Module 2: The Limits of Traditional Economics
Welcome to Module 2
Now that you understand how traditional economics works, it's time to examine its blind spots. This module might challenge some assumptions, and that's exactly the point. Traditional economics has given us powerful tools for understanding markets and resource allocation, but it wasn't designed to address many of the challenges we face today—particularly environmental degradation and social inequality.
Think of this module as putting on a new pair of glasses that lets you see what traditional economics misses.
The Big Picture: Economy Within Environment
Traditional economics often pictures the economy as a self-contained system, with the environment as just another sector of the economy—something to be managed alongside agriculture, manufacturing, and services.
But here's the reality: the economy exists within the environment, not the other way around.
Imagine three nested circles:
- The largest circle is the biosphere—the natural world that supports all life
- The middle circle is society—human communities, cultures, and institutions
- The smallest circle is the economy—the system we've created to produce and distribute goods and services
The economy depends entirely on society (for labor, customers, and institutions) and society depends entirely on the environment (for air, water, food, materials, and energy). Yet traditional economics often treats these relationships backward.
Why This Matters: If we manage the economy as though it's independent from environmental limits, we risk undermining the very foundations that make economic activity possible. You can't have a thriving economy on a degraded planet with destabilized societies.
The Growth Imperative: Can We Grow Forever?
Traditional economics operates on the assumption that economic growth—measured by increasing GDP—is both desirable and possible indefinitely. Growth is seen as the solution to nearly every problem: poverty, unemployment, government debt, you name it.
The Logic of Infinite Growth
In conventional economic thinking:
- Growth creates jobs and raises living standards
- Growth generates tax revenue for public services
- Growth drives innovation and progress
- Without growth, economies face stagnation and decline
Modern economic systems are structurally dependent on growth. Companies must grow to satisfy shareholders. Workers need job growth to find employment. Governments need growth to manage debt and fund programs.
The Problem: Finite Planet, Infinite Growth?
Here's the fundamental contradiction: how can we have infinite economic growth on a finite planet?
The Physical Reality:
- The Earth has limited materials and energy
- Ecosystems have finite capacity to absorb waste and pollution
- Many resources are non-renewable or regenerate slowly
- Biological systems have thresholds beyond which they collapse
The Mathematical Reality: Even modest annual growth rates lead to enormous absolute increases over time due to compounding. If an economy grows at 3% per year, it doubles in size every 23 years. In a century, it would be 19 times larger. In 200 years, over 360 times larger.
Example: Imagine a lily pad that doubles in size every day. On day 29, it covers half the pond. On which day does it cover the entire pond? Day 30. That's exponential growth—it seems slow until suddenly it's not.
Types of Growth
Not all growth is created equal. This is where nuance matters:
Quantitative Growth: Producing more of the same things—more cars, more houses, more stuff. This directly increases resource use and environmental impact.
Qualitative Growth: Improving quality, efficiency, or satisfaction without necessarily increasing physical throughput. Think better healthcare, more beautiful art, improved education, stronger communities.
The question sustainable economics asks: Can we shift from quantitative growth to qualitative development? Can we improve human wellbeing without continuously expanding material and energy consumption?
Why This Matters for Sustainability: The growth imperative drives resource depletion, pollution, and ecosystem degradation. Questioning unlimited growth doesn't mean wanting poverty or stagnation—it means asking how we can prosper within planetary boundaries.
What GDP Misses: The Invisible Economy
Remember from Module 1 that GDP measures the total value of goods and services produced. But GDP has serious limitations as a measure of progress or wellbeing.
What GDP Counts (That Maybe It Shouldn't)
GDP increases when:
- An oil spill occurs (cleanup is economic activity)
- Crime rises (more spending on security and prisons)
- Divorce rates climb (lawyers and two households cost more than one)
- People get sick (healthcare spending increases)
- Natural disasters strike (rebuilding is economic activity)
- Traffic congestion worsens (more fuel consumed)
These activities boost GDP even though they represent problems, not progress. GDP measures activity, not welfare.
