ArticlePDF Available

Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the Perfect Green market?

  • May 2016
Authors:
Lucio Muñoz at Independent QLC researcher
Lucio Muñoz
  • Independent QLC researcher
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract and Figures

We are now living in the world of green markets, yet we seem not to be able to see that the paradigm shift from the traditional market to green markets has created a green market knowledge gap. And it is this knowledge gap that apparently is limiting the ability of governments(developed and underdeveloped) and institutions(local and global) alike to set up green markets and implement green market based sustainable development programs such as low carbon based development. For example, we know what the structure of the traditional perfect market is; and the paradigm shift raises the question what is the structure then of the perfect green market if the perfect traditional market idea was left behind? One of the goals of this paper is to provide an answer to this question.
Figures - uploaded by Lucio Muñoz
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Lucio Muñoz
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Lucio Muñoz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lucio Muñoz on Nov 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016. Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the
Perfect Green market?, In: International Journal of Science Social Studies Humanities and
Management (IJSSSHM), Vol. 2, No. 5., May, Ed. Dr. Maya Pant, India.
----------------------------------------------------------
Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the Perfect Green market?
By
Lucio Muñoz*
* Independent Qualitative Comparative Researcher / Consultant, Vancouver, BC, Canada Email: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca
Abstract
We are now living in the world of green markets, yet we seem not to be able to see that
the paradigm shift from the traditional market to green markets has created a green market
knowledge gap. And it is this knowledge gap that apparently is limiting the ability of
governments(developed and underdeveloped) and institutions(local and global) alike to set up
green markets and implement green market based sustainable development programs such as low
carbon based development. For example, we know what the structure of the traditional perfect
market is; and the paradigm shift raises the question what is the structure then of the perfect
green market if the perfect traditional market idea was left behind? One of the goals of this paper
is to provide an answer to this question.
Key concepts
Traditional market, perfect market, green markets, perfect green market, paradigm shift,
green market knowledge gap, environmental externality, green margin, traditional market price,
green price, invisible hand, economic man, green invisible hand, green economic man, growth,
green growth.
Introduction
a) The traditional market
When only the economy(B) matters we have a traditional market(T), which can be
expressed as follows:
T = aBc
The expression above says that in the traditional market(T), society(a) and
environment(c) exist to meet the needs of the traditional market(T) as both social issues(a) and
environmental issues(c) are considered externalities or factors exogenous to the traditional
market model(T) and only the economy(B) is the dominant component here.
In other words, the traditional market(T) is a deep paradigm based model, which works
under independent preference structures. Here microeconomics theory and macroeconomic
theory and growth theory are the proper tools to deal with traditional market issues. And
therefore, this is the world of the economic man, the invisible hand, and economic growth.
Muñoz (2015) indicated that the traditional market model went unchallenged since 1776 when
Adam Smith proposed it in “The Wealth of Nations” to 1987 when the Bruntland Commission
published “Our Common Future” and criticized it. So the traditional market period went from
1776 to 1987.
b) Beyond traditional market thinking
In 1987 the Bruntland Commission highlighted the need to internalize social and
environmental issues in our development models(WCED 1987) and in 2012 Rio +20 the need to
internalize environmental issues was formally undertaken to transition to green markets, green
growth, and green sustainable development approaches(UNCSD 2012a; 2012b).
Now the view that development is more than just economic growth(Soubbotina 2004) is
more wide spread and moving fast towards real change: Transitions not just to low carbon
development(OECD 2015), but zero carbon development(Fay et al 2015) are being now
promoted and some real actions taken(GOC 2016). Muñoz(2016a) highlighted that the fixing
process started by the Bruntland Commission in 1987 culminated with the shift to green markets
in 2012, even though it was not the only option available then. So the transition period from the
traditional market to green markets went from 1987 to 2012.
c) The green market
Today we live in a world ruled by the partnership between the economy and the
environment, a view that requires transformation of the way we live to properly support the 2030
sustainable development program(UN 2015a), supported by global institutions like
FAO(UNCSD 2011) formalized in the 2015 Paris Agreement(UN 2015b) signed April 22,
2016(UN 2016) And when only the economy(B) and environment(C) matters we have a green
market(GM), which can be expressed as follows:
GM = aBC
The expression above says that in the green market(GM), society(a) exists to meet the
needs of the green market(GM) as social issues(a) are considered externalities or factors
exogenous to the green market model and only the economy(B) and the environment(C) are
dominant components. In other words, green markets are partial partnership based models that
work under partial codependent choice structure.
