This paper suggests that a Public Service Employment (PSE) or Job Guarantee
(JG) program run on the principles of functional finance can be designed to
promote environmental sustainability. Unregulated or poorly regulated
capitalist economies are both macroeconomically unsatisfactory (here focusing
on unemployment, but including also price stability) and environmentally
unsustainable. Traditional approaches addressing either unemployment or
environmental degradation are insufficient to achieve full employment or
environmental sustainability, and often proposals to attain one of these goals
appear inconsistent with the other. A PSE program based on functional finance
can achieve full employment, and may also present opportunities to promote
environmental sustainability. A functional finance approach to ecological tax
reform presents an opportunity to promote both macroeconomic and environmental
goals. The flexibility of a PSE system also can be utilized to promote
sustainability in a number of ways. PSE workers may also perform an array of
environmental services, including monitoring, clean up, recycling, education,
and more.
I. Unregulated or badly regulated capitalism is both
macroeconomically unsatisfactory (unemployment) and environmentally
unsustainable.
History has shown us that unemployment and environmental degradation are
normal features of capitalist economies. Involuntary unemployment can result
from deficiencies in aggregate demand as well as structural and technological
change. Keynes (1936) demonstrated that capitalism, as a monetary production
economy, is inherently demand constrained. In particular, the private sector's
desire to net save, or hold net financial assets, will show up as unemployment
unless this desire is satisfied by government policy (Mosler, 1997-98; Wray,
1998):
Unemployment is the real, material evidence of a discrepancy
between desired and actual levels of net nominal savings, for if the desired
level was lower, individuals would be spending more, sales would be higher,
and firms would be hiring more workers ... [T]here is only one solution to
closing the gap between desired and actual levels of net nominal savings:
government deficits ... There is no other source of change in the private
sector's total holdings of net financial assets [denominated in the domestic
currency] ... The private sector is incapable of creating net nominal assets.
(Forstater, 2000b, p. 8)
The inherently demand-constrained nature of capitalist economies resulting in
involuntary unemployment may be referred to as the effective demand
problem.
Capitalist economies are also incapable of maintaining full employment,
even if it could be attained, in the face of ongoing structural and
technological change. Even if the effective demand problem could be rectified
by government policy, changes in labor supply, capital- and labor-displacing
technological change, and changes in the composition of final demand impose
intersectoral shifts in labor requirements unlikely to be satisfied by market
forces without generating unemployment (Lowe, 1976; Pasinetti, 1981, 1993).
The structural rigidities associated with high employment, high capacity
capitalist systems may be referred to as the structural change
problem.
The effective demand problem and the structural change problem present
contemporary capitalist economies with the challenge of attaining and
maintaining full employment. In addition, there are other related issues, such
as price and currency stability. Some policy or set of policies must be
developed and implemented that can address these problems.
Environmental degradation in the form of unsustainable rates of natural
resource depletion and excessive pollution of land, air, and water is
characteristic of modern capitalist economies. Humanity now faces significant
challenges in the form of both local ecological crises and global
environmental problems, such as ozone depletion, global climate change,
biodiversity loss, soil erosion and deforestation (see Wackernagel and Rees,
1995; Brown, Renner, and Halweil, 1999, for overviews and summaries).
In a capitalist economy, competitive pressures greatly restrict the discretion
firms have with regard to the inputs they use, the products they make, and the
methods of production they utilize. They must make such decisions on the basis
of their estimate of the profitability of alternative actions, and
profitability requires the minimization of a firm's costs. A firm has no
direct market incentive to concern itself with costs that are a burden on
third parties or society at large, including those that harm the environment.
For example, a firm may choose a particular method of production that creates
pollution on the basis of its efficiency, even though it imposes social costs.
"Efficiency" here means private cost minimization, and not only does it not
guarantee a more broadly defined "social efficiency," it may reduce social
efficiency. In addition, as will be seen below, it is not only the effects of
individual firm behaviors in isolation, but also the cumulative, concentrated,
and combined effects of many firms -- often greater than the sum of their
parts -- that are of concern. Households, too, may make decisions concerning
consumption patterns, lifestyles, and household organization that have wider
social and environmental implications. Here again, the aggregate effects may
be subject to cumulative forces. The social and environmental costs of market
society may be further exacerbated by the wrong kinds of subsidies and other
government policies that encourage unsustainable behaviors (see Roodman,
1996). Unregulated or poorly regulated capitalism is not environmentally
sustainable.
To understand the environmental and ecological challenges that face humanity,
and the economic implications of an adequate response to these challenges, it
is necessary to reconceptualize the relation between the economy and the
environment. Economics has long overlooked or inadequately treated the
relation between the economy and the environment. If we consider this
relationship, even at a very basic level, we can derive what might be called
some biophysical conditions for a sustainable economy. Similar
conditions can be found in the literature on "sustainable development" and
"ecological economics" (see, e.g., Lawn, 2001; Holmberg, et al., 1996;
Callenbach, 1999; Prugh, et al., 2000).
The environment provides natural resources to the economy to be used as inputs
in production processes (the "source function" of the environment). The output
of these production processes may be either produced inputs for yet other
production processes or final products to be directly consumed. Yet these
produced inputs and final products are not the entirety of the output; there
are also residual by-products of these processes (waste).
Just as the economy extracts natural resources from the environment, the
economy in turn dumps many residual by-products, or waste, back into the
environment (the "sink function" of the environment). There is waste at each
stage of the economic process: waste from extracting and refining natural
resources, waste emanating from production processes, waste in the marketing
of products, and waste in the sphere of consumption.
There is an interesting relationship between the total natural resources
utilized and the total waste produced by the economy. That is, they are
ultimately equivalent. This is due to the First Law of Thermodynamics, which
states that matter-energy can neither be created nor destroyed; only the form
of matter-energy can change (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). Of course, it is more
complicated than a simple equality. Natural resources are frozen in the form
of capital goods during the depreciation process (and capital goods from
previous periods are at differing stages in the depreciation process), and
there is a time element in the consumption of many final products as well. At
a fundamental level, however, the equality holds.
Waste can be divided into two types: that waste which is recyclable or
reusable and that which is not. The fact that all waste is not recyclable or
reusable is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that any
utilization of matter-energy decreases the total available matter-energy. In
other words, some of the forms into which matter-energy is transformed can no
longer be accessed. This is also known as the Entropy Law, and put differently
means that not all the forms into which matter and energy are transformed are
recyclable or reusable. That waste which is not recycled or reused is dumped
into the environment.
The environment has an assimilative capacity, which is the ability of the
environment to transform waste into harmless (or even beneficial) forms. This
assimilative capacity, however, is not infinite. Waste at some level is not
only incapable of being assimilated, but will damage or even destroy the
assimilative capacity itself.
It is not simply the level of homogeneous waste in relation to the
assimilative capacity that needs to be considered, but additionally what
specific types of waste are being emitted. Some types of waste are not
assimilable in any quantity, and at some stock level can result in various
detrimental effects, including damage to the assimilative capacity itself. In
addition, it must be recognized that it is not sufficient to simply look at
each type of waste and the quantity of it emitted in isolation, but also
synergistic effects. The combinations of different forms of waste have
effects that are more damaging than the sum of the component waste products
independently of one another. A classic case here is sulfur dioxide and nitric
oxide resulting in acid precipitation (acid rain, fog, and snow). So it is not
just quantities and qualities of waste, but also their combination
effects.
It also must be recognized that it is not simply qualities and quantities of
waste globally, but also spatial considerations concerning the local
concentration of wastes that are crucial. And it is not simply the case
that the assimilative capacity detoxifies or degrades waste instantaneously,
or even within some set time period. There are cumulation effects that
have to be dealt with. So in assessing the ability of the assimilative
capacity to deal with industrial and other waste, combination effects,
concentration effects, and cumulation effects all need to be carefully
considered.
Furthermore, there is nothing that guarantees that all waste that is
capable of being recycled or reused is being recycled or reused.
All waste, whether recyclable or not, which is dumped into the environment,
may impact on the assimilative capacity. Therefore, when considering the
quantities and qualities of wastes confronting the assimilative capacity, only
those residuals may be exempted which are actually
recycled.
The portion of waste that is actually recycled or reused has a positive impact
on our stock of natural resources, in the sense that recycling and reuse
decreases the amount of new resources we must utilize. We cannot, however,
account for the positive feedback of recycled materials on natural resource
stocks until we account for the fact that recycling is also an entropic
process. It takes energy and matter to recycle waste, so waste is emitted in
the process of recycling. Even though it is necessary to recycle, we have to
account for the loss of available matter and energy resulting from recycling
itself. So if we want to indicate the positive feedback of recycling on the
stock of natural resources, we have to also include the waste produced by
recycling.
Natural resources can also be divided into two types: those that are renewable
only within a geological time frame and therefore for human purposes must be
considered exhaustible or nonrenewable resources, and those that are renewable
within a human time frame. In the case of exhaustible resources, since the
total stock is fixed, the yield or rate of renewal is equal to zero. Therefore
any utilization of these resources reduces the amount which we have at our
disposal for future use. Thus, if the rate of utilization exceeds the rate of
renewal (i.e., is positive), the total stock of exhaustible resources is
decreasing and may decrease to zero.
In the case of renewables, which have a positive yield or rate of renewal,
there are two alternative scenarios. If the rate of utilization is less than
or equal to the rate of renewal, then the total amount of these resources may
be maintained or even increase. But if rate of utilization exceeds the yield,
then the total amount that we have at our disposal will be decreasing and may
decrease to zero.
It's actually a little more complicated than this, because there is a
distinction between stock renewables, such as trees, and flow renewables, such
as solar, wind, or hydro, sometimes called perpetual resources. As a source,
flow renewables are limited by the rate of the flow and our technological
ability to capture the flow for human use. In the case of stock renewables the
yield is not constant and may even become negative. This is because, for stock
renewables, the yield is related to the stock level.
Above some critical stock level, the carrying capacity of the habitat will be
reached and the yield will turn negative. Also, if the level of stock
renewables falls below some critical point, the renewability of the resource
can be damaged and the yield will become negative. But at stock levels between
the minimum and maximum level, the yield will be positive, though not
constant. Since the yield is not constant, there is some stock level
associated with what is called the maximum sustainable yield.
Obviously, at this stock level the rate of utilization can be maximized
without reducing the amount of this resource available for future use. This
result, however, requires a ceteris paribus assumption regarding all
other relevant factors in the ecosystem. In other words, it disregards the
very important problem of interacting resources (see Semmler and
Sieveking, 1992).
Of course, human populations also may overrun the carrying capacity of the
environment, locally or globally. This is a complex question and entails
looking carefully at the issues, including basic human needs and technology.
Human beings also have a limited physical capacity to absorb toxins. Thus, the
question of population, as well as human health, must be factored in.
There are also relations between the assimilative capacity and
renewable resources that must be taken into consideration. For example if the
rate of utilization of renewable resources is greater than their yield, not
only will the total amount available for future use be declining, and
potentially to zero, but this can have secondary effects on the assimilative
capacity of the environment. The rainforests serve as a good example here. If
we utilize the trees faster than they renew themselves, not only will there be
less at our disposal, but the ability of the rainforest to perform its
assimilative function of transforming carbon dioxide into oxygen will be
damaged.
This is not to mention the other effects of plant and animal extinction. Even
abstracting from ethical considerations of the intrinsic value of other
species and life forms, this entails the elimination of vast opportunities for
humankind and the reduction of precious genetic diversity (including potential
medicines, etc.). Causation may also go in the opposite direction: destruction
of the assimilative capacity has implications for renewable resources. If
wastes are not assimilated, plant life, e.g., may be harmed.
Finally, the limited capacity of the earth's specific assimilative
function of heat absorption defines the level and composition of economic
activity possible without adversely affecting the earth's temperature. This is
related to global warming.
Let us briefly summarize our biophysical conditions for a sustainable
economy:
- First, the level and composition of waste in time and space must be such
that all wastes may be transformed into harmless (or even beneficial) products
and the ability of the assimilative capacity of the environment is preserved
to perform its function in the future, locally and globally. A corollary to
this is that all waste that is recyclable or reusable must actually be
recycled or reused, unless a particular recycling process uses more resources
than it saves or there is some qualitative issue regarding the trade-off.
Thus, for the maintenance of the sink function of the ecosphere,
W < A, where W is a vector of quantities of qualitatively
and geographically (locally and globally) distinguished wastes, and A is a
vector of qualitatively and geographically (locally and globally)
distinguished assimilative capacities.
- Secondly, for renewable resources the rate of utilization must be less
than or equal to the rate of renewal, and for stock renewables the stock level
must be maintained between the minimum and maximum level. Depending on the
particular circumstances, the stock level and rate of utilization should
correspond to the maximum sustainable yield. Thus, the maintenance of the
source function of the ecosphere for stock renewable resources is
uSR < ySR, where u is the rate of
utilization or harvest, y is the yield or rate of renewal, and the subscript
SR denotes stock renewable resources. However, this second condition may be
modified in the light of the problem of nonrenewable resources, to which we
now turn.
