ABSTRACT
Economists are often seen as the villain of the piece by non-economists. They give as good as they get, so the argument is often fiery and protracted. What is less recognised is that economists themselves are divided as a disciplinary species. The tribalists of growth, game theory, international trade and development, and labour markets find much of the work on environmental economics rather trivial and unimaginative. After all, much of that work is based on conventional neo-classical economic theory. To deviate too far from that would invoke wrath, not just derision. So there is often a defensiveness amongst environmental economists as to how to proceed when faced with the sustainability edifice. Sustainability is holistic and it involves social values, equity justice, fairness and ethical considerations over how to care and be precautionary. The discussion in Chapter 2 is some distance away from conventional economic theory. While equity and distributional matters certainly are central to that theory, what is not so easily handled are the cultural and political settings through which groups have, or are denied, power, and some control over their destiny. So it is not enough to indicate that a loser can be compensated by gainers and be no worse off. The kind of compensation on offer, how that is discovered and through what means it is monitored in terms of the values of the compensated individual or group go far beyond the realm of neo-classical economics. This is why the economics profession sometimes has difficulty in justifying its theory and method. It is the holistic approach to valuation, power, democracy and deliberation that still eludes much of the economics profession.
