https://www.mdu.se/

Economics is understood by many as an established discipline and something similar may hold for business management. New challenges appear but the disciplines of economics and business management are fairly institutionalized. They are at best modified. At issue is now if sustainable development as a challenge can be handled and internalized in established theory or if new paradigms and theoretical perspectives are needed. This second position is chosen here. But the idea is not to abandon mainstream thinking totally as part of a Kuhnian ‘scientific revolution’ where one paradigm is replaced with another [1]. Instead of ‘paradigm-shift’, it is more fruitful to think in terms of pluralism and ‘paradigm coexistence’. There may still be ‘shift in dominant paradigm’ where paradigms that are losing in number of adherents may still have a role.

Where do politicians and other actors get their ideas about economics and efficiency? While there are many relevant sources, economics education has a significant role. However, the kind of economics presented in a university context is limited to one paradigm, neoclassical theory. While this paradigm is mainly compatible with the present political-economic system and is therefore legitimate, it is failing to confront the challenges faced by society. One such urgent challenge is global sustainable development. In this article, ecological economics as a conceptual framework and language is presented and compared with the conceptual framework of neoclassical theory and method. This is achieved within a perspective of pluralism where ‘paradigm-coexistence’ is a central element.

The challenge of sustainable developmment suggests that economics is defined as "multidimensional management of resources in a democratic society". A "sustainability economics" is needed which differs from mainstream neoclassical theory and method. Individuals are understood as "political economic persons" and organisations as "political economic organisations" guided by an "ideological orientation" or "mission". Markets are interpreted in network terms and decision-making as a "matching" process. Positional Analysis is advocated as approach to investments at the societal level for example in roads or energy systems. It is argued that  the proposed conceptual framework adds to our dialogue about policies for sustainability. In a democracy, radical institutional change need to be considered in attempts to make development of our political economic system sustainable rather than unsustainable.

When mainstream neoclassical economics is presented in textbooks for students, the values and ideological orientation of the perspective is not discussed. In this essay it is argued that neoclassical economics is specific not only in conceptual but also in ideological terms. These value or ideological issues need to be discussed openly in a democratic society. They become accentuated in relation to present attempts to get closer to sustainable development. Economics is here understood in political terms, making democracy and ideology essential elements of a conceptual framework. Individuals are understood as ‘political economic persons’ guided by their ideological orientation and organizations as ‘political economic organizations’ guided by their mission. Even markets are interpreted in political terms as relationships and networks. The ‘trade-off’ principle in neoclassical theory and method is criticized and a careful consideration of non-monetary impacts, for example on health and environment, recommended. Inertia in its different forms (commitments, path-dependence, irreversibility) should be illuminated. Among heterodox schools of thought in economics (e.g., Beker 2020) a kind of ‘sustainability economics’ or ‘ecological economics’ is proposed as part of a pluralist understanding of economics. It is argued that the theoretical and practical tools offered by neoclassical economics are not sufficient and indeed may be misleading in relation to the challenge of sustainable development. The kind of ecological economics advocated can be named an “institutional ecological economics” in the spirit of Gunnar Myrdal (1972) and William Kapp (1971). The naming suggests that not only minor but also major institutional change can be considered. Two examples of needed institutional change are discussed, the legal framework of business companies and the so called “Nobel Prize in Economics”.

Present development is unsustainable in important respects for example in relation to some of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Climate change, biological diversity and pollution of soil and water are examples. Also the health of populations of human beings are threatened and affected.

Can a strengthened democracy contribute to progress in relation to the SDGs? In the present chapter it is argued that issues of values, ethics and ideology, and even justice, need to be discussed more openly. One observation is that the conceptual framework and discipline of economics plays a crucial role in public dialogue about  development issues and that there is a monopoly position for neoclassical theory with its specific ideological content in university departments of economics.

A more pluralist eonomics, that is an economics compatible with democracy, where institutional eological economics is one among alternatives, would represent an important step forward in strengthening democracy and hopefully improvinng performance in relation to the 17 SDGs.

Should our understandig of "paradigm" in relation to social sciences like economics be limited to Kuhn's ideas of "scientific revolutions"? In this commentary it is argued that paradigm can alternatively be connected with a conceptual framework and language which claims to be helpful in understanding problems faced in contemporary society.

Ecological economics can be broadly understood as economics for sustainable development. To deal with problems of climate change, pollution in air, land and water or biodiversity loss, a conceptual framework and language that differs from the neoclassical one is probably needed. Elements of such a different language are indicated. The reasons to consider paradigms, alternative to the neoclassical perspective, are partly a matter of ideological orientation. A pursuit of sustainable development for example  differs from pursuit of economic growth in monetary terms and monetary profits in business.

Översiktlig planering i Uppsala kommun är för närvarande inriktad på storskalig epansion av bostäder och arbetsplatser i kommunens södra delar. Kommunledningen vill bygga för 50 000 personer på en begränssad yta. En mångsidig planering efterlyses men hittillsvarande planering har varit ensidig vad beträffar handlingsalternativ och visioner. Kommunledningen förefaller göra allt för att låsa och manipulera utvecklingen. En mer öppen och demokratisk beslutsprocess efterlyses.

Present development trends are unsustainable in important respects. Reference can be made to a failure in governance. Behind governance is neoclassical economics as a mainstream conceptual framework and neoliberalism as ideology. It can be argued that neoclassical theory in its monopoly position and that neoliberalism with its extreme beliefs in markets has failed.

Pluralism in economics education is a first step. We need a new conceptual framework in economics education, new ideas about the concept of economics, about individuals, organizations, markets, decision-making, assessment of public projects, sustainability politics and institutional change. An attempt in this direction is presented in the chapter.

It is not an easy task to organize and implement courses and programs in ecological economics at a university where economics and business management departments are largely locked into traditional ideas of their disciplines. Some experiences from 10 years of ecological economic education in Sweden are presented.

Mainstream neoclassical economics is not neutral with respect to values and ideological orientation. In university departments of economics there is a close to monopoly position of neoclassical economics as paradigm. This is a specific political economics, that is economics with a specific ideological orientation. In a democracy we are expected to listen to actors who differ with respect to ideological orientation.

Present development is unsustainable in relation to some of the UN defined 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). Present unsustainable development has largely been based on neoclassical economics as paradigm and the connected neoliberal ideology. If we wish to deal seriously with issues of unsustainable development in different forms we have to encourage competing or complemmentary paradigms in economics