Here green microeconomics theory, green macroeconomic theory, and green growth
theory are the proper tools to deal with green market issues. And therefore, this is the world of
the green economic man, the green invisible hand, and green economic growth. It has been
recently stressed that paradigms shift from less sustainable positions to more sustainable ones,
pointing in the end towards sustainability(Muñoz 2016b) such as the case of the 2012 shift to
green markets. Hence, from 2012 to now 2016 we have been living under the green market
model.
d) The green market knowledge gap
Muñoz(2016c) pointed out that when we shift paradigms the knowledge base of the
previous paradigm as well as its model structure and preference structure is left behind, including
its price and tax structure. For example, the traditional market is deep paradigm market that
operates under independent choice and clears at the traditional price P while the green market is
a partial partnership based market operating under partial codependent choice and which clears
at the green price GP which is higher than the traditional price P. Yet mainstream thinkers and
decision makers appear to be trying to use micro-economic theory and macroeconomic theory
right now to deal with issues of a different market, the green market. An action that violates the
theory-practice consistency principle. For example, there is even a guidebook to the green
economy(UNDESA 2012), yet there is neither green microeconomic nor green macroeconomics
nor green trickledown effect expectation.
The green market knowledge gap after the paradigm shift stressed recently by
Muñoz(2016c) is reflected by the environmental sustainability gap(ESG) affecting the traditional
market model(T) as it assumes environmental externality neutrality; and by the absence of the
environmental sustainability gap in green markets as now environmental issues are endogenous
issues. And this green market knowledge gap can be appreciated or highlighted by contrasting
the traditional market model(T) structure with the green market model(GM) structure as
indicated below:
T.GM = (aBc)((aBC) = (aB)(aB)(cC) = aB(cC)
If we make ESG = cC, then we have:
T.GM = (aBc)((aBC) = (aB)(aB)(cC) = aB(ESG)
Therefore to internalize environmental externalities in the traditional market model(T) we
need to close the environmental sustainability gap(ESG = cC) by making environmental issues
endogenous issues; and when doing this, we are creating green markets. Hence the
internalization of environmental issues to correct the traditional market changes everything about
the idea of perfect traditional markets as we know it creating the green market knowledge gap;
and hence the paradigm shift raises the question, what is the structure of the perfect green market
then if the perfect traditional market was left behind? Among the goals of this paper is to provide
an answer to this question.
Objectives
a) To highlight analytically and graphically the structure and main aspects of the perfect
traditional market; b) To stress analytically and graphically the structure of the paradigm shift
from the traditional market to green markets; and c) to use the above to state analytically and
graphically the structure and implications of the perfect green market
Methodology
First, the terminology used in this paper is listed. Second, some operational concepts are
provided. Third, the structure of the traditional perfect market is highlighted. Fourth, the
structure of the paradigm shift to green markets is shared. Fifth, the structure of the perfect
green market is pointed out. And finally some food for thoughts and conclusions are given.
Terminology
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A = Dominant/active society a = Dominated/passive society
B = Dominant/active economy b = Dominated/passive economy
C = Dominant/active environment c = Dominated/passive environment
S = Traditional supply D = Traditional demand
GS = Green supply GD = Green demand
P = Traditional market price GP = Green market price
Q = Traditional market quantity GQ = Green market quantity
EE = Environmental externality EM = Green margin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational concepts
a) Traditional market, the economy only market
b) Green market, the environmentally friendly market
c) Sustainability market, the socially and environmentally friendly market
d) Traditional market price, general market economic only price or the price that covers the
cost of production
e) Green market price, the price that reflects both the economic and the environmental cost of
production or the price that covers the cost of environmentally friendly production
f) Sustainability market price, the price that reflects the economic, social, and the
environmental cost of production or the price that covers the cost of socially and
environmentally friendly production.
h) Green market knowledge gap, the knowledge gap created by the paradigm shift from
traditional markets to green markets.
k) Green micro-economics, the theory of the environmentally responsible firm and consumer.
l) Green macroeconomics, the theory of the environmentally responsible economy.
m) Trickledown effect, the expectation that traditional markets and growth will sooner or later
benefit the poor
n) Green trickledown effect, the expectation that green markets and green growth will sooner
or later benefit the poor.
o) Deep paradigm, a fully exclusive model(e.g. the traditional market).
p) Partial partnership paradigm, a partially inclusive model(e.g. the green market).
q) Full partnership paradigms, a fully inclusive model(e.g. the sustainability market).
r) Externalities, factors assumed exogenous to a model
s) Full externality assumption, only one factor is the endogenous factor in the model, the others
are exogenous factors.
t) Partial externality assumption, not all factors are endogenous factors at the same time in the
model.
u) No externality assumption, all factors are endogenous factors at the same time in the model.
v) Green margin, to cover the extra cost of making the business environmentally friendly.
