The Innate Nature of Economics - Economics and Ecology: United for a Sustainable World - page 47

in directions that will best seem to accommodate the personal drive for more.
Government, after all, is said to ideally follow cultural norms, not lead them.
Misuse of Economics in Practice
Thus far, the critique of economics in this section has focused on economic
methodology. We have attempted to comment—if not in detail—on the
development and structure of economic theory as it tends to support and
promote an unsustainable system. Alternatively, this can be seen as attempt-
ing to uncover and analyze how the beliefs of economists, acting as the “high
priests” of the discipline, might convey and promote a less-than-desirable
conventional wisdom.
There is, however, much more to the story. Economic practice as it has
evolved among real-world decision makers is also greatly to blame for many
excessive and ruinous practices. To be sure, if we observe some destructive
feature, such as environmental degradation, or a clearly unfortunate effect
of overconsumption, it is a fine and indistinct line between ascribing the
ultimate blame to the structure of conventional economic wisdom or to the
excesses of some element of economic society.
On one hand, it is fashionable to ignore the ivory tower priests. Business
and (even) government leaders, charged with real-world decision-making
responsibilities for allocating resources in one direction or another, love to
point out the difference between theory and practice: “That's fine in theory,
but that's not the way it works in the real world,” or, “Have they ever met a
payroll?” This is simply saying that what textbooks expound is one thing,
but when faced with decisions that affect people, jobs, incomes, necessary
services, and so on, different, hard-nosed criteria must be employed. We do
not have the luxury of theoretical elegance.
On the other hand, and we want to be crystal clear on this point, even
though the direct influence on a particular real-world attitude or decision
may be invisible, the indirect effects can often be traced to some hallowed
economic principle. Of course, economists are accustomed to assuming their
discipline is a complete omnibus system wherein they have, in effect, thought
of everything. Thus, when an undesirable or unfortunate feature of modern
life is pointed out, they are likely to contend that the problem stems from an
incorrect application of economics rather than from the actual core teach-
ings, which should be held blameless. Yet, it is also true that those promoting
the particular personal or institutional behavior creating the negative effects
(i.e., those creating the problem) almost invariably ascribe their actions to
some standard economic principles. Is it theory or practice that must assume
ultimate responsibility? Let us further explore this game of finger-pointing
and denial through three examples.