How to be an Ecological Economist*

Malte Faber°

° Alfred Weber Institute, Department of Economics University of Heidelberg,

Grabengasse 14, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany

E-mail: faber@uni-hd.de

How to be an Ecological Economist*

Abstract

To answer the question “How to be an Ecological Economist”, we must start by defining

the field of Ecological Economics. Mainstream Economics altogether lacks the concepts

required to deal adequately with nature, justice and time. It was the absence of these three

concepts in this otherwise great social science that led to the establishment of Ecological

Economics. The interest in nature, justice and time is its defining characteristic. The main

thesis of this paper is that our field is a fragile institution and that the professional

existence of an ecological economist is no less fragile. However, this very fragility also

represents freedom, scope for free thinking, conceptualising and research. Nevertheless, to

be able to really use and in turn enjoy the full scope of this freedom, an ecological

economist needs certain specific characteristics, in particular what is termed in the

German philosophical tradition “Urteilskraft” and in English “power of judgement”. A

description of these characteristics is developed in this paper, providing an answer to the

question “How to be an ecological economist?”

GEL-Classification:

A 10; A 12; A13; B 10; Q 00; Q57, O40

ecological economics; mainstream economics; political economy; nature; justice; time;

growth; power of judgement

1 * Invited Lecture, 7th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Integrating Natural and Social Sciences for Sustainability, 5-8th June 2007, UFZ, Leipzig, Germany. I am very much indebted to my two coauthors of many years’ standing, the philosophers Reiner Manstetten and Thomas Petersen without whose help I could not have written this lecture. I would also like to thank the following for their assistance and constructive criticism: Stefan Baumgärtner, Christian Becker, Isabel Edler, Jens Faber, Katherine Farrell, Eduard Gruber, Bruce Hannon, Jörg Hüfner, Frank Jöst and Bernd Klauer,

2 Overview of the lecture

This lecture is based on my personal experiences. I became an ecological economist during

the course of four decades. I started my academic education by studying mathematical

economics and statistics. From the start of my professional career, I was unsatisfied with the

way Mainstream Economics dealt with the concept of time. For this reason, I turned my

attention to Austrian capital theory, which takes the temporal aspect as its focal point.

I was also unsatisfied with the manner in which political and natural aspects were treated and

therefore decided to focus on questions of political economy and of physics. However, it took

another decade before I dared to apply elements of political philosophy and thermodynamics

in my approach to fundamental questions of Ecological Economics. Since I had a chair for

economic theory at the University of Heidelberg, I was teaching Ecological Economics and

hardcore Mainstream Economics topics at the same time. I also began to experience more and

more the difficulties of being an ecological economist. How to be an ecological economist? I

would like to approach this question from the starting point of Mainstream Economics.

The field has three fundamental deficits, and I know what I am talking about, because I was

and to certain extent still I am a mainstream economist. The three deficits are, first, the lack of

an adequate conceptualisation of nature, second, a failure to handle the question of justice and

third, a failure to deal with the dynamics of time. These three deficits gave rise to the

establishment of Ecological Economics and explain how Ecological Economics differs from

Mainstream Economics. In my understanding two constitutive elements of Ecological

Economics are normative in character: these are the dignity of nature and justice. From a

methodological point of view I shall argue that the temporal dimension, i.e. time, is of great

importance in our field.

To sum up: interest in nature, justice and time are the essential characteristics of Ecological

Economics. These three issues are central to the main task of an ecological economist; it is

above all the task of advising society and government. However, Ecological Economics is not

able to deal with these three demands in a purely scientific way. This statement by no means

implies that Ecological Economics stands outside all science. On the contrary, I believe that

the term “Ecological Economics” constitutes a field of fruitful ideas and approaches to

research for experts in various disciplines – from natural sciences to social sciences and from

philosophy to theology. Research in this direction profits if scientists are willing to enter a genuinely interdisciplinary dialogue which is also open to non-scientists. The scientific

qualities of an ecological economist must be supplemented by personal ones. Beside a high

degree of scientific professionalism, ecological economists require four qualities: first, the

conviction that their task is highly important, second, the confidence that they are able to

develop ideas and solutions for the seemingly unsolvable questions they are confronted with

and third, the patience and perseverance to withstand setbacks and failures. Over and above

these qualities comes a fourth, which we find in everyday life, but which is rarely mentioned

in scientific discourse. A successful politician, a wise judge, an effective manager and a good

scientific adviser all have in common that their decisions and counsel cannot be deduced

entirely from scientific concepts. What distinguishes them is the quality termed in the German

philosophic tradition “Urteilskraft”, in English “power of judgement”, “prudence” or

“practical wisdom”. An ecological economist requires a generous portion of this quality of

power of judgement.

