Dear All
I will try to reply in shorter "chunks" to avoid the indigestion reading
syndrome:
Pedro: Although in recent years several Nobel prizes have gone to studies on
information in markets, asymmetries, agents, etc., and all the boom of the
"knowledge engineering" paradigms in management practices, the coherence of
the infoeconomic doctrine looks far from been established. If would be nice
if Igor or other colleagues highlight the pros and cons of those basic
approaches and how they fare particularly regarding the possibilities of
the ecological economics school (how could human networks by means of their
inclusive economic-ascendancy internalize the information needed to
evaluate a "silent" ecological network?).
Igor: neoclassical economics and neoliberal politics argue that
internalization of information needed to evaluate a "silent" ecological
network comes primarily from the market/price system. Ecological economists
disagree and propose multidimensional scale analysis, like, for example,
Multiscale Integrated Assessment of Societal Metabolism (MSIASM) of Mario
Giampietro and Kozo Mayumi. Other, like Robert Costanza, tried to evaluate
immaterial aspects of nature (mostly its service and sink functions) in
monetary terms in order to show that vast amounts of value (and information)
lie outside the market/price system, and cannot be easily incorporated into
it. Still other believe that ethical dimension is indispensable in
internalizing successfully information coming from ecosystems - first we
must value nature per se in order to able to perceive and process
information coming out of it. And so on... basically there is no (and cannot
exist) a single way as how modern societies may internalize ecological
information. I think that both objective (scientific knowledge) and
subjective (values and beliefs that we share about nature) dimensions are
indispensable. At present we lack both, although some progress has been
accomplished in the past two decades. This discussion is surely making a
step in that direction, and I am happy to learn new things and approaches.
James: This makes for new relations not
subject to traditional mathematical treatments but to new socially
interdynamic ones. And it is the control of asset decision-rights
that rests at the heart of public/global economic dynamics; including
rights to access any accruable/eventual benefits.
Igor: control of asset decision-rights is very important in understanding
the dynamics of economic networks and its effects on ecological networks.
Some "nodes" in the economic network are not simply larger than others but
wield economic and political power which cannot be accounted for in standard
measurement of flows (material, monetary, or energy). This non-transparent
feature of economic networks calls for caveats when we wish to apply
traditional mathematical or computer modeling methods. Unfortunately, this
"grey" power often plays a key role in the unfolding of events that we later
call history. The problem of asset control and decision-rights over land,
air sea etc. is implicit in all sorts of problems that come under the name
of the "tragedy of the commons". It was also important in the
industrialization of Western Europe where new rules regarding land ownership
and land use, practically drove thousands of "suddenly landless" to the
cities where they served as an energy input to the new autocatalytic loop of
factories.
The very best
Igor
Dr. Igor Matutinovi�
Managing Director
GfK - Center for market research
Dra�kovi�eva 54,
10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
Phone: 00385 1 49 21 222
Fax: 00385 1 49 21 223
E-mail: igor.matutinovic@gfk.hr
www.gfk.hr
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed May 18 14:13:02 2005
