Download PDF

Working Paper Series
WAITE MFIVIOPIAL .BOOK . COtlFCTION ,
APPL1ED• EcoNc.irorcs. •
vr t.OF
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
BERKELEY
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
University ofCalifornia
WI,
;\
,
4
Division of Agricultural Sciences
UNIVERSITY OF)CALIFORNIA
7,R 7f
6-7 4/31/5.5
o3
til
Working Paper No. 203 QUi.
RESOURCE ECONOMICS .AND DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS:
SYNHIESIS OR REFORMULATION?
by
Richard B. Norgaard
California Agricultural Experiment Station
Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics
September. 1982
t1
RESOURCE ECONOMICS AND DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS:
SYNTHESIS OR REFORMULATION?
by
Richa-d B. Norgaard
Associate Professor of
Agricultural and Resource Economics
University of California, Berkeley
First Draft, tla'y. 30., 1982 ,
Minor Corrections and Modifications, June 7, 1982
Comments by Richard Bishop and Daniel Bromley
Incorporated September 24, 1982
A Working Paper prepared for the
Lecture Series on
Resource Economics and Development Economics
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Wisconsin, Madison
presented June 1 2 1982
RESOURCE ECONOMICS AND DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS:
SYNTHESIS OR REFORMULATION?
I.
INTRODUCTION.
Over
--.,-
the
past several decades resource economics
velopment
economics have acquired their own theoretical
ties
become well defined subdisciplines
and
Practicing
have
within
and
identi-
economics.
economists in both developing and developed countrieE.
been formulating prescriptions- based on in.s:ights- from
subdiscipline's body of theory.
for which it has been prepared,
This paper,
like the
each
workshop
addresses whether better theory,
subsequently better prescriptions,
and
de-
might be possible if
we
could somehow formally link the two subdisciplines.:]
My own thoughts on this issue are clearly rOo ed irs my
and in my more recent observations of the attempts to develop the
Br zi 1 i an Amazon.
While my own background is not easily gener41-
ized into clear lessons,
possibil.ities
the Amazon story
is.
My views on the
of melding resource and development economics have
evolved in the following context.
Periodically,
major,
While
well
most
efforts
and
successful
over the pas
four centuries, there have been
organized attempts to settle the Brazilian
of the attempts have entailed
capital transfers,
on their own terms.
substantial
none of the efforts
Amazon.
planning
have
been
The most recent drive to settle
the Amazon began with Brazil's colonization project in the
early
1970s.
The
planners
major highways,
in Brasilia were thorough.
connectirg roads,
They
and feeder roads.
planned
The'
)
;
de-
signed a system of major marketing centers, 'medium sized admi.nistrative
and
service
Structures. were
mated.
tially
A method of
successful colonists was
received the necessary administrative,
support
at
for
farmers.
were
esti-
school, agricultural extension, credit, and
systems were planned.
more
and small villages
designed and material requirements
Health care,
marketing
towns,
the outset.
selecting
established.
political,
Based on the extensive
poten-
The
plans
arid financial
experience
of
economic development plans throughout the world, the colonization
1.
project was foolproof. Nevertheless, it failed
Rational
because
planning failed in the Amazon,
it had no roots in
the Amazon
in my
itself.
estimation,
The
objectives
were national in scope ranging from "bringing people without land
to
land without people" to 'harvesting the tropical rainforest t
repay the national debt.
Specific activities were
grandiose to stay in the national limelight:
the
•
Transamazon Highway,
sufficiently
the construction of
the implantation of complete.colonies,
the conversion of millions of hectares of rainforest to
pasture.
The activities were carried out directly by existing government
agencies or encouraged by subsidizing capital.
The objectives
a description of the plans and their failure see Moran
1. For
(1982) and Smith (1981,1982). The colonization planning process
Development
properly addressed all
of the issues raised in
Planning: Lessons of Experience (Waterston, 1965) which was based
on seven years of World Bank experience in fifty-flve countries.
filled the national political and economic needs of the time, the
• scale and types of activities bolstered the national ego, and the
authori-
-fit the national system of mixed bureaucratic
approach
tarianism and state cpaitalism.
The objectives, activities, and
approach had no roots in the social and ecological systems of the
Amazon itself.
conventional
we
develop the Amazon
well
were
prepared
by
theory
economic development standards based on the
have to date.
Their execution was sincere and vigorous inibut
they
proved incongrous with the particular social and ecological
sys-
The .plans might well have worked elsewhere,
tially.
tems
in the Amazon on which it was imposed.
were
never
planners
the
•
to
plans
The
asked
because
* tages
s
the
because
did not have appropriate theory with which to
identify
Colonists soon .learned that planting
monocul-
questions.
tures
in the initial planning
The right questions
rice for the market was risky
4
and
both
unproductive
appropriate agricultural systems had not been
developed
for upland rice in the Amazon ecosystem and because the Braz
bureaucracy
inputs,
could not maintain the provision of credit,
extension a vice,
and storage and transport services .for markets
effectively as incongruities and failure became apparent.
soil degradation,
a hastening of the slash and burn
social hardship ensued.
Rapid .
cycle,
and
Some ccii oni StE. learned to practice mixed
crop subsistence agriculture combined with hunting and gathering,
li-fe
style
settlement
proven by Indians and the
attempts.
Other
survivors
of
earlier
colonists abandoned their land
moved to the large Amazon towns.
Some of the initial
and
colonists
and
a few subsequent settlers managed to succeed,
farming perennial crops.
directly effective,
settlements
ment
Though the imposed bureaucracy was
government expenditures
bolstered
the
in multiplicative ways and the retraction of govern-
services
compounded the hardships
short,
In
failure.
dIr
more
Much of the planned colonization infra--
structure
-tructure has been abandoned.
not
,1
less,
of
primary
production
the social and ecologicl systems rejected
the imposition of the development plans (Norgaard, 1981a).
Two things impress me about the Amazon story.