1. How does Ecological Economics differ from Mainstream Economics?

After this overview, I would now like to turn to the question: how does Ecological Economics

differ from Mainstream Economics? While the representatives of ecology have few, if any,

difficulties with Ecological Economics, the relationship between Mainstream Economics and

Ecological Economics is not quite so harmonious. Why is this? The answer is: the mainstream

economist views nature as a subsystem of the economy, whereas the Ecological Economist

takes quite the opposite view. To explain how this state of affairs came about, it is revealing

to look back over the last three centuries, during which we can observe steady economic

growth in many countries, at least in the long term: Material shortages have disappeared to a

significant extent in developed countries and material welfare, which was available only to a

few in earlier times, is within the means of many today. The collapse of the planning systems

in socialist countries has demonstrated the extent to which economic growth depends on the

organisation of a market economy. It is to the credit of Mainstream Economics that it has

recognized the dynamic efficiency of market systems and revealed the deficiencies of socialist

planning societies. However, the undreamt of innovativeness and strength of market

economies has come hand in hand with undreamt of difficulties. Environmental problems

have taken on enormous dimensions and inequality of income distribution is on the increase.

As mentioned above, Mainstream Economics has three fundamental weaknesses in handling

environmental and resource issues satisfactorily: (1) the lack of an adequate conceptualisation

of nature and (2) of justice and (3) the failure to adequately deal with time.

1.1 Conceptualising nature in modern times

To be fair to Economics, the criticism that it fails to conceptualise nature in an adequate

manner can be said to apply to all modern sciences. The natural philosopher Friedrich

Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1809), put it this way at the beginning of the 19th century: „All

modern European philosophy since its beginning with Descartes (i.e. since the seventieth

century, M.F.) has one common failing in that nature is not present in it.“ (My translation) 1

At first glance, one can only wonder at this statement, for since the time of Francis Bacon

(1561-1626), all philosophies and natural sciences placed nature at the centre of their

explanatory systems. What does it mean then to say that nature does not appear in this

philosophy and this science, where on the other hand it is omnipresent?

To answer this question we have first to clarify what does nature mean in this context? In

everyday life, nature is understood as the part of the world not made by human hand. In our

normal experience, nature is something independent. This independence of nature led some

philosophers and poets, particularly those belonging to the romantic movement, like Goethe,

Wordsworth, Novalis, Schelling and Thoreau, to perceive nature as the independent basis of

life in all its forms. In their view nature has an aim in itself and is constantly at work

developing higher life-forms, so that beings are ultimately able to reflect on themselves. The

experience of nature as a fountain of life and development beyond human planning led these

thinkers to an attitude of universal gratefulness. In contrast, as Schelling noted, the

representatives of modern science in their majority seemed blind to this independence of

nature. These sciences were concerned solely with the task of searching for laws that

determine nature, in order to command natural processes. For them, nature was no longer

something independent in its own right. Instead, nature is nothing more than material for

humans and their wants.

This approach still forms the basis of modern natural sciences as well as Economics. For

example, let us consider the founder of modern economics, Adam Smith (1723-1790). He

assumed that nature would not impose any limits on the endeavour to increase productivity

1 "Die ganze neu-europäische Philosophie seit ihrem Beginn (durch Descartes) hat diesen gemeinschaftlichen Mangel, daß die Natur für sie nicht vorhanden ist." (Schelling 1809/1997: 28 f.) further and further by division of labour and technical progress. Karl Marx followed on from

Adam Smith in his hope that material wealth could be increased indefinitely. In the

communist economy, Marx expected to find an economy that is able to give everyone what

they want. It never occurred to either Smith or Marx that nature, which provides the raw

material for this wealth, might resist this human striving for continuous growth. Today, nature

is viewed in Mainstream Economics solely as a provider of resources and services. Nature as

such does not appear. Bertram Schefold (2000) one of Germany's leading economists, said2:

“As an editor of a series of hundred classics of economics I have not found any single

(economics, M.F.) book, in which nature is at the centre of political economy..." (My

translation).

