Here I provide some further elaboration on the idea of Sraffian ecological economics and its articulation with the capability approach. This enables addressing some important questions raised by Nuno Ornelas Martins (2018) when commenting on the idea of Sraffian ecological economics as outlined in Verger (2017) while advancing the basis for a capability approach. In a more general way, a research pathway for the development of Sraffian ecological economics is presented, going from an historical work on the epistemological, ethical, and ontological positions of Sraffa, to the investigation of specific areas of research. Finally, to understand the connection between Sraffa's economic theory and the capability approach discussed by Martins (2018), while addressing the environmental impacts of production, an essential aspect is Pasinetti's concept of hyper-subsystem (Pasinetti, 1988), as suggested by Vivian Walsh (2003).
Abstract This comment from Fratini's article "Rent as a share of product and Sraffa's price equations" corrects Fratini's demonstration that rent as a share of the product and rate of profits could both increase at the same time. By doing so, this comment underlines the specificity of Sraffa's theory of value, and especially the need to only analyze systems of production where exchanges are needed to reproduce the system.
References to Sraffa and to the neo-Ricardian school is something quite customary in ecological economics. By looking at contributions in this area since the beginning of ecological economics and at contributions on environmental problem from the neo-Ricardian school, we see that a connection between both school still has to be made. This connection should be articulated around the initial aim of Sraffa: to develop a new paradigm, competing against the neoclassical one. Only then it will be possible to develop a real eco-Sraffian approach able to pursue the analysis of the sustainability of the economic system.This review of the literature is divided in three sections. Section 1 describes the part of the literature engaged in the "valuation of nature" debate; section 2 the works of researchers trying to develop a neo-Ricardian approach of ecological conflicts; and section 3 several works trying to use the neo-Ricardian knowledge in the analysis of physical interdependence between processes, in particular for the assessment of CO2 emissions. In each of these last sections, works are presented in a (more or less) chronological way.
References to Sraffa and to the neo-Ricardian school is something quite customary in ecological economics. By looking at contributions in this area since the beginning of ecological economics and at contributions on environmental problem from the neo-Ricardian school, we see that a connection between both school still has to be made. This connection should be articulated around the initial aim of Sraffa: to develop a new paradigm, competing against the neoclassical one. Only then it will be possible to develop a real eco-Sraffian approach able to pursue the analysis of the sustainability of the economic system.This review of the literature is divided in three sections. Section 1 describes the part of the literature engaged in the "valuation of nature" debate; section 2 the works of researchers trying to develop a neo-Ricardian approach of ecological conflicts; and section 3 several works trying to use the neo-Ricardian knowledge in the analysis of physical interdependence between processes, in particular for the assessment of CO2 emissions. In each of these last sections, works are presented in a (more or less) chronological way.
References to Sraffa and to the neo-Ricardian school is something quite customary in ecological economics. By looking at contributions in this area since the beginning of ecological economics and at contributions on environmental problem from the neo-Ricardian school, we see that a connection between both school still has to be made. This connection should be articulated around the initial aim of Sraffa: to develop a new paradigm, competing against the neoclassical one. Only then it will be possible to develop a real eco-Sraffian approach able to pursue the analysis of the sustainability of the economic system.This review of the literature is divided in three sections. Section 1 describes the part of the literature engaged in the "valuation of nature" debate; section 2 the works of researchers trying to develop a neo-Ricardian approach of ecological conflicts; and section 3 several works trying to use the neo-Ricardian knowledge in the analysis of physical interdependence between processes, in particular for the assessment of CO2 emissions. In each of these last sections, works are presented in a (more or less) chronological way.
References to Sraffa and to the neo-Ricardian school is something quite customary in ecological economics. By looking at contributions in this area since the beginning of ecological economics and at contributions on environmental problem from the neo-Ricardian school, we see that a connection between both school still has to be made. This connection should be articulated around the initial aim of Sraffa: to develop a new paradigm, competing against the neoclassical one. Only then it will be possible to develop a real eco-Sraffian approach able to pursue the analysis of the sustainability of the economic system.
References to Sraffa and to the neo-Ricardian school is something quite customary in ecological economics. By looking at contributions in this area since the beginning of ecological economics and at contributions on environmental problem from the neo-Ricardian school, we see that a connection between both school still has to be made. This connection should be articulated around the initial aim of Sraffa: to develop a new paradigm, competing against the neoclassical one. Only then it will be possible to develop a real eco-Sraffian approach able to pursue the analysis of the sustainability of the economic system.This review of the literature is divided in three sections. Section 1 describes the part of the literature engaged in the "valuation of nature" debate; section 2 the works of researchers trying to develop a neo-Ricardian approach of ecological conflicts; and section 3 several works trying to use the neo-Ricardian knowledge in the analysis of physical interdependence between processes, in particular for the assessment of CO2 emissions. In each of these last sections, works are presented in a (more or less) chronological way.
References to Sraffa and to the neo-Ricardian school is something quite customary in ecological economics. By looking at contributions in this area since the beginning of ecological economics and at contributions on environmental problem from the neo-Ricardian school, we see that a connection between both school still has to be made. This connection should be articulated around the initial aim of Sraffa: to develop a new paradigm, competing against the neoclassical one. Only then it will be possible to develop a real eco-Sraffian approach able to pursue the analysis of the sustainability of the economic system.
References to Sraffa and to the neo-Ricardian school is something quite customary in ecological economics. By looking at contributions in this area since the beginning of ecological economics and at contributions on environmental problem from the neo-Ricardian school, we see that a connection between both school still has to be made. This connection should be articulated around the initial aim of Sraffa: to develop a new paradigm, competing against the neoclassical one. Only then it will be possible to develop a real eco-Sraffian approach able to pursue the analysis of the sustainability of the economic system.
16 ; National audience ; L'écologie industrielle et l'économie stationnaire peuvent se rejoindre dans la notion de cycles : ainsi les industries pourraient fonctionner en boucle quasiment fermées si la théorie de l'écologie industrielle était suivie jusqu'au bout, et l'économie dans sa forme plus générale ne perturberait pas les grands cycles naturels et écologiques qui lui permettent de subsister du point de vue de l'économie stationnaire, au contraire elle s'y insérerait parfaitement. C'est sur ce deuxième point que je veux travailler, en cernant dans quelles mesures une économie stationnaire pourrait s'organiser en préservant ces cycles naturels, voir en essayant de les renforcer. Sans aller jusqu'aux dérives de la bio-ingénierie, qui cherche à faire, littéralement, la pluie et le beau temps, mon postulat de base est que l'économie se sert de produits ou de services issus de processus environnementaux, et qu'elle en dégrade d'autres : les injonctions couplées du principe de précaution et du développement durable (en pensant notamment aux générations futures) nous obligent donc à nous préoccuper du bon fonctionnement de ces processus, qu'il s'agissent des grands cycles géochimiques ou des services liés plus spécifiquement aux écosystèmes (pollinisation par exemple). Les bienfaits économiques ou les effets économiques des dégradations ne sont pas forcément bien pris en compte, notamment à cause de ce que les économistes appellent les failles du marché (l'économie est myope concernant les biens publics). Des modèles ont tenté de définir les bénéfices économiques apportés par les services éco-systémiques, d'autres ont cherché à internaliser les dégâts causés sur ces mêmes services. Mon approche va se focaliser sur un type de modèle néo-ricardien de production jointe : je vais, à l'aide de celui-ci, décrire simplement la structure d'une économie qui s'appuie en partie sur la production de services éco-systémiques, pour montrer ensuite les implications en termes de changements structurels permettant de rendre viable le système sur le long terme. Je chercherai ainsi à démontrer que le seul système économique viable est alors une économie stationnaire qui va se servir du profit généré pour revitaliser le capital écologique, et non seulement pour servir la croissance du sous-système économique. Les principes de l'économie stationnaire tels que la non-consommation des ressources renouvelables à un taux plus élevé que leur renouvellement seront soulignés. Je me pencherai plus spécifiquement sur le cas d'un ensemble de processus décrivant le fonctionnement d'un système de production/consommation de bioénergie. Cet exemple se basera sur le développement récent en France de coproduction de chaleur et d'énergie à base de biomasse, ou permettant l'injection de biogaz dans le réseau de gaz de ville : dans le cadre de la " transition énergétique " récemment évoquée au plus haut niveau de l'Etat, ce type d'unité énergétique peut être vu comme un moyen à la fois d'assurer une autonomie locale vis-à-vis des ressources fossiles, et à la fois de réduire les émissions polluantes. L'exploration au niveau théorique des échanges de matière et d'énergie entre les différents processus impliqués permettra de souligner les enjeux évoqués plus haut. Puis, au niveau des applications pratiques, dans le cadre de l'exemple évoqué des bioénergies, je montrerai que les politiques permettant la viabilité du système peuvent s'inspirer des principes de l'écologie industrielle et de l'économie de fonctionnalité. L'objectif est donc double : d'une part théoriser les liens entre environnement et économie via la caractérisation d'un capital naturel produisant des biens et des profits accaparés par l'économie humaine, d'autre part construire une vision pratique de scénarios permettant de tirer profit des implications d'une économie stationnaire. Le rapprochement entre économie stationnaire et écologie industrielle me parait dans ce sens inévitable.
