The historical error of economic science: a rescue of Georgescu-Roegen’s work
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v52i0.65881Keywords:
ecological economics, natural resources, energy, neoclassical economicsAbstract
This essay makes a historical resumption of the work of the Romanian economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, considered one of the mentors of the Ecological Economics but forgotten in his time. By using a bibliographical reference and starting from a critical analysis of the Neoclassical Economics conception, it is maintained that the errors of the economic mainstream are due to a myopic view on the use of the natural resources, an error in the approach of the use of the production factor nature (N). Roegen noticed this in the 1960s, but orthodox economists never took into account. Thus this error grounded a whole scientific school, originating a collective analytic "myopia" of its followers. This is a partial analysis of Georgescu-Roegen’s works, the "teacher of teachers", and a provocative challenge to other researchers who may want to oppose the perspective defended here.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright on works published in this journal rests with the author, with first publication rights for the journal. The content of published works is the sole responsibility of the authors. DMA is an open access journal and has adopted the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Not Adapted (CC-BY) license since January 2023. Therefore, when published by this journal, articles are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercial) and adapt (remix, transform, and create from the material for any purpose, even commercial). You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license and indicate if changes have been made.
The contents published by DMA from v. 53, 2020 to v. 60, 2022 are protected by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
DMA has been an open access journal since its creation, however, from v.1 of 2000 to v. 52 of 2019, the journal did not adopt a Creative Commons license and therefore the type of license is not indicated on the first page of the articles.
