Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Mauro Bonaiuti is one of the first scholars to devote his research to the field of sustainable
degrowth and is also considered one of the major experts on Georgescu-Roegen. At present
he is teaching at the University of Turin, Italy.
Routledge studies in ecological economics
Sustainability Networks
Cognitive tools for expert collaboration in socialecological systems
Janne Hukkinen
Sustainable Development
Capabilities, needs, and well-being
Edited by Felix Rauschmayer, Ines Omann and Johannes Frhmann
The Planet in 2050
The Lund Discourse of the future
Edited by Jill Jger and Sarah Cornell
Acknowledgements ix
Preface x
Notes 195
Correspondence 215
Georgescu-Roegens books and papers 241
General bibliography 256
Index 273
Acknowledgements
I should like to thank Serge Latouche, Joan Martinez-Alier, David Lane and the
group of researchers at the Autonomous University in Barcelona, in particular
Federico Demaria, Giorgos Kallis and Franois Schneider, for having read and
offered me their comments on the proofs of this work. I am also grateful to my
friends Roberto Burlando, Paolo Cacciari, Marco Deriu, Chiara Marchetti,
Fiorenzo Martini, Ferruccio Nilia, Dario Padovan, Auretta Pini and Gianni
Tamino for the continual observations, and criticisms, with which in the course of
recent years they have enlivened all the times we have met to discuss the questions
of degrowth. My thanks also go to Carmel Ace for her help with the English
edition of the work and to Hariton C. Sprinceanu for authorizing the publication
of the hitherto unpublished material from the G-R Archive in the Special Collec-
tion Library at Duke University. Finally, I am greatly indebted to Dalma for our
daily discussions, particularly on the theme of the imaginary. However, I probably
owe my most particular thanks to Georgescu himself: even today, after so many
years of familiarity with his ideas, the combination of his faith in intellectual
endeavor with his awareness of its (natural) limits, not to mention his undying
love for human beings, which is to my mind the profoundest characteristic of his
personality (together, obviously, with all his bitterness), continues to be a source
of stimulation and inspiration for me.
Preface
Notes
1 There are now quite a few studies on Georgescu-Roegen. Among the most significant,
the monographs by O. Carpintero (2006), M. Bonaiuti (2001), K. Mayumi (2001),
G. Lozada and R. Beard (1999), K. Mayumi and J. Gowdy (1999), J. C. Dragan and
M. C. Demetrescu (1986), the Special Issue of Ecological Economics (Vol. 223), the
contributions presented at the conference in Strasbourg dedicated to Georgescu-
Roegens work (November 1998), and the collection of essays published after the
EABS conferences (Roma, 1991; Palma de Mallorca, 1994) besides several articles
which have appeared in particular in Ecological Economics.
2 G-R included in the notion of standard economics both the neoclassical theories and
those deriving from Keynes, i.e., practically everything that constituted twentieth
century mainstream economic thought. The relationships between G-R and Marx are
more complex. Briefly we can say that G-R appreciated Marx as a comprehensive
social scientist, and shared his idea of the evolutionary nature of the economic process.
He further accepted his theory of capitalist accumulation, with its circular nature
and consequent unfair distribution of wealth (see G-R, Bioeconomics and ethics,
Chapter 5 this volume). Partly similar, but partly distinct, as we shall see, are their
notions of dialectics, which Marx in his turn had derived from Hegel. G-R definitely
did not accept the Marxist doctrine of a revolutionary class, in the sense that he was
well aware that the abolition of private property, and the replacement of one class with
another in wielding power, would not solve the problem of the relationship between
the rulers and the ruled (cf. the section The evolution of bioeconomics, page 33
below and Chapter 4 Inequality, limits and growth from a bioeconomic viewpoint).
Above all, G-R rejected the emancipatory vision of growth and progress found in Marx
and Marxism.
3 Cf. the following paragraph on G-Rs criticism of sustainable development.
4 The extremely rich archive of the Special Collections Library (Duke University),
besides conserving almost all the articles (over 200), contains extensive correspond-
ence, which helped me reconstruct the relationships between Georgescu-Roegen
not only with his masters (J. Schumpeter, K. Pearson) and colleagues (W. Leontief,
P. Samuelson), but also, and above all, with those who were later to become the main
scholars in the new field of ecological economics, such as: H. Daly, R. Costanza,
J. Martinez Alier, J. Grinevald, K. Mayumi, J. Gowdy, G. Lozada and many others.
Some extracts from his correspondence are published here.
xiv Preface
5 See Serge Latouche, bas le dveloppement durable! Vive la dcroissance conviviale!
In Objectif Dcroissance, Parangon, Lyon, 2003.
6 The most recent text published by G-R in English, Energy and Economic Myths (1976a),
contains only the first two essays on the bioeconomic theory, The Entropy Law and the
economic problem, 1971a, and Energy and economic myths, written in 1972. From
1972 to 1994 G-R published more than 100 papers (see Georgescu-Roegens books
and papers, page 241 this volume) most of which are on bioeconomics. This book aims,
as far as possible, to account for the complete evolution of bioeconomic theory from the
first essays in the 1970s to the last contributions in the 1990s.
7 The present work is the fruit of several years study going back to the authors PhD
thesis (1996) and to later research at Duke University (1998). The results of this
research are published in two books (in Italian): La Teoria Bioeconomica, Carocci,
Rome, 2001, and the collection of N. Georgescu-Roegens essays, Bioeconomia,
Bollati Boringhieri, Turin, 2003. The Introduction that follows is to a large extent
derived, with some important more recent details, from the former works.
8 A few works on Degrowth and politics have already been published: see S. Latouche,
Farewell to Growth, Wiley, New York, 2009; Le pari de la dcroissance, Fayard, Paris,
2007 and P. Aris, Un Nouveau Projet Politique, Golias, Lyon, 2007; M. Bonaiuti,
Degrowth and Politics: Searching for a Shared Imaginary, 2008, available at www.
decrescita.it. See also: Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 18, Issue 6, April 2010.
Introduction
Georgescu-Roegen, the man and scientist
Mauro Bonaiuti
The Lyce of the Monastery on the Hill was so called because it was situated
on the top of a hill, around a monastery church dating back to 1499. The
school buildings, partly built on the foundations of the old cells, consisted just
in classrooms, a dormitory, a mess hall, a gymnasium, an infirmary, a couple
of houses for teachers, a soldiers barracks, a stable for the carthorses and a
powerhouse. It was, in a nutshell, virtually self-sufficient and isolated from the
outside world. The students were not permitted to leave the school at all except
for the summer holidays or the shorter ones at Easter and Christmas. We wore
a uniform and were submitted to a mock-military discipline. [. . .] Between
reveille at six and breakfast (of wholemeal bread and tea), they had to run up
and down the hill for half an hour, unless there had been a heavy snowfall.
Five hours every morning, except on Sundays, were dedicated to basic courses,
two hours every afternoon to physical education and, after tea, three hours
to study. There was nothing else one could do but study, even in the few
non-programmed hours. And that is what I keep doing.
(Georgescu-Roegen, 1988b, pp. 67)
During the years of my stay in France, I read as much as I could about the
philosophy of science, starting with H. Poincar, G. Le Bon, E. Borel and
F. Ledantec. I finally came to Bergson. As a statistics scholar, I was attracted
by the statistical mechanics, so I started to take an interest in the law of
entropy. At that point, I began to appreciate Bergsonas I later did with
Alfred N. Whiteheadas a philosopher who possessed a vision of reality
superior to that of the Positivists.
(S. Zamagni, 1979, p. 89)
The Hursts were a working-class family, who lived in a small rented house in
Leicester Road, [. . .]. We generally lived off potatoes, cabbage and meat
sauce, with bread and lard for breakfast. However, for over a year the Hursts
paid me every attention and affectionate consideration, which you cannot
buy. Mrs. Hursts patience, as a retired teacher, was truly priceless and she
helped me to learn the new language. [. . .] After I could command a few
Introduction: Georgescu-Roegen, the man and scientist 5
basic words, I gathered all my courage and went to see Karl Pearson. He
received me so naturally that I immediately felt as in heaven.
(Georgescu-Roegen, 1988b, p. 16)
The atmosphere at the Galton Laboratory at University College was warm and
constructive. Pearson, who for want of any better label may be considered a posi-
tivist statistician of Machian formation, was elaborating an increasingly original and
subtle conception of scientific enterprise, capable of establishing connections among
diverse fields of knowledge. Besides dedicating his studies for a long time to statistic
analysis, creating some of its basic elements, he made significant contributions to
mathematics, anthropology, eugenetics, biometrics and, of particular interest to us,
the philosophy of science with his Grammar of Science.
There were two important developments that arose from Georgescus encounter
with Pearson. On the one hand, he was encouraged by Pearson to apply himself to
the study of mathematical statistics, something Pearson himself was particularly
keen on at the time, since one of his greatest interests was to find a method for
determining the distribution of chance variables by means of four moments.
Pearson expected to be able to go far beyond this in order to attain the generating
expression by means of some general formula for the moments of the sample. He
was, therefore, pleased to find Georgescu willing to apply himself to his favorite
topic of the time. On the other hand, the personal friendship that Pearson showed
for him stimulated G-Rs reflections on new horizons, in particular as far as the
philosophy of science is concerned.
Yet the work on the generalization of Pearsons theory of moments, which took
him about a year and led to a long article that appeared in Biometrics in 1932, was,
we can say, a failure. The formulae presented no significant regularity, and, as
Georgescu himself admitted, Pearsons expectations turned out to be unfulfillable.
Perhaps for this reason, or perhaps because the academic world preferred models
inspired by R. A. Fischers pure creations of the mind, Pearsons method was
put aside.
This was not the case of Pearsons philosophy of science. In particular, his
profound sensitivity in considering the peculiarities of the sciences of life and his
refusal to extend mechanism to the biological field (something truly original
during the years of Neopositivism) were to have an important influence on the
epistemology that Georgescu would develop in the following years.
His ambitions of a few years earlier now seemed close to fruition. Yet suddenly
he decided to leave Harvard and return to Romania. What led Georgescu to this
decision?
There is one preliminary question we must ask. Can we believe that the
situation described really corresponded to reality? We should not forget that
Georgescu wrote his autobiographical notes very late in life, at a time when he
was in conflict with the economics profession: in this situation, it was in his own
interest to emphasize the results obtained in the field of traditional economics. In
what exactly did this collaboration with Schumpeter consist?
The analysis of the remaining correspondence reveals that Schumpeter really
did show an interest in Georgescus writings. He asked S. May, who was respon-
sible for the Rockefeller Foundation, for a fellowship for the year 1936 in order to
sustain this collaboration with him (correspondence, 25 March 1936). In a later
letter (27 April) Schumpeter explicitly spoke of a project pertaining to our book
and successively (1 May) Schumpeter sent Georgescu a sketch of the key points.
It is also evident that, despite hundreds of commitments and trips, Schumpeter
tried to keep Georgescu at Harvard, attempted to meet him on several occasions
to speak about their work in common and, for a certain length of time, hoped he
would return. We can conclude that this work, concerning economic analysis, was
not just a vain hope of Georgescus, nor a vague idea bandied about in the conver-
sations that followed the dinners organized at the Harvard Club, but a concrete
project for which Schumpeter expected the effective collaboration of his pupil.
Why, then, did G-R decide to go back to Romania?
At various times in his life Georgescu revealed that he was ambitious but that
he also felt responsible for the fate of his homeland. If we want to restrict ourselves
to official explanations, this is what he has left us:
One reason that interfered with my vision was that all my education had been
supported by the public funds of Romania and that even my Rockefeller
Fellowship counted on a spot earmarked for Romania, just as the other
8 Mauro Bonaiuti
Fellows for each country. I ought therefore to serve in the capacity expected
for me.
(Georgescu-Roegen, 1988b, p. 29)
This explanation may not sound convincing enough, yet no elements emerge
from his papers suggesting any other hypotheses. Some elements concur in under-
lining how G-R, who deliberately defined himself as an emigrant from a devel-
oping country, really wanted to return and be of use to his country once he had
successfully completed his education. Lalescu, the man who had first suggested
that he should leave for Paris, wanted him to go back. Mention has also been made
of a certain lack of ease he felt as a foreigner, particularly during his stay in Paris,
although this seems to have disappeared during his time at Harvard, but this
cannot have been a decisive factor. This is how, many years later, he was to
comment on his choice:
[This was] not the only time when I fouled up my scholarly career, but the
worst such case. . . . The day before our sailing (in May, 1936), Schumpeter
came to New York and took us to dinner at the Waldorf Astoria, (still in
splendor then) to convince me to accept his outstretched hand. Only after
many years was I able to comprehend how hurt he must have been . . . That
happened more than fifty years ago and I cannot recall, not even imagine why
I made that inconceivable gross blunder. The Georgescu-Roegen of that time
appears to me as another individual, another mind.
(Georgescu-Roegen, 1988b, p. 29)
On his way back to Bucharest he stopped off in Paris and in London, meeting
several scholars, among them F. A. von Hayek, a few of whose lectures he
attended, and only arrived in Bucharest in August 1937. The time it took him to
return home (over a year) and the academic encounters he made on the way lead
us to think that nothing precise awaited him back home. All things considered, the
explanation given by Georgescu himself is the most plausible: after living ten
years abroad, he wanted to return to Romania and, having gained considerable
experience, he intended to make use of it in his own country. It was for this reason
that he was willing to renounce any eventual future career at Harvard.
First of all, the experience of two wars and four dictatorships he had during
that period forged in his mind the idea that history and institutions have a very
powerful effect on economic factors, an effect which was, as he said, stronger
than any theoretical principle (Georgescu-Roegen, 1993c).
His political militancy, the courage displayed in supporting the emancipation
of his country from the poverty-stricken state that characterized it and having
risked his life on more than one occasion help us to understand the obstinacy
with which, in the following years, he would defend his ideas, despite being
isolated from the rest of the scientific community. The experience he gained
as a diplomat was to assist him in the relationships he later had, even at high
levels, in academic environments. Nevertheless, Georgescu never acquired a
tendency for compromise from the art of diplomacy, which would undoubt-
edly have considerably smoothed the way towards attaining the most prestig-
ious signs of recognition, in particular the Nobel prize, that were in vain long
awaited.
Goodbye to Harvard
We can say that the second part of G-Rs life began with his arrival in the United
States in 1948.3 From this time on, apart from periods of research abroad, he
would never again leave America, where he taught at university until his retire-
ment in 1976. Unlike his life before, from the existential point of view, there was
no great discontinuity in the following years except his move from Harvard to
Vanderbilt University in Nashville, which was undoubtedly less prestigious as an
institute of learning.
From what is to be read in his correspondence, when G-R arrived at Harvard in
1948, Wassily Leontief was waiting for him. The two scholars started to work
together on a research project, on the structure of the American economy, which
was of interest to the government. At the same time, Leontief invited Georgescu
to take part in the activity of the Russian Research Center, which specialized
in studies on Russia and Eastern Europe, asking him to edit a pamphlet on the
economic development of Romania after the Second World War. Even after
Georgescu left Harvard, the two established a lasting exchange of letters, which
went far beyond any formal academic exchange of ideas and lasted until the
mid 1970s.4
Introduction: Georgescu-Roegen, the man and scientist 11
In 1948, Harvard College offered G-R a years contract as a Research Fellow in
Economics, which was promptly renewed the following year.5 Suddenly, however,
Georgescu decided, once again, to leave Harvard.
As far as the reasons for this decision are concerned, Paul Samuelson, who for
a long time was in contact, and in correspondence, with him has provided the most
plausible explanation: Schumpeter, who died in 1950, had by then lost any
academic power that would have ensured G-R the post at Harvard that the former
would very probably have been able to offer him ten years before.6 This would
explain why he decided to leave for Vanderbilt University, where he was offered
the post of Professor of Economics from 1949.
He would never leave Vanderbilt again after 1950, so the most important
following events are inevitably linked to the evolution of his thought. As far
as this point is concerned, in order to simplify the account, we can distinguish
three successive phases. The first goes from his contributions to mathematical
economics of the 1950s to the publication of his epistemological criticism of
neoclassical theory, contained in the volume Analytical Economics (1966). The
second, which we can call that of institutionalist criticism, includes his important
works on the institutional specificities of agricultural economies, which he devel-
oped in the second half of the 1960s. The third and final phase, which we may
term the period of his bioeconomic theory, is that following the conference held
in 1970, The Entropy Law and the Economic Problem, where he presented the
first formulation of the themes that were to occupy him for the next twenty-five
years.
The excursions into physics, philosophy, logical paradoxes and the undeniable
nuggets that render this masterpiece so precious, cannot hide the fact that this is
a revolutionary essay, particularly as far as G-Rs epistemological criticism of the
neoclassical school is concerned. The correspondence between these two scholars,
consisting of about thirty pages written in the years from 1953 to 1989, also
reflects the basically ambiguous relationship with which the great MIT economist
addresses Georgescu.9
Even in more recent times, in the foreword to the text by K. Mayumi and
J. Gowdy (1999) (in honor of Georgescu-Roegen), Samuelson did not seem
capable of freeing himself from this ambiguity: after having paid the usual tribute
to Georgescu, something that had by then become a habit, for his contributions to
standard economics and for the wealth of his significant epistemological and, by
then, bioeconomic contributions, Samuelson concludes:
My point is that those of us with hardened arteries who resist the prophet of a
new revolutionary economics methodology can still accept and admire the
insights into external diseconomies that Georgescu-Roegen has contributed
in his new phase.
(Preface to Mayumi and Gowdy, 1999, p. XV)
What does this mean? If the methodology proposed by G-R was even more
revolutionary than his bioeconomic theory, as Samuelson seems to imply, the
Introduction: Georgescu-Roegen, the man and scientist 13
point is not admiring G-Rs intuitions but rather coming to grips with a critical
revision of the hypotheses that characterize standard theory, of which Samuelson,
as we know, was one of the major exponents. Herman Daly is right to state that
Samuelson said very little about Georgescu-Roegen after his foreword of 1965.
Did he change his mind? Why? Certainly no word was dedicated to any of
Georgescu-Roegens ideas about the biophysical foundations of economics in the
canons of Samuelsons famous manual?10 Thus, as was foreseeable, even less
attention has been paid to them by his neoclassical colleagues at MIT.11
Samuelsons conclusion has, however, the merit of recognizing that the episte-
mological revolution attempted by G-R in his 1966 essay was extremely ambi-
tious, even more radical than that implied in his subsequent bioeconomic shift. It
is, therefore, worthwhile looking more closely at the foundations on which he
tried to base this new methodological challenge to the mainstream.