What GDP Ignores (That Maybe It Shouldn't)
Unpaid Work:
- Childcare and eldercare by family members
- Household cooking, cleaning, and maintenance
- Volunteer work in communities
- Growing your own food
If you pay someone to care for your child, it's counted in GDP. If you care for your own child, it's invisible. Yet both are equally valuable work that enables society to function.
Rough Estimate: If unpaid household work were valued at market rates, it would represent 30-50% of GDP in most countries. That's an enormous blind spot.
Natural Capital Depletion: When a forest is cut down and sold as lumber, GDP increases. But GDP doesn't decrease to reflect the loss of the forest's value—its carbon storage, watershed protection, biodiversity habitat, and future timber potential. We're counting the income but not the asset depletion.
It's like a farmer selling all their breeding livestock and seed stores, counting it as income without noting they've undermined future productivity. Any business that accounted this way would quickly go bankrupt.
Environmental Quality: Clean air, clean water, climate stability, and functioning ecosystems aren't counted in GDP—until they're degraded and we have to pay to fix them or cope with the damage.
Distribution: A country's GDP might grow while 90% of gains go to the wealthiest 10%. GDP tells you nothing about who benefits from economic activity or whether prosperity is shared.
Quality of Life Factors:
- Leisure time
- Health and longevity
- Safety and security
- Social connections and community strength
- Work-life balance
- Happiness and life satisfaction
Two countries with identical GDP per capita might differ dramatically in these dimensions.
The Perverse Incentives
When GDP is our primary success metric, we create strange incentives:
- Degrading the environment can boost GDP
- Replacing free community activities with paid services increases GDP
- Creating problems that require solutions grows the economy
- Efficient, durable products (that need less replacement) are economically "worse" than wasteful, disposable ones
Example: If everyone suddenly became healthy, exercised regularly, ate well, and stopped getting sick, GDP would fall significantly (less healthcare spending), even though people would be much better off.
Why This Matters for Sustainability: If we manage our economies to maximize GDP growth, we're optimizing for the wrong thing. We might grow the economy while degrading wellbeing and destroying the environment. We'll explore better metrics in Module 6.
Natural Capital: The Forgotten Foundation
Traditional economics recognizes three factors of production:
- Labor (human work)
- Capital (machines, buildings, tools)
- Land (representing natural resources, but often treated as just another input)
But this framework dramatically understates nature's role.
What Is Natural Capital?
Natural capital is the stock of natural resources and ecosystems that provides valuable goods and services. It includes:
Resources:
- Fossil fuels and minerals
- Timber and fiber
- Fresh water
- Fish stocks
- Agricultural soil
Ecosystem Services:
- Climate regulation
- Water purification
- Pollination
- Flood control
- Nutrient cycling
- Waste decomposition
- Recreation and beauty
The Assumption of Substitutability
Traditional economics often assumes that natural capital and human-made capital are largely substitutable—you can trade one for the other without losing overall productive capacity.
The Logic: If we run low on natural resources, human ingenuity and technology (human-made capital) will find substitutes or efficiencies. Trees becoming scarce? We'll invent synthetic materials. Fish stocks declining? We'll develop aquaculture.
This leads to an optimistic view called weak sustainability: as long as total capital (natural plus human-made) doesn't decline, we're sustainable. We can draw down natural capital if we're building human-made capital to replace it.
The Problem: Critical Natural Capital
Some natural capital is not substitutable. No amount of human ingenuity can replace:
- A stable climate system
- The ozone layer
- Topsoil that took millennia to form
- Aquifers that recharge slowly
- Biodiversity and genetic resources
- Ecosystem resilience and stability
This leads to strong sustainability: certain forms of natural capital are irreplaceable and must be maintained regardless of how much human-made capital we have.
Example: You can't eat money. No matter how wealthy a society becomes, if we degrade agricultural systems and climate stability beyond certain thresholds, food production collapses. Technology is powerful, but it can't defy the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that govern life on Earth.
Ecosystem Services: Free Until They're Not
For most of human history, nature's services were so abundant relative to human demands that we could treat them as free and unlimited—what economists call "free goods."
But as human populations and economies grew, we've crossed thresholds where many ecosystem services are now scarce:
- Freshwater is limited in many regions
- The atmosphere's capacity to absorb greenhouse gases without dangerous warming is exceeded
- Productive fisheries are depleted
- Pollinators are in decline
- Forests and wetlands that purify water and prevent floods are disappearing
The Economic Problem: Markets don't assign prices to these services until they're scarce or degraded. By then, restoration is often extremely expensive or impossible.