- Even if these first two conditions are satisfied we still have to deal
with the fact that the yield of exhaustibles is zero, so that any use of these
resources will decrease the amount that we have at our disposal for future
use, and may decrease to zero. Thus, the third condition is that there must be
a transformation in the technological structure of production away from
exhaustible resource-based, and toward renewable resource-based,
technologies. Some modify the condition for stock renewables in the light
of the inevitability of exhaustion of nonrenewables, so that
uSR + uNR <
ySR, where the subscipt NR indicates nonrenewable or exhaustible
natural resources. Here the total utilization of both renewable and
nonrenewable resources must be less than or equal to the yield of renewables,
so that as the stock of nonrenewables declines, the utilization of renewables
may increase accordingly. But we cannot overestimate the likelihood of a
transformation to renewable based technologies in the near future. Therefore,
much attention must be paid to strategies to affect the productivity of
all resources, both nonrenewable and renewable.
- Technological innovation resulting in increased productivity and
efficiency of all resources is necessary. Research and development
concentrating on renewables will complement the third condition concerning the
transformation in the technological structure of production, but increased
efficiency and productivity of exhaustibles is imperative as well. This
includes increased regeneration rates, improved resource extraction
techniques, improved pollution abatement, increased assimilative capacities,
and cultivation of renewable resource stocks (see Lawn, 2001). And again:
maximum recycling is a must (also reuse, reduce, and repair -- sounds like a
mantra, but is really basic common sense, and justified by scientific
evidence).
- The level and composition of activity must be such that we avoid
deleterious thermal effects, and biodiversity must be preserved. Ecosystem
rehabilitation and conservation will serve as an important basis for a
sustainable and viable system.
These conditions are those that must be met to preserve the ecological basis
of the economic activity, but they are in no way sufficient to guarantee
necessary material provisioning. It is easy to conceive of the possibility of
satisfying these conditions without satisfying the specifically economic
conditions for a sustainable economy. For example, we might be able to satisfy
the biophysical conditions for a sustainable economy by ceasing all productive
activity, but we will then not be satisfying conditions for the material
reproduction of human life. The dilemma arises from the need to satisfy both
economic and ecological conditions for system viability.
Furthermore, the biophysical conditions cannot simply be added to the
economic conditions for system viability. The biophysical conditions
themselves alter and affect the economic conditions, through limiting and
shaping the whole realm of possible choices in the organization of production
and distribution.
The reciprocal impact of environmental and economic conditions further
influence the degree of flexibility in how system viability is to be achieved.
For example, in meeting the necessary conditions for material provisioning,
the technology, structure of production and distribution, scale and
concentration of productive and consumptive units, and so on, must accord with
our biophysical conditions. Likewise, the means by which the ecological basis
of the economy is preserved must be compatible with material
provisioning.
There is a sense in which the economic conditions set minimums on the system
while ecological conditions set maximums: we must produce enough to survive
without destroying the earth and ourselves. This is only adequate, however, as
a first principle. Besides the minimum quantities of goods to satisfy
requirements of provisioning, there is also the composition of those goods and
the means by which they are produced, which are constrained by the ecological
conditions. Thus, consideration of ecological and economic conditions for
system viability narrow the boundaries of possible alternatives in multiple
ways, not only defining the upper and lower limits in a quantitative sense,
but also through limiting the elasticity of composition of output and the
extent of flexibility in the choice of methods of production in the
system.
II. Traditional approaches to both unemployment and environmental
degradation are insufficient to achieve either full employment or ecological
sustainability.
The traditional approaches to promoting full employment range from mainstream
neoclassical prescriptions based on the view that unfettered markets will tend
to full employment on their own to mainstream Keynesian and Post Keynesian
approaches that emphasize demand management via fiscal and monetary policy. In
the neoclassical view, if all markets including factor markets are perfectly
competitive, the price mechanism ensures that the economy will tend to full
utilization all resources, including labor, in the long run. Perfect
competition also requires additional assumptions such as all agents must have
prefect knowledge and perfect foresight, all factors are perfectly divisible
and perfectly substitutable, and so on. The same flexibility that ensures the
economy tends to full employment also guarantees that the economy at full
employment will easily adjust to structural and technological change.
Unemployment is either voluntary or due to market imperfections, including
minimum wages, regulations, unions, etc. Deregulation and promotion of
competitive conditions are thus called for.
Keynes demonstrated that the neoclassical view of the macroeconomy was flawed
and the economy does not tend to full employment, even under competitive
conditions (although Keynes also rejected some of the assumptions of the
neoclassical model, such as perfect knowledge). Capitalism is inherently
demand constrained and thus government needs to stimulate aggregate demand
through fiscal stimulus and lower interest rates. But while Keynesian demand
management may address the effective demand problem, it does not address the
structural change problem:
Reference to the difference between potential and actual output in aggregate
terms ... becomes worthless for discussing the condition of
accumulation ... once the system has been brought to full capacity by
means of short run "Keynesian" policies. (Halevi, 1983, p. 347)
A private sector economy stimulated to full employment will experience
bottlenecks in production and other structural rigidities that result in
unemployment, inflation, and sluggish growth (Lowe, 1976). In addition,
Keynesian analysis does not recognize the functionality of unemployment
and excess capacity in capitalist economies. Firms plan reserve capacity in
order to be able to respond to market changes. This translates into excess
capacity at the industry and economy-wide levels. Reserve armies of labor are
also reproduced in the course of capital accumulation, and the existence of
unemployment holds down wages and discipline workers, and provides a pool of
workers available to firms as the economy expands. Solutions to the problem of
unemployment must address the issue of functionality.
In addition, even if Keynesian demand management could achieve full
employment, it could it would be environmentally destructive. Because
competition compels firms to base their decisions on private cost
minimization, there are considerable obstacles to producing green products,
utilizing cleaner technologies and alternative energy. Absent a comprehensive
environmental program, expanding the private sector through Keynesian stimulus
all but assures increased use of nonrenewable resources, more pollution, and
more products with short life cycles and that harm the environment. Pumping up
the private sector does not address the issues regarding the composition of
output and the technological structure of production, so crucial for
sustainability:
Even if it were possible to expand demand enough to promote growth sufficient
to keep pace with labour force growth and productivity growth and mop up the
huge stocks of long-term unemployment, how could the natural ecosystems,
already under great strain, cope? There is a need to change the composition of
final output toward environmentally sustainable activities. It is not
increased demand per se that is necessary, but increased demand in certain
areas of activity. (Mitchell, 2000, p. 113 n8)
Traditional approaches to environmental problems are not capable of addressing
most of the environmental problems that face modern industrial societies. The
realities of biophysical conditions impose limits that are unlikely to be
captured by the dominant frameworks for dealing with environmental problems in
economic theory. In both the Pigouvian and Coasian approaches, social costs
and the parties involved are assumed to be identifiable, the costs and
benefits measurable. There are plenty of problems with these and other
assumptions, and lots of other problems as well -- assigning monetary values to
life, and health, and nature, for example. But in both approaches, once we get
to the "social optimum" -- assuming we can get there -- whether it is through taxes
and fees or through bargaining and assigning property rights, we are left with
what is called the "optimal" level of pollution (or depletion). Optimal in
relation to what?: in relation to narrowly defined preferences, productivity,
and profitability. But there is no necessary relation between the optimal
levels of pollution and resource depletion and the biophysical conditions for
a sustainable economy. In a framework in which everything must be reduced
to monetary values, qualitative differences between different costs and
benefits in terms of the environmental consequences are not
captured.
Actually, a good way of demonstrating the problem is to think about the
difference between cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. In
cost-benefit analysis (of which Pigouvian and Coasian analyses are particular
forms), the ends of policy are determined by the (economic) analysis itself.
The amount of pollution to be emitted, the amount of a resource to be
depleted, or wetlands to be preserved, will be the amount corresponding to the
equilibrium. In cost-effectiveness analysis, on the other hand, the ends are
determined outside the economics, say by a democratic political process
informed by scientific information regarding the biophysical limits. Economics
is then employed to try to find the most cost-effective means for
attaining those independently determined ends. This is a huge difference. To
get the point across, for some it may be more useful to mention that
cost-benefit analysis can be used to derive the optimal level of child labor,
the optimal level of slavery, or the optimal level of crime. (this does not
imply that environmental damage is ethically equal to slavery. In the case of
these examples, they are objectionable because of ethics, the biophysical
examples can be thought to be objectionable simply because it makes for an
unsustainable system.)
It is not being argued here that standard policy approaches are useless. Taxes
can play a very important role. The point is that we should rid ourselves of
the idea that we are going to be shooting for an economic equilibrium that
guarantees sustainability. As long as biophysical conditions inform the ends,
market incentives may be used in cases where they are cost-effective. A
comprehensive policy program will have to include a wide variety of policy
instruments, from direct regulation to taxes, fees, and subsidies, to
transferable permits and quota licenses. Each of these has their strengths and
weaknesses, and may be more or less appropriate in different
circumstances.
A comprehensive sustainability program is necessary to shift modern industrial
economies on to a sustainable path. Meeting the biophysical conditions for a
sustainable economy means seriously addressing present rates of nonrenewable
and renewable resource depletion, local and global quantities and qualities of
emissions, biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and more. Such an initiative will
have to address the technological structure of production and the composition
of production and consumption. This will be disruptive, in the sense that
there will be 'winners' and 'losers' -- products, occupations, skills,
technologies, firms and industries may become obsolete, new ones will be
required, some will become less important, others will become more important.
These kinds of structural and technological transformations will exacerbate
the structural change problem, already a significant challenge without a major
environmental policy program. Absent an effective full employment program,
such an initiative will likely exacerbate the unemployment problems of
capitalist economies.
III. A Public Service Employment or Job Guarantee approach based on
functional finance can achieve full employment, and may also present
opportunities to promote environmental sustainability.
Unregulated or badly regulated capitalist economies suffer from persistent
unemployment and environmental degradation. Traditional policies to address
either one of these problems are unlikely to guarantee either full employment
or environmental sustainability. Moreover traditional approaches to full
employment, even if effective, would likely result in greater environmental
degradation, and traditional approaches to sustainability, even if effective,
would probably exacerbate unemployment. Is there a policy program that can
achieve full employment and environmental sustainability?
Recent proposals for a Public Service Employment (PSE) or Job Guarantee (JG)
program based on functional finance can address both the effective demand
problem and the structural change problem. By addressing the issue of the
functionality of unemployment, the PSE program addresses the challenges of
both attaining and maintaining full employment in the face of inherent
deficiencies in aggregate demand and ongoing structural and technological
change. Certain characteristic of the PSE approach also present opportunities
to address environmental sustainability.
At the heart of the PSE approach is the offer of a job to anyone ready and
willing to work. The federal government pays the PSE wage-benefits package
through deficit spending. Unemployment is evidence that the government budget
deficit is too low. As the government hires the unemployed, the deficit
expands. The deficit will stop expanding when there are no longer any
unemployed. At that point, the deficit is just the right size to close the gap
between the private sector level of activity and full employment. PSE workers
can be employed in a variety of services that benefit the community. Since PSE
activities are not for profit, they can be designed to promote social
efficiency, i.e., broader macroeconomic and social goals.
There are a number of ways in which a PSE program run on the principles of
functional finance may be used to help promote environmental sustainability.
First, functional finance may be combined with ecological tax reform to
reshape market incentive structures to promote environmental objectives.
Second, environmental sustainability may be enhanced by the greater
flexibility of an economy with a well-managed public service sector. Third,
additional environmental benefits may be derived from the activities in which
public service workers may be engaged.
Functional Finance and Ecological Tax Reform
Functional finance refers to an approach to budgetary policy that recognizes
that under a taxes-drive-money system, national governments do not finance
their expenditure with taxation or bond sales. Modern money is not on a gold
standard or backed by any other commodity at a fixed exchange rate (except in
the sense that it can be viewed as backed by labor under a PSE system). As
formulated by Lerner (1943), functional finance means that government
spending, lending, borrowing, taxing, buying, and selling should be judged
only by the effects that such actions have on the economy and society,
and not, e.g., whether they accord with the tenets of "sound finance." No
particular relation between, e.g., government spending and tax revenues, is
'good' or 'bad' in and of itself, independently of the impact the fiscal
stance has on the economy. So whether a government budget deficit is good or
bad depends on the economic conditions that hold at a particular time and the
goals of the society.
While taxes and bond sales do not finance government spending, they do have
other purposes (Forstater, 1999b; Bell, 2000). "Taxes should never be
imposed for the sake of tax revenues" (Lerner, 1951, p. 131, original
emphasis). Rather, the purpose of taxation is "its effects on the
public of influencing their economic behavior" (ibid.).
Likewise, "borrowing" is not a funding operation; bond sales are a means of
managing bank reserves and regulating the overnight rate of interest (Lerner,
1943, p. 355).
There are two broad categories of behavior that taxation is intended to
modify. First, taxes (and the requirement that government currency satisfy tax
liabilities) create a demand for state money. Thus, the value of modern money
is derived from the fact that it is needed to pay taxes. This is what is meant
by a "taxes-drive-money" system (Wray, 1998). People accept state currency in
exchange for goods and services or as a means of settling debt because they
need it to pay taxes or know that it will be accepted by others who need it to
pay taxes (or know that it will be accepted by others, etc.). This is what
Lerner meant when he argued that "money is a creature of the state" (Lerner,
1947, p. 313). Note here that legal tender laws are not sufficient;
money's "general acceptability, which is its all-important attribute, stands
or falls by its acceptability by the state" (ibid.).
