Neva R. Goodwin

Teaching Ecological and Feminist Economics in the Principles Course

It can be difficult to incorporate ecological and feminist concerns into introductory courses, when one is also obliged to teach neoclassical analysis. In this essay we briefly describe how one might extend existing “multi-paradigmatic” approaches to feminist and ecological concerns, and then present an new alternative approach that may be more suitable for some students. This “broader questions and bigger toolbox” approach can be applied in both microeconomics and macroeconomics introductory classrooms.

Lessons for the world from US agriculture: Unbundling technology

Abstract Take as a goal the adequate nourishment of all human beings by the middle of the next century, when the human population will be near double its 1980 level, with much of the increase occurring in the poorest areas of the world. There is a great need to keep food prices low. However, we must consider the additional goal of sustainability. Can agricultural sustainability be achieved while producing the required volume of food at low cost? This paper will argue that economic development does not require that food be as cheap, or agricultural practices be as labor saving, as is often assumed.

A New Economics for the Twenty-First Century

The critical role for economic theory is no longer simply to explain how the existing system works, but also to explore how the economic system can be changed to become more adaptive and resilient in the face of the challenges of the 21 century, and how it can be more directly designed to support human well-being, in the present and the future. Simultaneous changes are needed, in both the actual economy (how it functions, by what rules, how it can be made responsive to constraints) and also in economic theory.

Restoration science does not need redefinition

To the Editor — In a recent Correspondence to Nature Ecology & Evolution, Higgs et al.1 call for an open and flexible approach to ecological restoration, arguing that the current focus of the international standards published by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER)2 may contribute to a narrowing of the scope of restoration that is detrimental in times of change. Several of the authors of that Correspondence, together with others, recently detailed their proposal for a revamping of conservation and restoration principles, definitions and standards3. We beg to differ. We agree that modifications and improvements to the SER standards document are necessary; in fact, a concerted effort is now underway to produce an improved second edition. However, the problems are not in the area of definitions and principles. The currently accepted definitions of ecological restoration and ecological rehabilitation, as presented in the SER primer4, are robust: “Restoration seeks to re-establish the preexisting biotic integrity, in terms of species composition and community structure, while rehabilitation aims to reinstate ecosystem functionality with a focus on provision of goods and services rather than restoration”2. Both of these activities can be planned and executed simultaneously, as advocated by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification document5 cited by Higgs et al. Indeed, on landscape and larger scales, several ‘restorative’ activities can be undertaken conjointly6–9. By contrast, creating or repairing humanmade systems designed to meet shortterm human needs and desires belongs to the realm of ecological engineering or urban/landscape design, not ecological restoration2,4,8. Ecological engineering, urban and landscape design, and ecological restoration and rehabilitation are all valuable, and can be complementary9; but to be effective on large spatial scales, we need to distinguish clearly among these activities. Relaxing the rigour in the existing definition of ecological restoration, and that of ecological rehabilitation, will only sow more confusion precisely at a time when the ‘stakes’ are rising, to borrow a phrase used by Higgs et al. Any plea to change the basic definition of restoration is unhelpful to policymakers. ❐

A range of predictions for the future

Ask a broad sample of thoughtful people what they expect the world to be like in 50 years; then plot the answers on a simple spectrum (as below) from “future misery” to “future luxury”. You are likely to find that the answers do not fall, as so many things do, in the “normal distribution” form that looks like a single symmetrical mountain. In a normal distribution, the largest number of responses may be found clustered at the center with progressively fewer responses associated with points that lie progressively farther from the mean, so that the extreme positions are represented by two very thin tails. By contrast, the peculiar nature of the way people are thinking today about the future reveals itself as a bimodal distribution; as in Fig. 1, it has two humps. The fact that our friends’ and acquaintances’ observations can be graphed and identified as a