Comment on ‘In complexity we trust: learning from the socialist calculation debate for ecosystem management’
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 acc...
Saved in:
Published in | Environmental research letters Vol. 19; no. 1; pp. 18002 - 18008 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Bristol
IOP Publishing
01.01.2024
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | 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. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ERL-116345.R1 |
ISSN: | 1748-9326 1748-9326 |
DOI: | 10.1088/1748-9326/ad0efb |