Economics, Steady State

Economics, Steady State

The “steady state” economy is rooted in the nineteenth- application of the entropy law to economic processes and to century economic theory of John Stuart Mill. Little used the emergence of the limits-to-growth argument in the until after World War II, the idea is a foundational con- early 1970s. (Entropy is a concept taken from the sub-dis- cept in sustainability science. It can be considered an cipline of physics called thermodynamics. A basic defi nition intellectual fabric with strands from classical econom- of entropy is the process whereby energy moves from a state ics to neo-Malthusianism, including growth limits, eco- of being able to do work—a state of high organization logical economics, and degrowth. Whether a steady termed “low entropy”—to a state of being unable to do state economy is desirable and achievable remains an work—a state of lower organization termed “high entropy.” unanswered question for sustainability science. Entropy is roughly synonymous with lack of organization.) It is embraced by the US ecological economist Herman he “steady state” economy (also called the “stationary Daly and thus is basic to the development of the discipline T state” economy) is a 150-year-old economic concept of ecological economics. Th ere are elements of the steady that became central to debates over the meaning of sus- state within the sustainable development paradigm, and it tainability or sustainable development in the twentieth leads logically to its most radical form, sustainable degrowth. century. Th ere are several views on what the steady state Nonetheless, there remain unanswered questions as to how actually would be, as well as on the process of economic a steady state economy might be achieved, whether it is still and social change that might lead to it, and whether or relevant in today’s economic environment, and whether it is not it is even a desirable vision of a sustainable society a desirable part of the sustainability paradigm. relevant for the twenty-fi rst century. Many of the debates about the steady state economy are fundamentally the John Stuart Mill same as debates about sustainability in general. Th e steady state concept is rooted in nineteenth-century John Stuart Mill introduced the idea of the steady state classical economic theory and is most clearly formulated in economy idea in 1848 in a section of Book IV of his a short section in John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Principles of Political Economy. Th e section “Of the Stationary Economy . Th ere has not been a clear development of Mill’s State” was a reaction to the work of other classical econo- thought into a modern vision of the steady state. Rather, mists such as Adam Smith and T. Robert Malthus. Mill there are multiple strands of intellectual development that questioned the imperative of progress by asking about the sometimes, but not always, borrow from one another. end of development and by asserting that “the increase in Th e idea comes up in standard economic theory and the wealth is not boundless,” an early expression of what would neo-Malthusianism of the mid-twentieth century, the come to be known as the limits-to-growth argument. return to the ideas of the British scholar T. Robert Malthus Mill rejected the contention by other classical econo- that human populations tend to grow faster than food sup- mists that the end of progress must result in dire or plies, resulting in a population controlled by famine, disease, depressing consequences. He made several claims for the or conflict. Steady state economy is central to the stationary state, fi rst by not assuming that an increase in Romanian-US economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s human population was inevitable. He did acknowledge 78 www.berkshirepublishing.com © 2012 Berkshire Publishing Group, all rights reserved. ECONOMICS, STEADY STATE • 79 that if the population was always increasing, then eco- versus arithmetic growth in food supply was a model for nomic growth was necessary to avoid degrading the understanding the changes facing the world after the cat- poorest of those in society; he did not think that growth aclysm of World War II. Th e links between a steady state was required in order for the poor to share in the benefi ts economy and a stationary population became accepted of society, which they could and must do. He advocated truths for the neo-Malthusians. As Vogt (1948, 284–288) instead a redistribution of wealth and shared access to the said, “By excessive breeding and abuse of the land, man- paths to decent income. His vision was that “the best kind has backed itself into an ecological trap. . . . [U] state for human nature is that in which, while no one is nless, in short, man readjusts his way of living, in its full- poor, no one desires to be richer, nor has any reason to est sense, to the imperatives imposed by the limited fear being thrust back by the eff orts of others to push resources of his environment—we may as well give up all themselves forward.” hope of continuing civilized life.” Neo-Malthusian So a stationary population and shared benefi ts of the