hovenkamp, Herbert J., "Neoclassicism and the Separation of Ownership and Control" (2009). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1792. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1792 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VIRGINIA LAW & BUSINESS REVIEW VOLUME 4 FALL 2009 NUMBER 2 NEOCLASSICISM AND THE SEPARATION OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL Herbert Hovenkamp† INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 374 I. FISHER’S SEPARATION THEOREM ................................................................... 383 II. VALUE MAXIMIZATION AND THE NATURE OF THE FIRM ....................... 286 III. THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE AND VALUE
  • Who Do Heterodox Economists Think They Are? Andrew Mearman Bristol

    Who Do Heterodox Economists Think They Are? Andrew Mearman Bristol

    Who do heterodox economists think they are? Andrew Mearman Bristol Business School University of the West of England BS16 1QY UK E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: This paper attempts to engage with the established debate on the nature of heterodox economics. However, it starts from the position that previous attempts to classify and identify heterodox economics have been biased towards a priori definition. The paper aims to inform the discussion of the nature of heterodoxy with some empirical analysis. The paper examines survey data collected from a small/medium-sized sample of AHE members on the core concepts in economics. The paper applies factor analysis to the data. It also applies principles of biological taxonomy, and thence cluster analysis to the problem. The paper finds that within the self-identified community of self-identified heterodox economists there is little agreement as to whether members are pluralist, or what their attitude is to the mainstream. Indeed, there is little agreement on any core concepts or principles. The paper argues that there is little structure to heterodox economics beyond that provided by pre-existing (or constituent) schools of thought. Based on this study, heterodox economics appears a complex web of interacting individuals and as a group is a fuzzy set. These results would lead us to question further strict distinctions between heterodox, mainstream and pluralist economists. Keywords: heterodox economics, survey, factor analysis, cluster analysis JEL classifications: B5, C19, C83 Copyright held. Do not quote or reproduce without prior consent of the author. Draft of July 2009 Who do heterodox economists think they are? 1 Introduction What is heterodox economics? The term is now established in the literature, arguably more firmly than at any other time.
  • Presidential Documents

    Presidential Documents

    Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Monday, February 9, 2004 Volume 40—Number 6 Pages 175–208 VerDate jul 14 2003 09:32 Feb 10, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 1249 Sfmt 1249 E:\PRESDOCS\P06FEF4.006 P06FEF4 Contents Addresses and Remarks Executive Orders—Continued See also Appointments and Nominations; Federal Real Property Asset Management— Meetings With Foreign Leaders 192 American Heart Month, proclamation President’s Commission on Implementation of signing—181 United States Space Exploration Policy— Cabinet meeting—179 175 ‘‘Churchill and the Great Republic’’ exhibit— Interviews With the News Media 188 National Prayer Breakfast—195 Exchange with reporters in the Cabinet Pennsylvania, Congress of Tomorrow Room—179 luncheon in Philadelphia—177 Meetings With Foreign Leaders Radio address—176 United Nations, Secretary-General Annan— South Carolina, Port of Charleston—197 187 Virginia, National Targeting Center in Reston—205 Proclamations American Heart Month—181 Appointments and Nominations National African American History Month— Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities 188 of the United States Regarding Weapons of National Consumer Protection Week—182 Mass Destruction, remarks—202 Statements by the President Communications to Federal Agencies Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Determination Pursuant to Section 2(c)(1) of decision on same-sex marriage—191 the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act Representative Jennifer Dunn’s decision not of 1962, as Amended, memorandum—202 to seek reelection—179 Representative
  • THE NEOLIBERAL THEORY of SOCIETY Simon Clarke

    THE NEOLIBERAL THEORY of SOCIETY Simon Clarke

    THE NEOLIBERAL THEORY OF SOCIETY Simon Clarke The ideological foundations of neo-liberalism Neoliberalism presents itself as a doctrine based on the inexorable truths of modern economics. However, despite its scientific trappings, modern economics is not a scientific discipline but the rigorous elaboration of a very specific social theory, which has become so deeply embedded in western thought as to have established itself as no more than common sense, despite the fact that its fundamental assumptions are patently absurd. The foundations of modern economics, and of the ideology of neoliberalism, go back to Adam Smith and his great work, The Wealth of Nations. Over the past two centuries Smith’s arguments have been formalised and developed with greater analytical rigour, but the fundamental assumptions underpinning neoliberalism remain those proposed by Adam Smith. Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations as a critique of the corrupt and self-aggrandising mercantilist state, which drew its revenues from taxing trade and licensing monopolies, which it sought to protect by maintaining an expensive military apparatus and waging costly wars. The theories which supported the state conceived of exchange as a ‘zero-sum game’, in which one party’s gain was the other party’s loss, so the maximum benefit from exchange was to be extracted by force and fraud. The fundamental idea of Smith’s critique was that the ‘wealth of the nation’ derived not from the accumulation of wealth by the state, at the expense of its citizens and foreign powers, but from the development of the division of labour. The division of labour developed as a result of the initiative and enterprise of private individuals and would develop the more rapidly the more such individuals were free to apply their enterprise and initiative and to reap the corresponding rewards.
  • Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Wealth Accounting

    Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Wealth Accounting

    Draft: January 27, 2011 BIODIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND WEALTH ACCOUNTING Charles Perrings ecoSERVICES Group, Arizona State University, Tempe. AZ 85287 Abstract The appropriate measure on which to compare the economic performance of different countries at a point in time, or the performance of a particular country over time, is per capita wealth. This is the only measure that tests whether the wellbeing generated by a flow of services is expected to be sustainable (non-declining over time), and so the only measure that allows sustainability comparisons between countries. This paper considers the implications of (a) changes in our understanding of ecosystem services, and (b) the welfare theoretic basis for wealth accounting, for the generation of comprehensive asset accounts. It argues that the set of accounts used to measure the growth, equity and sustainability of resource use should cover all surficial assets on which human wellbeing depends, and that estimates of the value of surficial assets should include off-site ecosystem service flows. 1. Posing the problem There is accumulating evidence that human ‘management’ of the biosphere is having a major effect on the abundance and diversity of other species, on ecological functioning, and on ecosystem processes. The most heralded impact of the conversion of land to human use is the extinction of other species, but anthropogenic environmental change has many other dimensions. Emissions to air, soil and water are affecting ecosystem processes at many different scales, extending from the global effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate to the local effects of nitrate emissions on groundwater. Two global assessments have documented the effect of people’s use of terrestrial and marine resources on biodiversity change, and have offered some evidence for why it matters.