Ecological economics: A research agenda

1991 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Costanza
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-41
Author(s):  
Prakash Kashwan

In this essay, we look into two dominant pillars of environmental governance, the State and the market, juxatoposed with the varitiies of environmentalism--of the rich and of the poor--to create a mosaic for the ecological economists to examine how socio-economic and political factors mediate the framing, design, and implementation of policies and institutions meant to foster socially just environmental protection efforts.


2020 ◽  
Vol 169 ◽  
pp. 106495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ksenija Hanaček ◽  
Brototi Roy ◽  
Sofia Avila ◽  
Giorgos Kallis

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 1557
Author(s):  
Kaitlin Kish ◽  
Joshua Farley

As a discipline, ecological economics is at a turning point and there is a need to develop a new research agenda for ecological economics that will contribute to the creation and adoption of new economic institutions. There are still considerable environmental issues and a new generation of scholars ready to tackle them. In this paper and Special Issue, we highlight the voices of emerging scholars in ecological economics who put social justice squarely at the center of ecological economic research. The papers in this issue remain true to the central focus of economic downscaling while calling for greater emphasis on culture and society. We acknowledge that methodological and intellectual pluralism inherently entail tensions but strive to find shared normative foundations to collectively work toward socio-ecological transformations. In this editorial, we emphasize the need for further attention to social aspects of ecological economics and evolutionary approaches to further strengthen cooperation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah-Louise Ruder ◽  
Sophia Sanniti

As a necessarily political act, the theorizing, debating and enacting of ecological economies offer pathways to radical socio-economic transformations that emphasize the ecological and prioritize justice. In response to a research agenda call for ecological economics, we propose and employ an ecofeminist frame to demonstrate how the logics of extractivist capitalism, which justify gender biased and anti-ecological power structures inherent in the growth paradigm, also directly inform the theoretical basis of ecological economics and its subsequent post-growth proposals. We offer pathways to reconcile these epistemological limitations through a synthesis of ecofeminist ethics and distributive justice imperatives, proposing leading questions to further the field.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Pirgmaier ◽  
Julia Steinberger

In this paper, we put forward a new research agenda for ecological economics, based on three realisations. We then show how these can be connected through research and used to generate insights with the potential for application in broader, systemic change. The first realisation is that the core ambition of ecological economics, that of addressing the scale of human environmental resource use and associated impacts, often remains an aspirational goal, rather than being applied within research. In understanding intertwined environmental and social challenges, systemic approaches (including system dynamics) should be revitalised to address the full scope of what is possible or desirable. The second realisation is that the focus on biophysical and economic quantification and methods has been at the expense of a comprehensive social understanding of environmental impacts and barriers to change—including the role of power, social class, geographical location, historical change, and achieving human well-being. For instance, by fetishising growth as the core problem, attention is diverted away from underlying social drivers—monetary gains as profits, rent, or interest fuelled by capitalist competition and, ultimately, unequal power relations. The third realisation is that ecological economics situates itself with respect to mainstream (neoclassical) economics, but simultaneously adopts some of its mandate and blind spots, even in its more progressive camps. Pragmatic attempts to adopt mainstream concepts and tools often comfort, rather than challenge, the reproduction of the very power relations that stand in the way of sustainability transitions. We consider these three realisations as impediments for developing ecological economics as an emancipatory critical research paradigm and political project. We will not focus on or detail the failings of ecological economics, but state what we believe they are and reformulate them as research priorities. By describing and bringing these three elements together, we are able to outline an ambitious research agenda for ecological economics, one capable of catalysing real social change.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Oliver Westerwinter

Abstract Friedrich Kratochwil engages critically with the emergence of a global administrative law and its consequences for the democratic legitimacy of global governance. While he makes important contributions to our understanding of global governance, he does not sufficiently discuss the differences in the institutional design of new forms of global law-making and their consequences for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance. I elaborate on these limitations and outline a comparative research agenda on the emergence, design, and effectiveness of the diverse arrangements that constitute the complex institutional architecture of contemporary global governance.


2002 ◽  
Vol 117 (2) ◽  
pp. 114-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha M McKinney ◽  
Katherine M Marconi ◽  
Paul D Cleary ◽  
Jennifer Kates ◽  
Steven R Young ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 292-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Wenzel ◽  
Marina Lind ◽  
Zarah Rowland ◽  
Daniela Zahn ◽  
Thomas Kubiak

Abstract. Evidence on the existence of the ego depletion phenomena as well as the size of the effects and potential moderators and mediators are ambiguous. Building on a crossover design that enables superior statistical power within a single study, we investigated the robustness of the ego depletion effect between and within subjects and moderating and mediating influences of the ego depletion manipulation checks. Our results, based on a sample of 187 participants, demonstrated that (a) the between- and within-subject ego depletion effects only had negligible effect sizes and that there was (b) large interindividual variability that (c) could not be explained by differences in ego depletion manipulation checks. We discuss the implications of these results and outline a future research agenda.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document