1.2 The dispensability of considerations of justice3

I will now proceed to show that this neglect of the constraints of nature has implied that the

consideration of justice is also dispensable in Mainstream Economics. Generally speaking,

from a philosophical point of view, justice relates to the idea of a good life of society: a just

society is one whose members are able to live a good life, which also implies that a good life

is in harmony with nature. The notion of a ‘good life’ is a holistic concept, which pertains to

all important dimensions of social development, i.e. to politics, culture, education, the

economy as well as to human interaction with nature.

Early on, the classical economists narrowed down this wide notion of justice by reducing it to

a question of income distribution. On this basis, it was logical to neglect the problem of

justice increasingly over time. Their argument runs as follows: if the social income is high

enough and distributed in such a way that all humans can satisfy their wants completely, i.e. if

we are in a state of affluence, then justice as an issue vanishes. Such a state of affluence

seems to be feasible, if one presupposes the possibility of indefinite growth, i.e. if one

assumes that material wealth can be increased arbitrarily. In the 18th century, this vision was

formulated by the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) with wonderful clarity.

Hume wrote about a state of affluence:

“It seems evident that, in such a happy state, every other social virtue would flourish, and

receive tenfold increase; but the cautious, jealous virtue of justice would never once have

2 The quotation continues as follows: "´Nature` is no concept of economic theory. It is only viewed as something like other economic concepts such as production, consumption, land, labour, utility, which supply us a restricted relationship concerning nature.” (My translation)

3 The argument in this section was developed at length in Faber and Petersen (2006). been discussed of.” (Hume 1777/1975: 183f.). 200 years later, in 1930, John Maynard Keynes

(1967: 366) wrote: „…the economic problem may be solved, or be at least within sight of

solution, within a hundred years. This means that the economic problem is not – if we look

into the future – the permanent problem of the human race.“4 (Italics from the original)

Hume, Marx and Keynes all thought: if sufficient goods are available, then the problem of

justice no longer exists. In contrast to this view, Mainstream Economics considers nonsatisfaction to be an essential human trait. Hence, this discipline does not expect a communist land of milk and honey, but operates with the constitutive concept of scarcity. But scarcity means that there are not enough goods in relation to the demands of present human beings.

Hence, modern economics by no means promises a land of milk and honey that eliminates

scarcity. Nevertheless, there are parallels between the Mainstream Economics approach and

Karl Marx’s view. mainstream economists do not view overcoming scarcity as the ultimate goal of history, as it was for Marx, but it is given a dynamically essential role: what is scarce today is not scarce anymore tomorrow thanks to the constant growth of an efficient economy. Tomorrow there will be new wants and new scarcities, only to be overcome the day after tomorrow. Since

everyone will receive enough of everything in the course of time, inequalities in income are

ultimately deemed to be of no relevance and thus, not to constitute a problem. The notion that

expresses the hope of overcoming this dynamic scarcity is economic growth, the magic word

in politics. It is for this reason that economists as political advisers place the focus of their

counsel on growth as the remedy to all problems of justice. If nature does not impose

constraints on economic growth, then everyone can be promised increments of future

economic growth. It follows that problems and conflicts relating to the justice of income

distribution can be ignored. In this way, Mainstream Economics has been able to rid itself of

the bothersome notion of a good life.

4 Keynes (1967: 365-6) made this statement under the following assumptions: ”I draw the conclusion that, assuming no important wars and no important increase in population, the economic problem may be solved, or be at least in sight of solution, within a hundred years“.

5 In the language of Robbins (1932: 15) the definition of modern economics is: ”The economist studies the disposal of scarce means. He is interested in the way different degrees of scarcity of different goods give rise to different ratios of valuation between them, and he is interested in the way in which changes in condition of scarcity, whether coming from the demand side or the supply side – affect these ratios. Economics is the science which studies human behaviour between ends and scarce means, which have alternative uses.“

1.3 Conceptualising time I turn now to the third deficiency of Mainstream Economics. Some of the best economists have noticed that their method of modelling time is inadequate. The well-known neoclassical capital theorist Robert Solow (1985:330) even wrote ironically: “There is a single universal model of the world. It only needs to be applied. You can drop a modern economist from a time machine – a helicopter, may be, like the one that drops money – at any time -, in any place, along with his or her personal computer, he or she could set up in business without even bothering to ask what time and which place.” Path dependency, invention, technical innovation and irreversibility are not handled sufficiently. For example, Paul Samuelson (1983:36) noted: “In theoretical economics there is no ´irreversibility` concept, which is one reason that Georgescu-Roegen (1971) is critical of conventional economics“. All the various attempts of Mainstream Economics to get a grip on time were commented by one of the

leading economic theorists of the 20th century, John Hicks (1965:47), who remarked: “The

more precise capital theory became the more static it became….” This is why John Hicks

turned away from Mainstream Economic capital theory and became one of the cofounders of

neo-Austrian capital theory, where time is at the forefront of the analysis. After having

explained the three deficits of Mainstream Economics, nature, justice and time, I shall now

turn to Ecological Economics.

2. What is Ecological Economics?

Let me first summarise my view of Ecological Economics. In doing this, I am aware that my

emphasis on normative issues in Ecological Economics can be debated. From my perspective,

the interest in nature, justice6 and time constitutes the defining characteristic of an ecological

economist: this interest forms a unifying bond between ecological economists. The central

goal of Ecological Economics is to contribute to justice in the wide sense as defined above.

For Ecological Economics, justice means the idea of a good and sustainable life not only for

humans, but for all beings. A just human social order includes the stipulation that it preserves

itself and its natural foundations of its existences. If we are interested in justice, we should

6 Some may find it surprising that besides the interest in nature, I have given interest in justice such a predominant role in determining Ecological Economics. And, as a matter of fact, we find many more publications dealing with nature than with justice. But we should be always aware that studies on the environment without considerations of justice, at least in the motivation, do not belong to Ecological Economics. Of course, the opposite also holds true: papers on justice without a relationship to nature do not belong to our field. also be prepared to act to bring about justice in the real world. It is for this reason that Ecological Economics is by its very essence not only research- but also action-orientated. Therefore, ecological economists should be willing to give advice to government and society. The question of sustainability requires that particular attention be given to time. This is a specific characteristic of Ecological Economics: different time horizons, short-, medium- and long-term perspectives as well as irreversibility must be reckoned with in nature, economy and politics.

From a normative perspective, Ecological Economics views nature and justice as closely

connected. Ecological Economics is an attempt to consider economics and nature according to

the prerequisite that besides the dignity of humans an independent “dignity of nature” has to

be respected (Huber 1990: 233). This idea that the dignity of humans and the dignity of nature

must simultaneously be respected can be considered the defining norm of Ecological

Economics. There does not exist a trade-off between the dignity of nature and anything else:

there does not exist a price for the dignity of nature. Viewed in this way, the task of

Ecological Economics seems at first sight to be rather simple: Take care of nature and justice

when giving advice and be sure that time structures are taken into account.

However, this rule of thumb leads to great complications; for Ecological Economics has

norms which go much further than those of Mainstream Economics so that ecological

economists are confronted with a much more complex world. The world of Ecological

Economics deals explicitly with the constraints of nature, for it acknowledges that in reality

there are limits to the growth of real income. Hence, questions of just income distribution can

neither be dispensed with by attaining boundless affluence, as the philosopher David Hume

suggested, nor can they be diffused by unlimited economic growth as Mainstream Economics

proposes, because growth is definitely limited by the constraints of nature. From this follows:

increasing environmental degradation and scarcity of resources on the one hand and

increasing conflicts regarding income distribution on the other hand seem to lead an adviser

into a veritable minefield of insurmountable obstacles: hence, questions of sustainability seem

to be unsolvable.