First, though
the plans were fool proof a pmjaci l any number of economic explanations
their
of
failure
suffice Ex
p.osi.
Failure
explained from an agricultural credit perspective,
perspective,
capital
perspective,
or
from
a
be
human
from a
• marketing
But each of these foci were looked at in detail In
perspective.
process
planning
the
from a
from an environmental perspective,
economics
production
can
so the error must be
another
at
level
Correcting the problems identified ax . pmsi by any one or combinawould not necessarily lead to success
tion of the per
a
.
subsequent
process
the
attempt.
was pervasive,
social
the
planning
ricit simply a forgotten factor.
Second,
Whatever was remiss in
and ecological trans-format ions associated
failure of the plAns were rapid and easily
the
Amazon
it . is
important
interacting
identified.
is one of the more blatant
story
to Understand societies
dynamic
systems.
Neither
with
and
examples
the
Indeed,
f
how
environments
as
economics
or-
resource
development economics has had this emphasis nor would a synthesis
of
the
two as we know them today repair this
deficiency.
For
L,
1%
these reasons, I have been working
on a reformulati'on.
II.
COEVOLUTIONARY AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT.
The
papers
coevolutionary
framework developed in my
The perspective focuses on how
agricultural activities modify the ecosystem and
ecosystem's
responses
provide cause for
action and social organization.
vides
earlier
emphasizes the interactions between social and
ecological
systems (Norgaard, 1281a; 1981b).
man's
two
subsequent
how
the
individual
.The concept of coevolution pro-
a new entree for linking economic and ecological thinking.
Coevolution in ecology refers to an evolutionary process based on
reciprocal
responses
(Ehrlich and Raven,
of
the
which
between
1964;
two closel
interacting
Baker and Hurd, 1968Y.
beaks of hummingbirds and the shape of
they
flowering
species
The evolution
the
-flowers
on
feed . the behavior of bees and the distribution. ,of
plants,
and
the biochemical defenses of
immunity of their insect prey have all been given
plants
and
coevolutionary
explanations, as reciprocal processes between two evolving systems.
Agricultural
development can be viewed as a
coevolutionary
process between a sociosystem and an ecosystem that, for
by design,
2.
benefit man
or
benefits man.
Coevolutionary feedback need
not
The social and ecological degradation following
2. Numerous critics have encouraged me to explain what 1 mean by
"benefits man" and "development".
This is, of course, a central
issue in economics.
Basically, I am willing to accept existinct
the
attempts at colonization in the Amazon was a
process.
coevolutionary
The terms, to coevolve, coevolution, and coevolutionary
process are value free and merely refer to the reciprocal process
of change.
The term coevolutionary development is used to refer
to coevolution that benefits man.
Sociosystems .and ecosystems are maintained through numerous
feedback
mechanisms.
changed. .
systems
Change
occurs when these
With coevolutionary development,
feedbacks
are
maintenance feedback
frequently shift from the ecosystem to the
sociosystem.
The history of paddy rice culture in Asia provides an interesting
ex WTI p
Increased productivity under paddy technology has been
achieved through investments in dikes,
facilities
and
terraces,
and through the management of water for weed
nut!..ient
retention.
At the same
_time,
paddy
necessitated more socially demanding property,
and
and irrigation
control
technology
water management.,
labor exchange institutions to maintain the paddy rice
system
Belserup,
in
its
1965).
more productive state
for
man
(Geer tz ,
eco•
1963;
Thus, contrary to the view of growth as a pro-
cess of overcoming environmental constraints,
the coevolutionary
perspective emphasizes an increasingly important,
and frequently
more complex, interaction between man and his environment.
The
assumes
importance of the idea that the sociosystem
the
complementary activities and
regulatory
frequently
-functions
definitions in economics, the will of whoever wills development
objectives in a country, or some more Idealistic definition, for
am primarily concerned here with the possibilities of different
objectives and the process of reaching objectives.
Thus, I beg
my readers to allow me to leave these terms as undefined as they
are generally in the development literature.
V.
were
which
either
previoUsly endogenous to
the
or
ecosystem
maintained by the individual farmer cannot be overstressed.
Odum
(1969) characterizes agricultural development as a. transformation
. to
reduced numbers of species and usually lower
ciency
of
nutrient recycling,
production,
tions.
own
and
disturbs
occurs
.e'ff
higher but less stable ratesof
ocks relative to
natural
condi-
As.man pushes an ecosystem in this direction to suit his
needs,
viousiy
low biomass
combined
he
intervenes
some
of the equilibriating mechanisas which
evolved
faster
*compensates
in -some .of the nutrient
in the
ecosystem.
Co6volutionary
or is perhaps only possible
for
if
these natural system losses.
functions may entail,
cycles -.and •
had
pre-.
development
the
sociosystem
New
sociosystem
for example, fertilizing o. the management
of legumes to replace lost nutrient cycles, weed ';iller to offset
natural succesion, and insect control to compensate for displaced
equilibrating
mechanisms.
These new sociosystem functions
are
costs because they involve manual labor, managerial effort, knowledge acquisi tion,
the use of natural resources,
lishment and maintenance of institutions.
need
Ecosystem modification
not necessarily entail more sociosystem
when it does,
and the estab-.
involvement,
but,
the costs of these new activities must be deducted
from the gross benefits of the new interaction.
Western agricultura
lutionary process.
culture,
near
development can be described as a coevo-
A once small scale, , labor intensive, poly-
subsistence
interaction with the
ecosystem
co-
evolved to a large scale, mechanized and energy intensive commercial farming interaction.
This new inter-action is maintained by
a highly complex system of impl emerit and agrochemical industries,
a highly developed marketing system,
and gcivernment institutions
to generate and disseminate knowledge,
late markets,
absorb risk,
subsidize capital
tional
impacts
public
health externalities.
evolved,
in
responses
brought
of adjustments,
part,
to
man's
increasing
ecological
and
water
While
returns to scale with
environmental
the
and
••••
ecosystem
monocultural
systems
mechanization,
encouraged the development
and
their
use
of
••
and of risk spreading
responses
distribu-
The various scicicisystem elements
activities.
•••
ecosystem
and control
limit
in reaction to the nature of
instability
agrochemicals
develop new inputs, regu-
institutions.
Similarily,
to agrochemicals have led to new
pesticide
pollution regulatory institutions as well as
research programs in agricultural experiment
stations.
to
new
Equally
important,
the institutional responses typically encouraged fur3.
ther changes in similar directions
Crop insurance and regu.
1ated markets, for example, reduce the risks of moncultural
production
and make it even more attractive.
tural systems have soil features,
interactions
much
the
which
Today's
agricul-
weed dynamics, and -insect-crop
reflect coevolution with the
social
system
same as today's agricultural institutions reflect
the
3. Coevolution is a positive feedback process. Numerous readers
of my previous papers assumed that I did not
understand cybernetics since positive feedback processes can explode or collapse.
In economics the emphasis is almost always on the importance of
negative feedback
processes in attaining stable equilibriums.
While the concept of equilibrium has been very productive in
economics, on-going change is the essence of economic history and
the goal of economic development.
vulnerability
dynamic
and
of disturbed soil to wind and water
adaptations of in
populations t
erosion,
chemical
control,
the susceptibility of monocultural systems to variations
••
lweather.
•
the
in
EPISTEMOLOGY AND PROGRESS IN ECONOMICS.
III.
of the old and what hypotheses might be tested to
see
Since we are comparing the
new
the new model "stands up".
model relative to existing theory,
different
asked
to
our response with respect
models is invariably that the different models are not
Furthermore, the perpetrator of a new perspective
improvements.
is
out,
then we immediately ask whether the new model is an improved
expansion
how
econo-
Ne seem to be perfectly willing to hear other views
mics.
but
a curious resistance to new models within
is
There
document every interpretation of
to
which
event
an
In
theory.
conflicts
with an interpretation based on existing
addition,
different models are dismissed as unscientific because
In this
testable hypotheses are frequently not readily apparent.
section, I argue that this standard reaction is epi stemologically
naive and make a plea for theoretical plural i sm.'
Until recently, our understanding of the growth of knowledge
was
based on Bacon's argument for the testing of
largely
hypo-
Cr
theses and an idealized history of the progress of the -.cience
Karl
physics.
was
(1934,1959)
Popper -
Logic
of
Scientific
to
the standard work on the method
According
decades.
The
to Popper,
Discovery
truth
objective knowledge grows by
of repeated empirical testing of hypotheses.
expands
continuously as models encompassed more and more.
of the process is consistent with
view
mathematical
proof that any complete and consistent
a
KnowledQe
process
Popperian
for
This
Godel's
1921
model
con-
expanding the
tains unprovable propositions that can be proved by
model,
which
in
turn leaves new prcposi tions
unprovable
(see
,‘
Nag e and Newman,
1958;
Hofstadter,
1979).
Kuhn (1962) docu-
the transition from one "paradigm" to the
was
mented
how
rarely
smooth but reinforced . Popper by retaining the perspective
next
that the adoption of new paradigms ultimately came through
testing
thesis
Most
Given this perspective, our reaction to new models
If this is how science progresses,
logical.
• inquire
and that new paradigms clearly dominated old.
economists today seem to retain this view of the growth
of knowledge.
is
hypo-
then we should
whether the new is more comprehensive than the
old
arid
-what
hypotheses might be tested to see whether the model "stands
up".
There is ample evidence that economists have been borrowing
epi temology and our perception of scientific progress from
sics.
phy-
My favorite example is the concludirg paragraph to Morgen-
stern's
otherwise humble and pragmatic work,
On The Accuracy
f
Economic Observations (1950, pp.205-6):
• Eventually a new generation of economists will have
learned
to live with data of widely differing quality
to improve their observations.
In that
and how
they
will emulate the physicists who have created a magnificent and • terrifying theory though their data range in
accuracy from better than 1/100,000,000 to only 50%
In appreciating
that is when they can measure at all.
the true condition of the data, economists cannot fail
the
but
to develop economic theory in conformity with
physical
standards
set
sciences.
scientific
in
the
high
. We do not,
however,
subject "accepted" economic theory • to
the same tests that our conventional epistemology dictate .
results
of
The
econometric - studies are treated as knowledge. •.rather
than as hypotheses needing further testing.
relationships fail
When
to hold up in later.years,
our
econometric
we. unabashedly. 'do
an
about-face and admit that our models were not complete enough
to encompass all of the factors that might have changed.
the subdiscipline of
resource economics,
Within
hun-
we must have one
dred variations of Hotelling's model showing how the royalty of a
stock resource rises with the rate of interest for every observation
of the same.
The inconsistencies between our epistemolooy
- between our empahsis on mathematical formali-
and our behavior
and the
our high statist cal s andards for measurement,
zation,
we
hypotheses
actually test
- reflect an
adolescent
"ph>'si cs
envy" that has developed into an unhealthy adulthood obsession.
Fortunately,
mology
there have been some reformu 1 ations in e p iste-
since Popper's earlier work which in my estimation
nicely remedy our problem.
(19'74)
has
First,
Feyerabend in Against Method
shown that the physical sciences did not advance
following the "scientific method" and
that theories were
ted long before hypotheses had been adequately tested.
further that:
by
following
by
accep-
He aroues
(1> science can only repeat itself but not advance
the
"scientific method" since the method
provisions for incorporating anything new,
be
quite
(2) theories
has
no
cannot
empirically tested in part because measurement and theory are
I nextricably entertwined,
(3) theories can only be compared with
other theories, and (4) no theory should be eliminated since even
theories
which are clearly dominated by other theories -such
as
Ptolemy's theory of the solar system -should not be rejected
-for
they may prove adequate for some purposes and easier to use.
