Search results

Příspěvek přednesený profesorem Hubou, současným předsedou výboru pre pôdohospodárstvo a životné prostredie Národní rady SR, na česko-slovenské Konferenci o udržitelném rozvoji a ústupu v Olomouci (8.11. 2012) hodnotí vývoj v oblasti životního prostředí z perspektivy uplynulých 25 let (od r. 1987, kdy vznikla Zpráva komise OSN pro životní prostředí a rozvoj s názvem Naše společná budoucnost, tzv. Zpráva Brundtlandové), či dokonce 40 let (v r. 1972 se konala Stockholmská konference o životním prostředí člověka). Rekapituluje jeho nejdůležitější milníky, kterých byl autor aktivním účastníkem, a to na úrovni globální, evropské, a v rámci Slovenska – v období jeho významných celospolečenských proměn. Kam tento vývoj směřuje – to je řečnická otázka, jejíž odpověď stále méně ovlivňují ti, kterým na budoucnosti opravdu záleží.(Z príspevku na česko-slovenskej konferencii o udržateľnom rozvoji a ústupe v Olomouci, 8.11. 2012) ; This paper, presented by Professor Huba, the current Chairman of the Committee for Agriculture and the Environment of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, at the Czecho-Slovak Conference on Sustainable Development and Retreat in Olomouc (8 Nov 2012), evaluates the development in the environmental sphere from the perspective of the past 25 years (since 1987, when the report Our Common Future from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Report, was published), or even 40 years (Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment was held in 1972). It recapitulates its major milestones, in which the author was actively involved at the global, European and Slovak levels at the time of a major society-wide transformation in Slovakia. Where this development leads is a rhetorical question the answer to which is less and less influenced by those to whom future really matters.

The article argues that many failures of economic policies, especially in the developing world, are accountable to the methodological biases of the underlying mainstream economic science. While the new institutional and development economics have substantially improved economic models, they still rely on the neoclassical assumptions of methodological individualism and utilitarism. Therefore, they cannot fully grasp the gender and cultural aspects of the societies living in developing countries, the dynamic character of their economies and their embedment in the natural, social and institutional environment. These scientific biases are analysed from the standpoint of four heterodox economic schools: those of feminist economics, evolutionary economics, ecological economics, and economic anthropology. The subsequent failure of the economic policies is documented by the cross-cutting example of the Structural Adjustment Programmes of the Bretton Woods institutions. The article concludes by emphasizing the common points of the heterodox schools and advocating for a methodological plurality in the Czech economic research and education. Adapted from the source document.