Norgaard R. (Coevolutionary Development Potential)

Coevolutionary Development Potential
Author(s): Richard B. Norgaard

Source: Land Economics, Vol. 60, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp. 160-173
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3145970
Accessed: 11-03-2019 05:34 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3145970?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Land Economics
This content downloaded from 181.199.32.166 on Mon, 11 Mar 2019 05:34:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Coevolutionary Development Potential
Richard B. Norgaard
If economic development is real-notthe real world. It is ironic that environmental

sim-
ply one group exploiting others or this problems
gener- in economics are thought of as
ation living better at the expense of theproblems
next- of market failure rather than as evi-
dence of the applicable limits of the market
then economic systems must have an inherent
potential for development. Existing eco- model.
nomic thought on the potential for sustain- Alternative economic models are no bet-
able development is neither explicit nor ter.con-
Marxist models assume that capitalists
sistent with knowledge accumulated in exploit
the workers. Resource use and environ-
natural sciences. Neoclassical economists as- mental problems can only be explored as as-
sume that the potential resides in our ability pects of this exploitation. Structuralist models
to devise technologies which augment the similarly restrict issues regarding resources
quality of labor and capital and which allow and the environment to a presumed underly-
for the continued exploitation of lower qual- ing structural problem. The key ideas of insti-
ity stock resources. This assumption has been tutional economics are general; they do not
the focus of intermittent debate over the nat- constrain institutionalists to a particular
ure and limits of technological change and model structure. Within the general consen-
natural resources development since the be- sus that institutions are important and evolve
ginnings of economics. The debate has in- on their own, a few institutional economists
fluenced the development of biology and af-have considered the nature of environmental
fected resource management policies. While systems (Kapp 1950; Ciriacy-Wantrup 1963).
the debate has raised disturbing issues within Overall, however, institutionalists have em-
economics, it has resulted neither in resolu- phasized institutions apart from nature. Some
tions nor in new directions in economic have reached pessimistic conclusions about
thought. the long run (Heilbroner 1980) while others
The sustainability debate has not been pro- have waxed optimistic (Brinkman 1980). Like
ductive because it has been set within an in- the neoclassical model, none of the alterna-
adequate framework. The neoclassical model tive models focuses on resources and environ-
assumes that factors of production and the
products of economic activity come in dis-
Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural
crete units related only in the process of eco- and Resource Economics, University of California,
nomic production or through markets. This Berkeley.
simplification has proven very powerful for *Giannini Foundation, Working Paper No. 245. The
explaining market phenomena. But neither following people provided much needed suggestions,
natural resources and environmental services encouragement, and guidance into unfamiliar litera-
tures: Sam Barakat, Martin Cohen, Paul Craig, Luis
as factors of production nor environmental Crouch, Jr., Herman Daly, Paul Ehrlich, Ernst Haas,
impacts as products of economic activity John Harte, Alan Larson, Kari Norgaard, Laurel Pre-
come in discrete units. The assumptions of vetti, Jeff Romm, Ben Shaine, Lee Travers, and Alan
the model are incongruent with the nature of Trefeissen. I regret that I have not been able to produce
a final draft upon which all the various experts whom I
have been dependent upon can completely agree. Ruth
E. Oscar provided research assistance and substantive as
Land Economics, Vol. 60, No. 2, May 1984 well as editorial comments. Catherine Taylor, editor,
0023-7639/84/002-0160 $1.50/0 helped me completely transform the third draft into an
? 1984 by the Board of Regents article. I am also grateful for the comments of Dan
of the University of Wisconsin System Bromley and two anonymous reviewers.
Norgaard: Coevolutionary Development Potential 161
mental systems and incorporates assumptions societies in homeostatic equilibrium with

that are appropriate for the investigation of their environment. Except for Harris, few
the sustainability of economic development. cultural ecologists have addressed the global
The coevolutionary development para- issues of economic development of interest to
digm (Norgaard 1981, 1983, and 1984) is de- economists.
signed to address whether economic develop- One way to look at the interaction of eco-
ment can be maintained over the long run. In logical and social systems is through energy
turn, the paradigm reframes what real devel- flows.1 Coevolutionary development can be
opment can mean. This paper describes the envisioned as a sequential process involving a
coevolutionary development process, docu- surplus of energy beyond that necessary to
ments that it stems from a real potential, and maintain the social and ecological systems in
raises doubts about the desirability of growth their present states. A surplus of energy
based on stock-resource exploitation. would be defined as more than the ecological
system needs to maintain its present mix of
I. THE COEVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT
biomass and more than the social system
PROCESS needs to maintain the size and welfare of its
population. The surplus energy may be either
In biology, coevolution refers to andirected
evolu-to, or fortuitously result in, a new in-
tionary process based on reciprocal responses teraction between the social and ecological
between two closely interacting species systems. If this new interaction is favorable to
(Ehrlich and Raven 1964; Baker and Hurd society, results in a continuing energy surplus,
1968). Coevolutionary explanations have and if this surplus is invested in further bene-
been given for the shape of both the beaks of ficial change, coevolutionary development is
hummingbirds and the flowers they feed on, taking place.2
the behavior of bees and the distribution of Sociosystems and ecosystems are main-
flowering plants, the biochemical defenses of tained through numerous feedback mecha-
nisms. Coevolution occurs when at least one
plants and the immunity of their insect prey.
The concept can be broadened to encompassfeedback is changed, which then initiates a re-
any ongoing feedback process between two ciprocal process of change. An important fea-
evolving systems, including social and ecolog- ture of this process is that feedbacks that pre-
ical systems. viously maintained an equilibrium in the
ecosystem
Dunn (1971) and Boulding (1978) describe may be assumed by or shifted to
economic development in evolutionary termsthe social system. Eugene Odum (1969) char-
acterizes agricultural development as a trans-
by identifying isomorphisms in social and eco-
logical systems along the lines suggested by formation of the ecosystem to reduced num-
Bertalanffy (1968). Both Dunn and Boulding bers of species and usually lower combined
draw analogies between ecological and social
systems, between genetic mutation and tech-
nological and social innovation, between sur- I "To coevolve" and "coevolution" refer to any posi-
tive (in the cybernetic sense) feedback. Social and eco-
vival of the fittest and economical and institu-
logical systems are always responding to each other, or
tional competition, and between efficiently coevolving. This process may correct for an initial set-
tapping the sun's energy and maximizing back or could be destructive itself from a human per-
profits. Coevolution, however, is an interac- spective (Norgaard 1981). Coevolutionary development
is a coevolutionary process that benefits man. "Benefit"
tive rather than a parallel or analogous proc-
and "development" are left as undefined as they gener-
ess. For this reason, the coevolutionary ally are in the development literature. The coevolu-
model was developed from the work of cul- tionary model refines our understanding of the possible
tural ecologists where social and ecological in- but does not define what is good.
teraction is the distinguishing concept (Stew- 2 The classic energy analysis in ecology is edited by
Howard Odum and R. F. Pigeon (1970). Howard
ard 1955; Rappaport 1968; and Harris 1979).
Odum's (1971) attempt to apply an energy analysis to
The cultural ecology perspective, however, environmental and social systems is interesting but intel-
has largely evolved from studies of primitive lectually much less satisfying.
162 Land Economics
productivity of the few individuals still work-

efficiency of nutrient recycling, higher but less
stable rates of production, and low biomass ing in agriculture. This increase is generally
attributed to a continual decrease in environ-
stocks relative to natural conditions. As peo-
ple push ecosystems in this direction to suitmental constraints on farmers. The coevolu-
their own needs, they intervene in nutrient tionary perspective emphasizes the increase
cycles and disturb some equilibrating mecha- in individual task specialization and the in-
nisms that evolved within the ecosystem.crease in the cultural or institutional complex-
Coevolutionary development occurs faster, ity of maintaining feedback mechanisms be-
tween specialized actors within the social
or is perhaps only possible, if the sociosystem
compensates for these natural system losses. system and between the social system and the
New sociosystem functions may entail, for ecosystem.
ex- The coevolutionary view empha-
ample, managing legumes to replace portions sizes an increasingly important, and fre-
quently more complex, interaction between
of lost nutrient cycles, weeding to offset natu-
ral succession, and combating herbiverous in- man and his environment.
sects to compensate for lost natural pest con- Western agriculture was once a small-
trol mechanisms. These new sociosystem scale, labor-intensive, polycultural, and near-
functions are costs because they involve man- subsistence interaction between the social
agerial effort, the acquisition of knowledge, and ecological systems. The systems
the use of natural resources, and the estab- coevolved to a large-scale, mechanized and
lishment and maintenance of institutions. energy-intensive, monocultural, commercial
Ecosystem modification need not entail more farming interaction. This new agricultural in-
sociosystem involvement. But when it does,teraction is maintained by a highly complex
the costs of these new activities must be de- system of farm-implement and agrochemical
ducted from the gross benefits of the new in- industries, a highly developed marketing sys-
teraction. tem, and government institutions to generate
Coevolutionary development has been and disseminate knowledge, develop new in-
taking place for thousands of years. The rise puts, regulate markets, absorb risk, subsidize
of paddy rice culture in Southeast Asia is an capital, limit the distributional effects of ad-
instructive example. The land-extensive prac- justments, and control environmental and
tice of slash-and-burn agriculture was gradu- health impacts. The various sociosystem ele-
ally abandoned over many centuries as invest- ments in part evolved in reaction to the eco-
ments were made in dikes, terraces, and system's responses to human activities. While
water delivery systems for increasingly inten- monocultural systems brought increasing re-
sive paddy agriculture. The benefits from this turns to scale with mechanization, their insta-
ecological transformation came in the form of bility and the increased risk borne by a farmer
superior weed control and greater nutrient re- with a single crop encouraged the use of agro-
tention. The environmental system modifica- chemicals and risk-spreading institutions.
tion process, however, was not unilateral. In Similarly, ecosystem responses to agrochemi-
order to maintain the ecological system in its cals led to new institutions to regulate pesti-
modified form and to acquire the benefits of cides and water pollution as well as to new re-
modification, individuals changed their be- search programs in agricultural experiment
havior and the social system adapted to assist stations. Equally important, the institutional
and reinforce appropriate individual behav- responses typically encouraged further
ior. In the case of paddy rice, the benefits changes in similar directions. Crop insurance
from ecological transformation could only, be and regulated markets, for example, reduce
acquired through complex social changes that the risks of monocultural production and
facilitated property ownership, water man- make it more attractive. Today's agricultural
agement, and labor exchanges (Boserup systems have soil features, weed dynamics,
1965; Geertz 1963). and insect-crop interactions that reflect
Economic views of Western history typi- coevolution with the sociosystem, while to-
cally emphasize the dramatic increase in the day's agricultural institutions reflect the vul-
nerability of disturbed soil to wind and water millenia of coevolutionary agricultural devel-
erosion, the adaptations of insect populations opment and a longer, earlier history of pro-
to chemical control, and the susceptibility of gress in hunting and gathering, provides em-
monocultural systems to variations in pirical testimony that outweighs the record of
weather. factor-augmented growth by at least seventy
Western agriculture was transformed by centuries to only somewhat more than one.
factor augmentation, by increasing the rate of Coevolutionary potential stems from two
use of separate factors of production. The phenomena which form the major premises
most significant change was in the use of pur- of the coevolutionary development argu-
chased inputs produced from stock resources. ment. First, evolution has been a negentropic
The ecological system responded to this process. Planet Earth, at least with respect to
change, initiating a coevolutionary response human needs, has acquired a better order
with the social system that continues today. through evolution. Second, knowledge and
Coevolutionary development, however, was the ability to learn have been incorporated in
not being realized. Coevolutionary processes the perceptual systems of individuals and the
have unveiled the negative aspects of stock- cultural systems of societies through evolu-
exploitive technologies or, at best, offset the tionary processes including natural selection.
negative effects. To improve upon the past, Since these phenomena are described in parts
we need a better understanding of the nature of the natural science literature rarely cited in
of coevolutionary potential. the economics literature, they will be devel-
oped in some detail. A third premise, that ad-
II. THE NATURE OF COEVOLUTIONARY ditional coevolutionary potential still exists, is
POTENTIAL also key to the argument.
From a perspective limited to people and
Planet Earth, evolution has been a negentro-
. . . life is a member of the class of phenomena
which are open or continuous systems pic ableprocess.4
to Four and a half billion years ago,
Earth did not have the order that allows us to
decrease their internal entropy at the expense
of substances or free energy taken in fromexistthe
today. Whether by chance or by design,
environment and subsequently rejected lifein
somehow
a started. Gradually life trans-
degraded form. (J. E. Lovelock 1979, p. formed
4) its own environment. The nitrogen
molecules in the atmosphere are a product of
Since the beginnings of agriculturethe until
early anaerobic life forms while oxygen
the significant use of stock resourcesmolecules a little are largely a product of later net
more than a century ago, the human plant popula-growth. By evolutionary and coevolu-
tion has doubled more than eight times. Thisprocesses, various species evolved to
tionary
growth can most easily be explained as the
result of a process of capturing coevolu- 3 This characterization and temporal division of our
tionary potential. During the past century, in- past economic development is simplistic both for em-
creases in population and economic well- phasis and due to space limitations. The calculations are
based on a world population of about 5 million when ag-
being primarily came from the augmentation
riculture began some 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, a popu-
of factors of production-physical capital ac- lation of about 1.6 billion in 1880, and a population of
cumulated, the quality of the labor force im- some 4.5 billion now (Grigg 1974). Other estimates still
proved, and stock resources were exploited at confirm that there have been many more doublings
much higher rates. While social and ecologi- through coevolutionary development than through
stock-exploitive development.
cal systems coevolved, growth came through 4 The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in
an increased flow of imputs. In this increased a variety of interrelated ways. One is that all physical
flow, stock resources played a new and pro- processes (or work) reduce the availability of energy for
portionately larger role. Though the rate of further work. Another is that concentrations (of any-
thing) tend to disperse, structure tends to disappear, or-
population doubling increased dramatically der becomes disorder. These and other definitions are
with the significant exploitation of stock re- presented in lay terms in Ehrlich, Ehrlich, and Holdren
sources, it has doubled less than twice.3 Seven (1977, p. 33-35).
164 Land Economics
form the highly diverse and complex ecosys-

