SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Fiscaoeconomia / 2026 / Volume: 4 Issue: 1

The Reflections of Debate of the Production, Population and Nature Relations in Macroeconomic Balance to the Biocentric and Sociocentric Ecological Approaches

Ferda Uzunyayla(ABANT İZZET BAYSAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3061-767X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2020-01-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this context, how the two prominent ecological approaches, Deep Ecology and Social Ecology examine the issue of production and population, and what is the difference in their analysis will be discussed within the scope of the study.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:While the effect of the relationship between production, population and nature on the economic balance is discussed in terms of “steady state” with a pessimistic point of view in the analysis of classical economists, it is studied with an optimistic perspective by neoclassical economists that the natural resource constraints will not create any obstacles to growth because of the substitution effect and technological innovations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, this type of economic analysis has been criticized because it deals with natural resources for production and growth and thusly has a human-centric perspective.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this context, how the two prominent ecological approaches, Deep Ecology and Social Ecology examine the issue of production and population, and what is the difference in their analysis will be discussed within the scope of the study.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Deep Ecology · Social Ecology · Nature-Society-Economy Relations

Abstract

While the effect of the relationship between production, population and nature on the economic balance is discussed in terms of “steady state” with a pessimistic point of view in the analysis of classical economists, it is studied with an optimistic perspective by neoclassical economists that the natural resource constraints will not create any obstacles to growth because of the substitution effect and technological innovations. However, this type of economic analysis has been criticized because it deals with natural resources for production and growth and thusly has a human-centric perspective. The aim of this study is to examine how these economic debates are surveyed in ecological approaches. In this context, how the two prominent ecological approaches, Deep Ecology and Social Ecology examine the issue of production and population, and what is the difference in their analysis will be discussed within the scope of the study.

🔖

Cite This Article

Uzunyayla, F. (2020). The Reflections of Debate of the Production, Population and Nature Relations in Macroeconomic Balance to the Biocentric and Sociocentric Ecological Approaches. Fiscaoeconomia, Volume: 4 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.2020.01.001

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Brown, L. (2009), Dünyayı Nasıl Tükettik? İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  2. Bookchin, M. (1996), Ekolojik Bir Topluma Doğru (çev. A. Yılmaz). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  3. Bookchin, M. (1996a), Toplumsal Ekolojinin Felsefesi (çev. R.G. Öğdül). İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi.
  4. Bookchin, M. (1999), Toplumu Yeniden Kurmak (çev. K. Şahin). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
  5. Burkett, P. (2004), Marx ve Doğa (çev. E.Özkaya). Ankara: Epos Yayınları.
  6. Burkett, P. (2008), Marksizm ve Ekolojik İktisat: Kızıl ve Yeşil Bir Ekonomi Politiğe Doğru (çev. E. Günçiner). İstanbul: Yordam Kitap.
  7. Çınar, S. (2015), “Doğal Kaynaklar ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler Örneği”. Marmara Üniversitesi İ.İ.B. Dergisi, 37(2), 171-190.
  8. Devall, B. ve Sessions, G. (1985), Deep Ecology: Living As If Nature Mattered. Utah: Peregrine Smith Books.
  9. Dünya Bankası (1992), Development and Environment. New York: Oxford University Press.
  10. England, R. W. (2000), “Natural Capital and Theory of Economic Growth”. Ecological Economics, 34, 425-431.
  11. Foster, J.B. (2002), Savunmasız Gezegen, Ankara: Epos Yayınları.
  12. Foster, J.B. (2003), “Between Economics and Ecology: Some Historical and Philosophical Considerations for Modellers of Natural Capital”, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 86, 63-74.
  13. Malthus, T. R. (1967), An Essay on the Principle of Population, Volume Two. London: Aldine Press.
  14. Mankiw, G. (2009), Makro Ekonomi. Ankara: Eflatun Yayınevi.
  15. Nadeau, R.L. (2003), The Wealth of Nature: How Mainstream Economics Has Failed the Environment. New York: Columbia University Press.
  16. Naess, A. (1985), An Interview with Arne Naess. In B.Devall & G.Sessions, Deep Ecology: Living As If Nature Mattered (pp. 74-78). Utah: Peregrine Smith Books.
  17. Naess, A. (1994), Derin Ekolojinin Temelleri. In G. Tamkoç (Ed.) Derin Ekoloji (pp. 9-17). İzmir: Ege Yayıncılık.
  18. Naess, A. (1995a), The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects. In G. Sessions (Ed.), Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 64-84). Boston: Shambhala Publications.
  19. Naess, A. (1995b), The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movements: A Summary. In G. Sessions (Ed.), Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 151-156). Boston: Shambhala Publications.
  20. Naess, A. (1995c), Deepness of Questions and the Deep Ecology Movement. In G. Sessions (Ed.), Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 204-213). Boston: Shambhala Publications.
  21. Naess, A. (1995d), The Deep Ecology “Eight Points” Revisited. In G. Sessions (Ed.), Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 213-221). Boston: Shambhala Publications.
  22. Naess, A. (1995e), Politics and the Ecological Crisis: An Introductory Note. In G. Sessions (Ed), Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 445-454). Boston: Shambhala Publications.
  23. Naess, A. (1995f), Deep Ecology for the Twenty-second Century. In G. Sessions (Ed), Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 463-469). Boston: Shambhala Publications.
  24. Naess, A. (2001), Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of An Ecosophy (çev. D. Rothenberg). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  25. Ricardo, D. (2007), Ekonomi Politiğin ve Vergilendirmenin İlkeleri (çev. T. Ertan). İstanbul: Belge Yayınları.
  26. Rothenberg, D. (2001), Introduction: Ecosophy T-from intuition to system. In A.Naess, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of An Ecosophy (pp. 1-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Smith, A. (2006), Milletlerin Zenginliği (çev. H. Derin). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
  28. Sessions, G. (1995), Ecocentrism and the Anthropocentric Detour. G. In G.Sessions (Ed.), Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 156-184). Boston: Shambhala Publications.
  29. Sessions, G. (1995), Arne Naess On Deep Ecology and Ecosophy: Introduction. In G. Sessions (Ed.), Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 185-194). Boston: Shambhala Publications.
  30. Tamkoç, G. (1994), Derin Ekoloji (Yeşil Politika) Terimleri. In G. Tamkoç (Ed.), Derin Ekoloji (pp. 124-126). İzmir: Ege Yayıncılık
  31. Zimmerman, M. E. (1989), “Introduction to Deep Ecology”. Global Climate Change, 22, Summer.
  32. footprintnetwork.org. (2010). [Accessed 12.12. 2010].