The second broad category of behaviors that taxation seeks to modify are those
that are deemed undesirable. A tax is levied on unhealthy goods (or 'bads') or
technologies and undesirable behaviors to discourage people from purchasing
and using these items or engaging in those activities. Note here that this
kind of tax is not intended to generate revenue. The goal is not to raise
revenue, but to influence behavior. In fact, the success of the tax can be
measured precisely by how little revenue it generates. The smaller the amount
of revenue generated, the less often people are purchasing the item, utilizing
the technology or engaging in the behavior. If considerable revenue is
generated, it means that the tax has not been successful in discouraging the
behavior. Likewise, tax credits or subsidies are intended to encourage certain
behaviors.
Ecological tax reform (here to include not only taxes, but also tax credits
and subsidies, quotas, and similar incentive-based regulations) fits very
nicely into the functional finance framework. The distinction made by
ecological economists between money as accounting information not subject to
the laws of physics and real resources that are subject to biophysical limits
is also consistent with the functional finance perspective (see Daly, 1996,
pp. 178ff.; some of the more 'sound finance' conclusions drawn from this
distinction by ecological economists, however, are not consistent with
functional finance).
Ecological tax reform begins from the premise that the current tax and
regulatory structures of most modern nations are not consistent with
sustainable practices. Currently, taxes tend to discourage behaviors that
should be encouraged, and encourage behaviors that should be discouraged.
Taxes on income and employment discourage work and jobs, while low taxes and
even subsidies for nonrenewable and renewable resource extraction and on
'dirty' technologies tend to encourage unsustainable resource depletion and
pollution. In other cases, behaviors may be currently taxed in the right
direction, but either the taxes (or tax breaks) are not strong enough or they
need to be coupled with complementary policies for more comprehensive effect.
Most proposals for ecological tax reform support "tax shifting," or moving
away from taxes on income, employment, and innovation and toward taxes on
resource depletion and pollution (see Hawken, 1993; Prugh, et al., 1995;
Costanza, 1997; Lamb, 2001; Roodman, 1998). They also support tax credits and
subsidies (as well as some complementary changes in regulatory structures) to
promote research and development in alternative energy sources and
technologies, recycling, and implementation of more sustainable practices. A
land tax is also often recommended, as well as modifications in the tax
structure with regard to residential and business construction, buildings, and
location.
Managing the value of state money requires a base tax. Taxation needs to be
strong enough to create sufficient demand for the currency to maintain its
value. Ecological tax reform usually begins with some kind of proposal for
'revenue-neutral' changes, but within the functional finance perspective
revenue is not an issue. But the proposals for land and building taxes by
ecological economists may be adopted to satisfy the need for a base tax for
maintaining the value of the currency. A functional finance approach to
ecological tax reform can thus begin with an elimination of federal payroll
and income (including profits?) taxes, and the adoption of certain land and
building taxes (taxing high incomes might still take place, but for purposes
of redistribution rather than revenue generation).
The proposal behind a tax on land values, as distinct from 'real estate' taxes
that combine land value and building taxes, is rooted in ideas usually
associated with Henry George, but that can also be found in other classical
(as opposed to neoclassical) economists such as Adam Smith. The basic proposal
is to tax that part of the value of land that is unearned, e.g., the part
derived from its location. The tax is intended to discourage land from being a
speculative commodity, and shift the primary basis for land acquisition to its
use-value (Daly and Cobb, 1989). The insight is that land prices would adjust
so that even with the land tax, bottom lines stay the same (see Roodman,
1998). The tax can be combined with certain zoning laws, deferments, phase-ins
and other complementary regulations to promote desired behaviors and prevent
undesired ones, e.g., discourage sprawl, not hurt farmers. There are also
versions of this proposal that seek to address fairness issues, e.g., not
penalizing those who purchased under different institutional
arrangements.
Building taxes, on their own or as part of real estate taxes, unlike taxes on
the rental value of land, do discourage improvements, repairs, and upgrades.
Some building, building size, and certain features of buildings may want to be
discouraged for environmental reasons, but some improvements do not want to be
discouraged. This is fairly straightforward: do not tax energy saving
improvements, etc. Taxes on the rental value of land, with some building
taxes, may then be combined to serve as the base tax for the currency. Other
federal taxes may be used to affect behavior.
Changing the tax and regulatory structure is a very important part of the
shift to environmental sustainability. Markets do some things well and other
things not so well. History has shown us that markets do not necessarily meet
biophysical conditions for a sustainable economy, and even contribute to quite
the contrary. But market forces may be shaped and steered so that it becomes
more cost effective and profitable to use resources wisely and limit
pollution, so that it pays to move to cleaner technologies and to recycle.
Taxes, tax credits and subsidies, quotas, licenses, low- and no-interest
loans, and other tax and regulatory policies must penalize unsustainable
behaviors and reward green ones. Such policies can help create new industries
and make others obsolete. They can alter the geographic distribution of
production so that it is consistent with local assimilative
capacities.
Often environmental taxes and regulations will be opposed by business because
it means higher costs. There are several important factors that must be
recognized here, however. First, if taxes and regulations effect all firms (or
all firms in an industry) equally, then their relative competitive position
should not be affected. Second, changes reward cleaner, more efficient firms
and punish the dirty, inefficient ones. So what if some real dirty monsters of
inefficiency go under? Firms that fall somewhere in the middle may decide
whether they want to move toward sustainable practices or not, and it is
possible that firms that want to go green could be eligible for help making
the transition. For example, low or no-interest loans and other resources and
incentives could be offered to certain firms that want to move to cleaner
practices. Third, if taxes result in higher prices and lower output it is
possible that these are more reflective of the true social costs of
production. So it is not as though these are new costs so much as hidden costs
becoming explicit, and redistributed to producers and consumers of the
product. Full cost pricing should be the goal. Fourth, as long as costs are
hidden or external, the price system will not be working to promote
innovation. Higher costs and higher prices should promote innovation in just
those areas where it is desirable. As long as unsustainable practices are
subsidized, either by policy or through externalities, research and
development into and adoption of alternatives will be less cost effective and
profitable. If gasoline prices were high enough, we would start to see
alternatives become more attractive. Fifth, these taxes are avoidable --
in fact, unlike income and employment taxes, these are taxes we want people to
avoid! Sixth, the higher costs during the transition to cleaner practices will
be offset by tax reductions in other areas.
Depletion quotas can be a useful tool for promoting sustainable resource use
and emissions levels consistent with the assimilative capacity of the
environment (see Daly and Cobb, 1989; Daly, 1993, pp. 340ff.). There are a
number of advantages to targeting resource depletion. First, depletion is
easier to monitor and control than pollution. Second, targeting depletion not
only addresses biophysical conditions with respect to natural resources, but
also with respect to the assimilative capacity, since reducing depletion of
fossil fuels also reduces pollution.
