Sustainability Science

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 1297–1307 | Cite as

A new normative economics for the formation of shared social values

  • Neil RavenscroftEmail author
Special Feature: Original Article Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability


There is mounting evidence that a new set of principles is required to form and express, rather than capture, social values for sustainability. This is because many policy questions are sufficiently complex that individual people do not—possible cannot—hold fully pre-formed values with respect to them. Thus, when people are faced with such issues, a process is required to enable them collectively to form and express a bespoke set of values that are shared. This process of shared social value formation can be understood as normative, to the extent that those involved participate in a process of ascribing values to others. This invites us to reconsider the role of normative economics, because it implies that both procedural and distributive justice is unlikely to be achieved through conventional economic logic and processes. The paper argues that the theoretical traditions that have juxtaposed positive and normative economics have been lost, such that rational choice has been progressively limited to the maximisation of economic surplus. This may be acceptable for some policy areas where the state and the individual dominate. However, the formation of social values for sustainability demands a composite approach that enables individuals to work together to form values with respect to issues about which they may have little immediate reference. The paper identifies five principles for establishing normative shared social values, relating to social units of analysis, procedural and distributive justice, dialectical decision-making and the development of social value transfer as a means of relating the shared social values formed and expressed in one context with those appropriate for a related context. The paper concludes with an agenda for research that can test, develop and refine the five principles for normative deliberated social values for sustainability.


Normative economics Distributive justice Shared social values Deliberation Social value transfer 


