The paper was published in these proceedings in December 1996. It was written by Diana Smith, Catherine Starrs, and Gail Stewart, who advocated for the inclusion of many more considerations when designing economic policies. In particular, policies ought to be based on understanding and consideration of the biosphere (ecosphere).
1997 Series 1 Number 23 Page 25
[See < https://canadiancor.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/1996_Series1Number20Page9_The-Whole-Economy-A-Concept-Paper.pdf > Ed.]
Keith Wilde’s comments on the paper and others’ observations on it were wide-ranging. One of Mr. Wilde’s main comments related to the fact that the essence of the economic process is not wholeness but fragmentation, liquefaction, atomization, and dissolution.
He found that Mr. McRuer’s suggestion that economics can be a science was misguided in that the economy is a social and political phenomenon devoted to making choices because we can never have everything we want.
He found Mr. de Fayer’s comments more provocative. On one hand, he mused that it is just not possible to measure and divide some qualities that are important in human existence—in other words, the maxim that if one can’t measure something one can’t manage it is actually fundamentally incorrect. On the other, he thought it may be the case that there may be ways to switch to an ecological philosophy and approach to life that is consistent with long-run survival.
Link to | Reaction to The Whole Economy: A Concept Paper and the comments by McRuer and de Fayer.
Leave a Reply