IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ias/cpaper/90-wp62.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economics and Ecology: A Comparison of Experimental Methodologies and Philosophies

Author

Listed:
  • Jason F. Shogren
  • Clifford Nowell

Abstract

Views of the proper role of experiments in (environmental) economics and ecology have developed quite differently. Economics has devoted the majority of effort to abstract theory, with experimentation coming in a distant second. Kagel quotes a colleague who illustrates a common perception among economists: "I am a 'true believer' in microeconomic theory, and as a result I am perfectly willing to accept mathematical proofs without experimental evidence. In contrast, ecology has focused on observation-based experiments as the primary mechanism of research, almost separate from the development of abstract theoretical ecology. Kareiva notes that "sad truth is that ecological theory exists largely in a world of its own, unnoticed by mainstream ecology." We explore why this divergence has developed and persisted. The main reason is economists and ecologists differ in their assumptions regarding the objective function of a model. Economists generally assume the objective function is well-defined; ecologists view the function as unknown. We highlight recent research in environmental economics to illustrate the economist's approach to experimentation.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason F. Shogren & Clifford Nowell, 1990. "Economics and Ecology: A Comparison of Experimental Methodologies and Philosophies," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 90-wp62, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:90-wp62
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=665
    File Function: Online Synopsis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fisher, Ann & Wheeler, William J. & Zwick, Rami, 1993. "Experimental Methods In Agricultural And Resource Economics: How Useful Are They?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Bohm, Peter, 2003. "Experimental evaluations of policy instruments," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 10, pages 437-460, Elsevier.
    3. Jason F. Shogren, 2002. "Micromotives in Global Environmental Policy," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 47-61, October.
    4. Shogren, Jason F., 2006. "Experimental Methods and Valuation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 969-1027, Elsevier.
    5. Shogren, Jason F., 1993. "Experimental Markets And Environmental Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 22(2), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Faucheux, Sylvie & Froger, Geraldine & Noel, Jean-Francois, 1995. "What forms of rationality for sustainable development?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 169-209.
    7. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2000. "Ecological Economics: Themes, Approaches, and Differences with Environmental Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-080/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    8. Shogren, Jason F., 2002. "A behavioral mindset on environment policy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 355-369.
    9. Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh & Kenneth J. Button, 1997. "Meta-analysis of Environmental Issues in Regional, Urban and Transport Economics," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 34(5-6), pages 927-944, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ias:cpaper:90-wp62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/caiasus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.