Daly also argues that there are advantages of quotas over taxes on natural
resources. Taxes do not guarantee any maximum cap on the rate of resource
utilization. Quotas set a definite limit on the aggregate quantity of a
natural resource used over time. In addition, if money saved by reducing
depletion of one resource due to taxes is respent on other resources, it may
only change the distribution of resources depleted, which may or may not be
more sustainable.
Daly's proposal is of a market allocation of the quotas through government
auction of quota rights. While government will act as a monopolist, buyers of
quota rights will behave competitively. Buyers could be limited to a certain
number of permits and a certain number of permits of a given resource to
promote greater competition (Lamb, 2001, p. 295). Government will earn a
scarcity rent. Higher resource prices will promote more efficient use of
resources and technological innovation, increasing both conservation and
pollution. In addition, recycling will be promoted by the higher prices. For
nonrenewable resources with a close renewable substitute, the quota should be
set so that the price of the nonrenewable is at least as high as the
substitute. Quotas can also be reduced over time, allowing for a transition to
alternatives. Permits could have a life of one year, so that the total amount
can be modified in the light of changing circumstances. Environmentalists can
choose to purchase permits and not use them.
Even with depletion quotas, pollution taxes will still be necessary. Taxes can
start out low and be phased in over time in cases where considerable
adjustment needs to be made. The key advantage of taxes over direct regulation
is that taxing each unit of pollution gives an incentive to reduce as much as
possible, while merely setting a cap on emissions does not give the polluter
an incentive to reduce emissions further than the maximum allowed. A downside
of taxing pollution is that it does not guarantee that emissions will be
reduced to an amount that is consistent with the assimilative capacity. One
way around this is through the tradable pollution permit scheme. The total
amount of pollution is capped, and the market allocates the distribution.
Local and global assimilative capacities need to be considered, so most
permits will be tradeable only within a certain area.
Taxes and regulations also need to be applied to various materials, such as
pesticides and fertilizers to prevent soil erosion and biodiversity loss.
Encouraging the move toward organic agriculture will also constitute a move
toward more labor-intensive practices that will promote labor demand. Controls
on land clearance will also need to be applied. Tax breaks and subsidies can
be used to encourage fencing off and manage native vegetation (Lamb, 2001, p.
298). Taxes can also be used to affect not only production but also
consumption. Taxes on consumption goods that harm the environment, especially
luxury items, can be utilized.
Tax breaks and subsidies can be used to try to promote the locational
redistribution of industry. Industrial ecology is a growing field that must be
promoted (Jackson, 1993; Allenby, 1998; Dorf, 2001). In an industrial ecology
park, several firms are located in geographical proximity. The waste and other
residual by-products of one firm are used as inputs by others. The attempt is
made to completely close the loop in the production and waste cycles.
This is in no way a comprehensive overview of the tax and regulatory policies
of a major sustainability plan. Such ecological tax reform proposals are
already in existence and have been referred to above. The weakness of current
proposals is their adherence to principles of sound finance. The point here is
to show how an ecological tax reform plan can be based on the principles of
functional finance, and to give some examples of some of the policies that
might be utilized.
System Flexibility and Environmental Sustainability
PSE programs can be designed to endow the economy with considerable
flexibility, and this flexibility can be used to promote environmental
sustainability (Forstater, 1998; 1999a; 2000a). A private sector running at
full employment and full capacity utilization will have considerable
structural rigidity, as excess capacity and unemployment allow firms,
industries, and the economy as a whole to respond more effectively to
structural and technological change and other market conditions. If the
private sector is stimulated by traditional demand management policies,
competition and other market conditions will determine what additional goods
and services are produced, what technologies and inputs are used, how much
more pollution will be emitted, the geographic distribution of the additional
consumption and production, and so on. Since public service activities are not
for-profit, they may be designed according to different criteria. Rather than
being designed according to private sector efficiency criteria, public sector
activity may be designed with broader social and macroeconomic goals in mind.
Environmental sustainability can inform decisions concerning what PSE workers
will produce and how they will produce it.
Implementing new environmental regulations and using market incentives to
promote a sustainable society will result in significant structural change.
Even if such new rules are phased in slowly over time, the kinds of changes
needed will result in new firms and industries, new occupations, new products,
and new methods of production, with some firms, industries, occupations,
products, and methods of production becoming obsolete. There will also be
changes in the relative significance of various kinds of products, jobs,
technologies, industries, and so on, with some expanding (or expanding at
different rates) and others shrinking (or shrinking at different rates). There
will also be significant geographic relocation. The more structural
flexibility in the system, the less disruptive these changes will be.
Suppose the economy had been stimulated to full employment through traditional
Keynesian demand management. It is difficult to imagine how the system could
cope with the inter- and intra-sectoral changes in the composition of labor
demand, even if aggregate demand could be consistently maintained. Either
aggregate demand (or the rate of growth of aggregate demand) would have to be
permitted to fall, or else it would likely translate into inflationary
pressures as the system attempted to cope with the changes. With a PSE
program, however, there is both a job for every worker released from private
sector employment who cannot find another one in the private sector and a pool
of employed from which the private sector can draw to fill positions that
arise. Thus, full employment can be maintained and the transition can be made
to a sustainable path with minimal disruption. Flexibility in terms of other
resources can also be had with PSE, additionally assisting the shift to
sustainability. PSE programs can be designed to make little use of
capital-equipment for which demand might be expected to increase during the
transition. Thus, because of the way in which it can be managed to promote
system flexibility, a PSE program will play a crucial role in minimizing the
disruptions associated with the significant structural changes required to
move society to a sustainable path.
Since PSE activities are not for profit, they can be designed with broader
social and macroeconomic goals in mind, rather according to private efficiency
criteria. Since private cost minimization is not the concern, public service
activity may utilize different methods of production to perform the same
service or produce the same good than it would if it were in the private
sector. So public service activities first and foremost can be designed that
do not use or make little use of nonrenewable resources, and that do not
pollute or pollute as little as possible. These advantages may be gained even
if the activity is not concerned with the environment in any other particular
way. There are a whole host of almost pure services that can benefit the
community and yet use no natural resources and do not pollute. Even if all of
the public service activities fell into this category we would still end up
with a relatively more sustainable full employment system than if the private
sector were stimulated to or toward full employment. PSE activities can also
be used as testing grounds for alternative technologies.
