Acceso usuarios
Chandni Dwarkasing, Gonzalo Vitón (trad.), Victoria Silva Sánchez (trad.)
El capital natural es un concepto teórico muy conocido que se utiliza para tener en cuenta el papel de la naturaleza en la producción económica. Su popularización entre los economistas en la década de 1990 ha dado lugar a opiniones divergentes sobre la relación entre el capital natural y el capital físico en las funciones de producción. Donde la sostenibilidad débil aboga por la sustituibilidad, la sostenibilidad fuerte requiere complementariedad. Esta distinción es también una de las muchas líneas a lo largo de las cuales se puede diferenciar la Economía Ambiental y de Recursos (EAR) de la Economía Ecológica (EE). Luego de una introducción al concepto de capital natural, abordamos el triunfo declarado de la sostenibilidad fuerte tanto en términos de evaluaciones científicas, que resaltan la necesidad de la conservación del capital natural, como el fomento de esfuerzos de conservación mediante la valoración monetaria. La investigación sobre las diversas trampas relacionadas con la valoración monetaria está más que presente en EE a través de la literatura sobre la mercantilización de la naturaleza. La contribución de este artículo es única ya que tiene como objetivo tanto reinterpretar como revisar la práctica de la formalización matemática en EE desde una perspectiva marxista ecológica. Al basarse en la ecología-mundo y la teoría del proceso de trabajo de Marx, se llega a las siguientes ideas: i) la valoración monetaria del capital natural crítico representa una estrategia de acumulación basada en la capitalización ii) la acumulación ecológicamente sostenida altera parcialmente el ‘metabolismo material’ mientras que la ‘realización del propósito’ no cambia y iii) la representación formal de las configuraciones economía-ecología a través de la función de producción solo captura la contribución de la naturaleza capitalizada y no considera la naturaleza apropiada. Concluimos que el marxismo ecológico proporciona ideas útiles que pueden ampliar los confines actuales de la formalización matemática de EE. Esto permitiría una descripción más completa de las configuraciones economía-ecología
In the field of economics, the two main branches that deal with the analyses of economy-ecology interactions are Environmental and Resource Economics (ERE) and Ecological Economics (EE). The latter is typically characterized as being fundamentally at odds with ERE’s negligence of biophysical constraints to economic activity. EE has proceeded to develop as a pluralist and trans-disciplinary field whose literature engages in the stipulation of previously overlooked considerations. For some, this pluralism represents the biggest strength: its success hinges on both the acceptance of multiple and incommensurable epistemologies that detect fissures in the dominant epistemology and the debate that arises out of the different delineations of dissent. Others argue that over the course of EE’s existence, pluralism has been insufficiently able to rid the field from mainstream, particularly neoclassical, economic epistemologies and formalisms.The aim of this paper is to provide recommendations for the development of an alternative to the current formal abstractions of ecology-economy configurations. This is done through a reinterpretation of the natural capital concept from an eco-Marxist perspective. After introducing the natural capital concept and discussing how the treatment thereof differs across ERE and EE, we isolate strong sustainability as one of the main attributes of EE when it comes to formalization practices.
Strong sustainability’s prescription to treat natural capital as a complementary input in economic production functions has led to the implementation of various strategies concerning natural capital conservation. The bulk of these strategies has subsequently relied on monetary valuation for the purpose of embedding conservation strategies within the broader rationale of the market. In this paper we discuss monetary valuation in light of planetary boundaries, such as atmospheric sink capacities, and ecosystem services such as the habitat provision for endangered species. Critical studies have identified the monetary valuation of biophysical and ecological processes as commodification and we address both the theorized and experienced contradictions it is associated with.In our view, the logic behind the exchange value assessment of ecological processes can easily be traced back to the underlying assumptions of mathematical formalization in EE. In order to dissect these assumptions, we find it fruitful to draw on ecological Marxism. After introducing the reader to the gist of Marx’s ecological insights we discuss the concept of dualism in ecological Marxism and economics. We contend that our explicit focus on mathematical formalization forecloses a complete rejection of dualism since the specification of variables requires a process of conceptual distinction. This is why we adopt the notion of duality; where the separation and opposition between two essential elements is replaced by interdependence.Having positioned ourselves in the eco-Marxist debate on dualism, we then proceed with a discussion of Marx’s labour process theory and Moore’s world-ecology. The labour process is subject to two elements: ‘purpose realisation’ and ‘material metabolism’. The first refers to labour as an imposition of human intention; causing nature to capitulate to humanity’s will. ‘Material metabolism’ describes labour as an exchange or mediation between itself and nature. World-ecology offers an ecological interpretation of capital accumulation over the course of history. One of the concepts used to distinguish historical ecology-economy configurations, or world-ecological regimes, over capitalism’s long-dureé is the ecological surplus. This is a ratio between the system-wide appropriation and capitalization of both human and extra-human inputs. High ecological surpluses allow capital accumulation to proceed by means of labour productivity gains which are facilitated by appropriated labours, entities and processes. Low ecological surpluses hamper accumulation and trigger investments in new sources of appropriation, cheaper capitalized inputs or efficiency increasing technologies.How do these two eco-Marxist insights facilitate a reinterpretation of the assumptions underlying the practice of mathematical formalization in EE? Through the concept of the ecological surplus, world-ecology allows us to consider the commodification of ecological processes as an instance of capitalization. When valuation techniques disclose the benefit of an ecological process in monetary terms, said ecological process can be treated as an input in the production function. But according to world-ecology, an increase in capitalization also diminishes the ecological surplus which subsequently hampers capital accumulation. This begs us to question why the capitalization of ecological processes is a dominant strategy in response to ecological degradations. We argue that capitalization is a fruitful strategy in the face of future constraints to accumulation, such as diminished labour or human-made capital productivity and/or future opportunities for accumulation through for example, greenwashing.Marx’s labour process theory allows us to further argue that the incentives which capitalization aim to foster can be seen as desired alternations to the ‘material metabolism’ element of the labour process. The socially defined set of ‘purpose realisations’ on the other hand remains faithful to “the endowment of natural objects with humanistic forms for the purpose not of use value creation, but exchange value accumulation”. This leads us to conclude that the depiction of economy-ecology configurations by means of natural capital which enters the production function supports the underlying assumption that ecological sustainability is best achieved when capital bargains on behalf of nature. Furthermore, by explicitly focusing on capitalized ecological processes, the status-quo of formal abstraction in EE presumes dualism and is therefore incomplete. We argue that a more comprehensive portrayal requires the consideration of appropriated ecological processes in order to capture reciprocity and the unified management of interdependent flows which reproduce metabolic value. To this end, we introduce a trivial conceptual framework which summarizes the (proposed) mathematical formalization of economy-ecology configurations across ERE, EE and Ecological Marxism. The formal abstraction we propose from an eco-Marxist perspective is not only based on the consideration of appropriated ecological processes but also imposes duality instead of dualism between the ‘societal’ and ‘natural’ elements of production. The contribution of Ecological Marxism in this paper should not be seen as the formulation of an alternative to capitalization. Our proposed formal abstraction is based on the assumption that the ‘purpose realisation’ element of the labour process facilitates the goal of exchange value accumulation. Instead, we hope our contribution has shown that Ecological Marxism provides useful insights which can stretch the current confines of EE’s mathematical formalization; allowing for a more comprehensive portrayal of economy-ecology configurations.