The structure of the traditional market model
The price structure of the perfect market(T) is found at the point where traditional
demand(D) clears traditional supply(S) as shown in Figure 1 below:
Analytically the price structure of the perfect market(T) can be stated as follows:
T = P
The traditional market(T) is cleared at the traditional price P, where the traditional
quantity(Q) is produced and consumed. And here micro-economic theory, macro-economic
theory and growth theory work as usual and the trickledown effect is expected to hold.
In summary: The traditional perfect market(T) is the market where traditional supply(S)
and traditional demand(D) are cleared at the traditional price P. It is a world driven by growth
and trickledown expectations.
The structure of the paradigm shift to green markets
As environmental issues are internalized in the price structure the traditional supply S
shift to the left from point (i) to point (ii) creating the green supply GS and the traditional price P
increases by the green margin(EM) to become the green price GP, a situation that is summarized
in Figure 2 below:
Analytically the price structure of the green market(GM) can be stated as follows:
GM = GP = P + EM
The green market(GM) is cleared at the green price GP, where the green quantity(GQ) is
produced and consumed. And here micro-economic theory, macro-economic theory growth
theory and the trickledown effect as we know them do not work as the environmental
externality(EE) is internalized when we add the green margin(EM) to the traditional price P to
cover the extra cost of making production environmentally friendly.
We can see from Figure 2 above the following: a) that when environmental
externalities(EE) are assumed to be exogenous issues, we operate at point (i) where the perfect
market(T) clears at the lower traditional price P; b) that when environmental externalities(EE)
are internalized and made endogenous issues we operate at point (ii) where the green
markets(GM) clears at the higher green price(GP); c) that when we are in green markets(GM)
prices are higher(GP > P) and therefore, production and consumption is expected to be lower(GQ
< Q); and d) that the shift from the traditional market(T) to the green market(GM), which
involves adding green margins(EM) to the traditional price P to close the environmental
externality(EE) has created a green market knowledge gap that needs to be closed fast to
properly support green markets.
In summary: The paradigm shift from the traditional market(T) to the green
market(GM) summarized in Figure 2 above indicates that green markets(GM) are different than
traditional markets(T) in price structure, consumption and production structure, model structure,
preference structure, supply and demand structure, the type of growth expectations and the type
of trickledown expectations.
The structure of the perfect green market
The price structure of the perfect green market(GM) is found at the point where green
demand(GD) clears green supply(GS) as shown in Figure 3 below:
Analytically the price structure of the perfect green market(GM) can be stated as follows:
GP = P + EM
The perfect green market(GM) is cleared at the green price GP, where the green
quantity(GQ) is produced and consumed. Here green micro-economics, green macro-economics,
and green growth are the appropriate tools; and a green trickled down effect is expected to hold.
In summary: The perfect green market(GM) is the market where green supply(GS) and
green demand(GD) are cleared at green price GP. It is a world driven by green growth and green
trickledown expectations.
Food for thoughts
a) Is the green market a green sustainable development model?. I say yes, it is the
dominant sustainable development model of today, what do you think?
b) Can a low carbon based development strategy be implemented outside green markets?
I say no, it would violate the theory-practice consistency principle, what do you think?
c) Can social externalities be dealt directly through green markets?. I say no, social
issues are exogenous issues, what do you think?
d) What makes a market a dwarf market? I say it looks like it is, but it is not, what do
you think?
Conclusions
The structure of the traditional market was highlighted in detail both graphically and
analytically. The structure of the paradigm shift from the traditional market to green markets and
its implications were outlined too both graphically and analytically. And the ideas above were
combined to point out graphically and analytically the structure of the perfect green market,
which rules current development thoughts today as we are now beyond traditional market
thinking. The paradigm shift means we are living today in a world ruled by green markets.
References
Fay, Marianne, Stephane Hallegatte, Adrien Vogt-Schilb, Julie Rozenberg, Ulf Narloch and Tom
Kerr, 2015. Decarbonizing Development : Three Steps to a Zero-Carbon Future. Climate
Change and Development Series, World Bank, Washington, DC., USA.
