Abstract
Ecological economics arose as a normative transdiscipline aiming to generate knowledge and tools to help transition the economy toward a scale which is sustainable within the bounds of the earth system. Yet it remains unclear in practice how to legitimize its explicitly normative agenda. One potential means for legitimation can be found in deliberative social and political theory. We review how deliberative theory has informed ecological economics, pointing to three uses: first, to support valuation of non-market goods and services; second, to inform environmental decision-making more broadly; third, to ground alternative theories of development and wellbeing. We argue that deliberation has been used as problem-solving theory, but that its more radical implications have rarely been embraced. Embracing a deliberative foundation for ecological economics raises questions about the compatibility of deeply democratic practice and the normative discourses arguing for a sustainability transition. We highlight three potential mechanisms by which deliberation may contribute to a sustainability transition: preference formation; normative evaluation; and legitimation. We explore each in turn, demonstrating the theoretical possibility that deliberation may be conducive in and of itself to a sustainability transition. We point to a series of challenges facing the “scaling up” of deliberative systems that demand further empirical and theoretical work. These challenges constitute a research agenda for a deeply democratic sustainability transition and can inform the future development of ecological economics and other normative, critical transdisciplines.
Highlights
Growing concern about the extent of human impact on the planet and growing awareness of the deep interconnectedness of social and ecological systems have led to the emergence of solutions-oriented science that spans traditional disciplinary boundaries
One prominent framing of the alternative is that of Daly [16], where an ecological economy is one that achieves sustainable scale, just distribution, and efficient allocation. Setting aside whether this vision is representative, it illustrates a tension in the broader literature—can the value claims of a transdisciplinary normative science be legitimated, and if so, how? In work agitating for a sustainability transition, how does the vision garner social legitimacy? While ecological economics may originate in a critique of economics, it does not fully embrace a more radical interpretation of economics as social theory [17]
Rather than reflect some defect in the literature or the science, we argue that questions around normative legitimation reflect ongoing debates about ecological economics’ relationship to modernity
Summary
Growing concern about the extent of human impact on the planet and growing awareness of the deep interconnectedness of social and ecological systems have led to the emergence of solutions-oriented science that spans traditional disciplinary boundaries In this vein, conservation biology [1], ecological economics [2], sustainability science [3], agroecology [4], political ecology [5], and other “transdisciplines” aim to bridge theory and practice with a critical, normative framing that guides research. One prominent framing of the alternative is that of Daly [16], where an ecological (or steady-state) economy is one that achieves sustainable scale, just distribution, and efficient allocation Setting aside whether this vision is representative, it illustrates a tension in the broader literature—can the value claims of a transdisciplinary normative science be legitimated, and if so, how? This paper seeks to contribute to this broader literature by explicitly reviewing the impact and relevance of deliberative theory to ecological economics and, indirectly, the broader literature on sustainability transitions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
