گل در شکوفه کامل است؟ اقتصاد محیط زیست در تقاطع میان علم نرمال و پست نرمال
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|8693||2003||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 4768 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
|شرح||تعرفه ترجمه||زمان تحویل||جمع هزینه|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت عادی||هر کلمه 90 تومان||8 روز بعد از پرداخت||429,120 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||4 روز بعد از پرداخت||858,240 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Ecological Economics, Volume 45, Issue 1, April 2003, Pages 19–27
In this paper we address some potential difficulties ecological economics (EE) might be confronted with in its further development. EE has evolved with intent to tackle the urgent problems human society faces today, in particular the ones related to environmental and ecological issues. To deal with such problems, a new concept of science different from disciplinary, normal science seems to be necessary. We will present post-normal and mode-2 science as two examples of such a concept. The importance of this new concept does not lie in the fact that it provides a new framework for knowledge production. Rather, it lies in the fact that the set of values behind it can be seen as a ‘regulative principle’, i.e., as a collection of ideas and principles with the potential to guide the actions and attitudes one takes with respect to the urgent problems in a transparent way, helping to become aware of and making explicit one's own normative assumptions. EE can be seen as one manifestation of this regulative principle. On the other hand, it is increasingly developing into a normal science with its special set of institutions, what endangers it's status of being mode-2. Besides EE, there are other frameworks that try to set up sort of a ‘sustainability science’. It is important to integrate all these initiatives in some way, at least on an abstract level. Otherwise the conception of a ‘new mode of science’ dealing with sustainability becomes as inflationary as the term ‘sustainability’ itself and the discussion of this concept may go on without leading to any conclusion. It is not necessary and effective to employ too many resources being engaged in the discussion of the status of a ‘sustainability science’, however defined. What counts is to take actions and to try to solve these pressing problems—whatever label may be given to such processes—and to be engaged in a open-minded and self-reflecting way, aware of one's own system of values, shortly, according to the regulative principle given by the values behind mode-2 science.
Today, EE can be seen as a young, nourishing and successful science that contributes to the solution of problems approaches in other disciplines have been less able to cope with. It evolved out of a wide range of ideas and views, especially related to a vivid criticism of neo-classical economics and its shortcomings in dealing with environmental problems. EE is primarily engaged in the search for solutions to some of the most urgent problems that society faces today and less in the quest for insights and rigour in a narrow field. It thus has to deal with issues of far-reaching consequences where uncertainty is high and where the normative questions of value cannot be avoided. This goes well beyond the scope of ‘normal’ disciplinary science in the sense of ‘puzzle solving’ (Kuhn, 1970). Scientific processes taking place in such a comprehensive and solution-oriented context of social relevance may be described in the framework of post-normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991), or more generally, in the framework of mode-2 science (Gibbons et al., 1994). These are characterised by a transdisciplinary1 approach and involve highly normative issues and statements. The relevance of the notion of mode-2 or post-normal science itself may be questioned (Weingart, 1999), but it is not necessary or fruitful to be engaged in a lengthy discussion on the factual importance of such concepts. What counts is that the main features and values behind them can be seen as constituting a ‘regulative principle’ (see Section 2.1. for a definition). In spite of its claimed status as a post-normal science, EE is evolving in direction of a ‘normal’ science. An indication of that is its growing institutional framework well in line with the one a ‘normal’ science usually builds up. This helps EE to become further established, but it involves the danger that certain implicit norms become ‘effective’ in this field and that it increasingly dissociates itself from outsiders and other sciences, what could erode its openness and the ability for reflexivity and self-criticism. Given this situation, EE seems to be at the cross-roads. Either it further develops into a nourishing, interdisciplinary but basically mode-1 science, or it actively tries to be a manifestation of the regulative principle behind mode-2. Although EE is on the best way to pursue the first possibility successfully, we think that its main strength lies in the second one and that the problems to be solved make it important and necessary to actively head in this direction. In the following, we will shortly describe post-normal and mode-2 science and argue that they are basically the same with respect to their crucial points and that these can be understood to constitute a regulative principle (Section 2). Then we will have a closer look at EE in the context of these concepts (Section 2.5) and point out potential difficulties it may face in its future development (Section 3). Finally, we discuss some strategies to address these problems and present some concluding remarks (Section 4).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
First, one has to make clear one's own notion of EE. We adopt the notions put forward in Section 3.3: On the one hand, EE can be seen developing into a interdisciplinary mode-1 science. On the other hand, it can be seen as one manifestation of the regulative principle underlying mode-2 science. This may be compared with the relations of EE to the concepts of surprise and ignorance, as described in Faber et al. (1993) or to the Aristotelian categories of truth as discussed in Faber et al. (1996). The main point of all these approaches is the importance of an attitude of openness and of being aware of one's own normative assumptions, values, motives, potentials and limits and the necessity of a broader approach than the one given by a mode-1 science. This is not a revolutionary and new insight, but too often we do not act according to it and thus it is worth and necessary to mention it again and again. The most important goal related to that is to make known and effective the content of this regulative principle behind mode-2 science wherever the problems of global concern may be addressed. To achieve that, it is indispensable actively to address institutions of mainstream economics, governmental organisations, political representatives, etc. We think EE should and could develop in this direction and avoid loosing its mode-2 traits and status as a manifestation of the regulative principle. We do not feel to be in the position to propose and elaborate on strategies how to achieve that here, but we recommend that discussions to develop such strategies should be taken up now and promising solutions should be translated into action soon. Nevertheless, we give two ideas we consider having the potential to be fruitful. We think that EE could be a community of people from different fields, working according to the regulative principle of mode-2 science, and meeting once in a while to discuss how they proceed in distributing and putting into action these values. This could also be a main focus of the journal ‘Ecological Economics’. The second point would be to be engaged in educational policy from school to university level. For the latter, a good result would be to work towards establishing an obligatory course in EE for all economics students. For the former it could consist in starting a discussion on and proposing a new educational ideal more focused on sustainability issues in a very broad sense. Finally, we emphasise again that we should not use up our resources in discussions on theoretical issues as the status of a science of sustainability. The imminent problems are known and it is time to take actions in an effective way. We hope that the regulative principle given by the values behind mode-2 science helps to achieve that.