Leyendo el texto completo, responda: 1) ¿Cuál es el problema que aborda la economía ecológica? 2) ¿Cuál es el asunto primario bajo el paradigma de administración de la economía ecológica? Puede responder en inglés o español.

1. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
Stephen Farber
Graduate School of Public and International Affairs
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15101
Dennis Bradley
USDA Forest Service
North Central Forest Experiment Station
1992 Folwell Ave
St. Paul, MN 55108
In this paper, we outline how the emerging interdisciplinary perspective of
Ecological Economics can be of use in providing conceptual and concrete
approaches to identifying, understanding, and maintaining those features of
ecosystem and human economic interactions that are necessary to achieve
sustainable futures for economic and natural systems.
WHAT IS ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS?
Ecological economics is a policy-oriented perspective that addresses the
interdependence and coevolution between human economies and their natural
ecosystems. Interest in this area has been prompted by concerns for the adverse
impacts of human economic growth processes on natural systems. Ecological
economics is positive, in its development of understanding of the physical,
biological and social structural and functional relations between economies and
natural ecosystems. Ecological economics is also normative in addressing
appropriate roles of human economies within natural ecosystems. The guiding
norm is the somewhat operationally vague notion of jointly sustainable human
and natural ecosystems. Finally, ecological economics is prescriptive, in
proposing institutions and behaviors compatible with sustainability norms. Its
position as a discipline is on the boundary of economic and natural systems,
focussing on impacts of each system on the other.
WHAT IS THE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS PERSPECTIVE?
Ecological economics recognizes that humans and their economies are parts of
larger natural ecosystems and coevolve with those natural systems. There is a
material and energy basis for the relations between human economies and their
ecosystems, defining not only economic, but social, structures and processes.
Economies possess general ecosystem properties, such as dynamism, evolution,
integrity, stability and resilience. Economies are inextricably embedded in larger

2. natural ecosystems, and exchange flows of materials and energy with natural
systems.
What makes humans and their economies unique as a sub-ecosystem is their
ability, through willful effort, ignorance and human designed tools, to
dramatically restructure and reform processes in ecosystems of which they are a
part; and to such a magnitude that human welfare can be diminished or enhanced
by those original actions. There are many factual examples (World Commission
on Environment and Development, 1987; Goudie, 1994). Some types of
economic activities, and the welfare that originates from them, would not be
sustainable if they substantially adversely impact natural systems.
The willful effort to extract useful things from natural systems is motivated by
the satisfaction of basic biological needs and the seemingly limitless search for
pleasure through consumption of goods and through social associations. The
magnitude of potential impact on their own welfare through effects on natural
systems requires that human decisions be guided by some notion of the value of
their actions and the value of their impacts on ecosystems, either in terms of
benefits of use or costs of abuse. Some concept of value is required for rational
activities of human economies within their natural systems (Page, 1992).
Both the structures and processes of natural systems have identifiable
instrumental value to the human economy. These narrow use values may be
reflected by the summation of individual values, to the extent they are private.
However, natural systems also have aesthetic, moral and cultural values (Sagoff,
1988). These values are more intrinsic and unmeasurable using traditional human
preferences. They may not be reflected in the simple summation across social
members of individual values, since they are social and not wholly private.
Valuation is made more complicated by the fact that our natural environment is
highly likely to shape values through establishing social and economic relations,
aesthetic standards and culture. If so, our decisions now about the natural
environment will shape future value systems, making values endogenous and,
therefore, a poor guide to behavior. A way out of this dilemma is to make
valuations of natural systems based on "What we would like to see society
become," rather than to ask what current valuations are (Page, 1992). The value
of natural systems is then based on their ability to assist us in becoming what we
wish to be. The management dilemma is to organize a method for establishing
what society wishes to see itself become, then assist in attaining that wish
through knowledge of economic and ecological systems, and then to prescribe
methods of attainment.

3. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, an initial working presumption about
human society is that any society would like to see the welfare of its members
exceed some minimal level, and would like to provide the opportunities to meet
the aspirations for a better life (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987). Such a society would seek to have welfare sustainable
above minimum levels and to have a sustainable development toward welfare
enhancements, where the latter is interpreted more broadly than growth in
material things and includes educational attainment, health, and increases in basic
freedoms (Pearce, et al., 1990).
WHAT IS THE ECOLOGICAL ECONOMIC PROBLEM?
Tools, insatiable wants and the potential danger of ignorance place humans in a
unique position of being able to alter their ecosystems in ways that jeopardize
their own social and economic structures and processes. While any species could
exceed its own natural ecosystem's carrying capacity or diminish that capacity to
the point of self-extinction, only the human species has both the will and capacity
to jeopardize itself, as well as the will and capacity to avoid it.
Furthermore, our understanding of ecosystems is primitive. We know that
structures change through normal succession and evolution, that processes are
altered as the structures through which they occur change, that processes have
various temporal and spatial scales, and that catastrophic changes can occur
without much evident alteration of structures and processes. However, beyond
this abstract knowledge and except for a finite number of circumstances, we
know too little about ecosystems to be confident that we can predict the full
range of impacts of human economies on ecosystems.
Finally, moral systems in human society may be incompatible with what a
society would like to see itself become; e.g., individualism and instrumental
valuation may be inconsistent with sustainable welfare norms. Social morality is
embodied in an entire set of institutions, social relations and views of natural
systems.
The ecological economics problem is to address the potential willful capacity of
humans to alter their own relatively unknown environment to such an extent that
they can adversely impact their own current or future welfare. This means
monitoring for instances where this is a serious problem and informing through
meaningful communication. It also means making suggestions for altering human
behaviors or moral systems that appear incompatible with the sustainability of
economic and natural systems, or that are incompatible with what society wishes
to become.

4. WHAT TASKS ARE REQUIRED FOR ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS?
The ecological economics problem, outlined above, is addressed through five
tasks:
1. Modelling and Science--Understand the interdependence between economic
and natural systems, particularly between the structures, processes, and fluxes of
material and energy upon which each system depends. This includes
understanding the tolerances of ecosystems to human induced changes as well as
the tolerances of economies to ecosystem changes.
2. Conditions for Sustainability--Establish conditions on human economies that
would allow for the sustainability and growth of human welfare, conditioned
upon the sustainability of the economy's supporting ecosystem.
3. Indicators and Signals--Establish indicators reflecting the current status of
economies and ecosystems relative to the norm of sustainability, and include
measures of ecosystem and economic health. Also, establish signals reflecting
potential impacts of human activity on welfare insofar as those impacts result
from alterations in ecosystem structures and processes.
4. Instruments, Laws and Institutions--Develop necessary regulatory instruments,
laws and associated institutions that assist human economies in attaining
sustainable welfare development goals.
5. Moral Systems--Examine the implications of various moral systems for the
sustainability of human welfare, and place in bold relief those instances where
there are apparent incompatibilities between moral systems and sustainability
norms.
WHAT IS THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE PREVAILING
MANAGEMENT PARADIGM AND THAT PROPOSED BY
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS?
In order to understand the management implication of the ecological economics
framework, it would be useful to contrast it to a characterization of the current
management paradigm. The two paradigms differ primarily on the primacy given
to human economies versus natural ecosystems. The Prevailing Management
Paradigm focusses on how humans can manage ecosystems for instrumental
purposes of optimizing human economic wealth. This wealth is typically
measured in the value of utility enhancing things and actions, frequently
measured by "willingness to pay" or "willingness to accept" monetary
compensation for gains or losses, and by summing across independent
individuals. Preferences are typically taken as given and immutable, and the

5. manipulation of natural systems for human benefit addresses those preferences.
This management paradigm approaches uncertainty about natural systems by
either denying or opting in favor of human economies. If not denying the
uncertainty, the optimistic argument is given that natural processes are either
reversible with enough time and engineering skill, or economic systems can find
human-made replacements for lost ecosystem materials and services. The
prevailing issue for this paradigm is "How can we use the ecosystem to more
effectively enhance human wealth and welfare?"
An alternative to this paradigm is suggested if we weight more highly the belief
that ecosystems are critical to social survival, our ignorance about how
ecosystems work, our uncertainty about the full potential value of natural
ecosystems to the economy, and our ignorance about preferences of future
generations. Ecological economics, using what we may term an Ecological
Economic Stewardship Paradigm, would ask the following management
questions:
1. What does society wish to become?
2. What is the requisite health of an ecosystem relative to that social objective?
3. What set of human economic artifacts, structures and processes is feasible
within that requisite healthy ecosystem?
4. How can we use the adaptability and behaviors of human economies to assure
they meet their own welfare needs as well as the needs for preservation of a
healthy ecosystem?
This perspective first requires a social dialogue to establish what society would
like itself to become. This is primary to development of ecosystem health
concepts since it establishes the basic value system from which ecosystem and
economic health are measured. In the presence of ignorance about ecosystems,
the presumption is made that human systems are adaptable to the constraint of a
healthy ecosystem and, possibly, more adaptable than the natural system itself,
the latter being more slowly evolutionary and potentially susceptible to
catastrophes in response to apparently minor changes. Adaptable and flexible
human economic systems are seen as the key to successful long term
management of ecosystems. The management focus is shifted from ecosystem
manipulation under the prevailing paradigm to exploitation of the adaptability of
human economies.

6. Under the ecological economics Stewardship Paradigm, the primary issue is
preserving basic properties of natural systems. Once these are established, the
management problem is to develop a compatible adaptation strategy for the
human economy to the constraints set by the goal of preservation of natural
ecosystem health. Health is defined implicitly by what society would like to see
itself and the world around it become. Preserving particular ecosystem forms
would not be as important as preserving ecosystem structures and functions, such
as nutrient and hydrologic cycles, and preserving the resilience of the ecosystem
to dramatic external changes; and allowing ecosystems to evolve rather than face
catastrophic change. Long run sustainability of the human economy is viewed
within a larger context of sustaining the health and integrity of the natural
ecosystem within which humans are embedded. Adaptation requires defining
alternative courses of human action and increasing flexibility and resiliency of
human economies. Optimal human adaptation and flexibility under the
constraints of a long term, healthy, resilient natural ecosystem are the operative
concepts in this paradigm.
WHAT IS CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE UNDER THE ECOLOGICAL
ECONOMIC STEWARDSHIP PARADIGM?
The ecological economics Stewardship paradigm requires knowledge of how
ecosystems and economies work, and how they interact at various spatial and
temporal scales. This would be required under any responsible management
framework.
First, the ecological economics Stewardship framework requires knowledge of
both how natural ecosystems respond to economic activity, as well as how
economic activity responds to ecosystem changes. A seemingly useful analytical
construct at this boundary is a full ecological-economic, input-output matrix.
Flows of material, energy, nutrients, etc. between the economic and ecological
systems would be quantified and impacts of one system on the other could be
established. Such a model has been well-developed for the economy alone, and
ecologists have established energy flow models for ecosystems. However, little
progress has been made in coupling these two separate models in any meaningful
practical way (Isard, 1972; Daly, 1968; Cumberland, 1987; Costanza and
Hannon, 1989). A potentially useful coupling is currently being undertaken at the
University of Maryland (Costanza, Bockstael, et al.). An ecosystem model of the
Patuxent, Maryland watershed has been developed, where flows of nutrients and
energy flow between spatial cells. Economic land uses are predicted, with the
ecosystem configuration being an input to that prediction. Land use then feeds
back to the ecosystem through runoffs based on land use. The system is dynamic
and can be used in a practical way to predict land use and ecosystem
configuration.