thinking continued into the 1960s, particularly in the economy (he called this “equality of fortunes”) were cen- writings of the US biologist Paul Ehrlich (1968). tral to Mill’s stationary state. In today’s terminology, he Vogt, Osborn, and others planted the seeds that grew was essentially making a quality-of-life argument for the into several diff erent but intertwined strains of steady stationary state. A stationary population results in a pop- state economics in the 1960s and 1970s. Th ese included ulation density that allows for solitude, “and solitude in limits to growth, Georgescu-Roegen’s application of the presence of natural beauty and grandeur, is the cradle entropy to economic processes, and Daly’s explicit steady of thoughts and aspirations which are not only good for state economics. the individual, but which society could ill do without.” A stationary population, therefore, is necessary for a sta- tionary state economy. The Limits-to-Growth Controversy Mill also made the distinction between growth and development that would become important to twentieth- In the post–World War II era, the emphasis in the indus- century proponents of the steady state economy, particu- trial nations of the world was to continue economic larly Herman Daly. In Mill’s words, “It is scarcely growth. Th e reconstruction of Western Europe and necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capi- Japan, the development of the fi rst Green Revolution, tal and population implies no stationary state of and the formation of the Organisation for Economic human improvement. Th ere would be as much scope as Co-operation and Development were all part of a ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social growth-oriented public policy. Th e fears of the neo- progress.” Malthusians were addressed and rejected. In the United Mill’s stationary state ideas were little used for nearly States, Resources for the Future (RFF) was founded to a century, until the post–World War II era. research the potential constraints on growth from resource scarcity. In a seminal work from RFF, the researchers Howard Barnett and Chandler Morse con- Early Uses of the Concept cluded that generally declining real prices of natural resources indicated the power of technological change Th e theories of growth that dominated early twentieth- and resource substitution to prevent any specifi c resource century neoclassical economics did not dispense with scarcity. “Advances in fundamental science have made it Mill’s steady or stationary concepts, but the ideas were possible to take advantage of the uniformity of energy/ used in a technical sense, exemplifi ed by the US econo- matter—a uniformity that makes it feasible, without pre- mist Paul Samuelson’s (1943) writings at midcentury. Th e assignable limit, to escape the quantitative constraints stationary economy was considered as some kind of equi- imposed by the character of the earth’s crust” (1963, 11). librium condition that needed to be understood in terms Barnett and Morse’s conclusions refl ected the growing of capital formation and depreciation, interest rates, and dominance of the neoclassical paradigm in the economics the business cycle. Th e steady state was in no sense a nor- profession. In this perspective, the neo-Malthusians were mative concept as used by Mill before and others characterized as being just as wrong as Malthus was in afterward. his predictions about population growth and food More signifi cant to the emergence of the steady state supply. economy idea was a neo-Malthusian concern for popula- Yet in the 1960s, there were multiple challenges to the tion growth in the post–World War II era. Th e US ecolo- neoclassical model. For example, the US economist gist William Vogt (1948), the US conservationist Kenneth Boulding used a space-age metaphor to express Fairfi eld Osborn (1948), and others suggested that the the idea of limits when he introduced the metaphor of the Malthusian trap of geometric growth in population Earth as a spaceship. Boulding (1966) argued that the www.berkshirepublishing.com © 2012 Berkshire Publishing Group, all rights reserved. 80 • THE BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SUSTAINABILITY: THE FUTURE OF SUSTAINABILITY standard model of an open economy (he called it a “cow- models that had dominated their profession. Two are boy” economy) failed to refl ect the reality of the limits to notable in the evolution of steady state economics: the natural system within which the economy as a social Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly. system functions. His proposed alternative was a closed or “spaceman” economy where stocks are maintained but throughput (output or production) is minimized. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen Although Boulding did not call this a steady state econ- and Herman Daly omy, he clearly challenged the assumptions of the stan- dard neoclassical growth model. Th e two late-twentieth-century economists most closely Despite the challenges by Boulding and others, associated with the idea of a steady state economy Barnett and Morse expressed the dominant worldview in were Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly. Western industrial societies until the publication in 1972 Georgescu-Roegen was a Romanian mathematician and of Th e Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972). economist whose contributions set the stage Th is report on computer modeling of the for a full development of the steady “world system” was sponsored by the state economy idea. He argued that Club of Rome, an international group of economists had limited their private citizens brought together by analysis in the traditional cir- the Italian industrialist Aurelio cular fl ow model of the econ- Peccei and the Scottish scientist omy and ignored the obvious Alexander King in 1968 to fact that economic processes stimulate international think- take place in a larger biophys- ing on long-term issues. Th e ical realm. Th e boundaries project they sponsored at between the economy and the the Massachusetts Institute “material world” are relevant of Technology developed a to understanding fundamental systems dynamic model of the economic processes. (See fi gure 1 world system to test the growth on page 81). His profound con- assumptions of the standard tribution was to make clear the economic model. relevance of the laws of ther- Th e results showed that modynamics to economics the world system is charac- processes, particularly the terized by resource con- second law, or entropy law. straints either in terms of Once people saw economic availability of natural resources processes as essentially ones as inputs or of limits on the pol- that converted low-entropy lution-assimilative capacities of the energy to high-entropy energy, natural environment. Growth then they understood that growth had would inevitably lead to “overshoot and col- to be limited. Production and con- lapse.” Th e authors argued that their fi ndings neces- sumption of goods and services inevitably sitated an equilibrium state. “Thus the most basic lead to the conversion of low-entropy energy to high- defi nition of the state of global equilibrium is that popu- entropy energy—a process that physicists assure us can- lation and capital are essentially stable, with the forces not continue indefi nitely. tending to increase or decrease them in a carefully con- Placing the economy within this larger system, which trolled balance” (Meadows et al. 1972, 171). both neoclassical and Marxist economists had failed to Numerous neoclassical economists attacked the limits- do, changed the understanding of what was possible. Th e to-growth fi ndings, most often based on the conten- economy was constrained by the laws of physics, and tion that Meadows’s team had ignored the role of prices those laws could no longer be ignored. Georgescu- in markets to stimulate technical innovation and input Roegen’s approach challenged the basic understanding of substitution (Cole et al. 1973). Th e book spawned a wide capital in economic growth models, which treated natu- public debate about growth. For example, the American ral and manufactured capital as substitutes with few or no Academy of Arts and Sciences dedicated a whole issue of limits on the degree the economy could replace natural its journal Daedalus to the “No-Growth Society.” capital with manufactured capital. A prime example of Concurrent with the limits-to-growth modeling this is the Cobb-Douglas production function, a central eff ort, a few economists began to critique the growth analytical tool in the neoclassical canon, which makes www.berkshirepublishing.com © 2012 Berkshire Publishing Group, all rights reserved. ECONOMICS, STEADY STATE • 81

Figure 1. Expansion of Economists’ Circular Flow Model Implicit in the Work of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen

Human system Space boundary with Sun Earth system

Matter & high Low entropy entropy energy energy

Circular flow model Output markets $ $ Firms Households $ $ Input Earth markets system boundary High entropy Matter & low entropy energy energy (natural resources)

Source: Adapted from Daly (1980, 20), fi g. I.2. Th ere are biophysical constraints on the economy. Th e boundaries between the economy and the “material world”—the world’s oceans, forests, atmosphere, etc.—are relevant to understanding fundamental economic processes, which are, essentially, activities that convert low-entropy energy to high-entropy energy. Sustainability requires that the economy function in ways that account for the biophysical constraints imposed by the larger system within which it is nested. explicit this fungibility of diff erent types of capital. steady state economy, while Georgescu-Roegen questioned Th e price system stimulates technical improvements in it on the same basis that he questioned the growth para- the effi ciency of manufactured capital, allowing it to digm of neoclassical economists. replace natural resources in the production function. Daly wrote more forcefully and in more detail on the Georgescu-Roegen’s argument was that more often than steady state than anyone else. Th e idea fi rst showed in not, natural capital and manufactured capital complement his 1968 article, “On Economics as a Life Science.” He each other. Furthermore, because