Steady-State Economics

by Herman E. Daly

First published in 1977, this volume caused a sensation because of Daly's radical view that "enough is best." Today, his ideas are recognized as the key to sustainable development, and Steady-State Economics is universally acknowledged as the leading book on the economics of sustainability. With new essays.

Genres: Economics, Environment, Ecology, Nonfiction, Sustainability, Politics, Science

320 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 1, 1977

About the author

Dr. Herman Edward Daly is an American ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland, College Park in the United States. He was Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank, where he helped to develop policy guidelines related to sustainable development. While there, he was engaged in environmental operations work in Latin America. He is closely associated with theories of a Steady state economy.

Before joining the World Bank, Daly was Alumni Professor of Economics at Louisiana State University. He was a co-founder and associate editor of the journal, Ecological Economics.

He is also a recipient of an Honorary Right Livelihood Award, the Heineken Prize for Environmental Science from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Sophie Prize (Norway), the Leontief Prize from the Global Development and Environment Institute and was chosen as Man of the Year 2008 by Adbusters magazine.

He is widely credited with having originated the idea of uneconomic growth, though some credit this to Marilyn Waring who developed it more completely in her study of the UN System of National Accounts.

Reviews

[Tananya · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book pretty effectively gave shape to some of the discomfort I felt about how things in this world work as I think about getting a real adult job and entering society. Growth as an alternative to sharing as a means to reduce inequality, despite the people who need growth the most not reaping most of the benefits. Belief that technology is what will help us rather than moral growth. Questions about the longevity of our society, strong belief that a sustainable society is incompatible with the way that we live today, etc. the first few pages alone express my concerns more succinctly and convincingly than I am capable of. I didn't find myself agreeing or convinced all the time but it was still worthwhile. I should probably work on my ability to articulate my thoughts, I wish I could critique this work instead of just saying "sometimes I didn't agree" but oh well. I don't quite know where to go or what to do with what I read, but it was a good reminder to not ignore the ethical questions I sometimes have if nothing else.

some things off the top of my head:
I found it striking that even in the 1970s, this book made the claim that by certain definitions there is no middle class, only a stable bourgeoisie and stable proletariat. Even if income were to grow at the same rate, differences in reproductive rates (and income) will cause the rift between the two classes to grow wider and wider as time progresses on, which is what seems to have happened. If we value the growth of those who do not have enough more that of those who already have too much, it is hardly appropriate to claim that growth is a good that will solve the problem of inequality, because the benefits of growth do not make it to those who need it most. Growth does very little to reduce inequality.
This book questions the cost of growth, the cost of rising GNP. Should we not aim to stop trying to grow GNP when marginal costs outweigh marginal benefits? This seems to make a lot of sense. However, the cost of growing (at least of the time of the writing of this book) does not seem to be something that is well accounted for. The more we pollute this world the more it costs to mitigate the harm caused by the pollution. I'd like to continue looking into this.
Under capitalism, the priority is improving productivity of capital. For reasons I forget (I should probably go back and look at this to make sure what I'm saying is accurate) natural resources are not/should not be accounted for as capital. Productivity of resources is therefore not prioritized, and to prioritize this would come at the expense of productivity of labor/capital. The amount of non-renewable natural resources is limited and so should we not prioritize the productivity of these resources?

Overall I'm glad I read this and will continue to let the gears in my head turn.

[Daniel Riveong · Rating 4 out of 5]

Steady-State Economies was written back in the 1970s. In the 40 years since then, there is a lot in Herman Daly's writing that one can critique - in terms of his assumptions, projections, and even moral values. However, I still found the idea of SSE very interesting and one can trace a line between the SSE concept and more modern concepts such as the Circular Economy and the sustainability movement. Daly's criticisms of neoliberalism's dogmatic and narrow views of economic growth are still largely relevant.

[Andrew Carkner · Rating 5 out of 5]

We live in a finite physical world, so our economy and our population cannot grow forever. Pollution and resource depletion are more and more of an obstacle to happiness and prosperity. But what can we do about it? Economist Herman E. Daly gives us insight into the problem and a possible way forward.

[Leonardo]

Citado en Desigualdad Pág.244

[Sarah Coll · Rating 2 out of 5]

tbh i could've just watched a youtube video

[Laura Amicone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un testo complesso con alcune punte di ironia che costringe il lettore ad attente e profonde riflessioni. Consigliato a chi abbia voglia di interrogarsi sui temi della distribuzione della ricchezza, della giustizia sociale e dell’equilibrio ecologico. 🪐📚

[Katy · Rating 1 out of 5]

unholy.