روندها در توسعه اقتصاد محیط زیست از اواخر 1980s به اوایل 2000s

As the contributions to ecological economics are very diverse, recent years have seen some discussion on both how to delimit the field, and in which direction it should develop. The intention with this paper is to contribute to the discussion by outlining important trends in the development of the field from the late 1980s to the early 2000s. The study is inspired by other studies in the sociology and history of science, in particular by the theoretical framework regarding scientific fields as reputational organizations, which draws attention to both cognitive and social aspects of the formation of a field. The basis for the paper is a combination of literature studies, interviews with key researchers in the field, and ‘participant observations’. The paper outlines the characteristic cognitive features of ecological economics at the time of the birth of the field. It is then described how the development in ecological economics was influenced by broader social factors during the following years, and how the field was shaped by the inflow and outflow of different groups of researchers. The emergence of different research programmes is outlined, as is the organizational development. Finally, the characteristics of ecological economics are summarized and the future prospects are briefly assessed.

Since the establishment of the International Society for Ecological Economics in 1988, a wide spectrum of research topics has been presented in its journal and at the conferences. As the contributions are very diverse, recent years have seen some discussion on the characteristics and delimitation of ecological economics: Is ecological economics a transdiscipline; a new paradigm; something different from environmental economics or, rather, a part of environmental economics; open for anything with a relation to the environment; or something more well defined? (Turner, 1999, Spash, 1999, van den Bergh, 2001, Costanza, 2002, Söderbaum, 2000 and Martinez-Alier, 2002 ch. 2). The question can also be posed in a more normative way: In which direction should ecological economics be developed in the future? The intention of this paper is to contribute to both the positive and the normative discussion by outlining important trends in the development of ecological economics since the formal establishment of the field and by taking a stance concerning the perspective for the future. This paper is a follow-up to a paper on the early history of modern ecological economics (Røpke, 2004), and both papers form parts of a research project concerning ecological economics as a special perspective.1 The study is inspired by studies of other scientific fields that historians and sociologists of science have contributed, and Richard Whitley's analytical framework concerning scientific fields as reputational organizations has been particularly helpful. This framework draws attention to both cognitive and social aspects of the formation and character of different scientific fields, so the trends outlined in this paper concern both cognitive and social dimensions, both internal and external factors in relation to the field. The paper is based on a combination of literature studies, interviews with key researchers in the field, and ‘participant observations’. The main written sources comprise Ecological Economics, several conference volumes and other anthologies, as well as monographs and journal articles by researchers who have identified themselves as ecological economists. The interviews have been necessary to give me information that is not available in written form and to provide stimulating perspectives on the issues of the paper. During the period October 2002 until March 2003, I interviewed the following persons: Herman Daly, Mick Common, Robert Costanza, Sylvie Faucheux, Carl Folke, John Gowdy, AnnMari Jansson, Joan Martinez-Alier, Charles Perrings, John Proops, Clive Spash and Peter Söderbaum. Each interview gave me valuable new information, and I have many ideas regarding other persons whom I would like to interview (e.g. to include perspectives from more countries), but time and resources require that a line be drawn. The ‘participant observations’ arise from my own participation in the field beginning with the Stockholm conference in 1992 and proceeding with all the following ISEE and most of the regional European conferences. Although I have tried to apply a broad perspective to the study of the field, I am well aware that my knowledge of the field is influenced by my background in socio-economics and by my special research interests. Furthermore, it is extraordinary difficult to write a history of something of which you, yourself, are a part, and I imagine that the result is much more controversial than the previous paper on the early history. Obviously, this outline must be seen as supplementary to other accounts based on different perspectives and experience. Section 2 summarizes briefly the theoretical inspiration from the sociology of science. Section 3 outlines the characteristic cognitive features of ecological economics at the time of the birth of the field; this is a small repetition from my paper on the early history, allowing the two papers to be read independently. In Section 4, it is described how the development in ecological economics was influenced by broader social factors during the following years, and Section 5 highlights the inflow of different groups of researchers to the field as well as the outflow from it. Section 6 outlines the development of different research programmes inside the framework of ecological economics and some of the tensions that have emerged in the field, whereas Section 7 describes the organizational development. Finally, Section 8 summarizes the characteristics of ecological economics related to the theoretical inspiration and briefly assesses the future prospects.