2.1 The fragility of Ecological Economics as a field

How is Ecological Economics as a field prepared for these challenges? Emphasising nature,

justice and time opens a broad field of research, which is so far-reaching that no single

scientific discipline is able to deal with all its tasks. It is therefore not surprising that a generally accepted theoretical framework or methodology for Ecological Economics has yet to be defined. Issues, methods and results give often the impression of a certain arbitrariness. As Inge Roepke (2005: 285) recently summarised: “The knowledge structure of the field as such is obviously not well structured and systematically organized”. She (2005: 286) concludes that “…the identity of the field is relatively weak.” Obviously, Ecological Economics as a field of research is a fragile one.

2.2 A second fragility: excessive challenges to an ecological economist

The fragility of Ecological Economics as a field augments the difficulty to which ecological

economists are exposed, i.e. to face up to the great challenge of contributing to the good and

sustainable life of humans and nature. They have to deal with very far-reaching norms, which

have to be applied to large areas of uncertainties and ignorance. This goal is so complex and

encompassing that it seems to demand a super-science, but instead ecological economists can

not even rely on a well founded knowledge structure in their own field.

To summarise the implications of the two fragilities: the combination of a research field that

is not well organised and the extensive demands of the task could easily cause an ecological

economist to despair. This conclusion brings me back to the question of my lecture.

3. How to be an ecological economist?

I have proposed that there are two reasons why it is not easy to be an ecological economist.

(1) The identity of the field is not well defined and

(2) the task of an ecological economist is very demanding.

3.1 Freedom of research

At first sight, these two difficulties seem to present a bleak outlook. However, if our

perspective was really so depressing, would so many of us have travelled to this 7th

International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics in Leipzig? What

I want to mention in passing that ecological economists are not the only academics who are burdened with their challenges of their endeavours. This is for example, the case for many who work in developing countries.

WHAT is it that keeps a firm hold on us as ecological economists? We obviously sense that there is more to it. And as a matter of fact, the two disadvantages mentioned above have flip sides.

For the two disadvantages open up a tremendous scope of freedom. Our interest in nature,

justice and time widens our horizon of recognition beyond the narrow boundaries determined

by the questions and methods of single disciplines. In my view, ecological economists enjoy a

unique freedom in their thinking, creative conceptualising and research. However, to really

make use of this freedom, ecological economists need confidence and conviction: confidence

that the problems and tasks that Ecological Economics poses are really worth supporting and

the conviction that they are willing to walk a long and sometimes lonely way to solve them.

This attitude is supported by the recognition that the central questions of Ecological

Economics are central questions for society and the sense that by simply doing their work, the

scientists are contributing to an important goal for the whole of humankind. This insight

releases motivational energy and satisfaction, which enables them to overcome apparently

insurmountable difficulties. One does not gain fundamental insights like this once and for all.

In the course of time they get lost in swells of doubt and anxiety. ecological economists

therefore need a way of life that consistently renews these insights and allows them to regain

them again and again. To summarise: to walk the path of an ecological economist, one needs

an attitude of confidence and of courage to face all kind of discouragements. But the longer

one travels this path, the more one experiences that one's confidence and courage is growing.

We can see many examples of this if we look to the pioneers of Ecological Economics.

3.2 Pathfinder: power of judgement

All of what I have said concerns the motivation, willpower and strength required to walk the

path of an ecological economist. However, if Ecological Economics is primarily an actionoriented

field, we need more than just these. First, we need orientation. Here the three general

guidelines: nature, justice and time give us a general direction. However, these are only rules

of thumb and so abstract that they are of little help in concrete situations. There is a big gap

between our general guidelines and the concrete challenges of everyday life. This state of

affairs is particularly awkward because the ecological economist has to act as an adviser.

From a purely scientific point of view, this results in a depressing outlook, for purely

scientific politics is not possible in Ecological Economics. Does it follow from this that an

ecological economist’s advice is arbitrary? This is by no means the case; for the problem that

confronts ecological economists is not as new as it looks: it has been known in the field of

philosophy for more than 2000 years and thinkers from the Greek philosopher Aristotle to the

political philosopher Hannah Arendt have examined it at length.

From their philosophical perspective, situations dominated by complexity, uncertainty and

ignorance can be tackled using a skill that is particular to humankind. This ability is termed

Urteilskraft in German and in English ‘power of judgement’, ´prudence´ or ´practical

wisdom´. Power of judgement is the source of practical wisdom and adequate judgement in

concrete situations. Thus, adequate judgement leads to good decisions. In political

philosophy, power of judgement is seen as the key capability to develop responsible and

successful solutions even in situations dominated by complexity, uncertainty and ignorance.

As the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1787/1982: 177) noted, the ability to make adequate

judgements is a particular talent, which cannot be taught but only exercised. As Kant

explained, a judgement is found not only by using the mind, but also by imagination and

sense. It is for this reason that good judgements cannot be arrived at by simple deduction.

What power of judgment is and how it operates cannot be explained generically, but can only

be demonstrated in concrete cases. This implies that good judgements cannot be developed

using special methods.

In real life, good physicians, competent judges, good homemakers, truly successful politicians

and good scientific researchers exhibit power of judgement. Justifications for their actions can

never be derived solely through analytical reasoning. Their expertise derives from personal

experience, learning by doing as well as from some general guidelines. Good judgement is

required in order to ensure that openness does not turn into chaos and that freedom does not

turn into arbitrariness. Different aspects exist pertaining to the activity of power of judgement

in different areas and disciplines. What does this mean in Ecological Economics? I propose

that there are two prerequisites and two specific skills. The first prerequisite is

professionalism. It is very useful to have been exposed to a good education in one discipline

and subsequently gain a reputation in one’s own field. This ensures that one has at one’s

command the ability to apply the methods of one’s discipline professionally. Further, it

enables one to distinguish what one knows from what one does not know. This is important,

for otherwise there is a considerable danger of amateurishness. So much for professionalism.

I would now like to turn to the first skill of power of judgement. This is the capability to

engage in transdisciplinary dialogue and interdisciplinary cooperation. A certain familiarity

with the disciplines of one’s co-workers is necessary for truly interdisciplinary work. Since

the available knowledge is often insufficient, interdisciplinary research cooperation demands

teaching and learning on both sides. Compared to joint research within one area,

interdisciplinary work is cumbersome, because it is one thing to lecture students, another to

give an elementary introduction to a specialist in another field, and still another again to be

taught perhaps by someone who is much younger than oneself and sometimes not yet even

established in their own discipline.

Only when the economist has mastered the relevant area of ecology and not simply read an

introductory text, and only when the ecologist is familiar and comfortable with the relevant

economic theory, can fruitful dialogue take place (cf. Faber/Manstetten/Proops 1996: 200).

Such a dialogue often allows researchers to take into account various aspects that help

identify solutions that might otherwise be overlooked by one representative of a single

discipline.

The second skill of the factual ‘power of judgement’ in Ecological Economics is sensitivity to

different temporal structures. We not only need to be able to analyse problems under

stationary or quasi-stationary conditions but also under truly dynamic circumstances. The

relationships between different time horizons in ecosystems and economic systems are of

central importance. When dealing with time, one must always use concepts that address how

to deal with risk, uncertainty and ignorance, because the concept of time makes one sensitive

to the limits of one’s own knowledge. In addition, ecological economists become aware that

the time dimension includes a normative element, since one cannot avoid making, at least,

implicitly evaluative decisions: how many generations shall be taken care of, i.e. what length

of time horizon should be selected? Should a social discount rate be applied or not? And if so,

how high should it be?

To deal with time in Ecological Economics we can learn a lot from Georgescu-Roegen (1971:

Chapter 9). He showed how it is possible to get to grips with time. He used a thermodynamic

perspective and employed the concepts of stocks, flows and funds in a congenial manner

(Wodopia 1986, Faber/Proops/Speck 1999; Faber/Frank/Klauer/Manstetten/Schiller/Wissel

2005). Finally, I want to remark, that ecological economists can learn about time from

Evolutionary Economics.

I now turn to the second prerequisite of ‘power of judgement’. I call it the quality of

attentiveness. Scientists are used to thinking in abstractions and models. We select and filter

reality. This ability is an essential part of our professionalism, but as ecological economists

we cannot restrict ourselves to only this kind of activity in developing our perspective.

Complimentary to our professionalism, which forces us to abstract, we need the ability to

experience unfiltered what we see, feel, smell, hear and taste in nature. This unfiltered

awareness is what I mean by attentiveness. For only if we are attentive to the dimensions of

real life can we make sure that our choice of scientific lens for observing the world does not

altogether obscure our true problem of caring for nature and justice.

