Search results

This study aims to present the perspectives of heterodox economics and Islamic economics on environmental economics, as an alternative to mainstream economics, which takes economic growth as its main objective and argues that environmental problems will largely disappear when economic growth is achieved.

In this study, there was no intention to conduct a detailed analysis of heterodox economic models and Islamic economics. Instead, the approaches to the “environment,” which can be considered as an urgent need of the planet, were evaluated, and the inadequate proposals of the mainstream economics’ environmental approach were theoretically criticized and heterodox economics and Islamic economics were proposed as an alternative model.

Heterodox and Islamic economics offer alternative models of development prioritizing social and ecological justice to address environmental problems, which is in contrast to mainstream economics’ narrow focus on market mechanisms and individual rationality. Thus, engaging in more dialogue in the context of the environment is inevitable for both schools, considering the vast geography inhabited by Muslims and the proposed heterodox economic policies, and moreover, these approaches are modeled for the first time.

This article presents a synthesis of Islamic economics and heterodox thinking in contrast to mainstream economic policy, highlighting their similarities and differences and providing a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities and potential solutions of environmental problems. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this approach has not been previously explored, making it an original contribution to the literature.

Familiarizes the reader with the emerging subject of ecological economics and provides an overview of how ecological economics differs from environmental and resource economics. Proceeds to then review two new environmental and resource economics textbooks, a book on ecological economics and one on the subject of environmental policy in developing economies.

Williamson's systematic treatment of transaction costs in explaining governance structures has rarely been applied to the field of environmental economics. The aim of this chapter is to address this oversight by analysing how transaction cost economics can help choose among environmental policy tools.

We apply the analytical framework of discrete structural alternatives – market, hybrid forms and hierarchy – to the choice of environmental policy instruments. Environmental-related transactions, which differ in their attributes, are aligned with categories of policy instruments, which differ in their cost and competence, so as to effect a discriminating – mainly transaction costs economizing – result.

First, we suggest defining the transaction as the trading of property rights to the use of natural resources. Second, the characteristics of the transaction are described as mainly measurement costs. Third, we determine the conditions under which a particular ‘governance structure’ that is a policy instrument is chosen.

A major contribution of our analysis is to question the relevance of many economists’ prescription in favour of incentive-based instruments. Indeed, in some plausible circumstances a command-and-control instrument may be more efficient by economizing on transaction costs.

Environmental economics has employed the seminal contribution of Ronald H. Coase (1960) intensively but has remained relatively unaffected by the contributions of perhaps his most influential follower, Oliver E. Williamson. Our chapter is a first step towards an operationalization à la Williamson of Coase's (1992, p. 778) ‘fundamental insights’ in the environmental realm.

Clem Tisdell is one of Australia’s pre‐eminent economists who has made decisive contributions in several areas of economics, perhaps most notably development economics, environmental economics and natural resource economics. Tisdell is presently Professor of Economics at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, and is also a long‐standing member of the editorial advisory board of the International Journal of Social Economics. This interview, which falls in the tradition of Klamer, was recorded in his Brisbane home in November 1995 and seeks to explore Tisdell’s extraordinary career, the development of his thinking about economics in general and his prodigious research output in particular. Tisdell answered the questions in his customary quietly‐spoken and good‐humoured manner.

This paper has two objectives. First, it investigates some conceptual linkages between the sub‐disciplines of development economics and environmental economics. We find common methodological orientations, and shared interests in growth processes, resources and sustainability, international trade, market mechanisms and market failure, institutions, and co‐operative international behaviour. Second, it introduces the other papers that appear in this special issue, and sets them within the context of the common orientations and themes that have been identified here. Finally, we offer some recommendations for the design of syllabuses in the field of development and environmental economics.

This paper aims to provide an overview of environmental regulation and recent trends and developments in this area, rooted in the practical regulatory implementation activities of EPAs worldwide and drawing connection to sustainability, environmental risks, economics and environmental justice.

The design and methodology in developing “Better (Environmental) Regulation” is addressed drawn on experiences from different regulatory systems. It addresses the linkages between environment, economy, regulation and sustainability and adopts and develops Sparrow's approach to a focus on tackling harms.