of changing physical and biological factors. In
tems of today. The oxygen we breathe, theaddition, mutations occur through imperfect
plants and animals we eat, and the hydrocar-
DNA replication and DNA damage. A small
proportion of mutations facilitate the func-
bons we tap to fuel our industries are products
of biological processes. Even the orderingtioning
of of the organism in its environment
minerals improved for us over eons by various
physical processes stemming from solar en-
5 The idea that the earth was unusually well-suited
ergy and the gradual cooling of the earth.
for life to evolve and that evolution further favored hu-
From a human perspective, entropy on Planet
man life was first explored by Henderson (1913). We
Earth has decreased.5 have here the tautest of tautologies. Detail after detail
Evolution has not defied the second law of can be listed and described as to how the environment is
thermodynamics. The increase in order and uniquely suited to people. Humans as we know our-
selves, of course, would not be here if the environment
in the availability of energy is only a local phe- were not the way it is, for we evolved with the environ-
nomenon. Plants have captured some of the ment. Lovelock (1979) and Jantsch (1980) have recently
sun's energy and, with the assistance of other developed the argument that, while chance has played
organisms, used it to create certain forms of an important role, evolution has largely occurred within
a global system with numerous, intricate, self-regulating
order that happen to be beneficial to people.
mechanisms which have buffered change and kept evo-
But energy in the solar system overall is dissi- lution from "spinning out" on a destructive course. Dy-
pating, proceeding from potential to kinetic, son (1979, pp. 245-53) also acknowledges this possibil-
still becoming less and less available. The sun ity. Kamshilov (1976) presents a distinctly Soviet view
on the orderliness of evolution, society's current disrup-
will die in perhaps another 4 and a half billion
tive role, and the challenge of living with and ultimately
years, but for now and the forseeable future, directing the evolution of the biosphere. The idea that
life is capturing more of the sun's energy in a evolution favors human survival was well-developed by
form that is more beneficial for us than it was Thomas Huxley and Herbert Spencer and to some ex-
in the beginning.6 tent by Darwin himself (Greene 1981). The idea is sus-
tained in the writings of Julian Huxley (Greene 1981)
Though it is obvious that Earth has a supe-
and Teilhard de Chardin (1959). Recently, Peter Corn-
rior order now, misinterpretations of the sec- ing (1983) has given a new impetus to this tradition.
ond law of thermodynamics have masked this Most evolutionists today follow what they claim to be
reality.7 Life maintains order, not in spite of the true Darwinian tradition and are content with the
combination of deterministic, endogenous biological re-
the laws of entropy, but because of DNA and
sponses to exogenous environmental changes as an ex-
the energy that plant life captures from the planation for the course of evolution (Gould 1980 and
sun. From simple amoebae to complex verta- 1982).
brates, life is a process of maintaining order, 6 Blum (1968) presents a thorough discussion of evo-
of maintaining the processes of life and the lution and entropy. See also: Boulding (1981, ch. 5) or
Schrodinger (1944, ch. 6).
characteristics of particular species. This or- 7 Georgescu-Roegen (1971), for example, acknowl-
der is encoded as information in the arrange- edges the incredible energy and long life of our sun and
ment of the bases of DNA molecules.8 Single- its importance to economic well-being over the long run.
celled organisms and tissue cells in higher His references to biological processes and evolution (ch.
organisms replicate by a process whereby 8), however, are limited to the directionality of life for
the individual of a species and the irreversibility of bio-
paired chains in the DNA molecule split, re-logical processes. He associates these phenomena with
form they paired parts, and provide the infor- the directionality and irreversibility of the second law
mation necessary for reconstructing the char- rather than seeing them as characteristics of biological
acteristics of new cells. Individual cells form processes. Rifkin's (1980) popularization of the impor-
tance of entropy makes similar errors by analogy.
and die, but the cell's order lives on and the
8 Gatlin (1972) has written on the nature of the en-
orderly life processes provided by each cell coding, the amount of information that can be encoded,
type continue. Similarly, individuals die butand how different forms of encoding can enhance repli-
species can live on through sexual reproduc-cation or allow the development of more information
tion. (complexity). Social scientists might better initiate their
introduction to this material with the summaries by
Order, however, is not simply maintained. Boulding (1978, ch. 5), Dunn (1970, ch. 2), or Schro-
The diverse gene pools of each species are dinger (1944, ch. 2 and 3) and then take up a text such as
constantly subjected to the selective pressures Ayala and Valentine (1979).
165
Norgaard: Coevolutionary Development Potential
and, in turn, change the biotic selective pres- plowing, flooding, and burning are direct
sures on other species. Evolution necessarily means of favoring productive species, reduc-
went from the simple to the more complex, ing the competition for nutrients by "weeds,"
but how ecosystems developed such a multi- and nurturing species that complement each
tude of different and diversely interdepen- other. Plants complement one another by
dent species remains a mystery. providing shade, by having associated soil mi-
Animals, even amoebae, learn.9 The sen- croorganisms that fix nitrogen or help other
sory systems of even the most simple animals plants absorb mineral nutrients, and by host-
enable them to recognize different stimuli. ing predators of other plant's pests. The opti-
Similarly, the brains of even the less devel- mal management of interacting species in an
oped species deduce cause and effect and ex- ecosystem can be compared with the optimal
trapolate experience to new situations. West-
ern thought has emphasized formal learning
and neglected the innate. This has led to the 9 With this paragraph we enter into the controversial
view of past evolution as a chance process. realm of sociobiology. The initial forays into the inter-
Quite the contrary, learning, knowledge, and section of social and biological science by Lorenz (1966)
and Wilson (1975) were repelled by arguments from
evolution have been intertwined from some-
both social and biological scientists (see the readings
where near the beginning. This means that edited by Caplan 1978). Neither Lorenz's nor Wilson's
the fitness of animal species, especially the initial genetic explanations of social behavior formally
vertebrates, is partly related to the correct- acknowledged the roles of perception, learning, con-
ness of their perceptions as to the nature of re- scious decision-making, and culture in the evolution of
behavior. Both authors quickly remedied these deficien-
ality and to their ability to learn. To some ex-
cies. Lorenz (1973) produced an informal synthesis of
tent, reality has coevolved with perceptions genetic and cultural evolution that emphasized percep-
of reality.10 tion and learning and the broader philosophical signific-
Animals not only learn but learn together. ance of the synthesis itself. Lumsden and Wilson (1981)
developed vastly superior formal models that integrate
Ants, wolves, and humans have learned-in
genetic and cultural evolution and the roles of percep-
very different ways-to live in social groups. tion systems and the mind. Numerous others also saw
The survival of individuals and of the species the explanatory potential of integrating genetic and cul-
now depends on their social behavior. In tural evolution and attempted models of various forms
some cases social roles have become geneti- and degrees of mathematical formality (Cavalli-Sforza
and Feldman 1981; Durham 1976 and 1978; Jantsch
cally encoded, while in others culture is the 1980; Pulliam and Dunford 1980, and many others that I
sole repository. Cultures evolve through ran- have not read). Given the level of generality of the pre-
dom change, deliberate trial, error, and sentation in this paper, the differences between the vari-
learning, and through natural selection. Cul- ous syntheses are relatively unimportant. A key out-
come of all of the integrations is that genetic (both
tural adaptations survive if they make the cul- individual and group) and cultural selection are insepa-
ture more fit. Information with considerable rable, for each is constantly influencing the other. Both
survival value becomes incorporated in cul- types of selection are "natural." Durham and later
ture in ways which individuals do not under- Lumsden and Wilson use the term "coevolution" to em-
phasize the inseparability of the process.
stand or even perceive. The new sociobiology
10 This characterization of knowledge contrasts with
literature uses a coevolutionary framework to the conventional wisdom stemming from centuries of
describe how cultural adaptations have in- Western philosophy and science that the mind can be
fluenced genetic selection while genetic fac- thought of as a computer microchip, that the sensory sys-
tors have, in turn, influenced cultural selec- tems provide means of entering data, and that science is
the software that gives thinking its starting point, logical
tion. Looking at the world this way, it is futile
pattern, and direction. The characterization presented
to distinguish between natural and cultural here cuts through the "mind-body problem," eliminates
factors for over time they have become hope- issues of subjective vs. objective, and accepts the limita-
lessly intertwined. tions and effects of the instruments of perception (Lo-
renz 1973). Each of these have puzzled Western philoso-
Agriculture has long relied on cultural
phers heretofore because they lack an evolutionary
knowledge for ecosystem management epistemology. This characterization also accounts for
through shifting the mix of species. Deliber-the isomorphisms between biological and social systems
ate planting and watering, hand weeding, noted by Boulding and Dunn.
166 Land Economics
control of nonmarket effects in an economic tent, can be used to improve the sustainabil-
system (Tullock 1971). ity, productivity, and stability of modern agri-
People have been affecting, and been af- cultural systems.12
fected by, their environment for some time, Coevolutionary development potential is
up to three and a half million years. Agroeco- far from exhausted. The existing favorable
system management has indirectly influenced ecological order is sustained through the pho-
the course of evolution for organisms with tosynthesis of only 0.25% of the sun's energy
rapid regeneration times, from microorga- that strikes the land surface. Even modern
nisms to insects. Simultaneously, people have cornfields only capture 2% while up to 13%
directly selected individuals within popula- could be captured through photosynthesis.13
tions of species-from corn to cows-for re- The long-run potential for DNA to provide
production based on preferred characteris- more order is enormous.14 Neither ecological
tics. Both agroecosystem management and nor social systems are static, and cultural
deliberate selective pressure have been cul- learning is still taking place.
turally learned and reinforced. Individuals The existence of coevolutionary potential
learn selection and management techniques is certain. There is the historical record
from others. Society maintains and allocates itself-seven millenia of coevolutionary agri-
shared resources including fields and water. cultural development and a longer, earlier
Appropriate behavior is enforced. Cultural history of progress in hunting and gathering.
ecologists have shown for traditional societies How this potential might be captured and
how values, kinship, customs, rituals, and ta- what kind of future coevolutionary develop-
boos are related to the maintenance of an in- ment might hold is unclear. Coevolutionary
teraction with an ecosystem." To a large ex- development may be limited to food, cloth-
tent culture also guides modern agricultural ing, shelter, and health. Skyscrapers, high-
societies, but modernization has entailed a speed, long-distance travel, and similar prod-
continual substitution of formal institutions ucts might only be possible through the use of
and objective knowledge for culture and cul-
tural knowledge as we commonly think of I One reason I have avoided defining the objectives
them. of development and the sorts of development that
Modernization of agriculture in Third "benefit" people (see footnote 1) is that values are en-
World countries has emphasized factor aug- dogenously determined. Shifts in values have been criti-
cal in the past to the coevolution of social and ecological
mentation through new inputs and training systems. Harris (1979), Netting (1977), and Rappaport