Government of Canada(GOC), 2016. Growing the Middle Class, March 22 Budget, Department
of Finance, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2015. Did Adam Smith Miss the Chance to State the Goal and Structure of
Sustainability Markets in His Time? If Yes, Which Could Be Some of the Possible Reasons
Behind That?, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, December 11-30, La Paz, Bolivia.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016a. Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s
model: Was Going Green the Only Option? If not, Is This Option the Most Sustainable
One?, Weber Economics & Finance (ISSN:2449-1662 ), Vol. 2 (3) 2016, Article ID wef_169,
540-546.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016b. Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a
Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations under Win-
Win and No Win-Win Situations, In: British Journal of Economics, Management &
Trade 12(4): 1-15, Article no.BJEMT.24697, London, UK.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016c. The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was
the Arrow Impossibility Theorem Left Behind?, Weber Economics & Finance (ISSN:2449-
1662 ), Vol. 2 (3) 2016, Article ID wef_170, 547-555.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), 2015. Aligning Policies for
the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy, Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level,
3-4 June, Paris, France.
Soubbotina, Tatyana P., 2004. Beyond Economic Growth: An Introduction to Sustainable
Development, Second Edition, WBI Learning Resources Series, The World Bank, Washington,
DC, USA.
United Nations(UN), 2015a. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, Declaration 25-27 September, New York, NY, USA.
United Nations(UN), 2015b. Conference of the Parties: Adoption of the Paris Agreements,
December, New York, NY, USA.
United Nations(UN), 2016. Message to Parties: Signing of the Parties Agreement, Climate
Change Secretariat, New York, April 22, NY, USA.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development(UNCSD), 2011. FAO Statement at the
Second Intersessional Meeting, United Nations, 15-16, December, New York, NY, USA.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development(UNCSD), 2012a. Rio+20 Concludes
with Big Package of Commitments for Action and Agreement by World Leaders on Path for a
Sustainable Future, Press Release, June 20-22, New York, NY, USA.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development(UNCSD), 2012b. The Future We
Want, June 20-22, New York, NY, USA.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs(UNDESA), 2012. A guidebook to
the Green Economy, UN Division for Sustainable Development, New York, NY, USA.
World Commission on Environment and Development(WECD), 1987. Our Common Future.
London, Oxford University Press.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016. Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the
Perfect Green market?, In: International Journal of Science Social Studies Humanities and
Management (IJSSSHM), Vol. 2, No. 5., May, Ed. Dr. Maya Pant, India.

Supplementary resource (1)

Beyond Traditional Market Thinking: What is the Structure of the Perfect Green market?
Data
November 2016
Lucio Muñoz
... When this paradigm shifts then its model structure, its choice structure, its knowledge structure, and price structure all shift at the same time leaving the old structures behind [3]. And depending on the type of externality internalization that takes place the traditional market can shift to red markets if social margins are internalized [10]; it can shift to green markets if environmental margins are internalized [11]; and it can shift to sustainability markets if both social and environmental margins are internalized at the same time [12]. Fig. 1 shows in detail the structure of the traditional market together with its embedded distortions and associated sustainability gaps: Fig. 1 above help us visualize the following: i) that the perfect market interaction is taking place at the point where traditional supply S meets traditional demand D at the traditional market price P and traditional quantify Q; and ii) that it is at this point of perfect market interaction that it is assumed that there is social (a) and environmental(c) externality neutrality and it is this assumption that makes the 4 traditional market a fully distorted market. ...
... Hence the green market rational codependent choice structure (GMRCCS) can be stated as follows: Development here needs to be both environment and economy friendly at the same time to be implemented; and therefore the choice is not longer independent, but codependent. Codependent choice is at the heart of perfect green markets [11]. ...
Chapter 1 If Going From Free Markets to Free Markets Is the Science Based Approach: What is Then the Model Structure, Price Structure, Choice Structure and the Knowledge Structure and Related Gaps of the 2012 Paradigm Shift From Perfect Traditional Market to Perfect Green Market Thinking?,
Chapter
Full-text available
  • Jan 2021
When paradigm shifts they shift from free market to free market or from perfect market to perfect market to maintain or respect the theory-practice consistency principle. The necessary and sufficient condition for a perfect shift to take place is the internalization of externality costs in the pricing mechanism of the market. And when a shift takes place four things are expected to happen at the same time: A model structure shift, a price structure shift, a choice structure shift, and a knowledge structure shift creating in the process model, price, choice, and knowledge gaps. In 2012 there was a paradigm shift from perfect traditional markets to perfect green markets, which raises a very important question: If going from free markets to free markets is the science based approach: What is then the model structure, price structure, choice structure and the knowledge structure and related gaps of 2012 paradigm shift from perfect traditional market to perfect green market thinking? The main goal of this paper is to provide an answer to this question.
View
... As the nature of the green market price(GMP) is environmentally friendly, then consumption(GC), production(GP), and population dynamics(GT) are environmentally friendly too. Notice that the idea above can be seen as a not business as usual way of addressing the environmental issue highlighted in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission (WCED 1987) to address the environmental shortcomings embedded in Adam Smith's traditional market model (Smith 1776); and consistent with the green market, green growth, and green economy idea that the United Nations Commission on Sustainable development(UNCSD 2012a; UNCSD 2012b) apparently had during the Rio + 20 Conference, as it has the structure of a perfect green market (Muñoz 2016) that meets perfect green market competition expectations (Muñoz 2019) under social externality neutrality assumptions. ...