No
doubt,
so much blasphemy in so few words must be defended vigor-
ously,
but I cannot compete with Feyerabend's vigor and can onl
I
.1
-encourage you to read his book. His subsequent work, Science in a
Free Society (1978>, is more positive in that it presents his own
epistemology
of scientific pluralism.
Interestingly,
this
is
largely based on the political philosophy of John Stuart Mill (On
Liberty, 1859).
Oddly,
epistemology
We
sense.
not
so,
controversial
or
perhaps
is
consistent with ordinary knowledge
Feyerabend's
discoveriPs
readily acknowledge that most scientific
circum-
are accidental in nature -or due to special environmental
stances.
We accept And use conflicting theories all of the time.
The sciences of physics,
are inconsistent.
chemistry, and biology use models which
If they were not,
Consistent
-science.
or
program
flies
we would have one universal
judgement .
by "integrating"
The space
or intuition.
knowledge
views
could
f the world.
many
from
incon-
fields which was generated from separate and occasionally
sistent
them
we still manage to combine
not,
.through ordinary knowledge,
shuttle
common
and
And the shuttle flights
to
dat
probably have been planned as effectively, ( and maybe in
essence were ) with a Ptolemic view of the solar s
•C
.
em. as wi th a
Copernican.
The
acceptance
of
diverse
writings of earlier philosophers.
theories can be
seen
in
the
Leibniz, for example, wrote:
To multiply exclusively
Wisdom requires variety.
thing, however noble it be, would be a
.the same
superfluity; it would be a kind of poverty.
Theodicee
124.
Nor have the *advantages of maintaining a position of
completely
pluralism
been
scientific
methodology.
the
argued
sity
on
literature
the
from
Since this paper is being presented at
University of Wisconsin,
Chamberlain,
missing
theoretical
C.
T.
that
it is apropo to note
Wisconsin geologist and president of the -Unive
a
persuasively for "The Method
Working
Multiple
of
Hypotheses" in 1890.
If models cannot
tant issues open when it comes to prescription.
be
impor-
philosophy of theoretical pluralism leaves some
The
rejected
scientifically,
models conflict?
how do we
formal
when
prescribe
episAgain, fortunately, there have been other
Infor-
dilemma.
temological developments that help us out of the
mal
is
knowledge
in
ar-22/.. - theories
ledge
Wilden (1972),
of
(1978).
Lorenz (1972,
nary.
or
and
1977),
krow.-,.
•
Bronowski
These latter philosopher-scientists argue that we
have
processors
than
more
sophisticated
sensors
and
evolved
far
earlier
phi1osphers of science had thought.
simply
,f
of
work
the
much better standing since:
rasa computers for which we
tabla
for the development of software.
not
Our minds are
must rely on
science
A great deal of software evol-
or in our culture. He
ved over millenia and is encoded in our DNA
ed
should not ignore the benefits of these evolv
formal knowledge seems
cially
when
though
independent
Laudan
(1977)
simply by
to
espe-
Consistent,
conflict.
of the evolutionary view,
are willing to judge the
talents,
Ziman (1968)
validity
of
knowledge
use.
its usefulness and its general acceptance for
ent.
some extent, Friedman (1953) made a similar argum
and
To
of the implications of this philosphical shift,
Many
cially with respect to prescriptive authority,
espe-
for economics and
planning are documented by Lindblom and Cohen in Usable Knowledge
(1979).
prevent
They argue that complexity and change in social systems
the
development
of universal laws such
as
been
have
developed .n the physical sciences that are needed for authoritative prescriptions to social problems.
They argue that the best
the social scientist can do is to complement ordinary
knowledge,
devise new frameworks within which ordinary knowledge might evolve,
and identify possible options that may be missed by ordinary
knowledge.
Social
advance,
in their view,
largely comes from
advances in the ordinary knowledge that is perceived directly
by
many.
the arguments presented by biologist David Ehrenfeld .n
plements
The
Arrogance
belief
com-
and Cohen's perspective as social sc i eriti sts
Lindblom
that
rational
of Humanism (1978) that the
man can improve his condition through
planning has proven unfounded and
Nestern
predominant
and
science
arrogant.
Humanism
reached a peak in the 1960s with the implementation of. social and
economic
countries.
planning
institutions in the West and in
The failure of these institutions led,
the social and academic despair of the 1970s (Bauer,
third
world
in part,
1971;
to
Bell
and Kristol, 1981; Webber, 1978)
Economics
has been one of the most important components
and beneficiaries of Humanism.
economists
today,
The less comfortable position of
the decline of Humanism,
alternatives to rational planning
of
and the search
for
on both the pol itical 1eft and
has been a solid response of. constructive self
there
economics,
and the most interest in epistemology since Ludwig von
criticism
Epistemological
Mises'
Essay
An
Robbin's
Postulates
Problems
of
Economic
of
W. Hutchison's The Significance and Basic
John
of Economic Theory (1938) or perhaps even since
Mill's On the Logic of the Moral Sciences
interest can be found in Blaug (1980),
renewed
Lionel
(1933).1
Economics
on the Nature and Significance
and T.
Science (1935)
Stuart
within
Fortunately,
coincidental.
simply
not
are
right
This
(1843).
Hollis
Hahn and
(1979), Hicks (1979), Hutchison (1977), Latsis (1976) and Machlup
in
(1978)
addition
to Lindblom and Cohen.
The
interest
new
overly
amongst economists in epistemology is still scattered and
defensive,
but it could coalesce,
become more positive, and set
new directions.
This brief epistemological -foray has taken three directions.
I
First,
argued that economics does not hold
have
standards
methodological
of Popperian
and
epistemology
the
to
up
hence
eithe'r our belief in the unique validity of economic theory or in
Popperian
epistemology
sistent.
Second,
must be rejected if we are
to
con-
be
I have argued for theoretical pluralism,
utilizing
existing,
throwing
out the Popperian methodology and
accepted
economic theory al ono with other theories that seem
provide
useful,
information.
to
call
to
contradictory, -
Third, I have argued that informal knowledge, ordi-
nary knowledge,
want
even if occassionally seemingly
for
conventional wisdom, common sense or whatever we
it must be given formal recognition
even
if
it
cannot be formally integrated with formal (scientific, objective,
16-,
etc.
knowledge.
It is in this context that I ask my readers to
consider the coevo utionary economic development paradigm.
SOME OBSERVATIONS FROM THE COEVOLUTIONARY VANTAGE.
IV.
The
sion,
advantage of theoretical pluralism is the added
dimen-
the depth of perception, obtainable through looking at the
world from two or more mountain tops.
neoclassical
here,
and
vantage,-
we
We are accustomed to
have built our
theoretical
fortress
we tend to think the real world is as we see it
this position.
the
from
From a coevolutionary vantage, however, the world
looks
quite different.
while
others
have
Some features can be seen more
receded to the far
horizon.
closely
Looking
back
toward the neoclass
cal mountaintop,
_
the heretofore hidden beck-
sides
Looking anew,
of features come into view.
I
see
the
world differently in three important ways.
SYSTEMS
HAVE
POTENTIAL.
The
neoclassical
divides the world into components such as land,
tal.
labor, and capi-
Economic growth *comes froni an expansion of these components
through
births,
new discoveries,
investment,
which redefines and augments the components.
mics
perspective
has
resource
traditionally
economics
focused on how
resources and technology.
Development econo-
capital
has emphasized the roles
or new knowledge
of
expands
stock
natural
From the coevolut onary vantage,
ponents are vague but connections are clear.
while
com-
Man can augment the
is
in the social and ecological systems which posi-
feedback loops,
influence and diminish those feedbacks
tively
negatively
which
fit man. Conversely, man
irfluence the levels of things which bene
can
ment
of
uence and augdiminish those feedbacks which positively infl
levels
uence the
the feedback signals which negatively infl
things which .are detrimental
to man and thereby
improve
his
condition.
last century with the introduction of
the
Until
agricultural development was just this sort
and chemical inputs,
of system adjustirg process.
deliberately
significantly
and learning,
the _way
years,
Man,
more than any other species,
disturbed
environment.
his
trial
ngly through
natural selection and later increasi
Through
error,
and
machinery
by
in
these relationships largely
changed
In the
early
entailed
niche
ms.
in which they interact with ecosyste
changes
expansion
individual men and societies have
out -competing similar species in the
food
chain.
e agricultural practices, man
Later, through increasingly effectiv
the
livestock ) moved down
( in some cases through domesticated
food chain,
way and transdisplacing numerous species along the
-forming
the chain.
soil -plant relationships farther down
changes
ess of
occurred over centuries through a proc
and ecological
reactions and responses between social
These
reciprocal
4.
ems
syst
to be the exclusive, corNote that this view is not thought
4.
with theoretical pluralitm, it
rect, or complete one. Consistent
one seen most clearly from the
should be considered merely as the
because it contrasts with
coevolutionary vantage. It is valuable
of this period
economic views (or absence thereof)
conventional
of our economic history.
I
•
the first use of tool c. with which the environment could be
Since
readily manipulated to the significant introduction of
more
of stock resources in agriculture about a century
use
population
* human
• occurred
doubled more than eight
capturing
by
times.
the
ago,
These
the potential of the . systems..
the
gains
It
has
doubled less than twice since the transformation in agriculture a
ago,
5.
dramatically .
century
The
and
though
the
rate
of
doubling
has
increased
coevolutionary potential that man captured in the
might in the future contrasts with the
connections
past
between
thermodynamics and economic development drawn by Georgescu-Roegen
(1971).
Initially,
the
biological
componen t==.
or the physical order which man labels as
resources.
Although
one
cannot
the
world
did not have
deny the universal
applicability
of
the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, the possibilities for local entropy
decreases
incredible
economic
must be admitted.
Georgescu-Roegen acknowledges
energy and long life of the sun and its importance to
well-being over the long run.
logical processes and evolution,
the
perceived
processes,
the
His references
. to
however,
tend to be limited t
directionality or irreversibility
phenomena
he as
bio-
of
with the Second
biological
Law'.
Nhat
Georgescu-Roegen does not fully acknowledge is that man could not
•
5. These calculations are based on a world population of about 5
million when agriculture began some 5,060 to 10,000 years ago, a
population of about 1.6 million in 1880, and a pc*ulation of 4.5
The numbers and dates are approximate, based on
billion
now.
Other numbers will still confirm the point that
Grigg (1974).
there were more doublings by coevolutionary development than
by
"resource exploitive". development.
existed on the earth four and one-half billion
[lave
years
life began to evolve an order -- through the use of solar
before
energy -- that had low entropy for man.
the plant and animal life we eat,
The oxygen we
breathe,
and the hydrocarbons we tap to
fuel our industry are all due to biological processes.
order
ago,
of
physical
minerals
processes
has improved for man over-
stemming from solar energy and
inlOe
cooling of the earth ( Blum,
Henderson,
1913 ).
eons
Even the
by
various
the
gradual
Boulding, 1978 and 1981; and
From a perspective limited to man on earth,
coevolution . has been a negentropic process.
•
The
two approaches to economic growth,
developing
through
coevolutionary potential and through discovering new technologies
for
stock resource exploitation,
resource growth models,
stock
modified
can perhaps
Our
might
at least in some ways,
be
to consider the complementarities and the incompatibil-
ities between the two approaches.
influence coevolution,
Stock resources can be used to
coevolutionary considerations may lead us
tn usg. stock resources more effectively,
perspective
facing
linked.
be
with
might
the
and the
coevolutionary
shed some insight on the problems We are
evolution of social institutions
nuclear power, western coal, and Mideast Oil.
now
vis
vLs
These are explored
more fully in Norgaard (1981b).
EQUILIBRIA,
cal
EXTERNALITIES, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS.
economic theory assumes that ecological and
tend toward stable equilibria.
Neoclassi-
social
systems
He assume that a steady input of
pollutant will shift the ecosystem to a new equilibrium.