for farmers. The cultural knowledge and tra- (1968) are good examples of the cultural ecology litera-
ditional agroecosystems that evolved over ture. A review of how values have affected and have
centuries have not only been ignored but de- been affected by recent development experiences in
Asia can be found in Lasswell, Lerner, and Montgomery
stroyed. Lacking a philosophy and science of (1976).
development that incorporates coevolu- 12 See for example, Gliessman, Garcia, and Amador
tionary processes, we have given insufficient (1981), Chacon and Gliessman (1982), and Altierri, Le-
respect to the importance of building on or tourneau, and Davis (1982).
13 The 0.25% and 2% figures come from Eugene
learning from how ecological and social sys-
Odum (1971, ch. 3). The 13% figure comes from Ander-
tems have interacted and affected each other son (1979, ch. 6).
in the past. Agroecology has emerged re- 14 Gatlin (1972, p. 4) notes that the DNA chains of
cently as a new field through the work of plant the higher plants and animals can encode about ten to
and insect ecologists interested in agricultural the power of 54 pieces of information. Ayala and Valen-
tine (1979, p. 81-82) note that man, who is heterozygous
development. Agroecologists think of agri- at but about 6.7% of 100,000 gene loci, can potentially
culture as a process of ecosystem manage- produce 10 to the power of 2017 genetically different off-
ment. They learn about ecological systems by spring, not counting the potential for change through
studying how traditional farming systems mutation. Geneticist Alan Larson has pointed out that
these estimates are based on electrophoretically de-
have coevolved. Traditional farming systems
tected protein variation which results in a gross underes-
represent a resource of coevolutionary timate of the total variation (personal communication).
knowledge which can be augmented with The number of atoms in the known universe is thought
scientific knowledge a d which, to some ex- to be but 10 to the power of 70.
167
Norgaard: Coevolutionary Development Potential
stock resources. On the other hand, inner- learning to develop and utilize new technolo-
city ghettos, the destruction of indigenous gies. In 1920 almost 1% of the working-age
cultures, and nuclear holocaust might also be population was investing in higher education
avoided along a coevolutionary development rather than working. This proportion rose to
path. Needless to say, the future along either 6.2% by 1970 and 9.7% by 1980. In addition,
path is uncertain. a larger proportion of the students were ac-
Due to the fragmentation of knowledge in quiring knowledge for the development and
science today, scientists and laypeople alike maintenance of technologies and institutions.
can neither significantly question our current This dramatic increase is representative of
development path nor conceive of a signi- other changes in our society. Research and
ficantly different path. Our society's empha- development have become substantial sectors
sis on atomistic and mechanistic thinking in the economy. Private and public bureauc-
makes it difficult to comprehend, let alone racies have arisen to capture the economic
capture, coevolutionary development poten- gains and minimize the social and environ-
tial. Even if systems and evolutionary think- mental side effects of new technologies.
ing were much better developed, coevolu- The social transformations necessary for
tionary potential can only be captured slowly. the advance and use of stock-exploitive tech-
Society will make the transition to this slower nologies have limits. The costs of education,
rate of growth only through a better under- the productivity of our research and develop-
standing of the costs and limits of stock- ment efforts, and the size and effectiveness of
exploitive growth. our bureaucracies are frequently identified as
the major factors limiting economic advance
III. STOCK-RESOURCE EXPLOITATION IN today. A simple extrapolation of higher edu-
A COEVOLUTIONARY WORLD cation attendance documents these limits. At
During the last century, increases in current
popu- rates of increase, 100% of the
lation and in economic well-being have pri-
working-age population will be attending
marily come from stock-resource exploita- school all the time by the year 2063 (Norgaard
tion. The potential for this growth was 1983). These transformations have one thing
inherent in our ability to discover and adoptin common. The rapid increases in the de-
new technologies. But Georgescu-Roegen mand for education, research and develop-
has shown that most technological change ment, and bureaucratic organization and op-
simply allows us to exploit low-entropy re- eration are all based on Western science. In
sources faster and thereby transform the fa- this sense, we are experiencing the limits of
vorable order of the natural world into a ho- objective knowledge.
mogeneous garbage dump sooner. He These limits can be expressed in coevolu-
correctly critiques increases in well-being that
tionary terms. In the neoclassical view, the
come strictly through augmenting factors costs of of exploiting a stock resource are the
production. Current stock-exploitive growth discounted net gains of exploiting the re-
necessarily comes at the expense of future source later. From the coevolutionary van-
generations. 15 tage, this is an underestimate of the costs for
Increasing entropy seems first and mostat least two reasons.
noticeably to be taking an institutional toll.
Resources do not simply run out or even nec-
essarily become "physically," in an on-site 15 Georgescu-Roegen bridged the gap, albeit imper-
fectly, as indicated in footnote 7, between economics
production sense, more difficult to extract.
and thermodynamics but was unable to convince econo-
Ever more sophisticated technology to ex- mists of the significance of the second law. Indeed, more
ploit increasingly intractable stock resources,
controversy than enlightenment ensued and the bridge is
however, requires continuous improvements rarely traversed. Georgescu-Roegen (1975) and Her-
in human skills and organization. In 1870 man Daly (1983) document numerous instances where
economic arguments defy the second law. The best reso-
about 0.25% of the population of the United lutions of the controversies-or improvements in the
States between 18 and 65 years of age was en- bridge-have been made by Burness, Cummings, Mor-
rolled in higher education. Some were there ris, and Paik (1980).
168 Land Economics
sense. In Alaska, the Middle East, and other