7. The appropriate "Scale" and "Mix" of the human economic activity relative to the
natural ecosystem are critical issues at the ecological-economic interface (Daly,
1992). The carrying capacity of an ecosystem has been proposed to address
appropriate scale, and has been mechanistically applied in some circumstances
(Ehrlich, 1994; Hardin, 1991). A single number, for example the number of
humans, is meaningless since human innovation and biological evolution may
interact to moderate potentially adverse welfare effects of natural systems
changes. Also, a level of human welfare must be specified to make the concept
operational. A general index of the physical intensity of the human economy
relative to the natural system would be useful, such as Vitousek, et al.'s (1986)
estimation that humans appropriate forty percent of the net terrestrial primary
production of the biosphere, is striking although we do not know what level of
appropriation places the health of the natural system at risk. Recent attention has
moved toward the notion that an appropriate scale of economic activities would
preserve the resilience of the life-support systems on which they depend (Arrow,
et al., 1995). Resilience is the ability of the ecosystem to take shocks without
making catastrophic changes in structure or processes. In this perspective,
indicators of loss of resilience would be used to measure whether the scale or mix
of economic activities is "too large."
A more micro issue at the economy-ecosystem interface is the production
relation between natural systems and human or human-made capital. First, in a
pure production framework, natural systems can be viewed as natural capital
(Jansson, et al., 1994; Bradley and Xu, 1994), which is combined with economic
and social capital to generate welfare. Considerable social policy energy has been
expended in arguing that enhancements in natural capital reduce the need for
human or human-made capital. Instances in which natural systems and human-
based capital are complementary are most certainly cases where sustainability of
the natural system is valuable, if not critical, to human economies in the most
instrumental sense. For example, fishing boats have no value absent fishing
stock. On the margin, a larger fish stock increases the productivity of human and
human-made capital. On the margin, labor is more productive the cleaner the air
and water. These relations are the bases for the proposition that jobs and the
quality of ecosystems are positively linked (Templet and Farber, 1994).
Explorations of these relations between natural systems and human economic
productivities are undertaken by a wide range of disciplines.
Second, indicators of sustainable economic health are critical under Ecological
Economics Stewardship. Sustaining a flow of income (welfare) requires the
maintenance of the source of income, which is wealth (capital). Using the
analogy of natural capital, measures of sustainable economic health require the
subtraction from traditional economic income an amount necessary to replace

8. any net degradations in the quality of natural capital. The presumption is that
these degradations are reversible through investments from the economic sector
to the natural sector. Practical examples include full welfare indicators (Daly and
Cobb, 1989), and integrated adjustments of National Economic Accounts, or
Sector Accounts (agriculture, forestry, fishery, etc), for natural ecosystem
degradation (Van Dieren, 1995; Repetto, et al., 1989). The integrated accounts
approach seeks to measure sustainable economic welfare by subtracting the loss
in potential productivity of ecosystem degradation, or the cost of ecosystem
remediation, from positive values of the economy's production of useful goods
and services. Valuation of that natural capital loss is made from a purely
anthropogenic, current or discounted future generations perspective. The full
welfare indicators go further in proposing to measure a more general concept of
welfare than that represented by economic consumption opportunities, including
such factors as income inequities and crime rates. Non-integrated accounts
include, side by side, both traditional economic accounts and some physical
indicators of natural system conditions (Bradley and Xu, 1994).
Third, some concept of value must be established since human decisions are
going to be based on values gained versus values lost. Valuation could be
narrowly based on individual preferences, or more broadly on social preferences.
Basic physical and biological needs would have infinite value on an individual
basis, but may have only finite values on a social basis. Beyond basic physical
and biological needs of human economies, preferences can be viewed as molded
by a complex of social, genetic and natural forces. Ecological economics
suggests that preferences are mutable and adaptable. Requisite adaptations for
sustainability of natural systems, and how these preferences can be reshaped are
suggested research issues necessary for managing sustainable economic and
natural systems. Furthermore, aggregations of individual values may be less
important in valuing ecosystems than the value that society as a whole places on
them. Social valuation may be weighted more highly than individual valuations.
Studies of the divergence between the aggregate of independent, individual
valuations and joint, socially-based valuations, where these individuals set a
consensual value in some social decision setting, are necessary before valuing
large ecosystems.
Valuations of ecosystem services have typically been from the perspective of
current generations and propose that value is represented by the willingness to
pay for these services. Extensive valuation methods have been developed by
environmental economists (Freeman, 1993) and have been applied to large
ecosystems (Farber, 1996). However, these valuation procedures may not be
appropriate to valuing such services in a sustainability context. In a sustainability
context, ecosystem structure and functions would be evaluated on the basis of the