production inevitably used biological and ecological analogies to posit a more transforms low-entropy energy, the most basic form of complete model of the economic process, showing natural capital, growth must be limited. His magnum clearly the infl uence of his mentor, Georgescu-Roegen. opus was Th e Entropy Law and the Economic Process, a book Daly’s writings on the steady state economy demon- more appreciated outside of the discipline of economics strate a breadth and depth of scholarship both within than within it (Daly 1995). economics and beyond its narrow disciplinary confi nes. Georgescu-Roegen did not embrace the term steady Ecology, physics, ethics, and evolutionary biology were state economy in his writings. Th at became the domain of all brought to bear on the problems of defi ning the his student, Herman Daly. Daly studied with Georgescu- steady state economy. For him, the idea was part of a Roegen at Vanderbilt University, but later their visions of Kuhnian paradigm shift that was essential for econom- the appropriate way to think of the possible end states ics to remain relevant as a discipline. Th e US historian diverged. Daly became the central proponent of the and philosopher Th omas Kuhn (1970) argued that www.berkshirepublishing.com © 2012 Berkshire Publishing Group, all rights reserved. 82 • THE BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SUSTAINABILITY: THE FUTURE OF SUSTAINABILITY science progresses when the prevailing paradigm in a (1980, 10). Th is idea that we can still develop even when discipline no longer functions to adequately explain there is no more growth is the most important feature of observations by scientists. Th is necessitates develop- the steady state economy. In this, Daly refl ected the ment of a new paradigm, a change that Daly saw to be thinking of Mill. Yet the possibility of development needed in economics. without growth challenged one of the central tenets of For Daly, the need for a steady state economy came neoclassical economic theory—that well-being (welfare) from two confl icting ideas. First, the neoclassical growth is measured by willingness to pay for goods and services, paradigm assumed that “good” ( welfare in economist’s and that there is no limit to human desires for additional terminology) comes from both an increase in capital, consumption. Daly rejected the idea that for humans especially manufactured capital (a stock), and from an more is always preferred over less. increase in income produced with that capital (a fl ow). Daly clearly drew on Georgescu-Roegen by direct ref- Second (which refl ects his desire to ground economics in erence and in the fundamental importance to his argu- biophysical realities), the Earth “approximates a steady- ments of the fi nite nature of resources, particularly state open system” and thus nature imposes “an inescap- low-entropy energy. Georgescu-Roegen, however, did not able general scarcity” (Daly 1980, 17, 19). Th ese two ideas embrace the steady state economy. He came to believe that represented an irreconcilable internal contradiction in the entropy law makes even the neoclassical economics, demanding a new steady state unachievable and paradigm—the steady state economy. calls it a “topical mirage.” He Th e steady state would of neces- pondered, “Perhaps the destiny sity have a constant stock of capital of man is to have a short, but and a constant population. But fi ery, exciting and extravagant this alone was not suffi cient. life rather than a long, unevent- Th e capital stock must be dura- ful and vegetative existence. Let ble so that there is a low rate of other species—the amoebas, for throughput in the system, an example—which have no spiritual idea similar to Boulding’s space- ambitions inherit an earth still ship economy metaphor. Here bathed in plenty of sunshine” Daly showed his grounding in (Georgescu-Roegen 1975, 379). the Georgescu-Roegen concern For many, the steady state economy for the relevance of entropy to the is related to the principles of sustainable economic process. Daly acknowl- development from the Brundtland edged that the limits on throughput Report, the title commonly given can occur on the input side (scarcity to the final report of the World of resources) or on the output side Commission on Environment and (limited capacity for the environ- Development (1987). While some ment to assimilate used matter used the term “sustainable develop- and energy). ment,” others referred to “sustainable Th e obvious problem of this growth.” Daly called “sustainable growth” system is that those least well off an oxymoron, arguing that growth is not sustain- materially cannot be offered higher able because it implies increase in capital stock, popula- incomes through growth, the idea of the growth para- tion, or both. Th e steady state economy sits in the middle digm being that a rising tide lifts all boats. Physical between growth models, with the optimism of neoclas- wealth would be a zero-sum game. Th is means that “the sical or sustainable growth on one side and the pessimism important issue of the steady state will be distribution, of Georgescu-Roegen on the other. We thus have three not production” (Daly 1980, 21). fundamentally diff erent views of what is possible and Harking back to Mill again, Daly emphasized the desirable, refl ecting multiple tensions around ideas of need to see economic well-being as rooted in develop- growth. ment rather than growth. Th ere is perhaps no stronger critique of the neoclassical paradigm than when he says, “Paradoxically, growth economics has been both too Is the Concept Still Relevant? materialistic and not materialistic enough. In ignoring the ultimate means and the laws of thermodynamics, it Th e steady state economy concept, in any of its manifes- has been insuffi ciently materialistic. In ignoring the tations, is fundamentally opposed to the dominant para- Ultimate End and ethics, it has been too materialistic” digm in contemporary economic thinking. Th e normative www.berkshirepublishing.com © 2012 Berkshire Publishing Group, all rights reserved. ECONOMICS, STEADY STATE • 83 application of the neoclassical mode is sometimes referred economic policy. For example, the idea of biophysical to as neoliberalism. While there are multiple debates limits on economic activity has taken hold with one of within the neoliberal school of economics, its general the world’s largest traders in currency, Tullett Prebon. normative approach favors freer trade among nations, Th e research director for the fi rm, Tim Morgan, argues fl exible labor markets, freer migration, global fi nancial that there is a need for a new kind of economics he calls integration to enhance capital fl ows, and intellectual “exponential economics” to identify “key drivers of property protections. Th e underlying assumption of this society and the economy.” He says, “Th e fi rst of these school is that economic growth is the solution to poverty, key drivers is that the economy is an energy equation. unemployment, and income inequality, captured in the Society as we know it today is a product of the use of aphorism “a rising tide lifts all boats.” extraneous energy to leverage the limited capabilities of Th is viewpoint is evident in the responses to the global human labor. Th e leveraging eff ect of abundant extra- fi nancial crises in the fi rst decade of the twenty-fi rst cen- neous energy alone permits the earth to support a pop- tury. National fi scal and monetary policies as well as ulation of almost seven billion people” (2010, 2). Th is global trade policies continued to focus on stimulating is not an explicit reference to Georgescu-Roegen, but it overall economic growth as measured by traditional met- refl ects the same kind of thinking. Morgan identifi es rics like real (infl ation-adjusted) gross domestic product energy return on energy invested as a potentially per capita. Public policy was clearly dominated by this important measure of the biophysical constraints on approach, and few politicians at local or national levels the economy (2010, 33). embraced the steady state economy idea. Th is might Th ese biophysical limits have an eff ect on distribu- bring into question whether the steady state concept is tional questions as well, which is the second assumption still relevant in a world recovering from a global recession where steady state advocates diff er from advocates of con- in the business cycle nearly as large as the Great ventional economics. We can see in the growing policy Depression following 1929. debate around climate change response that distribution Advocates of the steady state economy argue for a par- of consumption matters. The researcher Shoibal adigm shift in economics. Th ey reject many of the under- Chakravarty and his colleagues (2009) place climate lying assumptions of the neoliberal economic thinking change response as an issue of distribution and there- and make diff erent assumptions. Th ree of the important fore one that cannot be solved by growth. Th ey argue assumptions follow: that the requirements of carbon emission reductions should not be allocated on the basis of nation-states but • Th ere are biophysical constraints on the economy that rather based on the distribution of one billion high emit- must be recognized. (See fi gure 1 on page 81.) Economic ters, individuals who are responsible through their personal growth as refl ected in material throughput therefore lifestyles for the largest emissions and are located in nations cannot continue indefi nitely. around the world. • Inequalities in the distribution of income, wealth, and More signifi cantly, the 2011 United Nations Human other benefi ts of economic production are relevant to Development Report made explicit the links between sus- human well-being, and therefore distributional ques- tainability and equity in distribution. An innovation in tions cannot be ignored by advocating for more growth. the Human Development Index (HDI) for 2011 was the Utilitarianism is not accepted to be an ethically accept- inclusion of an inequality-adjusted HDI, for the fi rst able approach to measuring welfare changes. time recognizing in this metric that distribution of • Human well-being is not just a function of money income matters for well-being. Th is contradicted the util- income, and all values are not captured