Herman Daly

INTECOM: Reading on Growth and Development
Lecturer: Marie Leoneth Martinez
THE RIGHT LIVELIHOOD AWARDS 1996

Acceptance Speech by
Herman Daly
December 9th, 1996
Uneconomic Growth: Conflicting Paradigms

"That which seems to be wealth may in verity be only the
gilded index of far-reaching ruin...... !
--- John Ruskin, Unto this Last, 1862.
I. Uneconomic Growth in Theory
Growth in GNP is so favored by economists that they call it "economic"
growth, thus ruling out by terminological baptism the very possibility of
"uneconomic" growth in GNP. But there is no a priori reason why at the
margin the environmental and social costs of growth in GNP could not be
greater than the production benefits. In fact, economic theory would lead us
to expect that at some point. The law of diminishing marginal utility of
income tells us that we satisfy our most pressing wants first, and that each
additional unit of income (production) is dedicated to the satisfaction of a
less pressing want. So the marginal benefit of growth declines. Similarly, the
law of increasing marginal costs tells us that we first make use of the most
productive and accessible factors of production - the most fertile land, the
most concentrated and available mineral deposits, the best workers - and
only use the less productive factors as growth makes it necessary.
Consequently, marginal costs of growth increase. When rising marginal costs
equal falling marginal benefits then we are at the optimal level of GNP, and
further growth would be uneconomic - would increase costs more than it
increased benefits. Why is this simple application of the basic logic of
microeconomics treated as inconceivable in the domain of macroeconomics?
II. Uneconomic Growth in Fact
One might accept the theoretical possibility of uneconomic growth, but argue
that it is irrelevant for practical purposes since, it could be alleged, we are
nowhere near the optimal scale. The benefits of growth might still be
1

enormous and the costs still trivial at the margin. Economists all agree that
GNP was not designed to be a measure of welfare, but only of activity.
Nevertheless they assume that welfare is positively correlated with activity
so that increasing GNP will increase welfare, even if not on a one-for-one
basis. This is equivalent to believing that the marginal benefit of GNP growth
is greater than the marginal cost. This belief can be put to an empirical test.
The results turn out not to support the belief.
III. Uneconomic Growth in Two Paradigms
Within the standard neo-classical paradigm uneconomic growth is an
anomalous category. You will not find it mentioned in any macroeconomics
textbook. But within the paradigm of ecological economics it is an obvious
possibility. Let us consider why in each case.
The pre-analytic vision of standard neo-classical economics is that the
economy is the total system, and that nature, to the extent that it is
considered at all, is a sector of the economy - e.g. the extractive sector
(mines, wells, forests, fisheries, agriculture). Nature is not seen, as in the
ecological economics vision, as an envelope containing, provisioning, and
sustaining the entire economy, but as one sector of the economy similar to
other sectors. If the products or services of the extractive sector should
become scarce, the economy will presumably "grow around" that particular
scarcity by substituting the products of other sectors. If the substitution is
difficult, new technologies will be invented to make it easy.
The unimportance of nature, in this view, finds empirical support in the
declining share of the extractive sector in total GNP. Beyond the initial
provision of indestructible building blocks, nature is simply not important to
the economy in the view of neo-classical economics. Ecological economics
considers the percentage of GNP represented by resources to be a
misleading indication of their importance. One might as well claim that a
building's foundation is unimportant because it represents only five percent
of the height of the skyscraper erected above it. GNP is the sum of value
added. Resources are that to which value is added - the foundation or base
upon which the skyscraper of value added is resting. A foundation's
importance does not diminish with the growth of the structure that it
supports! If GNP growth resulted only from increments in value added to a
non-growing resource throughput, then it would remain economic growth.
But that is not what happens.

What happens, according to ecological economics, is that the economy

grows mainly by transforming its environment (natural capital) into itself
(manmade capital). This process of transformation takes place within a total
environment that is finite, non-growing, and materially closed. A throughput
of solar energy powers biogeochemical cycles, but that energy throughput is
also finite and non-growing. As the economic subsystem grows it becomes
larger relative to the total system, and therefore must conform itself more to
the limits of the total system - finitude, non-growth, and entropy. Subsystem
growth is ultimately limited by the size of the total system, even under neoclassical assumptions of easy substitution of manmade for natural capital.
But if manmade and natural capital are complements rather than
substitutes, as ecological economics claims, then expansion of the economic
subsystem would be much more stringently limited by that complementarily.
There would be no point in transforming natural capital into manmade
capital beyond the capacity of remaining natural capital to complement and
sustain it. What good are more fishing boats when the fish population has
disappeared? The fish catch used to be limited by number of fishing boats
(manmade capital) but is now limited by the remaining populations of fish in
the sea (natural capital).
When factors are complements the one in short supply is limiting. If factors
are substitutes then there cannot be a limiting factor. Economic logic says
that we should economize on and invest in the limiting factor. Economic logic
stays the same, but as we have moved from an "empty" world to a "full"
world, the role of limiting factor has gradually shifted from manmade to
natural capital, - e.g. from fishing boats to remaining fish in the sea; from
saw mills to remaining forests; from irrigation systems to aquifers or rivers;
from oil well drilling rigs to pools of petroleum in the ground; from engines
that burn fossil fuel to the atmosphere's capacity to absorb CO2, etc.
The optimal scale of the economy is smaller, the greater is: (a) the degree of
complementarily between natural and manmade capital; (b) our desire for
direct experience of nature; and (c) our estimate of both the intrinsic and
instrumental value of other species. The smaller the optimal scale of the
economy, the sooner its physical growth becomes uneconomic.
IV. From Permitting Growth, to Mandating Growth, to Limiting
Growth
The neo-classical paradigm permits growth forever, but does not mandate it.
Historically the growth mandate came from the answer given to the
3

problems raised by Malthus, Marx, and Keynes. Growth was the common
answer to all three problems. Overpopulation, unjust distribution, and
involuntary unemployment would all be solved by growth. Overpopulation
would be cured by the demographic transition initiated by growth. Unjust
distribution of wealth between classes would be rendered tolerable by
growth, the rising tide that lifts all boats. Unemployment would yield to
increasing aggregate demand which merely required that investment be
stimulated, which of course implies growth. Continuing this time-honored
tradition the World Bank's 1992 World Development Report argued that more
growth was also the solution to the environmental problem. But of course the
assumption in all cases was that growth was economic, that it was making us
richer rather than poorer. But now growth is becoming uneconomic.
Uneconomic growth will not sustain the demographic transition and cure
overpopulation. Neither will it help redress unjust distribution, nor cure
unemployment. Nor will it provide extra wealth to be devoted to
environmental repair and cleanup.
We now need more radical and direct solutions to the problems of Malthus,
Marx, and Keynes: population control to deal with overpopulation;
redistribution to deal with excessive inequality; and ecological tax reform to
raise resource productivity and employment. These must be national
policies. It is utopian (or dystopian) to think of them being carried out by a
world authority. Many nations have made progress in controlling their
population growth, in limiting domestic income inequality, in reducing
unemployment. They have also improved resource productivity by
internalizing environmental and social costs into prices. These significant
national gains are now being undercut by the ideology of globalization.
Global economic integration by free trade and free capital mobility
effectively erases the policy significance of national boundaries, turning the
federated community of nations into a cosmopolitan non community of
globalized individuals. Some of these "individuals" are giant transnational
corporations, treated as individuals by legal fiction.
Under globalization, each country seeks to expand beyond the limits of its
own ecosystem and market by growing into the ecological and economic
space of all other countries, as well as into the remaining global commons.
Globalization operates by standards-lowering competition to bid down
wages, to externalize environmental costs, and reduce social overhead
expenses for public goods. But it is far worse than an unrealistic global
dream - it actively undercuts the ability of nations to continue dealing with
4

their own problems of unjust distribution, unemployment, external costs, and

overpopulation. It is hard to imagine any country continuing to limit its birth
rate or internalize its environmental and social costs when the results of
overpopulation and cost externalization in other countries freely spill over
into it.
Globalization is the latest elixir concocted by the growth-forever alchemists.
Export-led growth is the new philosopher's stone that turns lead into gold by
the alchemy of free trade. With the revival of alchemy comes a return to the
logic of Mercantilism: wealth is gold, and the way for countries without mines
to get gold is to export more goods than they import, and receive payment
for the difference in gold. The way to export more than you import is to
reduce wages. The way to keep wages low is to have an oversupply of labor,
attained by easy immigration or high birth rates among the working class.
Globalization requires, therefore, that for a nation to be rich, the majority of
its citizens must be poor, increase in number, and live in a deteriorating
environment.
Truly, John Ruskin foresaw the era of uneconomic growth, a time when:
"That which seems to be wealth may in verity be only the gilded index of farreaching ruin......."

Herman Daly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herman Daly

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herman Daly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTECOM: Reading on Growth and Development

Lecturer: Marie Leoneth Martinez

THE RIGHT LIVELIHOOD AWARDS 1996

Uneconomic Growth: Conflicting Paradigms

INTECOM: Reading on Growth and Development

INTECOM: Reading on Growth and Development

What happens, according to ecological economics, is that the economy

INTECOM: Reading on Growth and Development

INTECOM: Reading on Growth and Development

their own problems of unjust distribution, unemployment, external costs, and

You might also like