Hi Peter - I have taken a multi-pronged approach that includes arguments about valuation problems (criticisms of contingent valuation, travel cost, and other methods); an alternative view of social costs based on Kapp's work that includes cumulative causation; critique of "optimality" notions based on preferences, productivity, and profitability (all narrowly defined) and the inability of cost-benefit solutions to fully consider what I call "biophysical conditions for a sustainable economy"; critiques of neoclassical-Coasian-'tragedy of the commons' notions of 'property' and historical evidence concerning forms of property and the social institutions that mediate resource use; knowledge problems concerning human impact on the environment under conditions of radical or fundamental uncertainty (do you know the work of Ravetz and Funtowicz, by the way, some of the best stuff on this I know of?); alternative theories of price and value and critiques of neoclassical price theory; emphasis on the distinction between cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
If by the time I'm done my opponents are not convinced, at least they are worn out or asleep. I admit that I have made some mistakes in the past (wow!) and have had to modify some of my claims. Once when I was giving a job talk for a position that was a joint appt in economics and environmental studies, after a long day of individual and group interviews with faculty and students of both programs, after going through all the above, elaborating during a long q and a period, someone in the audience asked me: "but why does it matter if humanity survives [or survives longer than the amount of time it will take to wear out the earth if we continue on the present path]?" Mat -----Original Message----- From: Peter Dorman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 3:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21908] Re: RE: precautionary principle Mat, How do you deal with the argument that the apparent tradeoff between growth (or full employment) and the environment is due to the failure of full cost internalization? The standard neoclassical position is that, for markets to function properly, they have to reflect true social costs and benefits. Without the polluter pays principle in effect (ideally enforced through markets for eco-externalities), we don't have a true market solution. I have my own problems with this argument, but I wonder what your take is? Peter
