Positive economics is sometimes defined as the economics of "what is", whereas normative economics discusses "what ought to be". The distinction was exposited by John Neville Keynes (1891) and elaborated by Milton Friedman in an influential 1953 essay. Still, positive economics is commonly deemed necessary for the ranking of economic policies or outcomes as to acceptability (Wong, 1987, p. 921), which is normative economics.
Environmental economics is needed to include ecological resources into the economic analysis, in order to correct markets failures, and pursue optimal allocation of resources. By the way, conditions for perfeGenerally, a perfectly competitive market exists when every participant is a "price taker," and no participant influences the price of the product it buys or sells. Specific characteristics may include:• Infinite Buyers/Infinite Sellers • Zero Entry/Exit Barriers • Perfect Information • Transactions are Costless • Firms Aim to Maximize Profits • Homogeneous Products
The market does not lead to efficient solutions because of various types of market failures:- Negative externalities- Public goods- Imperfect information- Participatory and Empowerment Failures- Missing markets: open access to resources
Monday, February 22, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Summing up the lesson of Hardin
1) Common goods tend to be overexploited;
2) Appealing to morality and coscience to prevent overexplotation does not work (he sayd that: it is psycologically pathogenic)
2b) on the countrary it focuss attention to social and personal anxiety (etc etc)
He suggest:
3) he suggest clear rules that he cals: mutual coercion mutually agreed upon
2) Appealing to morality and coscience to prevent overexplotation does not work (he sayd that: it is psycologically pathogenic)
2b) on the countrary it focuss attention to social and personal anxiety (etc etc)
He suggest:
3) he suggest clear rules that he cals: mutual coercion mutually agreed upon
This is funny - Something more from this Dr. Hardin
Pathogenic Effects of Conscience
The long-term disadvantage of an appeal to conscience should be enough to condemn it; but has serious short-term disadvantages as well. If we ask a man who is exploiting a commons to desist "in the name of conscience," what are we saying to him? What does he hear? --not only at the moment but also in the wee small hours of the night when, half asleep, he remembers not merely the words we used but also the nonverbal communication cues we gave him unawares? Sooner or later, consciously or subconsciously, he senses that he has received two communications, and that they are contradictory: (i) (intended communication) "If you don't do as we ask, we will openly condemn you for not acting like a responsible citizen"; (ii) (the unintended communication) "If you do behave as we ask, we will secretly condemn you for a simpleton who can be shamed into standing aside while the rest of us exploit the commons."
….
To conjure up a conscience in others is tempting to anyone who wishes to extend his control beyond the legal limits. Leaders at the highest level succumb to this temptation. Has any President during the past generation failed to call on labor unions to moderate voluntarily their demands for higher wages, or to steel companies to honor voluntary guidelines on prices? I can recall none. The rhetoric used on such occasions is designed to produce feelings of guilt in noncooperators.
For centuries it was assumed without proof that guilt was a valuable, perhaps even an indispensable, ingredient of the civilized life. Now, in this post-Freudian world, we doubt it.
Paul Goodman speaks from the modern point of view when he says: "No good has ever come from feeling guilty, neither intelligence, policy, nor compassion. The guilty do not pay attention to the object but only to themselves, and not even to their own interests, which might make sense, but to their anxieties" (18).
….
One does not have to be a professional psychiatrist to see the consequences of anxiety. We in the Western world are just emerging from a dreadful two-centuries-long Dark Ages of Eros that was sustained partly by prohibition laws, but perhaps more effectively by the anxiety-generating mechanism of education. Alex Comfort has told the story well in The Anxiety Makers (19); it is not a pretty one.
Since proof is difficult, we may even concede that the results of anxiety may sometimes, from certain points of view, be desirable. The larger question we should ask is whether, as a matter of policy, we should ever encourage the use of a technique the tendency (if not the intention) of which is psychologically pathogenic. We hear much talk these days of responsible parenthood; the coupled words are incorporated into the titles of some organizations devoted to birth control. Some people have proposed massive propaganda campaigns to instill responsibility into the nation's (or the world's) breeders. But what is the meaning of the word responsibility in this context? Is it not merely a synonym for the word conscience?
Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed upon
The social arrangements that produce responsibility are arrangements that create coercion, of some sort. Consider bank-robbing. The man who takes money from a bank acts as if the bank were a commons. How do we prevent such action? Certainly not by trying to control his behavior solely by a verbal appeal to his sense of responsibility. Rather than rely on propaganda we follow Frankel's lead and insist that a bank is not a commons; we seek the definite social arrangements that will keep it from becoming a commons.
The long-term disadvantage of an appeal to conscience should be enough to condemn it; but has serious short-term disadvantages as well. If we ask a man who is exploiting a commons to desist "in the name of conscience," what are we saying to him? What does he hear? --not only at the moment but also in the wee small hours of the night when, half asleep, he remembers not merely the words we used but also the nonverbal communication cues we gave him unawares? Sooner or later, consciously or subconsciously, he senses that he has received two communications, and that they are contradictory: (i) (intended communication) "If you don't do as we ask, we will openly condemn you for not acting like a responsible citizen"; (ii) (the unintended communication) "If you do behave as we ask, we will secretly condemn you for a simpleton who can be shamed into standing aside while the rest of us exploit the commons."