by individual itarian assumptions of welfare analysis in neoclassical willingness to pay for goods or services. economics and refl ects a growing acceptance of this part It is clear that these assumptions about normative of the steady state economy paradigm challenge to the elements of economic theory have not penetrated main- dominant paradigm. stream economic thinking and were not part of the public Th e HDI itself is part of a larger eff ort to develop policy response to global economic stresses at the begin- alternative metrics of economic well-being from those ning of the twenty-fi rst century. A paradigm shift has that have dominated the standard economic theory. not occurred yet in economics. Th ere are, however, signs Th e assumption of the neoclassical model is that well- of growing debate among economists that suggest that being is largely a function of consumption and that elements of the steady state economy may well be relevant money income is a reasonable metric for economic for the new century. progress. Th erefore, real gross domestic product per Th e normative assumptions of the steady state vision capita is a reasonable measure of economic progress. show up in surprising places, indicating that elements Inherent in the steady state economy paradigm is a of the concept continue to shape debates about challenge to this assumption, but here too there is an www.berkshirepublishing.com © 2012 Berkshire Publishing Group, all rights reserved. 84 • THE BERKSHIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SUSTAINABILITY: THE FUTURE OF SUSTAINABILITY increasingly broader acceptance of the challenge to Even if there were agreement either globally or at a money income as a comprehensive measure of well- smaller geographic scale that the steady state economy being, both among economists and policy makers. A was desirable, there are many technical questions to be good example is the report commissioned by the gov- answered. Th ese are similar to the questions that neoclas- ernment of France on alternative metrics of progress. sical growth theory addresses within the growth Th e authors say, “What we measure aff ects what we do; paradigm. and if our measurements are fl awed, decisions may be • What level of income and wealth inequality is necessary distorted. . . . [W]e often draw inferences about what or tolerable in the steady state? How do policies about are good policies by looking at what policies have pro- distribution affect production and consumption moted economic growth; but if our metrics of perfor- behaviors? mance are fl awed, so too may be the inferences we • How do diff erent age structures in a population aff ect draw” (Stiglitz, Sen, and Fitoussi 2009, 8). the functioning of the economy? Although there has not been a complete paradigm • What social welfare rules will be possible in the attempt shift toward acceptance of the idea of the steady state to reach and maintain the steady state? economy, the idea both in whole and in part continues • What are the capital investment needs of the steady to challenge mainstream thinking. Th e concept stakes state and what policies will assure that they are met? out an intellectual space between the optimists, neolib- This applies for all capital types—manufactured, eral (neoclassical) advocates for continued growth, and human, natural, and social/cultural. pessimists like Georgescu-Roegen. Th e most recent • What metrics of human well-being will facilitate manifestation of the steady state concept is the sustain- achieving and maintaining the steady state economy? able degrowth movement, which provokes a number of • Are people willing to accept constraints on behavior questions about the steady state concept at its core. necessary to achieve and maintain the steady state economy? Growth, Degrowth, • Can one part of the steady state economy grow, neces- and Resolved Problems sitating that some other part decreases? • Is the steady state sustainable in some meaningful way, or was Georgescu-Roegen correct in believing Th e steady state economy idea challenges the growth that the steady state is not any more possible than paradigm of the standard economic model. As long as growth? natural resources are abundant, seemingly unlimited growth off ers more for everyone. Growth allows societ- Th e assumption of the need for a steady state econ- ies to make everyone materially better off without hav- omy is that the current generation of humans has as an ing to address diffi cult issues of income or wealth ethical or a moral obligation to future humans and per- distribution. As humanity fi lls the planet, however, bio- haps to nonhuman species. Inherent in almost any defi - physical limits appear to the advocates of the steady nition of sustainability is the idea that there is an state economy to constrain future growth. Th erefore, intergenerational imperative that we leave the future no the steady state economy is the alternative paradigm worse off in terms of its ability to meet its needs. If the that may be sustainable. steady state economy is a necessary constraint on unsus- Several fundamental questions remain with the idea. tainable growth in order to allow the future to meets its At what levels of economic activity and population size needs, the steady state economy becomes an article of should the steady state occur? For optimists, the answer trust for the present generation. We must trust that if is some future level beyond which we need not worry the steady state is accomplished at some level that would in the present. For others, particularly those in the be sustainable for the indefi nite future, future genera- European degrowth movement, the rich nations of the tions will share in the commitment to pass that state on world are already beyond a level that could be sustain- to those who follow them in their future. It is essentially able as a steady state (see, e.g., Martinez-Alier et al. a reciprocal intergenerational bargain. How might we 2002; Kallis 2011.) Th e degrowth movement refl ects a be assured that those who follow us would accept that Georgescu-Roegen–like belief that society has already bargain? overshot the biophysical limits of the Earth and is trend- Mark W. ANDERSON ing toward collapse. Th ese opposed perspectives give Th e University of Maine widely diff erent answers to a stark question: Should there be more humans at lower levels of consumption for See also Community; Education, Higher; Energy a longer period of time or fewer humans at higher levels Effi ciency; Global Trade; Natural Capital; Population; of consumption for a shorter period of time? Progress; Values www.berkshirepublishing.com © 2012 Berkshire Publishing Group, all rights reserved. ECONOMICS, STEADY STATE • 85

F URTHER READING Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. (1971). Th e entropy law and the economic process . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Barnett, Harold J., & Morse, Chandler. (1963). Scarcity and g rowth: Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. (1975). Energy and economic myths. Th e economics of natural resource availa bility. Baltimore: Johns Southern Economic Journal , 41 , 347–381. Hopkins University Press. Kallis, Georgos. (2011). In defence of degrowth. Ecological Economics , Boulding, Kenneth. (1966). Th e economics of the coming spaceship 70 , 873–880. Earth. In Herman Daly (Ed.), Economics , ecology, ethics : Essays Kuhn, Th omas. (1970). Th e structure of scientifi c revolutions . Chicago: toward a steady-state economy . San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. University of Chicago Press. Boulding, Kenneth. (1973). Th e shadow of the stationary state. Layard, Richard. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a n ew s cience. New Daedalus , 102 (4), 89–101. York: Penguin. Chakravarty, Shoibal, et al. (2009). Sharing global CO 2 emission Martinez-Alier, Joan, et al. (2002). Sustainable degrowth: Mapping reduction among one billion high emitters. Proceedings of the the context, criticisms, and future prospects of an emergent para- National Academy of Sciences , 106 (29), 11884–11888. digm. Ecological Economics , 69 , 1741–1747. Cole, H. S. D.; Freeman, Christopher; Jahoda, Mari; & Pavitt, K. L. Meadows, Donella H.; Meadows, Dennis L.; Randers, Jorgen; & R. (1973). Th inking about the future : A critique of the limits to growth . Behrens, William W., III. (1972). Th e limits to growth . New York: London: Chatto & Windus. Universe Books. Daly, Herman E. (1968). On economics as a life science. Journal of Mill, John Stuart. (1848). Of the stationary state. Principles of political Political Economy , 76 , 392–406. economy —Book IV. Daly, Herman E. (1980). Introduction to Essays toward a steady-state Morgan, Tim. (2010). End-Game: Th e denouement of exponentials. economy . In Herman Daly (Ed.), Economics , ecology, et hics: Essays Strategy Insights , Issue Six. London: Tullett Prebon. toward a steady-state economy . San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Osborn, Fairfi eld. (1948). Our plundered p lanet . Boston: Little, Brown. Retrieved August 14, 2012, from http://josiah.berkeley. Ropke, Inge. (2004). Th e early modern history of ecological econom- edu/2008Spring/ER291/Readings/3.19-4.01/ValuingTh eEarth_ ics. Ecological Economics , 50 , 293–314. Daly_Intro.pdf Samuelson, Paul A. (1943). Dynamics, statics, and the stationary state. Daly, Herman E. (1995). On Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s contribu- Th e Review of Economics and Statistics , 25 (1), 56–68. tions to economics: An obituary essay. Ecological Economics , 13 , Stiglitz, Joseph E.; Sen, Amartya; & Fitoussi, Jean-Paul. (2009). 149–154. Report by the Commission on the measurement of economic per- Daly, Herman E., & Cobb, John B., Jr. (1989). For the common good : formance and social progress. Retrieved November 28, 2011, from Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a www.stiglitz-sen-fi toussi.fr sustainable future . Boston: Beacon Press. Vogt, William. (1948). Road t o survival . New York: Sloane Associates. Ehrlich, Paul. (1968). Th e population b omb. New York: Ballantine World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Books. (1987). Our common future . New York: Oxford University Press.

www.berkshirepublishing.com © 2012 Berkshire Publishing Group, all rights reserved.