Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy

References

• Anderson, Curt L. 1987. “The Production Process: Inputs and Wastes.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1016/0095-0696(87)90001-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayres, Robert U. 1997. “Comments on Georgescu-Roegen.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 285–287. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00082-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayres, Robert U. 1999. “The Second Law, the Fourth Law, Recycling and Limits to Growth.” Ecological Economics 29 (3): 473–483. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00098-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayres, Robert U. 2007. “On the Practical Limits to Substitution.” Ecological Economics 61 (1): 115–128. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgärtner, Stefan, Christian Becker, Karin Frank, Birgit Müller, and Martin Quaas. 2008. “Relating the Philosophy and Practice of Ecological Economics: The Role of Concepts, Models, and Case Studies in Inter- and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research.” Ecological Economics 67 (3): 384–393. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumgärtner, Stefan. 2004. “The Inada Conditions for Material Resource Inputs Reconsidered.” Environmental and Resource Economics 29 (3): 307–322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benchekroun, Hassan, and Cees Withagen. 2011. “The Optimal Depletion of Exhaustible Resources: A Complete Characterization.” Resource and Energy Economics 33 (3): 612–636. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.01.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bobulescu, Roxana. 2012. “The Making of a Schumpeterian Economist: Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 19 (4): 625–651. doi:10.1080/09672567.2010.540344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bobulescu, Roxana. 2013. “L’expérience Roumaine et Son Influence Sur la Pensée de Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen.” Economies et Sociétés 47 (10): 1753–1775.
   Google Scholar
• Bobulescu, Roxana. 2015. “From Lotka’s Biophysics to Georgescu-Roegen’s Bioeconomics.” Ecological Economics 120: 194–202. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boianovsky, Mauro, and Kevin D. Hoover. 2009. “The Neoclassical Growth Model and Twentieth-Century Economics.” History of Political Economy 41 (Suppl 1): 1–23. doi:10.1215/00182702-2009-013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulding, Kenneth E. 1966. “The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth.” In Environmental Quality Issues in a Growing Economy, edited by Henry Jarrett, 3–14. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brundtland, Gro Harlem. 1987. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Callen, Herbert B. 1985. Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Carnot, Sadi. 1824. Réflexions Sur le Puissance Motrice du Feu et Sur Les Machines Propres à Développer Cette Puissance. Paris: Bachelier.
   Google Scholar
• Castle, Emery N. 1997. “A Comment on Georgesu-Roegen, Daly, Solow and Stiglitz.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 305–306. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00083-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, Paul P. 1989. “Historical Roots for Ecological Economics — Biophysical versus Allocative Approaches.” Ecological Economics 1 (1): 17–36. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(89)90022-0.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, Colin W. 1997. “Renewable Resources and Economic Growth.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 275–276. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00084-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleveland, Cutler J., and Matthias Ruth. 1997. “When, Where, and by How Much Do Biophysical Limits Constrain the Economic Process?: A Survey of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s Contribution to Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 203–223. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00079-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Common, Mick. 1997. “Is Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz the Important Point?” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 277–279. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00085-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly, Herman E. 1974. “The Economics of the Steady State.” The American Economic Review 64 (2): 15–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly, Herman E. 1979. “Entropy, Growth, and the Political Economy of Scarcity.” In Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered, edited by V. Kerry Smith, 67–94. New York: Resources for the Future Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, Herman E. 1990. “Toward Some Operational Principles of Sustainable Development.” Ecological Economics 2 (1): 1–6. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(90)90010-R.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, Herman E. 1997a. “Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 261–266. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00080-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly, Herman E. 1997b. “Reply to Solow/Stiglitz.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 271–273. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00086-4.
   Google Scholar
• Dasgupta, Partha S., and Geoffrey M. Heal. 1974. “The Optimal Depletion of Exhaustible Resources.” The Review of Economic Studies 41: 3–28. doi:10.2307/2296369.
   Google Scholar
• Eddington, Arthur S. 1928. The Nature of the Physical World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Erreygers, Guido. 2009. “Hotelling, Rawls, Solow: How Exhaustible Resources Came to Be Integrated into the Neoclassical Growth Model.” History of Political Economy 41 (Suppl 1): 263–281. doi:10.1215/00182702-2009-027.
   Google Scholar
• Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1966. Analytical Economics: Issues and Problems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1975. “Energy and Economic Myths.” Southern Economic Journal 41 (3): 347–381. doi:10.2307/1056148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1976. Energy and Economic Myths: Institutional and Analytical Economic Essays New York: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1977. “The Steady State and Ecological Salvation: A Thermodynamic Analysis.” BioScience 27 (4): 266–270. doi:10.2307/1297702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1979. “Comments on the Papers by Daly and Stiglitz.” In Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered, edited by Kerry V. Smith, 95–105. New York: Resources for the Future Press.
   Google Scholar
• Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1981. “The Crisis of Natural Resources.” Challenge 24 (1): 50–56.
   Google Scholar
• Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1986. “The Entropy Law and the Economic Process in Retrospect.” Eastern Economic Journal 12 (1): 3–25.
   Google Scholar
• Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1988. “Closing Remarks: About Economic Growth – A Variation on a Theme by David Hilbert.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 36 (S3): S291–S307. doi:10.1086/edcc.36.s3.1566547.
   Google Scholar
• Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. (1982) 2011. “La Dégradation Entropique et la Destinée Prométhéenne de la Technologie Humaine.” 3rd ed. In La Décroissance, edited by. Paris: Sang de la Terre. (Published for the first time in 1982, in Économie appliquée).
   Google Scholar
• Gowdy, John, and Susan Mesner. 1998. “The Evolution of Georgescu-Roegen’s Bioeconomics.” Review of Social Economy 56 (2): 136–156. doi:10.1080/00346769800000016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halsmayer, Verena. 2014. “From Exploratory Modeling to Technical Expertise: Solow’s Growth Model as a Multipurpose Design.” History of Political Economy 46 (Supplement 1): 229–251. doi:10.1215/00182702-2716181.
   Google Scholar
• International Union for Conservation of Nature. 1980. World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, Julie Thompson. 2010. “A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham, 15–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krysiak, Frank C. 2006. “Entropy, Limits to Growth, and the Prospects for Weak Sustainability.” Ecological Economics 58 (1): 182–191. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurz, Heinz D., and Neri Salvadori. 2003. “Fund–Flow versus Flow–Flow in Production Theory: Reflections on Georgescu-Roegen’s Contribution.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 51 (4): 487–505. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00143-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levallois, Clément. 2010. “Can De-Growth Be Considered a Policy Option? a Historical Note on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and the Club of Rome.” Ecological Economics 69 (11): 2271–2278. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez-Alier, Juan. 1987. Ecological Economics: Energy, Environment and Society. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Mayumi, Kozo, Mario Giampietro, and John M. Gowdy. 1998. “Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz Revisited.” Ecological Economics 27 (2): 115–117. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00003-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens. 1972. The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books.
   Google Scholar
• Missemer, Antoine. 2013. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Pour Une Révolution Bioéconomique Lyon: ENS Éditions.
   Google Scholar
• Missemer, Antoine. 2017a. Les Économistes et la Fin Des Énergies Fossiles, 1865–1931. Paris: Classiques Garnier.
   Google Scholar
• Missemer, Antoine. 2017b. “Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Degrowth.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 24 (3): 493–506. doi:10.1080/09672567.2016.1189945.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, Mary S., and Margaret Morrison. 1999. “Models as Mediating Instruments.” In Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, edited by Mary S. Morgan and Margaret Morrison. Vol. 52. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neumayer, Eric. 2013. Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. 4th ed. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Nordhaus, William D., and James Tobin. 1972. “Is Growth Obsolete?” In Economic Research: Retrospect and Prospect, Economic Growth, edited by William D. Nordhaus and James Tobin, 1–80. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Opschoor, J. B. 1997. “The Hope, Faith and Love of Neoclassical Environmental Economics.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 281–283. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00091-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, David. 1997. “Substitution and Sustainability: Some Reflections on Georgescu-Roegen.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 295–297. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00087-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, David. 2002. “An Intellectual History of Environmental Economics.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 27 (1): 57–81. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.27.122001.083429.