….
To conjure up a conscience in others is tempting to anyone who wishes to extend his control beyond the legal limits. Leaders at the highest level succumb to this temptation. Has any President during the past generation failed to call on labor unions to moderate voluntarily their demands for higher wages, or to steel companies to honor voluntary guidelines on prices? I can recall none. The rhetoric used on such occasions is designed to produce feelings of guilt in noncooperators.
For centuries it was assumed without proof that guilt was a valuable, perhaps even an indispensable, ingredient of the civilized life. Now, in this post-Freudian world, we doubt it.
Paul Goodman speaks from the modern point of view when he says: "No good has ever come from feeling guilty, neither intelligence, policy, nor compassion. The guilty do not pay attention to the object but only to themselves, and not even to their own interests, which might make sense, but to their anxieties" (18).
….
One does not have to be a professional psychiatrist to see the consequences of anxiety. We in the Western world are just emerging from a dreadful two-centuries-long Dark Ages of Eros that was sustained partly by prohibition laws, but perhaps more effectively by the anxiety-generating mechanism of education. Alex Comfort has told the story well in The Anxiety Makers (19); it is not a pretty one.
Since proof is difficult, we may even concede that the results of anxiety may sometimes, from certain points of view, be desirable. The larger question we should ask is whether, as a matter of policy, we should ever encourage the use of a technique the tendency (if not the intention) of which is psychologically pathogenic. We hear much talk these days of responsible parenthood; the coupled words are incorporated into the titles of some organizations devoted to birth control. Some people have proposed massive propaganda campaigns to instill responsibility into the nation's (or the world's) breeders. But what is the meaning of the word responsibility in this context? Is it not merely a synonym for the word conscience?
Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed upon
The social arrangements that produce responsibility are arrangements that create coercion, of some sort. Consider bank-robbing. The man who takes money from a bank acts as if the bank were a commons. How do we prevent such action? Certainly not by trying to control his behavior solely by a verbal appeal to his sense of responsibility. Rather than rely on propaganda we follow Frankel's lead and insist that a bank is not a commons; we seek the definite social arrangements that will keep it from becoming a commons.
Garrett James Hardin (21 April 1915 – 14 September 2003) was a leading and controversial ecologist
Garrett James Hardin (21 April 1915 – 14 September 2003) was a leading and controversial ecologist from Dallas, Texas, who was most well known for his 1968 paper, The Tragedy of the Commons.
Some quotations:
Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons
“At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of 1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another. . . . But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. “
Pollution
In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them.
Freedom To Breed Is Intolerable
Unfortunately this is just the course of action that is being pursued by the United Nations. In late 1967, some 30 nations agreed to the following (14):
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else.
Some quotations:
Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons
“At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of 1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another. . . . But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. “
Pollution
In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them.
Freedom To Breed Is Intolerable
Unfortunately this is just the course of action that is being pursued by the United Nations. In late 1967, some 30 nations agreed to the following (14):
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Pubblic VS Private responsability
Carbon intensity quotas
Carbon emission trading
Carbon sequestration
International negotiations
International agreements
Kyoto Protocol
Rio de Janeiro Declaration
Environmental policies
Energy efficiency
Renewable energies
Research & Developments
Eco-labelling
Eco-auditing
Ethical investments
If you only think about that.. it is quite surprising how corporate business, international institutions, big and small Governments have been charging on themselves appointments, targets, restrictions, fees, incentives and so on..
I am used to look at corporate business and government suspiciously, I don’t trust them completely when it comes to natural environment… but … but... I have to re-examine my judgement. It is surprising how much has been done and how much has been discussed by people that we often regard as greedy and power-seekers only.
This is a surprising spark of trust that I’m gaining in decision makers. It is surprising how many responsibilities they already took on themselves, especially when compared to the amount of responsibilities that citizen are taking on themselves. We, citizens... in Italy
People in the streets, NGOs and so on are screening loud for “more environment” but what do we really ask for?
Most of the time, basically, we are just pushing for holding on on our old consumption habits. Yes, I can see, I feel that people just wants the same things, the same consumerism, but clean (and not everybody). The responsibility is on the system. The system has to find the way to save my consumption and save the planet as well.
Is it really possible?
And what is it the, implicit, answer of the system? Well, business and government would never ask for some serious shift in our lazy habits. If they react, they only know sanction language, they just charge something more for the same things.
Same habits.. just more expensive. That’s the big mistake of decision makers.
So my question is: who is really performing? Who is not?
Citizen are not; Corporate business is trying to comply; Governments are mild. They are not even thinking to question citizen's addictive and toxic habits.
Now… the good news. Half of the job has been already done, the supply side is active and ready. The demand is lazy. Just demanding for the same standard of life, its drugs, its cholesterol, its poisons, its microwaves, its dose of carbon, its private transportation and so on..
I do be live that it is time to enforce carbon quota, emission quota, and restriction on pollution potential of citizens, only then it will be possible to create a virtuous loop, where supply will be really pushed to a “green direction”.
Can you imagine when, when you as well as any billionaire on this planet will have the same right to pollute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)