Abstract
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.
Funder
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Environmental Science,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
Reference97 articles.
1. In complexity we trust: learning from the socialist calculation debate for ecosystem management;Salliou;Environ. Res. Lett.,2023
2. Who won the socialist calculation debate?;O’Neill;Hist. Politech. Thought,1996
3. Technical or political? The socialist economic calculation debate;Camarinha Lopes;Camb. J. Econ.,2021
4. LV Kantorovich: the price implications of optimal planning;Gardner;J. Econ. Lit.,1990
5. Will a large complex system be stable?;May;Nature,1972