Comment on ‘In complexity we trust: learning from the socialist calculation debate for ecosystem management’

• Published in: Environmental research letters Vol. 19; no. 1; pp. 18002 - 18008
• Main Authors: Bingham, Logan Robert, Van Kleunen, Lucy, Kolisnyk, Bohdan, Nahorna, Olha, Tupinambà-Simões, Frederico, Reynolds, Keith, Yousefpour, Rasoul, Knoke, Thomas
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Bristol IOP Publishing 01.01.2024
• Subjects: Biodiversity; central planning; Complexity; decision support systems; Ecosystem management; Environmental management; Mathematical analysis; polycentric governance; System theory; Systems theory; trade-offs; uncertainty
• ISSN: 1748-9326; 1748-9326
• DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad0efb

Abstract Using a metaphor based on a historical debate between socialist and free-market economists, Salliou and Stritih ( Environ. Res. Lett. 18 151001) advocate for decentralizing environmental management to harness emergent complexity and promote ecosystem health. Concerningly, however, their account seems to leave little room for top-down processes like government-led sustainability programs or centrally-planned conservation initiatives, the cornerstone of the post-2020 biodiversity framework. While we appreciate their call for humbleness, we offer a few words in defense of planning. Drawing on evidence from ecology, economics, and systems theory, we argue that (1) more complexity is not always better; (2) even if it were, mimicking minimally-regulated markets is probably not the best way to get it; and (3) sophisticated decision support tools can support humble planning under uncertainty. We sketch a re-interpretation of the socialist calculation debate that highlights the role of synthesis and theoretical pluralism. Rather than abandoning big-picture thinking, scientists must continue the difficult work of strengthening connections between and across multiple social, ecological, and policy scales.