20,1--1
Given
Tv'
the
values
of the good and bad aspects of this new
relative to the old one,
are
less
explicit,
. institutions.
the
.costs
we make similar
assumption's
Though we
social
about
for example,
an environmental protection agency
social system in a new equilibrium whose •benefits
can be measured relative to the old institutional
.brium.
the
we calculate exterilal costs.
We tend to assume that a steady political pressure
that maintains,
puts
equilibrium
and .
equili-
For both the ecological and social systems, we argue that
tendency
toward equilibria is due
Without the negative feedbacks,
to
negative
feedbacks.
we are concerned that the system
will either explode or collapse.
From the coevolutionary vantage,
feedbacks,
continual
sight.
-- reinforcing,
modifications
in
however,
reciprocal
signals
lucky.
But
lead
t
equilibria
No doubt the positive feedbacks are typically
have 'been minor explosions'and collapses,
positive
that
each system with no
doubt they are attenuated by negative feedbacks,
been
we see
weak
no doubt
in
no
there
and no doubt we
hive
it is a distinctly different world view
that
baffles those who can only perceive by equilibria.
The
concept
of
and solutions to externalities
rough edges when viewed from the coevolutionary
there
is
have
vantage.
some
First
the problem that the ecosystem and social system
were
not in equilibria before and will not attain equilibria after the
introduction of an input external to the market.
costs
must
desirability
b
thought of in terms of the
of
Thus, external
differences
two paths the interacting systems
42
might
in
the
take.
more
and
Second,
the coevolutionary
importantly,
perspective
It is
one
predict
two
erably more uncertainty.
suggests that there is consid
to
predict a new equilibrium and an
thing .to
Given this uncertainty,
paths.
evolutionary
an impact that is
be
ative externality may turn out to
initially thought to be a neg
udback change that induces coevol
a positive externali ty or a fee
e been inIndeed, historical examples hav
tionary development.
Boserup (1965) and by
in , just this sort of light by
terpreted
Nilkinson (1972).
The
respect
ghts a third
coevolutionary. vantage highli
externalities.
to
activities
of
through . the
one
An
externality
party affect another
market.
issue
occurs
directly
when
rather
t
Both this conception of and mos
of
with
the
than
the
an
ties are set in the context of
uctoesi-ed—szilitAi_ons to externali
6unts
exchange of separable items acc
imaginary world where market
ical
between people and where ecoloQ
for all of the'relationships
son's
hin the boundaries of each per
interactions are confined wit
e, separable
From the coevolutionary vantag
separable property.
components,
if they do exist,
are hidden by a maze .of
feedback
.
lves to man made demarcations
loops that do not confine themse
ch the market system is based
The concept of property on whi
nce of separability
based on the approximate existe
is itself
those social
Even
therein.
the strong belief
properties or
nprivate property, the public age
institutions which complement
ies of private proassist or correct the deficienc
cies which
that presume divisibility
are divided into separate units
to imagine how
It is difficult
the tasks at hand.
perty,
of
-
, ;institutions
might have developed if systemic
rather than atomistic and equilibria
thinkino
and
evolutionary
thinkinci had pre-
vailed in Hestern philosophy.
PLANNING, LINKAGES
ary
vantage,
thema.
that
and
AND DEVELOPMENT.
From the coevolution-
macro level planning as we now know it is. an
ana-
It instigates change based on limited rational
knowledge
is likely to be inappropriate for the particular
ecosystem
social system and establishes institutions which are
to impede successful coevolutionary development.
1utionary
framework of development,
planning,
hut it takes
likely
Hithin a coevo-
I think there is a role for
fai.rly different. form..
is
One difference
that it would he more of an endogenous process with
6.
geographical boundaries than we typically observe
smalle •
One 'possible • form . would be for. planning Ad.complement
process
of the "survival of the fittest".
If we take the
.the
view
6.
Daniel
Bromley, Emery Castle, and Jeff Romm haVe independently noted that much of the uniqueness of
the coevolutionary
perspective is its emphasis on incAl coevolution as opposed. to
global.
Certainly, all
planning would be endogenous if I
was
emphasizing global coevolution.
Hence, I need to be more specific. about
the geographical boundaries of the local
systems I
think
have coevolutionary potential.
I do not have a unique
answer
to this problem as posed.
I think in terms of systemic
heirarchies with different geographical bounds, or at least fuzzy
edges.
The coevolutionary perspective gives more at
to
the more geographically concentrated heirarchies while the neoclassical
perspective seems to perceive one global system to the
extent that it perceives systems at all.
Accepting
theoretical
pluralism allows us to see these two perspectives as different
extremes in this sense without having to artificially draw boundaries indicating where one view stops and the other begins..
that
fit
nature is constantly randomly experimenting and that
then for development planning this suggests
survives,
se might induce an
per
experimenting
Furthermore,
• and error.
evolutionary
that
of
process
however, may take years to determine by trial
Fitness
change.
which
fitness,
other things being the same,
may not coincide with planning objectives.
Coevolutionary devel-
opment planning would thus have several aspects within the survi-
the
increase
of experiments and to
number
select
again.
the
and
a dubious experiment may be tried again
Planners may be able to develop a system of learning from
that
past
system
experiments
In both natural
which may h ave a greater liklihood of survival.
and social systems,
t
The development budget could be used
val mechanism analogy.
will aid in selecting
of
of learning could also take on the task
successful
4
adoption
experiments and the
same
This
experiments.
accelerating
the
of
rejection
unsuccessful.
will no doubt point out that both the
Critics
conventional
and
the proposed coevolutionary approach to planning entail
Use
of
the
The difference is that in
•
approach there is a presumption that largely exo-
formal decision making.
conventional
genously
formal
For
approach.
largely
the
knowledge
can
coevolutionary
endogenously
derived
be used to
planning,
formal
select
I am
knowledge
proper
the
proposing
be
that
used
in
set
of
to
experiments by eliminating approaches that are less likely
be
conjunction
with
ordinary
knowledge to select a large
appropriate.
