Environmental Economics and Ecological Economics

Abstract

The Random Samples item about a new Ph.D. program in ecological economics at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (“EcoPioneering at RPI”, 16 May, p. 1037) could leave readers with the mistaken impression that “conventionally trained economists” shun all environmental issues. Ph.D.-level courses in environmental economics thrive at dozens of institutions [check the listings of graduate programs courtesy of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (AERE) at ]. Since the field evolved from the older disciplines of land economics and agricultural economics, the natural home for these Ph.D. programs at many institutions is a department of agricultural and resource economics. At an institution such as the University of California at Los Angeles, however, with no “ag econ” department, we offer a Ph.D. field in environmental and resource economics within the ”conventional” Department of Economics. The Random Sample item states that “in addition to standard courses, the new program has at its core three new ones: environmental economics … natural-resource economics … and ecological economics.” The descriptions of the first two courses are entirely standard, and they are taught widely. The third course tends to be interdisciplinary, and is a poorer fit for most economics programs because the subject matter is less amenable to rigorous modeling and empirical verification. It is no more and no less an orphaned subject than any other interdisciplinary endeavor. Economists are trained to focus on matters of fact (how people and firms make choices, and therefore how these choices might be influenced by available policy measures). What they “fiercely resist” is the temptation to make value judgments regarding the choices that people ought to make. Economic analysis, ideally, is dispassionate. Economists do not consider it their prerogative to make policy, only to carefully and throughly inform the policy process. Some aspects of ecological economics do not fit this mold. There is a prevalent misconception that an economist is no more than a cost accountant—the corporate bean counter who tells management that it is too expensive to take measures to protect the environment, a professional naysayer, and “environmental enemy number 1.” The 800 or more members of AERE would likely disagree.