First, stock resources can be used to initi-
ate or assist coevolutionary development. areas with oil, social institutions, fed by oil
This option may prove especially valuable revenues, are evolving largely independently
within a social and ecological interaction that of whether they assist in the development of a
is not generating a surplus at the time but sustainable social and ecological interaction.
none the less has further coevolutionary po- Both coevolutionary and stock-exploitive
tential. From the neoclassical perspective, development paths take social and ecological
this can be thought of as an opportunity cost systems to states from which other develop-
of using a stock resource for exploitive devel- ment paths may be difficult or impossible to
opment now rather than waiting to use it to reach and follow. Some paths presumably re-
initiate or guide coevolutionary development tain more options and flexibility; they elimi-
later. This cost might be expressed as a nate fewer options and allow changes at lower
probability-weighted sum of the discountedcost. Coevolutionary development paths may
higher costs using other resources for reach- retain more options in addition to the fact that
ing alternative social and ecological system in- they retain stock-resource exploitation op-
teractions and the discounted value of any in- tions. Certainly, given the limits imposed by
teractions foregone. From the coevolutionary the second law of thermodynamics on factor-
vantage, it is not clear what interest rates are augmenting growth, staying on a coevolu-
or how to predict the nature, let alone the tionary path avoids the transition costs of
probabilities, of future interactions. finding and converting to such a path after
The second user cost is probably more stock resources have been depleted.
significant but is no easier to quantify. Both Economic thought typically stems from
the social and the ecological systems evolve and reinforces real-world institutions. There
during stock exploitation. But this evolution is good reason to believe that stock resources
is not coevolutionary. Each system evolves are overexploited because current economic
not strictly in response to the other system but thought and social institutions ignore coevo-
in response to the exploitation of stock re- lutionary potential and coevolutionary user
sources. The two systems become "wedged" costs. These additional user costs include (1)
apart relative to a coevolutionary interac- the losses associated with not being able to
tion.16 After stocks are exhausted, it is un- use stock resources for later investment in
likely that the ecological and social systems coevolution, and (2) the losses associated
would be in a position for subsequent coevo- with returning to and/or accepting a less ad-
lutionary interaction. Ecologists warn us of vantageous coevolutionary path after the
the potential consequences of species extinc- stock resource is depleted. Ignoring coevolu-
tion and irreversible ecosystem transforma- tionary user costs results in an overuse of
tions (Dasmann et al. 1973; Ehrlich and stock resources.
Ehrlich 1981; Farvar and Milton 1972; Myers Looking at resource allocation in a
1979). Social systems suffer from similar broader economic context, ignoring coevolu-
transformations. Nearly a decade after the tionary user costs distorts the relative costs of
OPEC embargo, institutions in both the de- factors and prices of products. Skills associ-
veloped and developing countries are still ated with stock-resource exploitation are
changing, at great cost, to complement the overvalued relative to skills associated with
new relative prices for energy-related goods environmental management. Stock-resource-
and services. In the United States the ten-
dency to switch to other stock resources such
as coal and oil shale rather than to flow re- 16 Ellul (1954) and Winner (1977) coincidentally de-
scribe the rise of a technological-based social organiza-
sources used in the past such as solar and wind
power is probably better explained by the ex-tion and the autonomy of technology in the same time
frame as the rise of stock-resource exploitive develop-
tinction of appropriate institutions and thement. Their analyses likewise emphasize the simultane-
compatibility of current institutions than byous decline of natural philosophy and cultural systems
relative costs in a narrower technological based on relations to the land.
intensive products are underpriced relative to is not replicated perfectly. Nature keeps roll-
labor and other flow-resource-intensive prod-ing the dice and some new adaptations sur-
ucts. Research effort is overallocated to ex-vive while, in turn, new adaptations put new
ploitation technologies relative to environ-biotic pressures on other species. New adap-
mental management technologies. If a tations for animals include the ability to per-
coevolutionary view of development had ceive, interpret, and learn. Fitting well has
been adopted along with other views, our become a conscious process. And for many
economy would probably be significantly dif- species-but especially for humans-
ferent and less precarious. perceiving, interpreting, and learning is a so-
cial as well as an individual process that in-
V. TEN CONCLUDING COMMENTS fluences and is influenced by the nature of the
collective consciousness.
A broad array of ideas new to economics And this is the third important conclusion.
have been related in this paper. Though As one of the social species, our survival de-
a ma-
jor objective of the paper has been to pends on the appropriateness of our social
stress
interactive relationships, I will conclude consciousness
with of our relationship to the envi-
an itemized list of important points. ronment. Value systems, institutions, and
First, the neoclassical view of economic specific technologies evolve in the context of
development as a process of augmenting fac- the overall consciousness, in the context of
tors of production stems from the basic as- how we predict ecosystem responses and in-
sumption that factors are separable. Atom- terpret our ecological options.
ism has a long history in philosophy and the Fourth, we are not experiencing coevolu-
physical sciences. The benefits of modern tionary development through the realization
technology stem from the scientific advances of coevolutionary potential. Knowledge, in-
based on the atomistic assumption, but the stitutions, and even tastes have evolved dur-
social and environmental costs of modern ing the past century around atomistic and
technology can also be attributed to this viewmechanistic paradigms rather than evolution-
of the world. A different and historically an-ary paradigms. The transformation and man-
tecedent view contends that human welfare agement of ecosystems based on prescrip-
and tenure on earth depends on the mainte- tions from atomistic and mechanistic
nance of a harmonious relationship with the paradigms leads to immediate quantifiable
natural world. This perspective is grounded gains to identifiable factors of production
morally in many religions and has been devel- These initial gains, however, have repeatedl
oped further by philosopher-naturalists. For- been followed by costly consequences for so
mal knowledge about ecology and evolution cial and ecological systems. These conse-
during the past century has provided an in- quences have necessitated additional correc-
creasingly strong scientific foundation for this tive social changes and bureaucratic
perspective. Far more than the atomistic- developments that would not have been nec-
mechanistic world view, the harmony-with- essary if the initial changes had been designed
nature world view has provided much of the with a coevolutionary paradigm in mind.
philosophical and scientific bases for the con- Fifth, the coevolutionary perspective gives
servation and environmental movements and a better picture of the nature of the social and
for the resulting resource and environmental ecological problems that accompany the
policies. factor-augmentation approach to develop-
Second, the coevolutionary, or harmony- ment. From this vantage, stock-resource ex-
with-nature, development process has an un- ploitive development appears to be driving a
derlying scientific basis. Plants that capture wedge between the social and ecological sys-
more of the energy from the sun have an ad- tems such that they no longer respond directly
vantage. Plants and animals that establish via-
to each other. Each system responds first to
phenomena of stock-resource exploitation.
ble relationships with each other also have an
advantage. The DNA encoding of these roles The social system responds to the ecological
170 Land Economics
system only because of the detrimental eco-

and through a move away from large, formal,
logical response to stock exploitation. Simi-
centralized, inertia-bound bureaucracies to-
larly, the ecological system responds to ward smaller, regional institutions. These
changes in the social system from stock- thoughts, however, are the beginnings of yet
resource exploitation. The coevolutionary another paper.
feedback system has been blocked and re- Eighth, the paper provides a link between
routed; the prospects for coevolutionary economic
de- and ecological paradigms. A grand
velopment in the future have diminished. synthesis is not the intention but rather an ap-
peal for theoretical pluralism. Receptivity to
Sixth, the coevolutionary vantage high-
alternative vantages on reality facilitates new
lights the uncertainty of the future. Possible
courses of coevolution are unknown. Not insights and exposes old myths, enriching
only do new components and interactions both economics and ecology.
evolve over time, but the rules of evolution Ninth, the coevolutionary development
themselves evolve. The ability to predict con- paradigm provides a new perspective on envi-
sequences, supposedly the true test of a sci- ronmental and cultural transformation. New
ence, is not a strength of evolutionary para- arguments for change and preservation cut
digms. The real uncertainty of the future does across the existing divisions and promise to
not increase as we shift from an atomistic- redefine environmentalists and developers,
mechanistic world view to a coevolutionary stock-resource optimists and pessimists, and
view. Indeed, to the extent that the coevolu- cultural libertarians, protectionists, and re-
tionary perspective leads to more realistic re- formers. Over the past decade, these factions
actions to new conditions, uncertainty should have entered into a costly stalemate and have
decrease. established permanent fronts. A redrawing of
Seventh, it is difficult to imagine how we the lines and redefinition of the interests
will continue to work with ecological and eco- could prove very productive in the future.
nomic thought from here and return to a Tenth, all models evolve in response to
coevolutionary path, optimally combine theparticular questions. In turn, the questions
two perspectives on development, or use theone chooses to pursue, especially in the social
coevolutionary perspective to foresee and sciences, are linked to premises about the nat-
ure and state of the world. The classical eco-
plan for the coevolutionary ramifications of
the neoclassical approach to development.nomic model evolved more than one and a
Specifically, it is difficult to imagine institu- half centuries ago to explore markets and the
tional changes that would ensure that coevo-relation of individual economic actors and the
lutionary user costs be reflected in economic state at a time when feudalism was giving way
decisions. It seems unlikely that these coststo capitalism. With the virtual acceptance of
can be neatly accounted for in property capitalism, the neoclassical model began to
rights, liability rules, procedural rules, or newfocus nearly a century ago on justifying the ef-
bureaucratic structures. Current institutions ficiency per se of market transactions. The as-
presume a certain amount of certainty andsumptions of the neoclassical model are ade-
separability. Property rights, as well as other quate for such a narrow focus. Few people
institutions, are established and maintained today doubt the efficiency of the market ex-
on the premise that actions have limited effect cept with respect to environmental manage-
on definable components and that these ef- ment and intertemporal natural resource allo-
fects do not change over time. The gains from cation. One of the major issues of the latter
taking a coevolutionary world view probably half of this century is whether and how devel-
will be more easily captured through the de- opment might be sustained. The assumptions
velopment of ecological and evolutionary of the neoclassical model are inappropriate
philosophies, land ethics, and social pressure for these questions. The coevolutionary
than through legislation; through a clear model incorporates relationships between
move away from formal analysis and predic- people and their environments based on re-
tion toward the use of cultural knowledge; cent advances in natural science and experi-
ence with modern social systems. The model sis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution. New
is thereby more appropriate for exploring re- York: McGraw-Hill.
lationships between resources, environmen- Daly, Herman. 1983. "The Circular Flow of Ex-
tal systems, and social systems over the long change Value and the Linear Throughput of
run.
Matter-Energy: A Case of Misplaced Con-
creteness." Manuscript in draft.
, ed. 1974. Toward A Steady-State Econ-
omy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
References
, ed. 1980. Economics, Ecology, and Eth-
Altieri, Miquel A.; Letourneau, Deborah K.; and ics. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Davis, James R. 1982. "Developing Sustain- Dasmann, Raymond F.; Milton, John P.; and
able Agroecosystems." Bio-Science. Freeman, Peter H. 1973. Ecological Principles
Anderson, Russell E. 1979. Biological Paths to for Economic Development. New York: John
Energy Self-Reliance. New York: Van Nos- Wiley and Sons.
trand Reinhold Company. Dunn, Edgar S., Jr. 1971. Economic and Social
Ayala, Francisco, and Valentine, James. 1979. Development: A Process of Social Learning.
Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Evolution. Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/ Press.
Cummings Publishing. Durham, William H. 1976. "The Adaptive
Baker, Herbert G., and Hurd, Paul D. 1968. "In- Significance of Cultural Behavior." Human
trafloral Ecology." Annual Review of Ento- Ecology 4 (2):89-121.
mology 13:385-414. . 1978. "Toward a Coevolutionary Theory
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. 1968. General System of Human Biology and Culture." In The Socio-
Theory. New York: George Braziller. biology Debate, Arthur L. Caplan ed. New
Blum, Harold F. 1968. Time's Arrow and Evolu- York: Harper and Row.
tion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Dyson, Freeman. 1979. Disturbing the Universe.
Boserup, Ester. 1965. The Conditions of Agricul- New York: Harper and Row.
tural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Ehrlich, Paul R., and Ehrlich, Anne. 1981. Ex-
Change under Population Pressure. Chicago: tinction: The Causes and Consequences of the
Aldine. Disappearance of Species. New York: Random
. 1981. Population and Technological House.
Change: A Study of Long Term Trends. Chi- ; ; and Holdren, John P. 1977. Eco-
cago: University of Chicago Press. science: Population, Resources, Environment.
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1978. Ecodynamics: A San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
New Theory of Societal Evolution. Beverly , and Raven, Peter H. 1964. "Butterflies
Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. and Plants: A Study of Coevolution." Evolu-
. 1981. Evolutionary Economics. Beverly tion 18:586-608.
Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Ellul, Jacques. 1954. La Technique. Paris: Ar-
Brinkman, Richard L. 1980. "Mankind at the mand Colin. (Translated by John Wilkinson
Starting Point." Journal of Economic Issues and published as The Technological Society.