9. extent to which they contribute to the goal of economic and ecosystem health and
sustainability, rather than on the basis of their immediate contribution to current
economic welfare.
Valuation of ecosystems based on individual preferences can be useful where
spatial scales are narrow and temporal scales are short. However, the dramatic
and potentially most serious ecosystem issues, such as global warming, are huge
spatial and temporal scale problems. Preference-based valuations appear shallow
in this context. For example, an appropriate question would be the willingness of
future generations to pay current generations to avoid passing a legacy of a
severely degraded ecosystem. Future generations' preferences are simply
unknown, albeit possibly formable by current generations, through education and
cultural legacies, and adaptable to future circumstances. The current generation's
most empathetic valuation would consist of asking "How maximally sorry could
the future be if we altered their inherited ecosystem by action X?" Then, "What
would the valuation of that sorrow be?" Neither of these questions is answerable.
This conundrum may suggest the expedient policy of simply attempting to pass
to the future an ecosystem that has the ecological properties of integrity and
resilience.
Preference based valuations are further complicated by the time-dependence of
benefits from ecosystems. Traditional discounting is preference based. One
justification is based on extrapolating the presumption that a unit of something is
worth more to an individual today than years from now to the presumption that
this would also be true if it were different individuals at different points in time.
To avoid this individualistic presumption, economists have suggested using rates
of social time preference, which reflect how much an existing society would
discount the same society's benefits in the future. The problem with even this
social concept is that it places the members of the present society in a position of
dictating the legacy to be passed to the future, with the weighting of future
generations' welfare less than the current generations'. Arguments are made that
discounting is appropriate because investments will be made in the present that
will provide a legacy of increased productive capacity to the future, or that the
future will be more well-off than the present. Neither of these may be the case;
and if economic decisions result in irreversible destruction of ecosystem capital,
they will likely not be the case.
A discounting procedure consistent with sustainability goals could be as follows.
In making decisions over the management of ecosystems, those changes that
would enhance or degrade the human life support capacity of the ecosystem, in
the sense of providing for basic physical and biological needs would not be
discounted at all; i.e., have a zero discount rate. Those ecosystem changes that

10. impacted welfare above the threshold basic needs level would be discounted, but
at the social rate of discount (Mikesell, 1977).
A proposed, purely ecological valuation designed to avoid preferences altogether
would value ecosystem structures and processes solely by their capacity to
transform energy or matter; hence an "energy-based" valuation (Costanza, 1980;
Costanza, et al., 1989). This valuation is extreme in placing a zero weight on
human preferences, and may be too sterile to be attractive for ecosystem
management, although it is consistent with measuring ecosystem value relative to
the goal of preserving ecosystem processes.
as exceeding these points may irreversibly create a catastrophic change in
ecosystem form.
Fourth, the Ecological Economics Stewardship focus requires understanding of
human economic adaptability. This includes adaptability of preferences to new
circumstances, noted above. In addition, this requires knowledge of trade-offs
that the human economy has available to meet human needs and wants.
Knowledge about preference formation, and the speed and costs of adjustment to
changes in markets for economic goods and services are important to understand
how the economy can adapt to changes in ecosystem structure and processes.
Fifth, Ecological Economics Stewardship requires the use of property rights
systems, laws, and institutions that are incentive compatible with sustainability
norms. All economically driven incentive systems that have adverse
consequences for ecosystem health (Farber, 1991), and existing institutional
impediments to economic adaptability, such as farm subsidy programs and land
tenure systems, have to be illuminated to portray their full ecological-economic
impact. We are developing increasing knowledge about these perverse incentive
systems and institutional barriers to sustaining ecosystem health.
WHAT ARE THE BASES FOR DECISIONS UNDER UNCERTAINTY
WITH ECOLOGICAL ECONOMIC STEWARDSHIP?
We can distinguish between risk and uncertainty. Classic risk presumes that we
know some probability distribution associated with events and states of the
world. The concepts of expected value or most likely states are definable. Classic
uncertainty presumes there is no a prior knowledge of probabilities. As noted
above, the prevailing management paradigm approaches uncertainty about
natural systems by either denying or opting in favor of human economies. If not
denying the uncertainty, the optimistic argument is given that natural processes
are either reversible with enough time and engineering skill, or economic systems

11. can find human-made replacements for lost ecosystem materials and services.
Under Ecological Economics Stewardship, there is a presumed higher cost
associated with being wrong about reversibility, remediation, and mitigation of
degradations in natural system health. A precautionary (Perrings, 1991) or
minimum regrets approach to decisions that may adversely impact natural system
would opt in favor of ecosystem health protection. The cost of this decision rule
may not be so high, particularly if basic human needs are not at stake, since
human preferences and economic structures are adaptable.