A range of challenges in policy and practice terms – e.g. economic growth versus sustainability – is described. Arguments against the political economy convention of reducing burdens are made and a spectrum of compliance for regulators is offered, leading to a proposed agenda to help deliver better regulation generally.

A major challenge in arguing for an anti‐burden approach is the lack of a general ecosystem services approach and the dearth of valuation data to validate industry claims, demonstrate the costs of compliance and non‐environment and the value of protection.

The argument is presented that environmental regulation is of fundamental value not only to the environment per se but to tackling climate change and protecting society at large.

Hitherto there has been very little in the literature from a practitioner perspective, analysing and proposing improvements to environmental regulation in practice while preserving and securing environmental and sustainability policy objectives. This paper should support and encourage policy makers and implementers in improving practice.

One major development in the upsurge of accounting interest in environmental issues has been a quantum leap in the recognition of the extent of the crucial role that economics plays in constituting accounting thought and practice. “Conventional” economics and its contribution to the environmental debate and radical critiques of economics′ environmental failures have become familiar territory. However, a further, most important, development in accounting has largely gone unnoticed, the development of “New Economics”. This offers a paradigm shift from the mechanical and inorganic focus of early industrialism to the post‐industrial biological and information‐oriented channels, through which it is hoped that a “win‐win” solution will resolve the current conflict between society and the powers that be.

Over the past three decades ecological economics has emerged as a coherent transdisciplinary approach to environmental problem solving. However, its evolution has been quite dissimilar in different parts of the world. In the US and UK, ecological economics evolved as a critique of and alternative to a comparatively strict application of economic theory to environmental decision making. In particular, the narrow application of benefit–cost analysis often reduced environmental decisions to one metric within a single value system (the market economy). The attractiveness of these traditional economic approaches to environmental policy has always been their “one size fits all” approach. No matter what the problem faced, the same methods were applied with a primary goal of cost effectiveness. But it has become increasingly clear that the ease of application of a strict economic approach is outweighed by its failure to capture the social and environmental contexts and realities of specific environmental problems. In contrast, ecological economics has been more problem-oriented, incorporating multiple stakeholder and disciplinary perspectives in specific contexts to shape the methods that define policy choices. Furthermore, ecological economic approaches involve multiple metrics, multiple points of view, and evolutionary and flexible policy recommendations.

The primary focus concerns the measurement of non‐market environmental effects. It is suggested that the formal decision analysis advocated in traditional management accounting typically excludes a wide range of nonfinancial activities and that developments in environmental economics may prove useful in the development of more explicit procedures for corporate decision making. Different approaches to environmental resource decision making are discussed, along with different notions of environmental value, including use, option and preservation values. Finally, the different methods suggested by economists to obtain monetary values for non‐market resources, specifically the dose‐response, hedonic price, travel cost, and contingent valuation methods, are reviewed, with mention of some implications for private decision makers and accountants.

The purpose of this paper is to provide estimates of damage cost for several areas of the environment. In particular: to estimate the cost of degradation as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) at the national level; to enhance local capacity in environmental economics, in particular in the valuation of environmental degradation; and to provide an input to inter‐sectoral environmental priority setting.

To achieve the above objectives a framework was developed to estimate the cost of environmental degradation in seven countries in the region, for six categories. Estimates reflect order of magnitude and therefore represent an indication of actual damage costs. A range of estimates was provided to reflect the uncertainty of the results. Damage costs are presented in annual values (in local currencies, in US$ dollars) and as a per cent of GDP. Expressing costs as a share of GDP provides a sense of magnitude and will allow cross‐country comparison.

The damage cost of environmental degradation in Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in 2000 is estimated at US$ 9 billion per year, or 2.1‐7.4 per cent of GDP, with a mean estimate of 5.7 per cent of GDP. In addition, the damage cost to the global environment is estimated at 0.5‐1.6 of GDP, with a mean estimate of 0.9 per cent of GDP.

Owing to data constraints, no cost estimates are provided for some impact such as: degradation associated with industrial, hazardous and hospital waste, biodiversity loss, and impact of inadequately treated wastewater, thus calculations often represent lower bound estimates.

This paper is a contribution in a process towards the use of environmental damage cost assessments for priority setting and as an instrument for integrating environmental consideration into economic and social development.