The preceding outline of different cognitive, social and organizational trends in the development of ecological economics provides the basis for considering the character of the reputational organization of the field. The concluding remarks thus return to the questions raised in the theoretical Section 2 and I try to answer them briefly. Simultaneously, the future prospects of the field are considered. Firstly, the knowledge structure of the field as such is obviously not well structured and systematically organized. On the contrary, the field is programmatically open, pluralistic and transdisciplinary, so virtually unrelated contributions can appear as parts of the field. The core beliefs provide a framework for research, but they give little specific guidance. The foundation of the field was established by some core contributions that were mainly theoretical or historical [ Georgescu-Roegen, 1971, Odum, 1971, Daly, 1977 and Martinez-Alier, 1990 (first ed. 1987), Holling, 1973], and theoretical controversies have been important for the further development of the field, but most of the work is empirical and concerns specific topics. In general, the functional dependence is low, and the degree of both technical and strategic task uncertainty is high. However, I have argued that a number of more specific research programmes can be identified, and within some of these programmes the degree of functional dependence is higher, the task uncertainty lower, and it is easier to specify what does and does not count as new knowledge. Secondly, the identity of the field is relatively weak. There is a large group of researchers who identify with the field and share the core beliefs. However, these researchers do very different kinds of research, and most of them have “double identities” (or more than double) and also relate to other reputational organizations. The field has no clear boundaries in relation to other fields, and researchers from other fields can easily provide contributions that are considered relevant. Whether the field should have clearer boundaries is highly contested, as is the way in which they should be defined; researchers from related fields, such as environmental economics, also intervene in this definition struggle. Regarding the reputational autonomy of the field, it can be argued that the field has some control over its own competence and performance standards as well as over the relative importance of different research problems and strategies through the journal, other publications and conferences. But this does not carry much weight as the standards and priorities are contested inside the framework of the field, and as most researchers are also dependent on acknowledgement from academics from other fields (in particular from the old disciplines) to obtain research funding and establish a career. Thirdly, the internal organization of the field is characterized mostly by flat structures, but also by having some hierarchical elements. The flat structure relates partly to the scientific openness, which gives the individual researcher much freedom to choose subjects and good chances of having research results published, and partly to the possibility for active and committed people to build up local activities under the heading of ecological economics. The reputational organization of ecological economics could and still can be used as backing for local initiatives, which have been more or less successful as reflected in the number of members in different countries. The local activities imply that large national differences in priorities, activities and composition of scientific disciplines represented have developed, although modern ecological economics was first institutionalized as an international society. The strategic dependence is thus low, but simultaneously the international society has, and in particular had, hierarchical elements with power concentrated on relatively few people, which is particularly important in relation to the journal and other publication outlets. Fourthly, the institutionalization of the field has been successful at the organizational level with both international and regional societies with a large membership. The field has its own journal, which has been successful regarding ranking and number of issues. However, for several of the core representatives of the field (the middle-aged generation) it has been (more) important to publish elsewhere. In a sense this can be said to promote ecological economics by making central ideas known, but it is also illustrative of the need to relate to other reputational organizations. The field can boast of some dedicated research centres, educational programs and Ph.D.-programmes, but these are still few, and most of the researchers in the field are part of groups with broader commitments, where research and training in ecological economics form a minor part of the activities. The field does not monopolize the education of professionals for any specific labour market, but contributes together with several other fields to the education of professionals for a diverse range of positions related to environmental tasks. Fifthly, the relations to the outside world are very diverse between countries. Sources for research funding differ—in some countries foundations are important, whereas public funding is more important in others. In Europe, EU funding has been decisive for ecological economic research. Ecological economics has benefited from research programmes directed towards transdisciplinary research; however, these possibilities are still restricted by the dominance of discipline-oriented researchers in the reviewing process (as noted by Perrings in the Dec. 2003 Newsletter of ISEE). Much research in ecological economics has a wider audience than scientific peers, as the results are sometimes addressed to central or local authorities, for instance, in relation to the conceptualization of the scale problem (for instance, materials flow analysis has influenced the European Environment Agency and Eurostat, and the resilience concept was included in the Swedish contribution to the Johannesburg meeting), the management of environmental resources, decision-making processes and institutional change. Some research is addressed to and used by non-governmental organizations, such as the research on ecological footprints, environmental space, and ecological conflicts in the developing countries. In the USA, there is a tradition for cooperating with activists, and the conferences include talks by, for example journalists. Audiences outside academia can influence the reputations of the individual researcher, as most ecological economists consider it important to actually influence the political agenda. Overall, modern ecological economics is, in many ways, a success story about the establishment of a new scientific field.6 However, it is also a vulnerable success, and it is far from obvious that the field will survive the turbulence and the shifting priorities in academia. Other reputational organizations are competing for different groups of researchers who now form part of ecological economics, and the inner tensions of the field can undermine the present strength. One risk is that the field becomes uninteresting as a field, if identity is lost by the acceptance of anything as being justified because of transdisciplinarity. Some common ground is necessary to have interesting communication and to learn from each other. Another risk (others would call it a chance) is that the field loses its bite and becomes a sub-field of neoclassical environmental and resource economics modelling links between ecosystems and the economy. In my opinion, both would be a pity. The present geographical spread of ecological economics opens possibilities for getting wider support for the core beliefs of the field, and to meet this challenge some common ground as well as independence from neoclassical economics will be necessary.