Sustainability thought 168: How can the conjunctural paradigm framework shift from the socially distorted green market price led system stability framework to the sustainability market price led system stability framework be pointed out?
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2023
Abstract It can be said that under social externality neutrality assumptions when the green market price accounts for the environmental cost of production associated with economic activity as well as its economic costs; and it is in place since the moment the green markets are set up it will lead in the long term to no environmental problems and it will not create social problems as well since it is not affected by social sustainability gap pressures by assumption. In other words, no price distortion in environmental terms and by assumption no price distortions in social terms should be expected to lead to no environmental problems and to no social problems as there is environmental cost responsibility with no social consequences by assumption, which means that in the green market under social externality neutrality assumptions there will be no environmental overshooting as the market operates within the environmental carrying capacity of the system as well as there will be not social overshooting concerns as the market generates no social externalities by assumption. It can be said that under no social externality neutrality assumptions when the green market price accounts for the environmental cost of production associated with economic activity as well as its economic costs, but no social costs associated with economic activity even when they are real; and the green market price is in place since the moment the green markets are set up it will tend in the long term towards no environmental problems and it will create extreme social problems. In other words, no price distortion in environmental terms, but price distortions in social terms should be expected to lead to no environmental problems and to extreme social problems at the same time as there is environmental cost responsibility and social cost irresponsibility at the same time, And this means that in the green market under no social externality neutrality assumptions there will be no environmental overshot as the market will then be working within the environmental carrying capacity of the system, but there will be extreme social overshooting at the same time as the market will be working beyond the social carrying capacity of the system. It can be said that as the sustainability market price accounts for the social costs and the environmental cost of production as well as its economic costs it will tend in the long term to no socio-environmental problems. In other words, no price distortion in social and environmental terms should be expected to lead to no environmental problems and to no social problems at the same time as social and environmental cost responsibility would lead to no social overshot and to no environmental overshoot at the same time as the sustainability market would then be working within social and environmental carrying capacity of the system. If we look at the socially distorted green market price led framework as lower level sustainability framework and we look at the sustainability market price led framework as the higher level sustainability framework, then we can look at the sustainability market price led framework as one coming from making the socially distorted green market price led framework systematically socially friendly. In other words, when the socially distorted green market led framework reflects social responsibility it leads to the sustainability market led framework. And this raises important questions such as how can the conjunctural paradigm framework shift from the socially distorted green market price led system stability framework to the sustainability market price led system stability framework be pointed out?. What are the implications of this?. Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to the questions listed above. Resúmen Se puede decir que, bajo los supuestos de neutralidad de la externalidad social, cuando el precio del mercado verde refleja el costo ambiental de producción asociado con la actividad económica, así como sus costos económicos; y está vigente desde el momento en que se establezcan los mercados verdes, a largo plazo el mercado verde no generará problemas ambientales y tampoco creará problemas sociales, ya que no se ve afectado por las presiones de la brecha de sostenibilidad social por suposición. En otras palabras, debe esperarse que si no hay distorsiones de precios en términos ambientales y no hay distorsiones de precios en términos sociales por suposición entonces los mercados verdes no generaran ni problemas ambientales ni problemas sociales, ya que existe una responsabilidad de costo ambiental sin consecuencias sociales por suposición, lo que significa que en el mercado verde bajo los supuestos de neutralidad de la externalidad social, no habrá sobregiro ambiental ya que el mercado opera dentro de la capacidad de carga ambiental del sistema, así como tampoco habrá problemas de sobregiro social ya que el mercado no genera externalidades sociales por el supuesto que existe. Se puede decir que bajo supuestos de no neutralidad de externalidad social cuando el precio de mercado verde representa el costo ambiental de producción asociado con la actividad económica, así como sus costos económicos , pero no hay costos sociales asociados a la actividad económica aun cuando sean reales; y el precio del mercado verde está vigente desde el momento en que se establezcan los mercados verdes estos mercados tenderán a largo plazo a no crear problemas ambientales pero generaran problemas sociales extremos. En otras palabras, no hay distorsión de precios en términos ambientales, pero si hay distorsiones de precios en términos sociales y esto no conducirá a crear problemas ambientales pero si generara problemas sociales extremos ya que hay responsabilidad de costo ambiental e irresponsabilidad de costo social al mismo tiempo, y esto significa que en el mercado verde bajo supuestos de no neutralidad de externalidad social no habrá sobrepaso ambiental ya que el mercado entonces estará trabajando dentro de la capacidad de carga ambiental del sistema, pero si habrá un exceso social extremo ya que el mercado verde distorsionado socialmente funcionará