  1. Acott T (2017) WetlandLIFE: nested ecosystem services, wellbeing and valuing nature. In: Paper presented at Valuing Nature Annual Conference 2017, held at the John McIntyre Centre, University of Edinburgh, 18-19 October 2017.
  2. Ainscough J, Wilson M, Kenter JO (2018) Ecosystem services as a post-normal field of science. Ecosyst Serv 31:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson M, Teisl M, Noblet C, Klein S (2015) The incompatibility of benefit–cost analysis with sustainability science. Sustain Sci 10:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson M, Teisl M, Noblet C (2016) Whose values count: is a theory of social choice for sustainability science possible? Sustain Sci 11:373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbopoulos I, Johansson L-O (2016) A multi-dimensional approach to consumer motivation: exploring economic, hedonic, and normative consumption goals. J Consum Mark 33(1):75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartkowski B, Lienhoop N (2018) Beyond rationality, towards reasonableness: enriching the theoretical foundation of deliberative monetary valuation. Ecol Econ 143(Supplement C):97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callon M (1999) The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Sci Technol Soc 4(1):81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cory GA (2006) A behavioral model of the dual motive approach to behavioral economics and social exchange. J Socioecon 35:592–612Google Scholar
  9. Costanza R, Folke C (1997) Valuing ecosystem services with efficiency, fairness and sustainability as goals. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Costanza R, de Groot R, Braat L, Kubiszewski I, Fioramonti L, Sutton P, Farber S, Grasso M (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst Serv 28:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Marchi B, Ravetz JR (2001) Participatory approaches to environmental policy. EVE policy research brief series no. 10. Cambridge Research for the Environment, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Diaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chai KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA, Polasky S, Church A, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A, Leadley PW, van Oudenhoven APE, van der Plaat F, Schröter M, Lavorel S, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bukvareva E, Davies K, Demissew S, Erpul G, Failler P, Guerra CA, Hewid CL, Keune H, Lindley S, Shirayama Y (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359(6373):270–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donaldson A, Ward N, Bradley S (2010) Mess among disciplines: interdisciplinarity in environment research. Environment & Planning A 42:1521–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dryzek JS (2013) The deliberative democrat’s idea of justice. Eur J Political Theory 12:329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dryzek JS, Pickering J (2017) Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance. Ecol Econ 131:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eggleston B (2004) Procedural justice in Young’s inclusive deliberative democracy. J Soc Philos 35(4):544–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elster J (1982) Sour grapes—utilitarianism and the genesis of wants. In: Sen A, Williams B (eds) Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 219–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Habermas J (1983) Theory of communicative action, volume one: reason and the rationalization of society. Translated by McCarthy, T.A. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansjürgens B, Schröter-Schlaack C, Berghöfer A, Lienhoop N (2017) Justifying social values of nature: economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences. Ecosyst Serv 23:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heindl P, Kanschik P (2016) Ecological sufficiency, individual liberties, and distributive justice: implications for policy making. Ecol Econ 126:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horcea-Milcu AI, Abson DJ, Apetrei C, Riechers M, Dușe I-A, Dorninger C, Lam DPM, Freeth R, Lang DJ (2019) Values in transformational sustainability science: four discourses for change. Sustain Sci (this issue)Google Scholar
  22. Irvine KA, O’Brien L, Ravenscroft N, Cooper N, Everard M, Fazey I, Reed MS, Kenter JO (2016) Ecosystem services and the idea of shared values. Ecosyst Serv 21:184–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jobstvogt N, Hanley N, Hynes S, Kenter JO, Witte U (2014) Twenty thousand sterling under the sea: estimating the value of protecting deep-sea biodiversity. Ecol Econ 97:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kenter JO (2016) Editorial: shared, plural and cultural values. Ecosyst Serv 21:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kenter JO (2017) Deliberative monetary valuation. In: Spash C (ed) Ch. 34 in Routledge handbook of ecological economics. Taylor & Francis Ltd, Abingdon, OxonGoogle Scholar
  26. Kenter JO, Hyde T, Christie M, Fazey I (2011) The importance of deliberation in valuing ecosystem services in developing countries—evidence from the Solomon Islands. Global Environ Change 21:505–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kenter JO, Reed MS, Irvine KN, O’Brien E, Brady E, Bryce R, Christie M, Church A, Cooper N, Davies A, Hockley N, Fazey I, Jobstvogt N, Molloy C, Orchard-Webb J, Ravenscroft N, Ryan M, Watson V (2014) UK National Ecosystem Assessment follow-on: work package report 6: shared plural and cultural values of ecosystems. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Kenter JO, O’Brien L, Hockley N, Ravenscroft N, Fazey I, Irvine KN, Reed MS, Christie M, Brady E, Bryce R, Church A, Cooper N, Davies A, Evely A, Everard M, Fish R, Fisher JA, Jobstvogt N, Molloy C, Orchard-Webb J, Ranger S, Ryan M, Watson V, Williams S (2015) What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol Econ 111:86–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenter JO, Reed MS, Fazey I (2016a) The deliberative value formation model. Ecosyst Serv 21:194–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kenter JO, Bryce R, Christie M, Cooper N, Hockley N, Irvine KN, Fazey I, O’Brien L, Orchard-Webb J, Ravenscroft N, Raymond C, Reed MS, Tett P, Watson V (2016b) Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosyst Serv 21:358–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolm S-C (2000) A historical introduction to normative economics. Soc Choice Welf 17:707–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Landsburg SE (2007) The methodology of normative economics. J Public Econ Theory 9(5):757–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lien AM, Schlager E, Lona A (2018) Using institutional grammar to improve understanding of the form and function of payment for ecosystem services programs. Ecosyst Serv 31(Part A):21Google Scholar
  34. Lienhoop N, Bartkowski B, Hansjürgens B (2015) Informing biodiversity policy: the role of economic valuation, deliberative institutions and deliberative monetary valuation. Environ Sci Policy 54:522–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lo AY, Spash CL (2013) Deliberative monetary valuation: in search of a democratic and value plural approach to environmental policy. J Econ Surv 27:768–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin A, McGuire S, Sullivan S (2013) Global environmental justice and biodiversity conservation. Geogr J 179(2):122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Massenberg JR (2019) Social values and sustainability: a retrospective view on the contribution of economics. Sustainability Sci (this issue)Google Scholar
  38. McQuillin B, Sugden R (2012) Reconciling normative and behavioural economics: the problems to be solved. Soc Choice Welf 38:553–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D (2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mongin P (2006) A concept of progress for normative economics. Econ Philos 22:19–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Neill J, Spash C (2000) Conceptions of value in environmental decision-making. Environ Values 9:21–536Google Scholar
  42. Orchard-Webb J, Kenter JO, Bryce R, Church A (2016) Deliberative democratic monetary valuation to implement the ecosystem approach. Ecosyst Serv 21:308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pelletier N (2010) Environmental sustainability as the first principle of distributive justice: towards an ecological communitarian normative foundation for ecological economics. Ecol Econ 69:1887–1894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ranger S, Kenter JO, Bryce R, Cumming G, Dapling T, Lawes E, Richardson P (2016) Forming shared values in conservation management: an interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices. Ecosyst Serv 21:344–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  46. Rawluk A, Ford RM, Anderson N, Williams KJ (2019) Exploring multiple dimensions of values and valuing: a conceptual framework for mapping and translating values for social-ecological research and practice. Sustain Sci (this issue)Google Scholar
  47. Raymond C, Kenter J (2016) Transcendental values and the valuation and management of ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 21:241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raymond CM, Kenter JO, Plieninger T, Turner NJ, Alexander KA (2014) Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 107:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer LC (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4):r1. (online)
  50. Richardson L, Loomis J, Kroeger T, Casey F (2015) The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation. Ecol Econ 115:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rodriguez-Morales JE, Rawluk A (2019) Exploring technologies of power in the expression of social values for sustainability: an example from Latin America. Sustain Sci (this issue)Google Scholar
  52. Sagoff M (1988) Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: a look beyond contingent pricing. Ecol Econ 24:213–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schlosberg D, Collins LB (2014) From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. WIRES Clim Change 5(3):359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmidt S (2017) A proposal for more sophisticated normative principles in introductory economics. J Econ Educ 48(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmieg G, Meyer E, Schrickel I, Herberg J, Caniglia G, Vilsmaier U, Laubichler M, Horl E, Lang D (2018) Modeling normativity in sustainability: a comparison of the sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement, and the papal encyclical. Sustain Sci 13:785–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sen A (2002) The informational basis of social choice. In: Arrow KJ, Sen A, Suzumura K (eds) Handbook of social choice and welfare. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Boston, pp 29–46Google Scholar
  57. Sen A (2010) The idea of justice. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Spash CL (2007) Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecol Econ 63(4):690–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spash CL, Vatn A (2006) Transferring environmental value estimates: issues and alternatives. Ecol Econ 60:379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Strunz S, Klauer B, Ring I, Schiller J (2017) Between Scylla and Charybdis? On the place of economic methods in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 12:421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Warlenius R, Pierce G, Ramasar V (2015) Reversing the arrow of arrears: the concept of ‘‘ecological debt’’ and its value for environmental justice. Global Environ Change 30:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Westberg L, Polk M (2016) The role of learning in transdisciplinary research: moving from a normative concept to an analytical tool through a practice-based approach. Sustain Sci 11:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Whatmore SJ (2009) Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. Prog Hum Geogr 33(5):587–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson MA, Hoehn JP (2006) Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: the state-of-the art and science. Ecol Econ 60:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson MA, Howarth RB (2002) Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol Econ 41:431–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environment and TechnologyUniversity of BrightonBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations