Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 373–390 | Cite as

Tracing operational conditions for the Ecologically Sustainable Economic Development: the Pareto optimality and the preservation of the biological crucial levels

  • Kostas Bithas
Original Paper


The operational designing of Environmentally Sustainable Economic Development (ESED) emerges as an urgent and demanding task. Even though ESED has paved the way for thought-provoking and constructive scientific dialogue, appeal for designing an operational ESED is still lagging behind the needs of contemporary societies, leaving much to be desired. With this in mind, the present paper will aim at delineating principles for the operational application of ESED. First, the preservation of crucial properties of environmental functions and ecosystems, emerges as a prime condition of ESED. The second condition concerns the provision of the economic process with sufficient natural inputs; in this context, the paper intends to trace certain operational tenets governing the use of natural resources. Finally, the appropriate institutional settings for the operational design of ESED are traced.


Sustainable development Co-evolutionary development Intergenerational Pareto optimality Safe minimum standards Critical natural capital Conditions of sustainable development Institutional economics 


  1. Allen, R. (1980). How to save the world. New Jersey: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, S. E., & Halvorsen, R. (1984). Parametric efficiency tests, economies of scale and input demand in U.S. electric power generation. International Economic Review, 25, 623–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbier, E. B., & Markandya, A. (1990). The conditions for achieving environmentally sustainable growth. European Economic Review, 34, 659–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop, R. (1978). Endangered species and uncertainty: The economics of a safe minimum standard. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christensen, P. P. (1989). Historical roots of ecological economics biophysical versus allocative approaches. Ecological Economics, 1, 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, C. W. (Ed.) (1976). Mathematical bioeconomics: The optimal management of renewable resources. New York: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
  7. Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daly, H. E. (Ed.) (1999). Ecological economics and the ecology of economics. Essays in criticism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgard.Google Scholar
  9. Ekins, P., Folke, C., & De Groot, R. (2003). Identifying critical natural capital. Ecological Economics, 44, 159–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1976). Energy and economic myths, institutional and analytical economic essays. New York: Pergamon press.Google Scholar
  12. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1979). Comment on the papers by Daly and Stiglitz. In V. K. Smith (Ed.), Scarcity and growth reconsidered (pp. 95–105). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goodland, R., & Ledec, G. (1987). Neoclassical economics and principles of sustainable development. Ecological Modeling, 38, 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hicks, J. (1939). The foundations of welfare economics. Economic Journal, 69, 696–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hudson, E. A., & Jorgenson, W. D. (1974). US energy policy and economic growth 1975–2000. Bell Journal of Economics, 5, 461–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. James, D. E., Nijkamp, P., & Opschoor, J. B. (1989). Ecological sustainability and economic development. In F. Archibugy & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), Ecology and economy, towards sustainable development. Edward Eglard.Google Scholar
  17. Kaldor, N. (1939). Welfare propositions in economics and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Economic Journal, 69, 549–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norgaard, R. (1984). Coevolutionary development potentials. Land Economics, 60, 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Norgaard, R. (Ed.) (1994). Development betrayed: The end of progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of the future. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Norgaard, R. (1995). Beyond materialism: A coevolutionary interpretation of the environmental crisis. Review of Social Economics, LIII(4), 475–492.Google Scholar
  21. Obum, H. T. (1971). Environment, power and society. New York: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
  22. Passet, R. (Ed.) (1979). L économique et le vivant. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
  23. Pearce, D. W., & Atkinson, G. (1993). Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: An indicator of “weak” sustainability. Ecological Economics, 8, 103–108.Google Scholar
  24. Pearce, D. W., & Turner, R. K. (1991). Economics of natural resources and the environment. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pezzey, J. (1989). Economic analysis of sustainable growth and development. Working Paper no 15. Envrironmental Department. The World Bank.Google Scholar
  26. Rammel, C., & Van de Bergh, J. (2003). Evolutionary policies for sustainable development: Adaptive flexibility and risk minimizing. Ecological Economics, 48, 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Solow, R. M. (1974). The economics of resources or the resources of economics. American Economic Review, 64, 1–14.Google Scholar
  28. Solow, R. M. (1986). On the intergenerational allocation of natural resources. Journal Environment Economics and Management, 4, 1–24.Google Scholar
  29. Tietenbergh, T. (1996). Environment and natural resource economics. New York: Harper Collins College.Google Scholar
  30. Van de Bergh, J., & Nijkamp, P. (1991). Operationalyzing sustainable development: Dynamic biological–economic models. Ecological Economics, 4, 11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Von Bartalanffy, L. (1972). Theorie generale des system as. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  32. WECD, (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Regional DevelopmentPanteion University of Social and Political SciencesAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations