Page 50 [50]
OCR
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 “valuefree” 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.