XIV (June):567-82. New York: Random House, 1964.)
Burness, Stuart; Cummings, Ronald; Morris, Farvar, M. T., and Milton, John P. eds. 1972. The
Glenn; and Paik, Inja. 1980. "Thermodynamic Careless Technology: Ecology and Interna-
and Economic Concepts as Related to Re- tional Development. New York: Natural His-
source Use Policies." Land Economics 55 tory Press.
(Feb.): 1-9. Gatlin, Lila L. 1972. Information Theory and the
Caplan, Arthur L. ed. 1978. The Sociobiology De- System. New York: Columbia Univer-
Living
bate. New York: Harper and Row. sity Press.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., and Feldman, M. W. 1981. Geertz, Clifford. 1963. Agricultural Involution:
Cultural Transmission and Evolution. Prince- The Processes of Ecological Change in Indone-
ton: Princeton University Press. sia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chacon, J. C., and Gliessman, S. R. 1982. "Use Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy
of the 'Non-Weed' Concept in Traditional Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge,
Tropical Agroecosystems of South-Eastern Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Mexico." Agro-Ecosystems 8. . 1975. "Energy and Economic Myths."
Corning, Peter A. 1983. The Synergism Hypothe- Southern Economic Journal 41(3):347-381.
172 Land Economics
Gliessman, S. R., and Amador, A. M. 1980. "Ec- lished in German in 1973 by R. Piper and Com-
ological Aspects of Production in Traditional pany Verlag.)
Agroecosystems in the Humid Lowland Trop- Lovelock, J. E. 1979. Gaia: A New Look at Life
ics of Mexico." Tropical Ecology and Develop-on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ment. Lumsden, Charles J., and Wilson, Edward 0.
; Garcia, R.; and Amador, A. M. 1981. 1981. Genes, Mind, and Culture: Coevolu-
"The Ecological Basis for the Application of tionary Process. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
Traditional Agricultural Technology in the University Press.
Management of Tropical Agro-Ecosystems." Myers, Norman. 1979. The Sinking Ark. New
Agro-Ecosystems 7:173-85. York: Pergamon Press.
Gould, Stephen J. 1982. "Darwinism and the Ex- Netting, Robert McC. 1977. Cultural Ecology.
pansion of Evolutionary Theory." Science 216 Menlo Park, Calif.: Cummings Publishing Co.
(Apr. 23):380-7. Norgaard, Richard B. 1984. "Coevolutionary Ag-
. 1980. "Is a New General Theory of Evo- ricultural Development." Forthcoming in
lution Emerging?" Paleobiology 6(1):119-30. Journal of Economic Development and Cul-
Goulet, Denis. 1971. The Cruel Choice: A New tural Change. (Jan.). (Also available as Gian-
Concept in the Theory of Economic Develop- nini Foundation. University of California.
ment. New York: Athenem. Working Paper No. 163.)
. 1977. The Uncertain Promise: Value Con- . 1983. "Resource Scarcity and the Sociol-
flicts in Technology Transfer. New York: ogy of Economics." Draft manuscript availa-
IDOC/North America. ble from author.
Greene, John C. Science, Ideology, and World . 1982. "Resource Economics and Devel-
View. Berkeley: University of California opment Economics: Synthesis or Reformula-
Press. tion?" Center for Resource Policy Studies.
Grigg, D. B. 1974. The Agricultural Systems of the University of Wisconsin. Working Paper 19.
World: An Evolutionary Approach. Cam- (Also available as Giannini Foundation, Uni-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. versity of California. Working Paper No. 203.)
Harris, Marvin. 1979. Cultural Mate 'ialism: The . 1981. "Sociosystem and Ecosystem
Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York: Coevolution in the Amazon." Journal of Envi-
Random House. ronmental and Economic Management 8
Heilbroner, Robert L. 1980. An Inquiry into the (Sept.):238-54.
Human Prospect. New York: W. W. Norton Odum, Eugene P. 1969. "The Strategy of Ecosys-
and Company. tem Development." Science 164 (Apr.
Henderson, Lawrence J. 1913. The Fitness of the 18):262-70.
Environment. New York: Macmillan and . 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd Edi-
Company. tion. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Jantsch, Erich. 1980. The Self-Organizing Uni- Odum, Howard T. 1971. Environment, Power,
verse: Scientific and Human Implications of the and Society. New York: Wiley.
Emerging Paradigm of Evolution. Oxford: , and Pigeon, R. F., eds. 1970. "A Tropical
Pergamon Press. Rainforest. A Study of Irradiation and Ecol-
Kamishlov, M. M. 1974. Evolution of the Bio- ogy at El Verde, Puerto Rico." Washington,
sphere. Moscow: MIR Publishers. (Translated D. C. National Technical Information Service.
by Minna Brodskaya and published in English Pulliam, H. Ronald, and Dunford, Christopher
in 1976.) 1980. Programmed to Learn: An Essay on the
Kapp, K. William. 1950. The Social Costs of Pri- Evolution of Culture. New York: Columbia
vate Enterprise. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
University Press. Rappaport, Roy A. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors:
Lasswell, Harold; Lerner, Daniel; and Montgom- Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People.
ery, John D. 1976. Values and Development: New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Appraising Asian Experience. Cambridge, Rifkin, Jeremy. 1980. Entropy: A New World
Mass.: The MIT Press. View. New York: Viking Press.
Lorenz, Konrad. 1966. On Aggression. New Schrodinger, Erwin. 1944. What is Life? Cam-
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. bridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 1977. Behind The Mirror: A Search for a Steward, Julian H. 1968. "Cultural Ecology." In
Natural History of Knowledge. New York: International Encyclopedia of the Social Sci-
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. (Originally pub- ences, David L. Sills (ed). 4:337-44. New
York: Macmillan. von Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. 1963. Resource Conser-

. 1977. Evolution and Ecology: Essays on vation: Economics and Policies. Berkeley:
Social Transformation, eds. Jane C. Steward University of California, Division of Agricul-
and Robert F. Murphy. Urbana: University of tural Sciences.
Illinois Press. Wilson, Edward 0. 1975. Sociobiology: The New
Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. 1959. The Future of Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
Man. (Translated by Norman Denny. New versity Press.
York: Harper and Row, 1964.) Winner, Langdon. 1977. Autonomous Technol-
Tullock, Gordon. 1971. "Biological External- ogy: Technics-Out-Of-Control As a Theme in
ities." Journal of Theoretical Biology 33:565- Political Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: The
76. MIT Press.

Norgaard R. (Coevolutionary Development Potential)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Norgaard R. (Coevolutionary Development Potential)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Coevolutionary Development Potential

Author(s): Richard B. Norgaard

If economic development is real-notthe real world. It is ironic that environmental

mental systems and incorporates assumptions societies in homeostatic equilibrium with

productivity of the few individuals still work-

form the highly diverse and complex ecosys-

sense. In Alaska, the Middle East, and other

system only because of the detrimental eco-

York: Macmillan. von Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. 1963. Resource Conser-

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi