Issues of power relations, institutions and governance position themselves at the border between the ecological economy and the corporate economy. It was not considered a priority, with the exception of a few authors who also claimed political ecology. However, these questions are now a strong focus, especially in Europe.
Beyond a shared vision and a few unifying themes, ecological economics is nonetheless a heterogeneous current intersected by important epistemological tensions and debates. To understand this diversity of positions, it has been proposed to divide the field of ecological economics into three trends.
First, there is a group of so-called "new resource economists" who adopt the assumptions, methods, and analytical frameworks of standard economics to deal with new ecological objects. Subsequently, it is considered an advanced position of the economy.
A second trend aims above all to persuade decision makers to take effective measures to protect the environment. It consists of writers who are characterized as new environmental pragmatists. Therefore, they are ready to change their arguments and language according to the circumstances.
If the biodiversity to be protected is in a sanctuary, they can use religious or popular traditions. They will then adopt the monetary language of cost-benefit analysis and natural capital valuation to attract the attention of public funders and businesses.
A third trend is social ecological economics, which clearly breaks away from dominant economic approaches and prioritizes issues of social equality and intrinsic value of nature. This more radical and heterodox perspective is particularly influential in Europe.
The first two trends therefore have an indefinite relationship with the standard economy.
The latter is closer to political and institutional economics. In this respect, it is true that at the beginning of ecological economics, it was shaped towards environmental sciences rather than social and political sciences.
Therefore, there is an unconvincing assessment of the social pillar of sustainable development. It is difficult to think of economic and environmental issues as social and political constructs.
Issues of power relations, institutions and governance position themselves at the border between the ecological economy and the corporate economy. It was not considered a priority, with the exception of a few authors who also claimed political ecology. However, these questions are now a strong focus, especially in Europe.
This latter approach results in an in-depth study of environmental conflicts and analysis of social relations with nature. Political and institutional dimensions are critical for the efficiency and equity of market mechanisms.
It has been the subject of many studies, especially on sustainable development and governance mechanisms for natural resources.
Finally, it is necessary to highlight the rapid development and growing enthusiasm evoked by the downsizing studies. The term appears to be both a militant catchphrase and a fruitful field of research for some ecological economists, who feel that the barrier between science and politics must be broken.
Contemporary Discussions
The ecological economy now has more than 25 years of official existence. Beyond the pluralism of methods, it claims and the changing nature of its contours and orientations, it is an integral part of the academic and institutional landscape today.
It is structured around a desire to understand the interrelationships between socio-economic systems and the biosphere, with a concern for equality. This includes paradigm shifts.
It highlights the environmental issue as well as the need to bring socio-economic systems into strong sustainability trajectories. It proposes a profound transformation of the framework of economic analysis of the environment, whether methods, tools or environments adopted.
It addresses issues at the heart of contemporary debates: the value of nature, the sustainability of regions, the limits of growth, the link between the imperative of sustainability and the way actors coordinate or climate risks.
To do this, it draws on principles and methodologies that differentiate it profoundly from standard economics: systemic approach, interdisciplinary, importance of complexity, immeasurability of values, equity and between generations, taking participatory approaches into account, etc.Nevertheless, it will face significant internal tensions as some of its supporters return to arguments and tools borrowed from standard economics.
Follow the below links to view Dr. Yasam Ayavefe’s projects:
https://greenclimate.io/
https://yasamayavefe.com/ https://milayacapital.com/