más allá de la capacidad de carga social del sistema. Se puede decir que como el precio de mercado de la sostenibilidad refleja los costos sociales y el costo ambiental de la producción, así como sus costos económicos al mismo tiempo, este mercado tenderá a largo plazo a no crear problemas socio-ambientales. En otras palabras, se debe esperar que cuando no hay distorsiones de precios en términos sociales y términos ambientales no se generaran problemas ambientales ni sociales ya que la responsabilidad de costos sociales y ambientales no conduciría a ningún exceso social ni a un sobrepaso ambiental al mismo tiempo porque el mercado de sostenibilidad estaría funcionando dentro de la capacidad de carga social y ambiental del sistema. Si consideramos el marco liderado por el precio de mercado verde socialmente distorsionado como un marco inferior de sostenibilidad y si observamos el marco basado en el precio del mercado de sostenibilidad como un marco de sostenibilidad a nivel superior, entonces podemos tomar el marco basado en el precio del mercado de sostenibilidad como aquel que proviene de hacer el precio del mercado verde socialmente distorsionado se haga sistemáticamente socialmente amigable. En otras palabras, cuando el marco liderado por el mercado verde socialmente distorsionado refleja la responsabilidad social se cambia al marco liderado por el mercado de la sostenibilidad. Y esto plantea preguntas importantes como, por ejemplo, ¿cómo se puede señalar el cambio del marco del paradigma coyuntural del marco de estabilidad del sistema liderado por los precios del mercado verde socialmente distorsionado al marco de estabilidad del sistema liderado por los precios del mercado de sostenibilidad? ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones de esto? Entre los objetivos de este trabajo está dar respuesta a las preguntas enumeradas anteriormente.
View
... The broken black arrow in Figure 4 above means the extreme environmental overshoot is not possible(EOVS = 0) within pollution reduction markets like green markets. Ideas on how green markets work under perfect market thinking (Muñoz 2016) and under perfect green market competition thinking (Muñoz 2019) have been recently shared. ...
Sustainability thought 166: How do conjunctural paradigm framework shifts work? The case of the shift from traditional market price led framework to the green market price led framework.
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2023
Since the traditional market price does not account for the environmental cost of productions associated with economic activity it will lead in the long term to severe environmental distortions, which is the reason why the 1987 World Commission on Environment and development found and reported in “Our Common Future” that the business as usual model in place since 1776 was leading to deep unsustainability issues including environmental unsustainability; and that this needed to change. In other words, the Commission found that traditional market thinking and pricing had led to among other things to environmental problems, a finding that is consistent with the thought that price distortion in environmental terms should be expected to lead to extreme environmental overshoot in the long term. Since the green market price accounts for the environmental cost of production associated with economic activity as well as its economic costs it will lead in the long term to no environmental problems or lead to a move away from environmental problems depending on whether green market pricing is at work from the beginning when markets are set up or whether green market pricing comes from correcting environmentally distorted traditional market prices. In other words, no price distortion in environmental terms should be expected to lead to no environmental problems or to lead away from environmental problems as environmental cost responsibility would lead to no environmental overshoot as the system would be then working within or tending towards the carrying capacity of the environment, all depending on when environmental cost responsibility in the green market begins. As indicated above, distorted traditional markets lead to environmental problems; and green markets avoid or lead us away from environmental problems; and there is a need to express in simple terms how these ideas can be linked through paradigm shift thinking applied to shifting frameworks. In other words, the ideas of avoiding environmental problems or of moving away from environmental problems can be looked at from the point of view of shifting system stability frameworks like the shift from the most distorted traditional market price led system stability framework to the green market price led framework or from the lowest cost traditional market price led framework to the lowest environmental cost green market price led system stability framework. And this raises relevant questions like how do conjunctural paradigm frameworks shifts work? What are the main implications of doing this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to the questions listed above.
View
... Whether mainstream thinkers in the sustainable development area failed in 2012 to see how the transition road from environmentally dirty traditional markets to environmentally clean markets could be built is not clear, but what it is clear is that there is no transition link from dwarf green markets to environmentally clean markets as dwarf green markets are still active environmental externality based markets as the root cause of the environmental problem is not yet corrected. It has been pointed out that going dwarf green markets a la environmental externality management in 2012 meant starting to address the environmental crisis with the wrong foot(Muñoz 2016a) as only perfect green market thinking (Muñoz 2016b) could be used to fix the root cause of the pollution problem and to put that way a fast break to pollution generating activity that was taking place while at the same time creating the right conditions to transition to the environmentally clean economy. Avoiding paradigm shift like the green market paradigm shift in 2012 and going dwarf green markets since then according to the Thomas Kuhn's scientific revolution loop can only happen under willful academic blindness as decision makers knew or should have known that going dwarf green markets is not a fix to the pollution problem, it is just a patch. ...