   Google Scholar
• Peet, John. 1997. “Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz’…but What Is the Real Question?” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 293–294. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00088-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrings, Charles. 1997. “Georgescu-Roegen and the ‘Irreversibility’ of Material Processes.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 303–304. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00105-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pezzey, John, and Michael A. Toman. 2005. “Sustainability and Its Interpretations.” In Scarcity and Growth Revisited: Natural Resources and the Environment in the New Millennium, edited by David Simpson, Michael A. Toman, and Robert Ayres. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pottier, Antonin. 2014. “L’économie dans l’impasse climatique. Développement matériel, théorie immatérielle et utopie auto-stabilisatrice.” PhD diss., EHESS, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Røpke, Inge. 2004. “The Early History of Modern Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics 50 (3–4): 293–314. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Røpke, Inge. 2005. “Trends in the Development of Ecological Economics from the Late 1980s to the Early 2000s.” Ecological Economics 55 (2): 262–290. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solow, Robert M. 1956. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 70 (1): 65–94. doi:10.2307/1884513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solow, Robert M. 1957. “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 39 (3): 312–320. doi:10.2307/1926047.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solow, Robert M. 1973. “Is the End of the World at Hand?” Challenge 16 (1): 39–50. doi:10.1080/05775132.1973.11469961.
   Google Scholar
• Solow, Robert M. 1974a. “The Economics of Resources or the Resources of Economics.” The American Economic Review 64 (2): 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solow, Robert M. 1974b. “Intergenerational Equity and Exhaustible Resources.” The Review of Economic Studies 41: 29–45. doi:10.2307/2296370.
   Google Scholar
• Solow, Robert M. 1978. “Resources and Economic Growth.” The American Economist 22 (2): 5–11. doi:10.1177/056943457802200201.
   Google Scholar
• Solow, Robert M. 1993. “An Almost Practical Step toward Sustainability.” Resources Policy 19 (3): 162–172. doi:10.1016/0301-4207(93)90001-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solow, Robert M. 1997. “Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow-Stiglitz.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 267–268. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00081-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solow, Robert M. 2009a. “An Amateur among Professionals.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 1 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144305.
   Google Scholar
• Solow, Robert M. 2009b. “Does Growth Have a Future? Does Growth Theory Have a Future? Are These Questions Related?” History of Political Economy 41 (Suppl 1): 27–34. doi:10.1215/00182702-2009-014.
   Google Scholar
• Solow, Robert M., and Frederic Y. Wan. 1976. “Extraction Costs in the Theory of Exhaustible Resources.” The Bell Journal of Economics 7 (2): 359–370. doi:10.2307/3003261.
   Google Scholar
• Spash, Clive L. 2012. “New Foundations for Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics 77: 36–47. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spash, Clive. 1999. “The Development of Environmental Thinking in Economics.” Environmental Values 8 (4): 413–435. doi:10.3197/096327199129341897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1974. “Growth with Exhaustible Natural Resources: Efficient and Optimal Growth Paths.” The Review of Economic Studies 41: 123–137. doi:10.2307/2296377.
   Google Scholar
• Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1976. “Monopoly and the Rate of Extraction of Exhaustible Resources.” The American Economic Review 66 (4): 655–661.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1979. “A Neoclassical Analysis of the Economics of Natural Resources.” In Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered, edited by Kerry V. Smith, 36–66. New York: Resources for the Future Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1997. “Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 269–270. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00092-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tisdell, Clem. 1997. “Capital/Natural Resource Substitution: The Debate of Georgescu-Roegen (through Daly) with Solow/Stiglitz.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 289–291. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00089-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner, Kerry R. 1997. “Georgescu-Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz: A Pluralistic and Interdisciplinary Perspective.” Ecological Economics 22 (3): 299–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. 1999. “Materials, Capital, Direct/Indirect Substitution, and Mass Balance Production Functions.” Land Economics 75 (4): 547–561. doi:10.2307/3147065.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Victor, Peter A. 1991. “Indicators of Sustainable Development: Some Lessons from Capital Theory.” Ecological Economics 4 (3): 191–213. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(91)90051-F.
   Google Scholar
• Vittucci Marzetti, Giuseppe. 2013. “The Fund-Flow Approach: A Critical Survey.” Journal of Economic Surveys 27 (2): 209–233. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2011.00701.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar