peakdecisions.org

  • Home
  • About

Sustainable Development Commission to replace the Productivity Commission? It is past time to move beyond the Ptolemaic views of neoclassical economics

March 28, 2016 by Peter 1 Comment

In a recent article on the The Conversation web site, several senior policy researchers have put forward a proposal to scrap the Productivity Commission and replace it with a Sustainable Development Commission .

The central core of their proposal, however, is not just about renaming an institution — it is about a paradigm change in how we think about economic growth and development: from the current neoclassical economic paradigm to a new emergent view which situates the economy as nested within, and dependent upon, the biosphere .  As John Day and Charles Hall have recently argued, such a change would be on par with, and as equally warranted as, the transition from the Ptolemaic theory that the sun rotates around the earth, to the more correct Copernican view that the planets rotate around the sun. 1

The Ptolemaic view of earth as the centre of the universe.

The Ptolemaic view of earth as the centre of the universe.

The Productivity Commission, along with pretty much the entire Canberra bureaucracy and most university economics departments, are rooted in the (Ptolemaic) neoclassical economic paradigm. This paradigm is wholly inadequate for understanding and assessment of the global ecological crisis we now find ourselves in. The existing paradigm is simply not adequate to the reality it is supposed to be explaining and providing policy prescriptions for. We should also bear in mind that in the world of policy and politics, paradigms are often buttressed by particular interests and lobby groups.

For the Productivity Commission and much of the rest of the policy establishment, the neoclassical economic paradigm is simply the horizon of common sense, as invisible and unquestioned as the air we breath. It was on display again in the Commission’s recent enquiry into migrant intake into Australia — see details of my submissions which critique its neoclassical assumptions here.

Some may be unaware that ‘environmental economics’ is simply neo-classical economics with a few add-ons, such as contingent valuation, which are supposed to translate environmental values and services into monetary values. But these neoclassical approaches are doomed to failure, for many reasons, not least of which are: (a) a failure to theorize the problems of biophysical and thermodynamic limits; (b) the problem of incommensurables – all things cannot be measured by a monetary standard, and even if they were, monetary (market) value does not necessarily reflect real value; and (c) a flawed assumption of ‘infinite substitutability’ whereby it is believed that scarcities in particular resources can always be overcome by scientific-technical innovation. The latter important point is clearly explained in a recent paper2 by John Day et al (citations removed):

One of the major critiques of neoclassical economics is that  it  reduces  the  complexity  of  real  production  processes  to  capital  alone.  According  to  this  viewpoint,  human  capital,  manmade  capital,  and  natural  capital  are  absolute  substitutes  for  one  another …  In  essence,  the  idea  of  absolute  substitution  is  based  on  the  false  notion  of  presumed  unlimited  capital ….  This  misinformed  assumption  perpetuates  the  fallacy  of  infinite  growth  on  a  planet  of  finite  resources.  But  it  seems  that  most  economists  believe  that  technological  progress  is  an  all powerful  process  that  will  replace  resources  with  ideas  indefinitely.

The developing fields of ecological economics, biophysical economics and green political economy are promising starting points for the emergent paradigm – but most certainly these are not embraced at the Productivity Commission.

Whether the PC could be reformed, or whether setting up another independent institution with a sustainability mandate is a better option – these are questions for serious consideration. Either way, it is a question of how to address a massive failure in policy and politics, whereby we seem to be standing by helplessly while the ecological crisis is gaining on us (case in point: the recent carbon pricing debacle in Australian politics). It may be wishful thinking to hope that another new institution will help. Possibly it could help foster a more inclusive debate, and draw in the emergent paradigm which is being excluded by neoclassical dominance.

Some may remember the ill-fated Resource Assessment Commission back in the early 1990s, which tried to undertake integrated assessments of some resource issues. The Commission did experiment with what were then thought to be the risqué methods of environmental economics. As an institutional innovation, the RAC failed for reasons that are well-documented in a Masters thesis by Ian Holland3 Any designers of a new Sustainable Development Commission would be wise to review those lessons.

  1. Day, J.W. and Hall, C., 2016. Moving Away from a Ptolemic (sic) View of the Human Economy. In America’s Most Sustainable Cities and Regions (pp. 255-274). Springer New York. ↩
  2. Day, J.W., Moerschbaecher, M., Pimentel, D., Hall, C. and Yánez-Arancibia, A., 2014. Sustainability and place: How emerging mega-trends of the 21st century will affect humans and nature at the landscape level. Ecological Engineering, 65, pp.33-48. ↩
  3. Ian Hamilton Holland. 1999. Essence and Decision. The Case of Coronation Hill.Thesis (Masters), Griffith University, Brisbane. ↩

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • Email
  • WhatsApp
  • Print

Related

Filed Under: Neoclassical Economic Paradigm, Neoliberalism

Comments

  1. Zoe Sofoulis says

    April 4, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Another great contribution Peter. Totally agree. I’ve been rabbiting on about replacing that Thatcherite dinosaur the Productivity Commission with a Sustainability Commission since my National Water Commission Fellowship in 2011 and I’m glad to hear that you and some senior policy advisers are making the case. Thanks for references to Day et al.

    Neoliberalism is a cancer that is still metastasizing all over the place, and has already struck down CSIRO, where the Abbott-appointed capitalist entrepreneur Larry Marshall at CEO has no sense of the public good of science and sees absolutely everything CSIRO does in terms of markets, commodities and customers — even the environment is a customer now. (Check Senate Estimates transcript for 11/2/16, pp.67-75).

    The latest reports about how Australians are pessimistic about our future despite pretty good economic outlooks indicate not only that international economic benchmarks are not as important to people as other things indicating social and national well-being, but also leads me to speculate that pessimism is related to awareness that as far as sustainable development and climate change adaptation and mitigation go, we are actually an undeveloped country with weak governments that continually fail to address major issues of shared concern and offer no protection of people, land, water and other resources against the depredations of corrupt multinationals . The Adani mine approval by the Palaszczuk government demonstrates yet again that Labor parties are unreliable at best in acting for the future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

My Tweets

Recent Posts

  • “I simply am not a scientist.” Here is what Liberal MP Andrew Wallace says about climate change
  • FactCheck: Demographer Dr Liz Allen gets facts wrong on optimum level of immigration
  • The ABC, Population Growth and A Big Australia: Official Complaint
  • Dr Jonathon Sobels Nails It On Population and Immigration
  • Upcoming ABC shows on population and a Big Australia
  • Managing Australia’s Migrant Intake – Time for More Democracy
  • Why is Labor pushing a Big Australia?
  • Guy Rundle on population and immigration
  • Sustainable Development Commission to replace the Productivity Commission? It is past time to move beyond the Ptolemaic views of neoclassical economics
  • Heading towards a big Australia? Comments on the Productivity Commission Draft Report on Migrant Intake
  • Time to Stabilize Australia’s Population
  • Queensland election: May this be the stake through the heart of neoliberal dogma
  • John Faulkner calls for enhanced oversight of Australia’s intelligence agencies
  • Heidegger, Technology and Nazism: black notebooks add a black mark
  • Update on chemicals in bedding

More Posts

  • Climate Change (9)
  • Critical Theory (1)
  • Democracy (2)
  • Denial (4)
  • Financial crisis (1)
  • Immigration (5)
  • Neoclassical Economic Paradigm (1)
  • Neoliberalism (3)
  • Nuclear Power (1)
  • Population (9)
  • Science and Technology (1)
  • Toxic chemicals (2)

Energy and Climate Links

  • Blistered Orb
  • Brave New Climate
  • Climate Change Denial
  • Climate Progress
  • deSmogBlog
  • Fairewinds Energy Education
  • HowMany.org
  • James Hansen
  • Post Carbon Institute
  • Real Climate
  • Resilience
  • Skeptical Science
  • Union of Concerned Scientists

Nuclear Links

  • All Things Nuclear
  • Atomic Power Review
  • Brave New Climate
  • Greenpeace Nuclear Reaction Weblog
  • Nuclear Information and Resource Service
  • Nukefree.org
  • World Nuclear News

Population Links

  • HowMany.org
  • Population Matters
  • Population Reference Bureau
  • Sustainable Population Australia

Copyright © 2023 · peakdecisions.org · Web Design by: WarMarks

Copyright © 2023 · Peak Decisions Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

 

Loading Comments...