2141,
More
and stronger linkages are a common ingredient to
prescriptions for development.
Those on the political right call
. for more exchange and capital transfers through
on
markets.
the left call for more communication and *cooperative
through
many
regional and worldwide international agencies.
Those
efforts
Amongst
"rationalists-functionalists" there is only a debate aver which
types
of
interconnections are most appropriate.
From
a
coevolutionary
vantage,
it is apparent that this debate
misses
some of the costs shared by all interconnections.
"Rational -functionalists"
variety of reasons.
advocate
more
linkages
for
Market linkages capture the gains from trade
due to comparative advantage s political linkages provide feedback
mechanisms
for the realization of common goals,
scientific
and
technical linkages capture the economies of scale of research and
development
becoming
and the dissemination of knowledge.
concerned
proliferated
that the international
. While many are
linkages
that
have
since World War 11 have high maintenance costs
and
that the development plans of the international agencies have not
proven
cost effective,
linkages
What
few are concerned that these
additional'
may entail costs which work against development pr:
might these costs be?
Linkages are based on
•
formal
knowledge and their functioning is dependent on the acceptance of
this
formal knowledge.
As in the case of conventional planning
discussed above, this formal knowledge may be appropriate for the
social and ecological systems within which it was derived but
highly unlikely to be appropriate for
is
being
linked.
is
the developing region that
Coupling may slow or halt the
evolution
of
1
patterns of thinking,
indigenous
social and economic
behavior,
It
itnd
institutions and degrade ecological systems.
cerned
the loss of existing culture and
with
I am not con-
indigenous
tech-
1977) and
nologies in the sense presented by Denis Goulet (1971,
others, but am concerned with the loss of coevolutionary developmerit potential.
Rather than decoupling, one might argue that the appropriate
be for planning and linking agencies
would
policy
Indeed,
gical systems.
just this sort of concern is widespread
The response to this concern,
though largely for other reasons.
has been low because planning and linking organizations
have limits.
tion,
more
to the characteristics of particular social and ecolo-
sensitive
however,
be
to
make
activities.
Agencies must organize internally,
decisions,
and
informa-
seek
generally be accountable for
their
an overall
model
a rationale,
For each of these,
that rdi41-1T4-ies Wg-variable, describes relationships, justifies
activities,
tions
which operate worldwide,
and - ecological systems,
If
such
Organiza-
and rationalizes decisions is necessary.
interacting with diverse
must still have one overall
social
rationale.
an organization were to truly decentralize so
.that
it
could operate within the context of models appropriate to individual regions
we would have the decoupling that 1 am suggesting.
To my knowledge,
a coevolutionary argument for
has not been investigated before.
fiCr?
_-centralization
k
4
a,.
V.
CONCLUSIONS.
and
coevolutionary reformulation of resource economics
The
economics
development
resources
problems
this
towards
provides
and
reformula ion
observed in the Amazon.
for
a new vantage
because
of
the
moved
I
In
development.
contradictions
Good economic planning there completely
Social and ecological coevolution in the Amazon took a
-f ailed.
van-
that was completely unforseen from the neoclassical
course
This
tage.
at
looking
course
of events is easily explained irs
-from the coevolutionary vantage.
retrospect
Much of the early agricultural
4 man is also more easily explained in a coevolutionary
history
framework than in a neoclassical framework.
the new
Hopefully,
will asist us in forseeing errors earlier in the
vantage
plan-
ning process in the :future.
course of events in the Amazon was
eventual
The
forseen from Marxist or technical -scientific vantages.
of these,
that
more
however,
some problems were forseen.
From each
It seems likely
of the problems could have been forseen if the
tionary
sights
the planning process.
Thus while I think the
vantage that I am espousing in this paper
unattainable from other perspectives,
views
openly
from each vantage could have been compared and contrasted
during
not
al Sc.
coevolu-
provides
I have also
in-
dedi-
cated much 6f the paper to justifying the approach of theoretical
pluralism.
using
The
advantages and disadvantages and the methods o4
this approach need further development beyond the
molgical justification I have provided.
epis e-
From
the coevolutionary vantage we see that
.•
ecological and social, have potential.
not new to the -fields of ecology,
systems,
both
Hhile this observation is
sociology,
history, or system
theory in cleneral, it has not been observed from the neoclassical
vantage bedause that vantage is deliberately located to focus
components
which are only linked through markets.
has its "advantages",
cilable
on
Each vantage
but the two views in this sense are recon-
and clearly you see more from looking out from
both
of
observations from the coevolutionary vantage seem
to
them.
Other
blur
our neoclassical perception of reality.
The opposing
em-
phases of components in one case and linkages in the other leaves
our
of
understanding of externalities and their solution in a state
disrepair.
perspective
Similarily,
the emphasis of the
coevolutionary
on endogenous interactions between local social
and
ecological systems suggests that rational planning developed on a
more global scale will fail.
classical
the
neither the
or the coevolutionary view is clearly right.
"truth"
necessarily somewhere in
another vantage,
clear.
In these cases,
between.
neo.-
Nor
Perhaps
is
from
what is now irreconcilable will become formally
In the meantime, the discrepencies are fair warning that
prescriptions based on either formal model of reality will likely
fail for at least some of the reasons predicted by the other.
During
have
model.
to
a
the
past century,
institutions in the First
large extent been patterned
Increasingly,
after
the
World
economist's
this has also been the case in the
Third
I 0' Norld.
-.
•".
tionary :
vantage,
economists.
ing
the
called
in
adoption of theoretical pluralism and the
The
will reduce the authority
That authority, however, has proved
past decade of economic turmoil.
of
ephemeral durhave
been
upon most desperately to repair the institutions we
have
part created,
era e growth,
ty,
amongst others,
coevolu-
either
been
rejected
we
our prescriptions to reduce inflation,
accel-
reduce trade imbalances, increase economic equali-
reduce unemployment,
have
When
improve environmental
quality,
too frequently failed or mercifully - or not
prici.