4. Summing up

To sum up: Interdisciplinary studies broaden our horizon, time further expands our

perspective. However, we must be aware that this broadening involves a risk of arbitrariness.

Here, the power of judgement protects ecological economists. While it is an important aspect

of judgement, professionalism alone runs the risk of fostering narrowness. Sensitivity to time

not only expands our perspective, it also reinforces humility, by forcing us to face up to our

own ignorance. Attentiveness to the Gestalt of Ecological Economics problems leads to

openness, safeguarding against narrowness. If all these qualities are truly cultivated by

ecological economists, then the two fragilities of the institutional structure and the excessive

demands of the task of an ecological economist can be turned into strengths: Ecological

economists will blossom and Ecological Economics will flourish.

Literature

Baumgärtner, S./ Faber, M./ Schiller, J. (2006) Joint Production and Responsibility in

Ecological Economics. On the Foundations of Environmental Policy, Cheltenham.

Becker, C./ Faber, M./ Hertel, K./ Manstetten, R. (2005) „Malthus versus Wordsworth:

Perspectives on the humankind, nature and economy. A contribution to the history of the

foundations of Ecological Economics”, Ecological Economics 53: 299-310.

Faber, M./ Frank, K./ Klauer, B./Manstetten, R/ Schiller, J./ Wissel C. (2005) „On a general

theory of stocks“. Ecological Economics 55: 155– 172.

Faber, M./ Manstetten, R./ Petersen, T. (1997) „Homo Oeconomicus and Homo Politicus.

Political economy, constitutional interest and ecological interest”, Kyklos 50: 457-483.

Faber, M./ Manstetten, R/ Proops, J. R.L. (1996) Ecological Economics. Concepts and

Methods, Cheltenham.

Faber, M./ Petersen, T. (2006) Natur und Gerechtigkeit als Grenzen der Ökonomie,

Discussion Paper Series 434, Department of Economics, University of Heidelberg.

Faber, M./ Proops, J.L.R./ Speck, S. with Jöst, F. (1999) Capital and Time in Ecological

Economics. Cheltenham.

Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971) The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge,

Mass.

Hicks, J. (1965) Capital and Growth. Oxford.

Huber, W. (1990) Konflikt und Konsens. Studien zur Ethik der Verantwortung, München.

Hume, D. (1777/1975) Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the

Principles of Morals reprinted from the 1777 edition with Introduction by L.A. Selby-Bigge,

third Edition with text and notes by P.H. Nidditch, Oxford.

Kant, I. (1790/1911) Critique of Aesthetic Judgement, transl. J. C. Meredith, Oxford.

Kant, I. (1787/1982) Critique of Pure Reason (transl- N.K. Smith). London.

Keynes, J.M. (1963) „Economic possibilities of our grandchildren“, in: J. M. Keynes, Essays

in Persuasion, New York: 358-373.

Robbins, L. (1932) “On the Nature and Significance of Economic Science”, London.

Roepke, I. (2005) “Trends in the development of Ecological Economics from the late 1960s to

the early 2000s”. Ecological Economics 55: 262-290.

Samuelson, P.A. (1983) „Rigorous observational positivism: Klein’s envelope aggregation,

thermodynamics and economic isomorphisms”, in F.M. Adams and B. G.Hickmann (eds.),

Global Econometrics: essays in Honour of Lawrence Klein, Cambridge, Mass..

Schefold, B. (2000): „Ökonomische Bewertung der Natur aus dogmengeschichtlicher

Perspektive – eine Skizze“. . Lecture at the „Workshop ökonomische Naturbewertung“ June,

26, 2000, Göttingen, published in 2. Jahrbuch Ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung.

Schelling, F. W. J. (1809/1997): Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der

menschlichen Freiheit und der damit zusammenhängenden Gegenstände. Ed. by T. Buchheim,

Hamburg.

Solow, R. (1985) „Economic history and economics”. American Economic Review 75: 328-

331.

Wodopia, F-J. (1986) Flow and fund approaches to irreversible investment“, in M. Faber

(ed.), Studies in Austrian Capital Theory, Investment and Time, Heidelberg.