Skip to main content

Announcement: Site maintenance is scheduled for May 27–29
Shopping cart and account registration will be intermittently unavailable  | Read more

Democratic Economic Planning, Social Metabolism and the Environment

Three models of democratic economic planning — Devine and Adaman's negotiated coordination, Albert and Hahnel's participatory economics, and Cockshott and Cottrell's computerized central planning — have important implications for the wider perspective of ecological economics. When the models are reviewed from the standpoint of the complexity and biophysical interdependence inherent in ecological systems, they are shown to contain a number of problematic areas, revealed in the way they tackle ecological challenges. A potential way to resolve these problems points toward a new framework for understanding democratic economic planning. A merger of the different models and insights can lead to new institutions that would be better adapted to confronting current environmental issues.


  • ADO. 2003. Adaman Fikret, , Devine Pat, , and Ozkaynak Begum. “Reinstituting the Economic Process: (Re)embedding the Economy in Society and Nature.” International Review of Sociology — Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 13:2, 357–374. Google Scholar
  • AA. 2020. Akbulut Bengi, , and Adaman Fikret. “The Ecological Economics of Economic Democracy.” Ecological Economics, 176, 106–750. Google Scholar
  • Albert Michael. 2003. Parecon: Life after Capitalism. London: Verso. Google Scholar
  • AH. 1991a. Albert Michael, , and Hahnel Robin. The Political Economy of Participatory Economics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  • AH. 1991b. Albert Michael, , and Hahnel Robin. Looking Forward: Participatory Economics for the Twenty First Century. Boston, Massachusetts: South End Press. Google Scholar
  • BH. 2010. Biesecker Adelheid, and Hofmeister Sabine. “(Re)Productivity: Sustainable Relations Both Between Society and Nature and Between the Genders.” Ecological Economics, 69, 1703–1711. Google Scholar
  • Bowles Samuel. 1991. “What Markets Can — and Cannot — Do.” Challenge. 34:4, 11–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Burkett Paul. 2003. “The Value Problem in Ecological Economics: Lessons from the Physiocrats and Marx.” Organization & Environment, 16:2, 137–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • CC. 1993. Cockshott Paul, , and Cottrell Allin. Towards a New Socialism. Nottingham, UK: Russell Press. Google Scholar
  • Daly Herman E. 1992. “Allocation, Distribution, and Scale: Towards an Economics that is Efficient, Just, and Sustainable.” Ecological Economics, 6:3, 185–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Devine Pat. 1988. Democracy and Economic Planning: The Political Economy of a Self-Governing Society. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Google Scholar
  • Devine Pat. 2017. “Ecosocialism for a New Era.” Pp. 33–51 in Westra , et al., Varieties of Alternative Economic Systems: Practical Utopias for an Age of Global Crisis and Austerity. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Devine Pat. 2019. “Marx, la démocratie et la planification économique.” Actuel Marx, 65:1, 54–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • FC. 2020. Foster John Bellamy, , and Clark Brett. The Robbery of Nature: Capitalism and the Ecological Rift. New York: Monthly Review Press. Google Scholar
  • FH. 1997. Fischer-Kowalski Marina, , and Haberl Helmut. 1997. “Tons, Joules, and Money: Modes of Production and Their Sustainability Problems.” Society & Natural Resources, 10:1, 61–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • FR. 1994. Funtowicz Silvio, , and Ravetz Jerome. “The Worth of a Songbird: Ecological Economics as a Postnormal Science.” Ecological Economics, 10:3, 197–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • GG. 2002. Gaard Greta, , and Gruen Lori. “Ecofeminism: Toward Global Justice and Planetary Health.” Pp. 276–293 in Light Andrew, and Holmes Roston, eds., Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar
  • Georgescu-Roegen Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hahnel Robin. 2005. Economic Justice and Democracy: From Competition to Cooperation. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  • Hahnel Robin. 2012. Of The People, By The People: The Case For A Participatory Economy. Oakland, California: Soapbox Press. Google Scholar
  • Hahnel Robin. 2017. “Wanted: A Pollution Damage Revealing Mechanism.” Review of Radical Political Economics, 49:2. 233–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • HK. 2020. Hahnel Robin, , and Kerkhoff Allison. “Integrating Investment and Annual Planning.” Review of Radical Political Economics, 52:2, 1–17. Google Scholar
  • Laibman David. 2015. “Multilevel Democratic Iterative Coordination: An Entry in the ‘Envisioning Socialism’ Models Competition.” Marxism 21, 12:1, 307–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • LT. 2021. Legault, Frédéric, and Simon Tremblay-Pepin. “A Brief Sketch of Three Models of Democratic Economic Planning.” Research Notes of the Research Center on Social Innovation and Transformation, 2 (April). Google Scholar
  • MW. 2017. Magdoff Fred, , and Williams Chris. Creating An Ecological Society. New York: Monthly Review Press. Google Scholar
  • Martinez-Alier Joan. 2003. The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
  • MMO. 1998. Martinez-Alier Joan, , Munda Giuseppe, , and O'Neill John. “Weak Comparability of Values as a Foundation for Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics, 26:3, 277–286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • O'Neill John. 1998. The Market: Ethics, Knowledge and Politics. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • OAD. 2012. Özkaynak Begum, , Fikret Adaman, , and Devine Pat. “The Identity of Ecological Economics: Retrospects and Prospects.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36:5, 1123–1142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pineault Eric. 2020. “Les six principes d'une économie de la limite.” Possibles, 44:1, 17–26. Google Scholar
  • PSHG. 2017. Pichler Melanie, , Schaffartzik Anke, , Haberl Helmut, , and Görg Christoph. “Drivers of Society-Nature Relations in the Anthropocene and Their Implications for Sustainability Transformations.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 32–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tremblay-Pepin Simon. 2015. Contribution à une économie politique de l’émancipation. Doctoral Thesis. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: York University. Google Scholar
  • Tremblay-Pepin Simon. 2017. “The Inherent Tensions of Democratic Economic Planning.” Communication, Conference, “The Return of Economic Planning.” Economic and Social Research Aotearoa, New Zealand. Google Scholar
  • Tremblay-Pepin Simon. 2022. “Five Criteria to Evaluate Democratic Economic Planning Models.” Submitted for publication. Google Scholar
  • WGR. 2017. White Damian, , Gareau Brian, , and Rudy Alan. “Ecosocialisms, Past, Present and Future: From the Metabolic Rift to a Reconstructive, Dynamic and Hybrid Ecosocialism.” Capitalism Nature Socialism, 28, 22–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Vatn Arild. 2007. Institutions and the Environment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Google Scholar
  • Vatn Arild. 2000. “The Environment as a Commodity.” Environmental Values, 9:4, 493–509. CrossrefGoogle Scholar