آرمان شهرها و واقع گرایی در اقتصاد محیط زیست - دانش، درک و بداهه

“What we are going through at the present time is not just an economic-financial crisis, but a crisis of humanity” (Max-Neef, 2010, p. 200). Despite problems within it, it is ecological economics which is now emerging as the most potent opponent to neo-classical economics. “It is ecological economics which addresses the most profound failure of neoclassical economics, the failure to deal adequately with resource depletion and environmental destruction both locally and globally” (Costanca, 1991). The complex challenges are anchored in a deep conflict between mainstream economics and the natural and social conditions, to harmonize this connection it would seem necessary to develop a valid understanding of the interconnectedness between economy, nature and society. The idea behind this article is four-fold. Firstly, we describe and discuss the ontological worldview in ecological economics. Secondly, the epistemological consequences of the ontological preconditions are discussed. Thirdly, some of the main concepts and principles in ecological economics are focused on. Fourthly, we discuss the realism of radical solutions in ecological economics.

To improvise, artists need knowledge of fundamental structures in music, painting or literature. In addition, to create great art it is necessary to have a holistic understanding of the context. Following the same line of argumentation we claim that ecological economists need to possess knowledge about fundamental principles, understanding of the context and improvisation skills in order to solve the challenging problems we are facing today. According to Max-Neef; “What we are going through at the present time is not just an economic-financial crisis, but a crisis of humanity” (Max-Neef, 2010, p. 200). The dominant economic model, based upon mono-disciplinarity, abstraction, reductionism, and causality, is not suitable whether this be for understanding the interconnectedness of the problems, or implementing appropriate solutions. Costanca argues that “despite problems within it, it is ecological economics which is now emerging as the most potent opponent to neo-classical economics. It is ecological economics which addresses the most profound failure of neoclassical economics, the failure to deal adequately with resource depletion and environmental destruction both locally and globally” (Costanca, 1991). But, we agree with Røpke when she argues that ecological economics still suffers from a weak identity (Røpke, 2005, p. 286). To develop the identity of ecological economics it is necessary to strengthen the reputational autonomy of ecological economics. To do this we have to revitalize the discussion concerning the ontology and the epistemology. The complex challenges are anchored in a deep conflict between mainstream economics and the natural and social conditions, to harmonize this connection it would seem necessary to develop a valid understanding of the interconnectedness between economy, nature and society. The idea behind this article is four-fold. Firstly, we describe and discuss the ontological worldview in ecological economics. Secondly, the epistemological consequences of the ontological preconditions are discussed. Thirdly, some of the main concepts and principles in ecological economics are focused on. Fourthly, we discuss the realism of radical solutions in ecological economics. The most fundamental demarcation line between ecological economics and neo-classical economics is at the ontological level. Ecological economics is based on an organic worldview whereas neoclassical economics is anchored in a mechanic worldview. The consequence is that ecological economics cannot be understood, at the epistemological level, using a mono-scientific perspective. To understand the connection between economy, nature and society we need a transdisciplinary science. In addition, to find practical solutions that work, ecological economists must have improvising skills based on knowledge of the fundamental principles in ecological economics together with a transdisciplinary understanding of the economical, natural, and social context. We use Gidden's concept “utopian realism” to illustrate how solutions that seem utopian from a neo-classical perspective may well be realistic from an ecological economical perspective.

In this article we have focused on how to solve the deep conflict existing between mainstream economics and the natural and social conditions. To harmonize the connection between economy and the environmental conditions we argue that it seems necessary to develop ecological economics based on an organic worldview (ontology) and a holistic science (epistemology) anchored in strong transdisciplinarity. From the ontological and epistemological discussion we concluded that it was relevant to distinguish between two paradigms, one focusing on one-dimensional economic rationality, quantitative growth, top–down management, competition, and linear value chains; and another concerned with multi-dimensional rationality, qualitative development, bottom–up initiatives, cooperation, and circular value chains. We formulated some of the consequences of this deep shift in different concepts and principles. In ecological economics the economic man is replaced by the ecological man. The ecological man lives in the lifeworld, and he/she behaves in the economical world in accordance with fundamental ecological and humanistic values. Quantitative growth is replaced by qualitative development. Qualitative development is focused on complexity, sophistication and maturity that enhance the quality of life more than quantitative growth in production and consumption. This means bottom–up initiatives — instead of top–down management. The creativity to ask new questions and to find new solutions is stimulated at local level. Instead of competition between actors in an atomized market, the basic market principle in ecological economics is cooperation between interrelated actors. Following this line of argumentation it follows that economic activity should be based on nearness between resources, production, consumption, the reprocessing of waste. In other words, local networks are better than globalized superstructures. In addition to the topics discussed above we are aware of the importance of changing the monetary system in accordance with the principles in ecological economics permitting local currencies. We also accept that the transformation towards ecological economics depends on political initiatives to change some of the fundamental societal institutions. In the last paragraph we argued that it is possible to implement ecological economics in practice, despite the fact that the principles may seem utopian, by referring to examples showing that ecological economics does actually work in many cases already.