Example: New York City spent over $1.5 billion to protect the watersheds that naturally purify its drinking water, recognizing this was far cheaper than the $8-10 billion it would cost to build water treatment plants. The ecosystem service was always valuable, but became economically visible only when threatened.
Why This Matters for Sustainability: If we don't recognize and value natural capital, we'll continue to deplete and degrade it—undermining the foundation of economic activity itself. The economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment.
The Tragedy of the Commons Revisited
You learned about the tragedy of the commons in Module 1. Let's go deeper into why this matters for sustainability.
The Classic Tragedy
Recall: when a resource is available to everyone but owned by no one, individuals have incentives to overuse it before others do, leading to depletion.
Garrett Hardin's 1968 Example: Imagine common grazing land. Each herder benefits fully from adding another animal to their herd, but the costs of overgrazing (degraded pasture) are shared among all herders. So each herder adds more animals, and the commons is destroyed.
Real-World Tragedies
Ocean Fisheries: No one owns the fish in international waters. Each fishing nation has incentives to catch as much as possible before others do. Result: over 90% of global fisheries are fully exploited or overfished. Many once-abundant species are commercially extinct.
The Atmosphere: Every country and company can emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without paying for it. Each individual emitter captures all the benefits (cheap energy, industrial production) while the costs (climate change) are distributed globally and into the future. Result: accelerating climate change.
Groundwater: In many regions, farmers can pump groundwater freely. Each farmer benefits from irrigation while the cost of aquifer depletion is shared. Result: major aquifers worldwide are being depleted faster than they recharge.
Biodiversity: No one owns wild species or ecosystems. When land is cleared for agriculture or development, the individual landowner captures all benefits while the costs of lost biodiversity are spread across humanity and future generations.
Why Traditional Economics Struggles
Traditional economics recognizes the tragedy of the commons in theory but has difficulty addressing it in practice because:
-
Property Rights Are Unclear: Who owns the atmosphere? The ocean? Biodiversity? Without clear ownership, markets can't function.
-
Free Rider Problems: If one country reduces emissions, all countries benefit. But each country has incentives to free ride on others' efforts.
-
Time Horizons: Markets typically respond to short-term price signals. Commons problems often unfold over decades or centuries.
-
Scale: Many commons problems are global (climate, oceans, biodiversity), but markets and governance operate at local or national scales.
-
Irreversibility: Once certain thresholds are crossed, the damage can't be undone at any price.
Beyond Tragedy: Common-Pool Resource Management
Here's some good news: the tragedy of the commons isn't inevitable. Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom showed that communities often successfully manage common resources through:
- Clear boundaries and rules
- Participatory decision-making
- Monitoring and enforcement
- Graduated sanctions for violations
- Conflict resolution mechanisms
- Recognition of rights by higher authorities
Examples:
- Traditional fisheries management in Japan and the Philippines
- Communal irrigation systems that have worked for centuries
- Alpine pasture management in Switzerland
The Catch: These solutions work best at small to medium scales where communities can monitor each other and enforce rules. Global commons like the atmosphere are much harder to manage this way.
Why This Matters for Sustainability: Many of our most pressing environmental problems are commons problems. Solving them requires new institutions, governance structures, and economic mechanisms that traditional economics doesn't adequately address.
Discounting the Future: Time Preferences
How much is $100 today worth compared to $100 next year? Most people would rather have money now than later. This is called time preference, and economists account for it through discounting.
How Discounting Works
A discount rate represents how much we value the future relative to the present. If the discount rate is 5%, then:
- $100 today = $105 next year
- $100 today = $110.25 in two years
- $100 today = $162.89 in ten years
Running this backward: $100 ten years from now is worth only $61.39 today at a 5% discount rate.
Why We Discount
There are legitimate reasons to value present money more than future money:
- Opportunity cost: Money today can be invested to generate returns
- Inflation: Money may buy less in the future
- Uncertainty: The future is uncertain; you might not be around to benefit
- Impatience: Humans psychologically prefer immediate gratification
The Problem for Long-Term Issues
Discounting works reasonably well for typical economic decisions. But when applied to environmental issues with long time horizons, it creates serious problems.
