-
The Evolution of Ego'n'Empathy: Progress in Forming the Centerpiece for Ecological Economic Theory / William M. Hayes and Gary D. Lynne
- Michigan State University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
101 The Evolution of Ego’n’Empathy Progress in Forming the Centerpiece for Ecological Economic Theory WILLIAM M. HAYES AND GARY D. LYNNE This chapter explores the evolution of Hayes and Lynne’s (2004) Ego’n’Empathy(EnE) hypothesis working to move beyond neoclassical economics (NCE) and nudge toward a centerpiece for ecological economics (EE). Results are encouraging, transdisciplinary support is good, new directions are considered, and there is new and common ground for EE and NCE. Empathy is in that ground, a key force in the adoption of conservation technologies, choices in recycling, and overall better potential for achieving a sustainable way of life that recognizes the thermodynamic realities that undergird EE. It is the key force in tempering-shifting the pivotal principle in mainstream economics, self-interest (ego) to include other interests (empathy). Our (2004, p. 299) claim about NCE still stands and evolves stronger: “If empirical testing results in failure to reject the null hypothesis of ‘no empathic, other-interest at work’ and ‘no lack of substitution possibilities,’ we are back to the standard neoclassical economic model.” There is no evidence to go back, and substantive evidence to support going forward, together on new and shared grounds. A grand case in point is the recent 2008 financial crisis and near economic collapse: Only through bringing empathy to the fore can we hope to move to better policy development and practice globally. Further, we bring empirical tests and scientific content to Rifkin’s (2009) contention that global consciousness about empathy is the hope for a long-term, sustainable solution to global problems, especially as related to food, fiber, energy, and climate change. INTRODUCTION The Ego’n’Empathy (EnE)hypothesis (Hayes and Lynne, 2004), as a theoretical framework, includes both the philosophical and scientific meanings of “hypothesis.”1 The science formulates a proposition made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for undertaking further scientific investigation. The philosophy formulates the hypothesis as a supposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption that it is positively truth. Together, Hayes and Lynne formed the hypothesis and a theoretical framework was put forward in “Towards a Centerpiece for Ecological Economics” (2004). We see ourselves as providing a 102| Hayes and Lynne paradigm shift back to the economics implied in Adam Smith’s Inquiry (1776)as a “real” spectator and investigative undertaker of the scientist; but, with his Theory (1759) as an “ideal” spectator and overseer of the philosopher. That the hypothesis and theory evolve stronger with science and philosophy is developed further, especially relative to new and shared grounds with EE and NCE. We envision a shared ground for a new mainstream economics in the future. Thus, our claim about neoclassical economics (NCE) still stands: “If empirical testing results in failure to reject the null hypothesis of ‘no empathic, other-interest at work’ and ‘no lack of substitution possibilities,’ we are back to the standard neoclassical economic model (Hayes and Lynne, 2004, p. 299).” There’s no evidence to go back, and substantive evidence to support going forward, together on new and shared grounds. When it was published in 2004, the main hypothesis was claimed as a movement toward, rather than asserted as the, centerpiece for EE. This implied we preferred not to be seen as overbearing and wanted to be more deferential. We also felt a dialog was needed, between the different disciplines involved in EE, about what is or should be the centerpiece or pivotal principle(s) of EE. In nudging the EnE hypothesis and theory toward the center, we hope the time is now even more right for a healthy discussion, especially when economic theory, in the mainstream, is appearing increasingly irrelevant. We have been disappointed that the paper has not stirred more conversation in the literature regarding a pivotal principle to develop a centerpiece for ecological economics, with its fundamental focus on achieving sustainability. This pivotal principle points to empathy as the key to achieving sustainability. Yet our proposal has had some notable attention, including Konchak and Pascual (2006, p. 11), who see the hypothesis as a “potentially ground-breaking solution . . . a new basis for social theory . . . a workable theoretical framework . . . a new paradigm for environmental policymaking.” Sneddon, Howarth, and Norgaard (2006) note how their paper works to “complement and extend discussions within ecological economics” as stirred in the 2004 and related papers of that era. Still others have not only used but empirically tested the dual-interest framework, including Chouinard and coauthors...