Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy
Fiche du document
2019
- handle: 10670/1.2k4dnj
- hal: hal-02332491
- doi: 10.1080/09672567.2019.1679210
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/09672567.2019.1679210
info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Mots-clés
theory of production Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen Robert Solow Joseph Stiglitz natural resources B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches/B.B2 - History of Economic Thought since 1925/B.B2.B22 - Macroeconomics Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics • Environmental and Ecological Economics/Q.Q3 - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation/Q.Q3.Q32 - Exhaustible Resources and Economic Development Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics • Environmental and Ecological Economics/Q.Q5 - Environmental Economics/Q.Q5.Q57 - Ecological Economics: Ecosystem Services • Biodiversity Conservation • Bioeconomics • Industrial EcologySujets proches
Philosophy--Methodology Economic theory Political economyCiter ce document
Quentin Couix, « Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy », HAL-SHS : histoire, philosophie et sociologie des sciences et des techniques, ID : 10.1080/09672567.2019.1679210
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
This paper provides a theoretical and methodological account of an important controversy between neoclassical resource economics and ecological economics from the early 1970s to the end of the 1990s. It shows that the assumption of unbounded resource productivity in the work of Solow and Stiglitz–and the related concepts of substitution and technical progress–rest on a model-based methodology. On the other hand, Georgescu-Roegen’s assumption of thermodynamic limits to production, later revived by Daly, comes from a methodology of interdisciplinary consistency. I conclude that neither side provided a definitive proof of its own claim because both face important conceptual issues.