This might be the most important book I've read all year. That doesn't mean it's the best written book, nor that it was the most readable. On the contrary, I found it exceedingly difficult going. Over the two years or so that I've read this book on-and-off, I must have re-read every section at least three times, grasping for perfect understanding. Why did I even bother? Because this book is mind-opening in a way that I feel strongly, even amidst my cloudy comprehension, is going to alter how I see everything around me.
Part of the reason why I found it difficult was simply that I lack formal training in economics, and this is a book on economics after all. (I can imagine Herman Daly's voice in my ear now though - assuring me that I'm best-placed to understand this book precisely because I'm not entrenched in economic orthodoxy. I tried, Herman, I tried.)
OK, while the details are complex, some of Daly's fundamental claims are easy to lay out. First, that the neoclassical economics orthodoxy deliberately ignores the role of natural resources, and the environment in general. This matters, because economics is not really a science. It doesn't merely observe without altering; the simplified mathematical model of neoclassical economics that treats the environment as infinite has directly played a part in the climate crisis we find ourselves in today.
A veneer of mathematics lends apparent neutrality to a model that imposes a particular set of values on the world. GNP is an example. It never was meant to be a measure of welfare, but it has become so. Daly shows that its correlation with welfare, if there ever was one, has weakened, even turned negative over time. Yet, given its quantitative and apparent neutral nature, it has led nations to attempt to grow it. But the GNP is not neutral - it is bookkeeping at a global scale, and a bookkeeping that makes particular choices. For example, the choice to not consider the degradation of the environment. In that arbitrariness, Daly also sees opportunity: a new system of accounts could be constructed that does account for the environment.
To me, the notion that a bookkeeping choice could be responsible for vast environmental damage was initially hard to swallow. But Daly won me over. The way I think of this is using the systems metaphor - these choices become institutionalised, and institutions are large systems that are inflexible, with planet-changing inertia. There are also forces exerted by larger economic powers, and so on.
Neoclassical economics is value-laden in other ways. It has a deeply entrenched individualism, that Daly snappily calls an oversimplified - plain false even - model of the human being called homo economicus. It does not believe in community, and encourages selfish-mindedness systematically. Again, I wondered how a model's faulty assumption could cause such affects on human behaviour. Again, I'm naive. These value assumptions are baked into policy; into how institutions like the IMF give loans, how governments are considered successful or failures, and via subtler ways such as the already-rich nations' WEIRD philosophy becoming desirable to developing nations just by their glitter.
The complete blindness of economics towards the environment could not have lasted surely? Daly recognises some efforts to account for resource consumption without giving up on orthodox dogma. He methodically knocks all these efforts down. One of them is the idea that natural capital lost - oil, forests and so on - can be replaced by man-made capital. While true marginally, this cannot hold true in general, Daly argues. ("What good is a saw-mill without a forest?")
Daly is sceptical of the power of technology to recreate natural capital, such as via artificial biospheres. We simply do not understand the incredibly complex systems that ecosystems are well enough to do such a thing, and we don't have the time to learn. Here, Daly suggests that the traditional economics ideas of scarcity and income can be used to manage the problem, only if we do one small thing: stop treating the environment is infinite, and instead treat the services provided by the environment as capital. There are costs associated with the maintenance of 'capital' that are well-understood when it comes to manmade capital, and "waiting" is investment.
Herman Daly also takes on two controversial themes. One: population control, and two: restricting free trade. A third of the resource consumption of the whole world - a third! - is needed to support the wants of just 6% of the world's population in the United States. Given that an implicit goal of development is to have the whole world reach the US's level of resource consumption, that'd need us to drive up environmental resource consumption seven times at least. A lot more, given the unequal distribution of capital in the world today. While the population question is uncomfortable, the facts of resource consumption make it an important one to ask. Daly raises this in the context of a concept he calls 'carrying capacity'; this is the maximum scale of the economic system that the environment can support.
With trademark sarcastic wit, he likens the application of this 'limit' to "child-proofing a day-care centre rather than piloting space-ship Earth." Such a limit may be hard to calculate, but is no more complex a bookkeeping exercise than say the GNP. In the context of the scale of the econornmic subsystem, Daly even makes room for asking how much intrinsic value animals have. (I love you, Herman Daly!) The answer is difficult, but surely the answer is not zero, for most people in the world. Any non-zero answer restricts the scale further. Within this scale, Daly thinks free-market economics ought to be let loose to do its magic: efficient allocation.
Herman Daly's criticisms of free trade were harder for me to follow. Some more than others. How transnational companies escape the obligations of their parent nations by 'externalising costs' is brutally familiar to us. These costs are not just things like pollution and waste, but social gains that people have fought for - labour rights, healthcare, working hours, vacations, hazard pay and so on.
I love that Herman Daly always has one eye on morality. He refuses to let economics wriggle free of its obligations to morality, and everything we've seen so far in terms of its hidden value-ladenness suggests it ought not to be able to. He worries that community, a notion so important to humans, is being weakened beyond repair by neoclassical economics.
I don't share Herman Daly's morality, exactly. He has a whole chapter using the Bible to analyse the flaws of economics, and I can't relate to that at all. Yet, I share Herman Daly's focus on the importance of morality. I admire this deeply intelligent man's efforts to challenge generations of orthodoxy. The facts were in his favour in the seventies, but today, are critically, unquestionably so. I'm also left wondering (again) if the combination of highly arcane specialisation and the appearance of scientism that has infected every field of study has left us knowing less, and making poorer choices. More whole-system synthesis - like with Daly combining concepts of econology, economics and physics - and less hyper-analysis would be what I'd like to see more of.
Because to the question of why environmentalists and economics don't just work together, the answer is - they don't even speak the same languages. Visionary translators like Herman Daly, and Frederick Soddy, are needed to forcibly spark Kuhnian paradigm shifts. It's been slow going, by Daly's own admission, but I'm hopeful.
I don't know if his particular prescriptions are the way to go, but I know that the questions he's posed cannot simply be wished away. Faced with the reality of climate change, habitat loss, the unimaginable cruelty of factory farming, loss of culture and more, the 'pencil and paper' abstract reality of GNP and neoclassical economic models must adapt.
Meanwhile, now that I'm on this path, I guess I'll have to continue. Which work of ecological economics to read next? :)