Similarly, Public Service Employment activities might contribute to
sustainability through the increased geographical or locational flexibility
that they have over private sector activities. Private cost minimization
compels private firms to locate where it is most profitable, taking into
consideration all kinds of factors, such as the location of related markets
and industries, transportation and information requirements and costs, and so
on. Public sector activities can locate based on social efficiency rather than
private efficiency criteria. Since the assimilative capacities of the
environment are both local and global, local assimilative capacities can be
relieved of stress by locating public sector activities where they will do the
least harm. Of course, this must be reconciled with other considerations, such
as where the unemployed are located and minimizing family disruption. But just
as people often enter the military or the Peace Corps at least in part to
travel and to acquire skills, it is not inconceivable that there may be people
who would do the same in a public service job. In addition, some of the
locational flexibility may be tapped without requiring that people relocate
their place of residence. Relieving the local assimilative capacity of stress
may only require that the place of work be located elsewhere, close enough to
commute.
Traditional fiscal and monetary policies can and will still be used as
complements to PSE. If the PSE sector is considered too large, taxes can be
cut or other types of government spending may be increased. If the PSE sector
is considered too small, taxes can be raised or other types of government
spending cut. What if the scale and composition of the private sector, even
with ecological tax reform and other regulations, is deemed inconsistent with
the biophysical conditions for a sustainable economy? It is possible that a
larger PSE sector, with its significant flexibility and appropriate
technology, and a smaller private sector, may be warranted. Society will need
to find the right balance between private sector (and normal public sector)
activity and PSE activity. The right private/PSE ratio for sustainability will
need to be discovered, and of course there is no reason to think this would be
constant over time. As new technologies and alternative energies (and
alternative lifestyles) are discovered, the sustainable size of PSE may
change. But PSE provides the flexibility needed to make such adjustments,
without the social costs of unemployment.
PSE and Environmental Services: Green Corps
Public Service Employment activities can also help promote sustainability is
by performing environmental services of some kind. In fact, it may be
desirable to create an Environmental Service Corps, or Green Corps, along the
lines of the Peace Corps. There is an enormous array of services that such a
Corps might perform that can help society satisfy the biophysical conditions
for a sustainable economy. It is not the purpose to provide a full catalogue
of the possibilities here, but to suggest a few examples.
One of the primary areas that a Green Crops could focus on would be recycling
(here including also reuse, repair, and reduce). Biophysical conditions
require that society maximize its recycling efforts, and there is plenty more
recycling that could go on now that does not. Much of the work here is labor
intensive, and much of the labor need not be specially trained. Recycling has
multiple benefits, in that it not only means that society will utilize new
materials at a slower rate, but it also diverts materials from landfills and
incinerators. Recycling can also result in a reduction not only of new
resource depletion but also of pollution, if recycling itself does not pollute
as much as new extraction and refining. Reduced use of some materials not only
slows the depletion rate, but also leaves resources to perform other
environmental services, such as trees absorbing carbon dioxide. Recycling also
can reduce costs in many areas.
Major recycling efforts should be divided into at least two major categories,
community-based and industrial. Community-based recycling entails collecting,
sorting, and cleaning materials, and other jobs that anyone can perform and
that contribute to the community and the environment. Repair for reuse entails
another whole set of operations and may be considered separately. Repair may
be for the original owners or for reuse by someone else. Chicago's "Creative
Reuse Warehouse" is a good model for demonstrating how such items as "used
office furniture and supplies, salvaged lumber, and broken bikes are turned
into valuable assets for communities, schools, and the general public"
(Weinberg, et al., 2000). The Green Corps can run both recycling and repair
efforts. Industrial recycling zones and parks may also be sites for Green
Corps employees to perform certain jobs.
Another major area for the Green Corps could be in transforming homes and some
businesses to more efficient and more renewable heating, lighting, and cooling
and refrigeration. This does not have to mean every building becomes
completely transformed and solar powered, although photovoltaics clearly need
to be more exploited, and initial efforts may inspire homeowners and
businesses to go further on their own. But even simple and basic adjustments
could be performed that would save people money and reduce energy use. Better
insulation alone could make a huge impact. Other types of weatherizing are
also possible. Green Corps teams could be trained to visit, evaluate, educate,
and make suggested or even required changes in a several hour visit (patching
areas, fixing items, blocking drafts, installing low-power shower
heads).
Another major area that could be addressed by a Green Corps could be
automobile use and traffic congestion. Long term sustainability may require
larger structural changes and the move to other forms of transportation, but
in the short term, a well organized van pool system could reduce traffic
congestion and pollution for those areas not served by good transit. The Green
Corps could drive and repair the vehicles, and experiments could be conducted
with using alternative vehicle types and alternative fuels. A ten-person
vanpool cuts unit private, social, and environmental costs to 15-20% of
single-operated-vehicle costs (Vuchic, 1999, p. 307). If the van is more
fuel-efficient or uses alternative materials or energy, these costs will fall
even more.
The Green Corps can also transform many items in the public infrastructure
over to solar. There are now effective and reliable pv-powered streetlights,
school crossing lights, highway construction warning signs, and billboards
(Cole and Skerrett, 1995). In addition to saving energy, decreasing pollution,
and reducing costs, public use of solar in these ways will help educate the
public about the efficiency and reliability of photovoltaic power.
Another important area for the Green Corps to be involved in is rooftop
gardening and urban landscaping. The benefits of both of these are
little-known. In addition to producing food (for humans), and food and habitat
for wildlife, rooftop gardens and urban landscaping help purify air, soil, and
water, and can provide air conditioning, shade, and windbreaks, and provide a
productive sink for organic waste. (Milano, 2000, p. 105). Human waste could
also be redirected and put to better use than polluting water.
Modern composting toilet technologies are available and user-friendlier than
ever.
Another area of concentration for PSE workers could be in what might be called
Environmental Defense or Environmental Security, and it may be desirable to
create a whole section of PSE especially for a Green Security Force. This
would be specifically devoted to two major areas, monitoring and clean
up.
The new laws and rules will only affect change if there is monitoring to
assure compliance. Often, environmental legislation is criticized as being
difficult to monitor, and that monitoring can only be done with great effort.
PSE can support monitoring efforts, as well as testing. Much testing can be
done with relatively basic training. Samples can be collected with almost no
training, and returned to labs.
PSE workers can also support clean-up efforts. Obviously there are some types
of clean up that require special skills and equipment. But there is a
tremendous amount that can be done with basic training, and much that is more
or less unskilled. With the support of a well-managed PSE plan, monitoring and
clean up can be supported at a level that is consistent with the shift to
sustainability.
Environmental sustainability requires that information be disseminated and
lots of education take place. From pre-school to the University, in the
community and the workplace, sustainable practices cannot be adopted without
changing some of our most ingrained habits. Moving from the waste disposal
society mentality to the recycle/reuse/reduce/repair society mentality to some
extent means socialization and education needs to take place. PSE workers can
visit classrooms and workplaces and do presentations. They can set up tables
in the community to demonstrate the effectiveness and simplicity of many
sustainable practices.
PSE workers can also support research efforts. Research and development costs
can be cut significantly with labor available to perform a variety of tasks.
Doubtless there are many, many other areas where PSE workers can perform
environmental services. The development of a Green Corps will provide a
reservoir of labor that can contribute to sustainability in multiple ways. The
possibilities are limited only by the imagination. The goal is not to provide
a comprehensive listing of such services, but to point to the possibilities
for enhancing the environment presented by a PSE program, and to give some
examples.
There are two other interesting potential environmental benefits of a PSE
program that may be worth mentioning. Since many workers will gain experience
in the PSE related to sustainability and sustainable practices, these new
skills and experiences will be brought back into the private sector if and
when they are hired out of PSE. This could go some way in increasing the
variety and level of green skills in the private sector labor force. Another
potential benefit of the PSE relates to changing ingrained patterns of
consumption, so necessary for sustainability, and also to the increasing
interest in ecology and environment in the youth of the 21st
century. It is possible that some youth who are dedicated to the environment
might desire to be part of the Green Corps even if they could find a job in
the private sector. Since PSE jobs are not remunerated extravagantly, some may
see a link between their PSE job and more modest consumption practices. It is
possible that other non-monetary benefits could be included in the PSE
package, to attract citizens committed to the environment and who want to
voluntary restrict their own consumption. Here the possibilities range from
free higher education for children of PSE workers to housing (possibly in
experimental alternative energy run dwellings, etc.) to concert tickets.
Another possibility could be for youth to have a PSE requirement, similar to
the military or Peace Corps, where they will be exposed to various sustainable
practices and modest consumption.
IV. Conclusion
Modern capitalist economies are characterized by persistent unemployment and
environmental degradation. Traditional policies to address these problems are
severely limited. The Public Service Employment or Job Guarantee approach to
full employment based on the principles of functional finance may also
contribute to environmental sustainability. This paper has been concerned
primarily with industrialized countries, but there is no reason that such a
program might not be elaborated for developing countries, taking into
consideration the specific economic and environmental conditions found
there.
The PSE program should not be looked at as the answer to all of our
environmental or social problems. But there is no reason why other policies
that can address these issues cannot be developed and implemented in a
complementary manner. Proposals for revising national income accounts to
reflect environmental values, for example, should be considered, as should
full cost pricing policies. Still, a well-managed and imaginatively designed
PSE program could bring tremendous social and environmental
benefits. 
REFERENCES
Allenby, Braden R., 1998, Industrial Ecology, Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bell, Stephanie, 2000, "Can Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending?,"
Journal of Economic Issues, 34.
Bossel, Hartmut, 1998, Earth at a Crossroads, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, Lester, et al., 1999, Vital Signs 1999, Worldwatch
Institute.
Cole, Nancy, and P. J. Skerrett, 1995, Renewables are Ready, White
River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Costanza, Robert, et al, 1997, An Introduction to Ecological Economics,
Boca Roton, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Daly, Herman, 1993, "The Steady-State Economy," in H. Daly and K. Townsend
(eds.): Valuing the Earth, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Daly, Herman, 1996, Beyond Growth, Boston: Beacon Press.
Daly, Herman and John B. Cobb, Jr., 1989, For the Common Good, Boston:
Beacon Press.
Dorf, Richard C., 2001, Technology, Humans, and Society, San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Forstater, Mathew, 1998, "Flexible Full Employment," Journal of Economic
Issues, vol. 32, June.
Forstater, Mathew, 1999a, Public Employment and Economic Flexibility,
Public Policy Brief No. 50, Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College,
February.
Forstater, Mathew, 1999b, "Functional Finance and Full Employment," Journal
of Economic Issues, 33, June.
Forstater, Mathew, 2000a, "Full Employment and Economic Flexibility,"
Economic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 11, supplement.
Forstater, Mathew, 2000b, "Savings-Recycling Public Employment; Vickrey's
Assets-Based Approach to Full Employment and Price Stability," in a. Warner,
M. Forstater, and S. Rosen (eds.), Commitment to Full Employment,
Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe.
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas, 1971, "The Entropy Law and the Economic Problem,"
in H. Daly and K. Townsend (eds.), Valuing the Earth, MIT Press,
1993.
Halevi, Joseph, 1983, "Employment and Planning," Social Research, Vol.
50, pp. 345-358.
Harrison, Neil E., 2000, Constructing Sustainable Development, NY:
SUNY.
Hawken, Paul, 1993, The Ecology of Commerce, New York: Harper
Business.
Inoguchi, Takashi, Edward Newman, and Glen Paoletto (eds.), 1999, Cities
and the Environment, Tokyo: United Nation University Press.
Jackson, Tim (ed.), 1993, Clean Production Strategies, Boca Raton:
Lewis Publishers.
Keynes, John Maynard, 1936, the General Theory of Employment, Interest, and
Money, New York: Harcourt.
Lawn, Philip A., 2001, Toward Sustainable Development, Boca Roton, FL:
Lewis Publishers.
Lerner, Abba, 1943, "Functional Finance and the Federal Debt," Social
Research, 10.
Lerner, Abba, 1947, "Money as a Creature of the State," American Economic
Review, 37.
Lerner, Abba, 1951, The Economics of Employment, New York: McGraw
Hill.
Manno, Jack P., 2000, Privileged Goods, Boca Roton, FL: Lewis
Publishers.
Milani, Brian, 2000, Designing thew Green Economy, Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield.
Mitchell, William F., 2000, "The Job Guarantee in a Small Open Economy,"
Economic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 11, supplement.
Mosler, Warren, 1997-98, "Full Employment and Price Stability," Journal of
Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. Xx, No. xx, Winter, pp. Xxx-xxx.
Prugh, Thomas, et al., 1995, Natural Capital and Human Economic
Survival, Solomans, MD: International Society for Ecological
Economics.
Rogers, Jr., Wyatt M., 2000, Third Millennium Capitalism, Westport, CT:
Quorum.
Roodman, David Malin, 1996, Paying the Piper, Washington, D.C.:
Worldwatch Institute.
Roodman, David Malin, 1998, The Natural Wealth of Nations, New York:
Norton.
Semmler, Willi, and M. Sieveking, 1991, "On the Optimal Exploitation of
Interacting Resources," Journal of Economics, February, vol. 59, no. 4,
pp. 23-49.
Vuchic, Vukan R., 1999, Transportation for Livable Cities, New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Wackernagel, Mathis, and William Rees, 1995, Our Ecological Footprint,
Gabriola Island, B. C.: New Society.
Weinberg, Adam S., David N. Pellow, and Allan Schnaiberg, 2000, Urban
Recycling and the Search for Sustainable Community Development, Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wray, L. Randall, 1998, Understanding Modern Money, Cheltenham, U.K.:
Edward Elgar.
|