Sustainability thoughts 139: How can the 2012 road to transition from environmental pollution based traditional economies to the environmentally clean economies that the world never built be pointed out?
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2022
When the Brundtland Commission said in 1987 that the business as usual model of Adam Smith needed to address the social and environmental issues associated with it, this meant that there was a socio-environmental pollution problem separating the dirty traditional economy from the clean economy. When the UNCSD in 2012 gave priority to addressing the environmental issue only associated with the dirty traditional market model, this meant that there was an environmental pollution problem between the environmentally dirty traditional market and the environmentally clean market. This situation brought the need to think about how the transition from the environmentally dirty traditional market to the environmentally clean market could be framed step by step, but instead of thinking in terms of transition to the environmentally clean economy attention was given since 2012 to adopting environmental externality management based markets or dwarf green markets. Whether mainstream thinkers in the sustainable development area failed in 2012 to see how the transition road from environmentally dirty traditional markets to environmentally clean markets could be built is not clear, but what it is clear is that there is no transition link from dwarf green markets to environmentally clean markets as dwarf green markets are still active environmental externality based markets as the root cause of the environmental problem is not yet corrected. And this raises the question, how can the 2012 road to transition from environmental pollution based traditional economies to environmentally clean economies that the world never built be pointed out? What are the implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to those questions.
View
... Hence, we can choose to correct both extreme social and extreme environmental abnormalities at the same time and shift to sustainability markets or we can choose to correct only the extreme social abnormality and shift to red markets or we can choose to correct only the extreme environmental abnormality and shift to green markets. For example, the idea of a perfect shift to green markets has been highlighted recently (Muñoz 2016). Once we know the structure of the paradigm shift we can see the structure of paradigm shift avoidance, including that of green market paradigm shift avoidance. ...
Sustainability thought 171: How to state the structure of the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop for the traditional market of Adam Smith when shifting to sustainability markets, to red markets, and to green markets under academic integrity?
Article
Full-text available
  • Aug 2022
Abstract The Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop tells us that under academic integrity if there is academic consensus for paradigm change and shift away from any status quo model it happens. And this applies to any status quo paradigm. This paper focuses on the structure of the Thomas Kuhn’s loop when the status quo model is the Adam Smith’s traditional market model under extreme abnormality pressures and there is academic consensus to chance and shift paradigm under academic integrity. And this raises the question, how to state the structure of the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop for the traditional market of Adam Smith when shifting to sustainability markets, to red markets, and to green markets under academic integrity?. What are the implications of this?. What is the structure of green market paradigm shift avoidance? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to these questions. Resúmen El ciclo de evolución del paradigma de Thomas Kuhn nos dice que, bajo la integridad académica, si existe un consenso académico para el cambio de paradigma y alejarse así de cualquier modelo de status quo, el cambio de paradigma sucede. Y esto se aplica a cualquier paradigma de status quo. Este artículo se centra en la estructura del ciclo de Thomas Kuhn cuando el modelo de status quo es el modelo de mercado tradicional de Adam Smith bajo presiones de anomalías extremas y cuando existe un consenso académico para el cambio de paradigma y de su implementación bajo la integridad académica. Y esto plantea la pregunta, ¿cómo enunciar la estructura del ciclo de evolución del paradigma de Thomas Kuhn para el mercado tradicional de Adam Smith cuando se cambia a mercados de sostenibilidad, a mercados rojos y a mercados verdes bajo integridad académica? ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones de esto? ¿Cuál es la estructura de evitación del cambio de paradigma al mercado verde? Entre los objetivos de este trabajo está dar respuesta a estas preguntas.
View
... 2) The structure of the perfect green market model A market where the economy(B) and environment(C) are the dominant components at the same time and where society(a) is a passive component is known as the perfect green market(GM) (Muñoz 2016a), which can be stated analytically as follows: ...
