Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (63) (remove)
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (27)
- Contribution to Periodical (10)
- Working Paper (10)
- Report (6)
- Conference Object (4)
- Book (3)
- Part of a Book (3)
Language
- English (63) (remove)
Division
- Präsidialbereich (63) (remove)
The contribution of natural resources and ecosystems to economic processes still remains under-assessed by market evaluation and productivity analysis. Following the historical lines of the classical productivity debate ranging from the French Physiocrats to early neoclassical growth theories, the productivity concept underwent a gradual transformation from its previous understanding based on natural resources and other environmental factors to its contemporary narrow notion. This paper claims that the course of the classical debate has shaped the scope of predominant contemporary analysis. Except for some very recent findings, multifactor productivity largely focusses on a two-factor model. Material Flow Analysis (MFA) provides a useful step for widening the measurement and notion of productivity.
During the UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro 1992 unsustainable consumption and production patterns were identified as one of the key driving forces behind the unsustainable development of the world (Agenda 21, chapter 4). These consumption and production patterns are based on the European model of industrialisation, spread around the globe in the age of colonisation and brought to extremes by the upper-class of industrialised societies, in particular in the United States, but also in a number of countries in the South. Therefore, all states of the world share the task of developing sustainable consumption and production patterns, while particular responsibility rests with the industrialised nations of Europe, North America and Japan. They, and the thriving but small rich elite in the transition countries and in the South, form a global consumer society, with shared products, lifestyles and aspirations. As it is essential to support the transition towards sustainable development by providing the proper information in an operational manner, the UNCED conference has called for the development of suitable means of information, and in particular for the development of sustainability indicators applicable throughout the world (Agenda 21, chapter 40). The UNDESA set of indicators for changing consumption and production patterns offers helpful advice in this regard but still lacks the theoretical underpinning needed to consistently complete it by defining the few still missing indicators. This paper undertakes to suggest such a methodology based on the environmental space concept. It derives a set of science based indicators from this approach which are easily applicable in everyday life and analyses the environmental relevance of the consumption clusters chosen for analysis as well as the relevance of the phenomena characterised by the indicators suggested. As households are just one actor in the field of consumption, a qualitative assessment of influences is performed and the result depicting the key actors for each environmentally relevant consumption cluster is presented as an actor matrix.
The article analyses Japanese approaches to dealing with eco-efficiency from an institutional perspective. Our main outlook is that though promising attempts have been made despite the overall economic crisis, a better horizontal coordination among both administrations and businesses is required. The governance processes can be analysed following approaches developed by New Institutional Economics and related policy analysis. The paper is divided into three sections. The first introduces the concept of eco-efficiency and explains the demand for regulatory policies from theories of market failures; the paper argues in favour of innovationoriented regulation. The second examines how a nation's institutional capabilities influence knowledge generation towards new solutions that sell on the markets; the "capacity-building approach" as developed by Martin Jänicke is explicitly discussed. The third section discusses contemporary Japanese policies with regard to waste, energy and material flows both on the governmental and the business level. It explains how European approaches diffuse and merge with domestic Japanese institutions. However, governance of eco-efficiency is expected to continue to differ due to ongoing national differences and specific conditions of knowledge creation.
The paper sketches out a theoretical framework for analysing the interplay between eco-efficiency, cognition and institutions. It derives from analytical shortfalls of the prevailing literature, which features strongly engineering and business economics, by using insights from New Institutional Economics, from Cognitive Sciences and, partly, from Evolutionary Economics. It emphasises the role cognition and institutions play in the adoption of "green" technologies by firms. A cognitive perspective derives from recent research on simple heuristics and context-based rationality; it is proposed that those recent findings can serve to analyse decision-making of individual actors or firms and, thus, should complement economic analysis. A second proposition is that eco-efficiency and normative rules such as a Factor Four strongly rely upon institutions, i.e. the ability of institutions to evolve over time and the development of those institutions that are most appropriate to enhance technological change. In this regard, business institutions and competition are crucial, but regulatory needs remain in order to safeguard continuity of knowledge creation. The framework allows for an analysis why overall adoption of eco-efficiency still can be considered relatively slow and why some markets and firms are far ahead. As a brief case study the article reflects upon German waste law’s ability to enhance eco-efficiency.
The paper sketches out a theoretical framework for analysing the interplay between eco-efficiency, cognition and institutions. It derives from analytical shortfalls of the prevailing literature, which features strongly engineering and business economics, by using insights from New Institutional Economics, from Cognitive Science and, partly, from Evolutionary Economics. It emphasises the role cognition and institutions play in the adoption of "green" technologies by firms. A cognitive perspective derives from recent research on simple heuristics and context-based rationality; it is proposed that those findings can serve to analyse decision-making of individual actors respectively firms and, thus, should complement economic analysis. A second proposition is that eco-efficiency and normative rules such as a Factor Four strongly rely upon institutions, i.e. the ability of institutions to evolve over time and the development of those institutions that are most appropriate to enhance technological change. In this regard, business institutions and competition are crucial, but regulatory needs remain in order to safeguard continuity of knowledge creation. The framework allows for an analysis why overall adoption of eco-efficiency still can be considered relatively slow and why some markets and firms are far ahead. As a brief case study the article reflects upon German waste law's ability to enhance eco-efficiency.
The paper explores a framework for analysing governance towards sustainable development. Departing from the thesis about a possible positive role for corporate action, it refers to recent theorizing about both market and government failures. Discussing externalities, public goods, information and adaptation deficits, as well as bureaucracies' self-interest, corruption and capture of the regulator, the paper stresses the importance of governance aiming at synergies between corporate and political governance. Concerning framework conditions, it outlines principles of regulated self-regulation. Following the thesis about a positive role, the paper adds recent insights about theories of the knowledge-based firm, which help to analyse market evolution. In this context, it outlines the concept of "responsible corporate governance". Because governance involves actors in their daily operations and certainly goes beyond setting a frame, the paper finally discusses innovation-inducing regulation, serving complementary functions to a framework and business operations. The conclusion is drawn that governments' main function is to facilitate learning processes, thus departing from states' function as known from welfare economics. Thus, governance will have to be explored as collective learning, involving business, governments, and civil societies’ actors.
The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP 1) took place from 28 November to 10 December 2005 in Montreal, in conjunction with the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 11). This meeting signifies a successful start into a new era of international climate policy: The Kyoto Protocol, which in the past had been sometimes declared as being dead, has become operational.
The challenges of the meeting were framed along the "Three Is", Implementation, Improvement and Innovation. The first challenge (Implementation) entailed in particular the adoption of the Marrakesh Accords, the agreements reached at COP 7 in Marrakesh that set out the detailed rules for making the Kyoto Protocol operational. The second challenge (Improvement) referred to improving the work of the Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol in the near future. The third and most important challenge (Innovation) referred to the further evolution of the regime.
This article by Bettina Wittneben, Wolfgang Sterk, Hermann E. Ott und Bernd Brouns provides an account of the main developments in Montreal along the lines of the "Three Is". The paper concludes with an assessment and outlook on international climate policy.
Additional binding reduction targets for greenhouse gases are necessary and they must also apply to important developing and transition countries. So far, these countries have been treated as a uniform group. In future, different rules will have to be used according to varying capabilities and different exposures to risk. A team of 14 researchers from
rich and poor countries puts forward proposals on how to proceed.