Example - Climate Change: Using standard economic discount rates (3-7%), the costs of climate change 100 years from now are valued very little today. At a 5% discount rate, $1 million of climate damage in 2125 is "worth" only about $7,600 today.
This mathematical approach suggests we should do very little about climate change because the future costs, no matter how catastrophic, are discounted to nearly nothing.
The Ethical Dilemma
Is it ethical to discount the wellbeing of future generations? Consider:
Argument for Discounting:
- Future generations will likely be wealthier and better equipped to handle problems
- Uncertainty about what future people will value
- Limited resources today—we must prioritize present needs
Argument Against Discounting (or for Very Low Rates):
- Future people's lives aren't less valuable than ours
- We have moral obligations to those who come after us
- Some damages (species extinction, climate tipping points) are irreversible
- We're creating risks that future generations can't consent to
Different Perspectives:
- Economist William Nordhaus used discount rates around 4-5%, suggesting modest climate action
- Economist Nicholas Stern used rates near 1.4%, suggesting urgent, aggressive action
- This technical-sounding choice (discount rate) embodies deep ethical questions about intergenerational justice
Why This Matters for Sustainability: Traditional economics, through standard discounting practices, systematically undervalues long-term environmental protection and climate action. It's not that economists are wrong—it's that the standard tools aren't designed for irreversible, long-term, global problems.
Market Failures and Environmental Degradation
We've touched on several market failures. Let's synthesize them:
1. Externalities (The Big One)
Environmental damage is the ultimate negative externality. Polluters receive benefits while imposing costs on others:
- Companies profit from production while communities suffer pollution
- Current generations enjoy cheap fossil fuels while future generations face climate change
- One country's emissions affect the entire world
Why markets fail: The price mechanism can't work properly when major costs aren't included in prices.
2. Public Goods and Common Resources
Clean air, climate stability, and biodiversity are public goods or common resources. Markets underprovide public goods and overuse common resources.
Why markets fail: Can't exclude non-payers, so private provision is unprofitable. Everyone has incentives to free ride or overuse.
3. Information Failures
For markets to work efficiently, buyers and sellers need good information. But with environmental issues:
- Long-term impacts are uncertain and complex
- Cause-and-effect relationships may be unclear
- Scientific understanding evolves
- Companies may hide information about environmental harms
Example: For decades, fossil fuel companies knew about climate change but publicly disputed the science. Consumers couldn't make informed choices because information was deliberately obscured.
4. Missing Markets
Markets don't exist for many environmental goods and services:
- No market for stable climate
- No market for biodiversity
- No market for future generations' interests
Why markets fail: You can't buy and sell things that have no owners or clearly defined property rights.
5. Irreversibility and Uncertainty
Markets handle risk reasonably well when outcomes are reversible and probabilities are known. But many environmental changes are:
- Irreversible: Extinct species, degraded topsoil, melted ice sheets
- Uncertain: We don't know exactly when or how ecosystems will respond
- Non-linear: Systems can cross tipping points and change suddenly
Standard market mechanisms and cost-benefit analysis struggle with these characteristics.
The Pattern
Notice the pattern? Traditional economics works well when:
- Costs and benefits are captured in prices
- Property rights are clear
- Transactions are voluntary
- Information is good
- Effects occur in the near term
- Damages are reversible
Environmental problems violate nearly all these conditions.
Why This Matters for Sustainability: These aren't minor glitches in an otherwise perfect system. They're fundamental features of how markets interact with the environment. Market-based economies have created enormous prosperity, but without correction, they systematically degrade environmental systems.
The Assumption of Rational Economic Man
Traditional economics is built on the assumption that people are rational, self-interested, and consistent in maximizing their wellbeing (utility). Meet "Homo economicus"—economic man.
The Model
Homo economicus:
- Has clear, stable preferences
- Has perfect information (or at least processes information rationally)
- Makes decisions to maximize personal benefit
- Is uninfluenced by emotions, social pressures, or ethics
This model makes economic analysis tractable. It allows mathematically elegant theories and predictions.
The Reality
Real humans (Homo sapiens) are:
- Boundedly rational: Limited cognitive capacity, use mental shortcuts
- Influenced by framing: How choices are presented affects decisions
- Time-inconsistent: What we say we'll do later differs from what we actually do
- Social creatures: Care about fairness, reciprocity, and social norms
- Emotional: Feelings drive many decisions
- Prone to biases: Overconfidence, present bias, loss aversion, and many others
Behavioral Economics studies how real people actually make decisions, revealing systematic deviations from rationality.
Implications for Sustainability
The rational actor model creates blind spots for sustainability:
1. Short-term Bias: People heavily discount future benefits even when irrational to do so. We choose immediate gratification over long-term wellbeing more than "rational" models predict.
Example: Most people know they should save more for retirement, eat healthier, and exercise, but consistently don't. Applied to environment: we know we should reduce carbon footprints but struggle to change behavior.
2. Psychological Distance: Climate change feels distant (in time and space), making it psychologically hard to respond to, even when we understand it rationally.
3. Social Norms and Values: People don't just maximize personal material benefit. We care about fairness, identity, status, and doing the right thing. Traditional economics often ignores these motivations, which can be powerful drivers of pro-environmental behavior.
4. The Collective Action Problem: Individual rational choices can lead to collective irrationality. Each person thinking "my actions don't matter" leads to inaction, even when everyone acting together would benefit everyone.
Why This Matters for Sustainability: If we design policies assuming people are purely rational and self-interested, we'll miss important levers for behavior change and overestimate the effectiveness of purely economic incentives (like carbon prices). Real solutions require understanding real human psychology.
Measurement and Values: What We Count Shapes What We Do
Traditional economics claims to be value-neutral and objective. But the choices about what to measure and how to measure it embed values.
The Tyranny of Quantification
Economics privileges what can be quantified and measured in monetary terms:
- Market transactions are visible and counted
- Non-market values are invisible or understated
- Things that are hard to measure get ignored in decision-making
Example: A cost-benefit analysis of preserving a forest might count:
- Costs: Foregone timber sales, opportunity cost of development (easily quantified)
- Benefits: Recreation value, water filtration, carbon storage (harder to quantify), cultural significance, existence value, biodiversity (very hard to quantify)
The analysis implicitly weights easily quantified values more heavily than hard-to-quantify values, even if the latter are more important.
The Limits of Monetization
Trying to put a dollar value on everything has limitations:
Philosophical Objection: Some things have intrinsic value that shouldn't be reduced to money. What's the monetary value of a species? A human life? A sacred site? These questions make us uncomfortable because they involve values that money can't capture.
Practical Objection: Even if we accept monetization in principle, our methods are crude and disputed. Different studies valuing the same environmental good can differ by orders of magnitude.
Ethical Objection: Monetization can crowd out other values. When we put a price on nature, do we subtly shift toward viewing it merely as a commodity to be bought and sold?
What Gets Measured Gets Managed
Organizations and societies tend to optimize for whatever they measure:
- If we measure GDP, we optimize for production
- If we measure employment, we optimize for jobs
- If we measure carbon emissions, we optimize for reduction
The choice of metrics isn't neutral—it shapes priorities and outcomes.
Example: Compare two company performance metrics:
- Traditional: Profit margin, return on investment, earnings per share
- Sustainable: Profit margin plus carbon footprint, water use, employee wellbeing, community impact
Companies optimize for what's measured. The second framework produces different behavior than the first.
Why This Matters for Sustainability: Traditional economic metrics systematically undervalue environmental and social goods while overvaluing market activity. Changing what we measure is essential to changing what we achieve.
The Efficiency Trap
Remember from Module 1 that economic efficiency means getting maximum output from available inputs. This sounds unambiguously good. What could be wrong with efficiency?
The Jevons Paradox
In 1865, economist William Stanley Jevons observed something counterintuitive: improvements in coal-burning efficiency led to increased total coal consumption, not decreased.
The Logic:
- More efficient steam engines reduced the cost per unit of work
- Lower costs made steam power economically attractive for new applications
- Steam power spread to more industries and uses
- Total coal consumption increased despite each engine being more efficient
This pattern shows up repeatedly and is now called the rebound effect or Jevons paradox.
Modern Examples:
- More fuel-efficient cars often lead to more driving
- More efficient lighting (LEDs) leads to more lights being left on
- Better home insulation might lead to higher thermostat settings
- Improved agricultural efficiency enabled population growth and more total land conversion
Why This Happens
When something becomes more efficient:
- It becomes cheaper to use
- Demand increases
- It becomes economically viable for new uses
- Money saved gets spent elsewhere (perhaps on other resource-intensive activities)
Implications for Sustainability
Efficiency improvements are good—but alone, they're insufficient for sustainability. We can't just engineer our way out of environmental problems through efficiency if total consumption keeps growing.
The Math: If efficiency improves 2% per year but consumption grows 3% per year, total resource use still increases 1% per year. Efficiency gains are outpaced by growth.
This doesn't mean we should abandon efficiency. It means:
- Efficiency must be combined with limits on absolute consumption
- Growth in consumption must be decoupled from growth in resource use and environmental impact
- Efficiency is necessary but not sufficient
Why This Matters for Sustainability: The techno-optimist view—that efficiency and innovation will automatically solve environmental problems—is incomplete. Technology is crucial, but it must be paired with changes in consumption patterns and economic structures.
Whose Economics? Power and Distribution
Traditional economics often treats the economy as if it's governed by neutral, natural laws—like physics or chemistry. But economic outcomes are shaped by power, institutions, and political choices.
The Distribution Question
Economic theory can tell us about efficiency (maximizing total value) but says little about distribution (who gets what). Yet distribution is often the most important question:
- Is it better to have $1 million divided equally among 100 people, or $2 million divided with $1.9 million going to one person and $100,000 divided among the other 99?
- Traditional economics might say the second scenario is "better" (more total wealth), but most people would consider the first more desirable.
Environmental Inequality
Environmental harms and benefits are distributed unequally:
Pollution: Industrial facilities are disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color. These communities bear the health costs while others enjoy the products.
Climate Change: The wealthy countries that contributed most to historical emissions face fewer immediate impacts than poor countries. Within countries, the wealthy have more resources to adapt.
Resource Access: Wealthy individuals and nations consume far more resources per capita, but the environmental costs (depleted fisheries, degraded ecosystems, climate impacts) are shared globally.
Example: The average American's carbon footprint is about 16 tons per year. The average Bangladeshi's is about 0.5 tons per year. Yet Bangladesh faces severe climate impacts (sea level rise, cyclones, floods) while contributing minimally to the problem.
Intergenerational Inequality
Current generations enjoy the benefits of resource extraction and pollution, while future generations inherit depleted resources and degraded ecosystems—without having consented or received compensation.
This is invisible in traditional economics because future generations can't participate in today's markets or political systems.
The Policy Question
When we address environmental problems, who bears the costs?
- A carbon tax might burden poor households (who spend larger shares of income on energy) unless carefully designed
- Protecting endangered species might conflict with livelihoods of local communities
- Transitioning away from fossil fuels affects workers and communities dependent on those industries
Traditional economics often ignores these distribution questions or treats them as "externalities" to the main analysis.
Why This Matters for Sustainability: Environmental policies will fail if they're perceived as unfair or if they concentrate costs on those least able to bear them. Sustainability must address not just environmental outcomes but also justice and equity.
Reflection Questions
Take time to think deeply about these questions:
-
Growth and Wellbeing: Can you think of ways your life has gotten better that wouldn't show up in GDP? Can you think of ways GDP growth in your community might not have improved (or even reduced) quality of life?
-
Natural Capital: What ecosystem services does your local environment provide that you benefit from but don't pay for? What would happen if they were degraded?
-
Time Horizons: If you could make decisions that would significantly benefit people 100 years from now at modest cost to yourself today, would you? Should economic analysis discount those future benefits?
-
Rational Decisions: Think of a time when you made a decision you knew wasn't "rational" in an economic sense. What influenced your choice? How do these factors show up in environmental decisions?
-
Distribution: Can you identify an environmental problem in your community where costs and benefits are distributed unequally? Who benefits? Who pays?
Key Takeaways
✓ The economy is embedded within the environment, not separate from it or superior to it. Economic activity depends on natural systems and cannot grow indefinitely on a finite planet
✓ Infinite economic growth conflicts with planetary boundaries, raising fundamental questions about whether growth can continue and whether it should be our primary goal
✓ GDP is a poor measure of progress, ignoring environmental degradation, resource depletion, unpaid work, distribution, and quality of life factors
✓ Natural capital provides essential goods and services that markets typically undervalue or ignore. Some natural capital is irreplaceable and cannot be substituted by human-made capital
✓ The tragedy of the commons explains why shared environmental resources are systematically overused and degraded without intervention
✓ Discounting the future causes traditional economics to systematically undervalue long-term environmental protection and the interests of future generations
✓ Multiple market failures (externalities, public goods problems, missing markets, information failures) cause markets to systematically degrade environmental systems without correction
✓ The rational actor model doesn't capture real human behavior, leading to blind spots in understanding and influencing environmental decisions
✓ Measurement choices embed values. What we count shapes what we prioritize, and traditional economics privileges what's easily quantified in monetary terms
✓ Efficiency alone is insufficient. The Jevons paradox shows that efficiency improvements can increase total resource consumption if not paired with consumption limits
✓ Distribution and justice matter. Environmental harms and benefits are distributed unequally, both within and across generations, raising questions traditional economics doesn't adequately address
Glossary
Behavioral Economics: The study of how psychological, social, and emotional factors affect economic decisions, often revealing systematic deviations from rationality
Discount Rate: The rate at which future costs and benefits are reduced in value relative to present ones in economic analysis
Jevons Paradox: The observation that efficiency improvements can lead to increased total consumption rather than decreased consumption (also called the rebound effect)
Natural Capital: The stock of natural resources and ecosystems that provides valuable goods and services to the economy and society
Homo economicus: The model of humans as rational, self-interested, utility-maximizing decision-makers used in traditional economic theory
Rebound Effect: When efficiency improvements lead to increased consumption of a resource rather than reduced total consumption (see Jevons Paradox)
Strong Sustainability: The principle that certain forms of natural capital are irreplaceable and must be maintained regardless of how much human-made capital we accumulate
Substitutability: The degree to which one form of capital (like human-made capital) can replace another form (like natural capital)
Time Preference: The extent to which people prefer benefits in the present over benefits in the future
Weak Sustainability: The principle that total capital (natural plus human-made) should not decline, allowing natural capital to be depleted if sufficient human-made capital is accumulated in compensation
Looking Ahead to Module 3
You've now seen why traditional economics struggles with environmental issues. In Module 3, we'll explore Environmental Economics—a field that applies economic tools specifically to environmental problems.
You'll learn how economists attempt to value ecosystem services, manage natural resources sustainably, and design policies that align economic incentives with environmental protection. Environmental economics works within the traditional economic framework while trying to fix its blind spots.
After that foundation, we'll tackle climate change economics in Module 4, examining the biggest environmental challenge of our time through an economic lens.
Additional Resources
Books:
- "Doughnut Economics" by Kate Raworth (reimagining economics for the 21st century)
- "The Value of Nothing" by Raj Patel (how markets undervalue what matters)
- "Small Is Beautiful" by E.F. Schumacher (classic critique of growth-obsessed economics)
- "Prosperity Without Growth" by Tim Jackson (rethinking economic success)
Articles & Papers:
- "The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth" by Kenneth Boulding (1966 classic on limits to growth)
- "Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin (1968 seminal paper)
- "Governing the Commons" by Elinor Ostrom (showing how commons can be successfully managed)
Documentaries:
- "The Economics of Happiness" (critiquing growth-focused development)
- "Planet of the Humans" (examining green technology through a critical lens—note: controversial, watch critically)
Online:
- Degrowth.info (exploring alternatives to growth-dependent economics)
- Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE)
Congratulations on completing Module 2! You've critically examined the foundations of traditional economics and identified its limitations for addressing sustainability. This critical perspective will inform everything that follows. Take a break, reflect on these big ideas, and when you're ready, move on to Module 3 where we'll explore how economics can be adapted to better address environmental challenges.