Seite 50 [50]
48 TAMÁS Kocsis
We have thus pinpointed the use of energy stocks hidden in the earth as one
of the main causes of increasing returns in industry. Increasing returns, however,
is a positive feedback, and, therefore, such an economy cannot be regarded as
self-regulating. It jeopardizes the sustainability of energy resources, which may
lead to the deterioration of the natural environment and the decline of productivity.
Consequently, such an economy needs to be managed, regulated and coordinated
(Christensen 1991: 84-86; Harangozö 2022).
Ecological economics has developed a holistic approach, that is, a comprehensive
view of the environment and the global biosphere. The implementation of the
more sustainable forms of economic development is no longer the luxury of
industrially developed countries suffering from the consequences of their
overdevelopment. Their adoption also appears to be urgent in countries at the
onset of the industrialization and expansion of their economies (Barbier 1989: 37).
Summary: A comparison of environmental economics
and ecological economics
Here the focus is on the two schools of economic thought engaged explicitly in
human-induced environmental problems. The recognizable methodological and
structural differences between the two schools derive organically from their
historical and systemic specificities. The overview is based primarily on the summary
by Sahu and Nayak (1994) (Table 2).
Environmental economics tries to modify the neoclassical economic paradigm
(NEO) so as to enable it to tackle issues rooted in the openness of the economy.
It does not break with the dominant economic position, because it wishes to solve
the environmental problems with the help of the market mechanism (the main
goal is effective allocation) and it is based on possible substitution by technological
development. Thus, man-made capital and natural capital, in the view of NEO,
are mostly substitutable.
In contrast, ecological economics (here abbreviated as ECO) aims to integrate
findings by physics, ecology and other social sciences in addition to economics.
It attempts to conceptualize the relationship between economy and nature from
the angle of ecology, stressing the entropic nature of economic activity (second
law of thermodynamics). It is not satisfied with the theoretically achievable optimal
market allocation, but it also analyzes the distribution of welfare (equity) and the
scale of the economy (sustainability). ECO holds that man-made capital and
natural capital are in a complementary relationship and can only marginally be
substituted for each other (Bajmécy 2022).
NEO’s concept of scientism (monodisciplinary) separates it from the other
sciences. It is characterized by a mechanical world view and the simplification of
reality (reductionism). Knowledge is interpreted via positivist and other “value¬
free” methods. ECO, on the contrary, strives for multidisciplinary scholarship,
possesses a holistic view, and believes in evolutionary development. Its subjective
methodology is imbued with ideology and values which it openly emphasizes,
giving up the — often spurious — appearance of scientism.