The time is ripe for new
etc.
so
explorations
and less trudging on the old trail.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baker, Herbert G. and Hurd, Paul D. 1968. "Inrafloral Ecology.
Annual Review of Entomology 13:385-414.
Bell, Daniel and Kristol, Irving (eds). The Crisis in Economic ,
Theory. New York. Basic Books.
Blaug, Mark. 1980. The Methodology of Economics. Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
Blum, Harold F. 1968. Time's Arrow and Evolution. Princeton.
Princeton University Press.
Boserup, Ester. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The
Economics of Agrarian Change under Population Pressure.
Chicago. Aldine Publishing Company.
Goulding, Kenneth E. 1978. Ecodynamics: A New Theory of Societal
Evolution. Beverly Hills, California. Sage Publications.
. 1981. Evolutionary Economics. Beverly Hills, California. Sage Publications.
2.7
Bronowski, Jacob. 1978. The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination.
New Haven. Yale University Press.
1
Chamberlain, T. C. 1890. "The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses." Science 15 (old series) 92. Reprinted in Science
148 (May 7, 1965): 754-59.
Ehrenfeld, David. 1978. The Arrogance of Humanism. Oxford.
Oxford University Press.
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Raven, Peter H. 1964. "Butterflies and Plant,
.,
A Study of Coevolution." Evolution 18:586-608.
Feyerabend, Paul. 1974. Against Method. London. New Left Books.
. 1978. Science in a Free Society. London. New Left Books.
Friedman, Milton. 1953. "The Methodology of Positive Economics."
in Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago. The University of
Chicago Press.
Geertz,. Clifford. 1963. Agricultural Involution ,The Processes
of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley. University of
California Press.
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic
Process. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press.
Goulet, Denis. 1971. The Cruel Choice: A New Concept in the Theory
of Economic Development. New York. Athenum.
. 1977. The Uncertain Promise: Value Conflicts in Technology Transfer. New'York. IDOC/North America.
Grigg, D. B. 1974. The Agricultural Systems of the World: An
Evolutionary Approach. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Hahn, Frank and Martin Hollis (eds). 1979. Philosophy and Economic
Theory. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Henderson, Lawrence J. 1913. The Fitness of the Environment.
New York. Macmillan and Company.
Hicks, Sir John. 1976. "'Revolutions' in Economics" in Spiro
Latsis (ed). Method and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
. 1979. Causality in Economics. New York. Basic Books.
Hofstadter, Douglas R. 1979. Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal
Golden Braid. New York. Basic Books.
Hutchison, T. W. 1938. The Significance and Basic Postulates of
Economic Theory. London. Macmillan and Company Limited.
*
A
s
1976. "On the History and Philosophy of Science
and Economics." in Spiro Latsis (ed). Method and Appraisal
in Economics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
. 1977. Knowledge and Ignorance in Economics. Chicago.
University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Chicago. The University of Chicago Press.
Latsis, Spiro. 1976. Method and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
Laudan, Larry. 1977. Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory
of Scientific Growth. Berkeley. _University of California
Press.
Lindblom, Charles and Cohen, David K. 1979. Usable Knowledge:
Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven. Yale
University Press.
Lorenz, Konrad. 1977. Behind The Mirror:A Search for a Natural
History of Knowledge. New York. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Originally published in German in 1973 by R. Piper and
Company Verlag.
Machlup, Fritz. 1978. Methodology of Economics and Other Social
Sciences. New York. Academic Press.
1843. On the Logic of the Moral Sciences.
Mill, John Stuart.
A System of Logic, Book VI.
1859. On Liberty.
Moran, Emilio F. 1981. Developing the Amazon. Blooming on,
University of Indiana Press.
Morgenstern, Oskar. 1963. On the Accuracy of Economic Observations.
Second Edition. Princeton. Princeton University Press.
Nagel, Ernst and Newman, James R. 1958. Godels Proof.
New York University Press.
Hew York.
Norgaard, Richard B. 1981a. "Sociosystem and Ecosystem Coevolution
in the Amazon." Journal of Environmental and Economic
Management. 8 (September): 238-54.
"Coevolutionary Agricultural Development."
. 1981b.
Forthcoming in
Giannini Foundation Working Paper. No. 162.
Journal of Economic Development and Cultural Change.
. 1981c. "Resource Scarcity, Intertemporal Allocation,
and Coevolutionary Development." Giannini Foundation Working
Paper No. 184.
Odum, Eugene. 1969. "The Strategy of Ecosystem Develpment."
Science. 164 (April 18): 262-70.
V.
Michael. 1958. Personal Knowledge. Chicago. University of
Chicago Press.
Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London.
Hutchinson and Company.
• Robbins, Lionel.
1935. An Essay on the Nature and Significance
of Economic Science. London. Macmillan and Company Limited.
Smith, Nigel J. H. 1981. "Colonization Lessons from a Tropical
Rainforest" Science 214 (November 13): 755-61.
. 1982. Rainforest Corridors: The Transamazon Colonization Scheme. Berkeley. University of California Press.
von Mises, Ludwig. 1933 (English translation published in 1981).
Epistemological Problems of Economics. New York, New York
University Press.
Waterston, Albert. 1965. Development Planning: Lessons of
Experience. Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Webber, Melvin M. 1978. "A Difference Paradigm for Planning."
in Robert W. Burchell (ed), Planning Theory in the 1980s,
a Search for Future Directions. Rutgers, New Jersey.
The Center for Urban Policy Research.
Wilder, Anthony. 1972. System and Structure: Essays in Communication and Exchange. London. Tavistock Publications.
Wilkinson, Richard G. 1973. Poverty and Progress: An Ecological
Perspective on Economic Development. New York. Frederick A.
Praeger.
Ziman, John. 1968. Public •Knowlegde: An Essay Concerning the Social
Dimension of Science. Cambridge. Cambridge University Pres.
4