Sustainability thoughts 153: How does a general perfect green market paradigm evolution model is expected to work? The cases of expanding green markets, of saving green markets from collapse, and of the fall of green markets due to binding social externality pressures
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2021
Abstract If we place a general perfect market evolution model under externality neutrality assumptions, we can extract the environment under which a dominant component perfect markets operate, which allows for the possibility of forever growth and no collapse. However, if we place it under a framework of no externality neutrality assumption, then the model shows limits to growth and the possibility of collapse. And if the risk of collapse is real, the dominant component market model can either be saved or it can collapse if it cannot be saved. The saving mechanism allows for either a full fix or just a patch, but it all depends on whether or not there are paradigm shift knowledge gaps as well as political and academic will. If the market cannot be saved, it will flipped perfectly or imperfectly to opposite and inverse opposite forms, and if possible they will flip towards a market form that still allows them to keep at least some of the core values they had before the flip. The above holds true for any dominant component based market, and this paper focus its attention on the perfect green market model, which makes the following questions relevant: How does a general perfect green market paradigm evolution model is expected to work? The cases of expanding green markets, of saving green markets from collapse, and the case of the fall of green markets due to binding social sustainability pressures. Key concepts Perfect markets, imperfect markets, perfect green markets, imperfect green markets, externality neutrality assumption, binding social sustainability gaps, paradigm evolution, dominant paradigm, market expansion, market collapse, fully fixing markets, partially fixing markets, paradigm shift, paradigm flip, perfect paradigm shift, perfect paradigm flip, imperfect paradigm shift, imperfect paradigm flip Resúmen Si colocamos un modelo de evolución de mercado perfecto general bajo supuestos de neutralidad de externalidades, podemos extraer el entorno en el que operan los mercados perfectos de componente dominante, lo que permite la posibilidad de un crecimiento permanente y sin colapso. Sin embargo, si lo colocamos bajo un marco de suposición de externalidad sin neutralidad, entonces el modelo muestra límites al crecimiento y la posibilidad de colapso. Y si el riesgo de colapso es real, el modelo de mercado de componentes dominantes puede salvarse o puede colapsar si no se puede salvar. El mecanismo de salvación permite una solución social completa o simplemente un parche social, pero todo depende de si hay o no lagunas de conocimiento del cambio de paradigma, así como la voluntad ética política y académica. Si el mercado no se puede salvar, cambiará perfecta o imperfectamente a formas opuestas e inversas opuestas y, si es posible, cambiará hacia una forma de mercado que aún le permita mantener al menos algunos de los valores fundamentales que tenían antes del cambio. Lo anterior es válido para cualquier mercado basado en componentes dominantes, y este documento centra su atención en el modelo de mercado verde perfecto, lo que hace que las siguientes preguntas sean relevantes: ¿Cómo se espera que funcione la evolución del paradigma del mercado verde perfecto? Los casos de expansión de los mercados verdes, de salvar los mercados verdes del colapso y el caso de la caída de los mercados verdes debido a las presiones serias de sostenibilidad social.
View
... Moreover, from the true perfect market angle it is possible to see how imperfect markets can become perfect markets if we assume away either equality or freedom or if we declare any of them irrelevant. Ideas on how perfect market variability based on component dominance can be framed have recently been shared as well as ideas related to linking perfect market thinking to inclusion so as the need for full socio-economic inclusion when in the world of perfect red markets (Muñoz 2016a), the need for full socio-environmental-economic inclusion when in the world of perfect sustainability markets (Muñoz 2016b), and the need for full eco-economic inclusion when in the world of perfect green markets (Muñoz 2016c). ...
Sustainability thoughts 151: An overview of market variability based on dominant component equality and freedom: What is the structure of a true perfect market?
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2021
Abstract Markets are related to concepts like equality and freedom. Markets based on dominant component freedom are said to be perfect markets and markets based on dominant component equality are said to be imperfect markets. Perfect markets here assume dominant component equality neutrality; and imperfect markets in this context assume dominant component freedom neutrality. However, true perfect markets are associated with dominant component freedom and dominant component equality at the same time; and if one component is absent or assumed away or assumed irrelevant, then we have a true imperfect market. This means that true perfect and true imperfect market thinking is not the same as traditional perfect and imperfect market thinking as we know it as then a known perfect market may not be a true perfect market; and a true imperfect market can be even a perfect market if neutrality assumptions are at play. Hence there is need to state and generalize the meaning of true perfect markets to understand the nature of related imperfect markets and to make sense as to whether or not well-known perfect markets and imperfect markets are consistent with what is a true perfect market. And this raises the question how a market variability model based on dominant component equality and freedom looks like? What is the structure of a true perfect market? What is the structure of true imperfect markets? How can true market thinking be linked to the structure of two well-known markets, the Adam Smith’s traditional perfect market; and the Karl Marx’s red socialism market? The focus of this paper is to provide an overview of market variability based on dominant component equality and freedom to state the specific and the general structure of a true perfect market and of true imperfect markets; and linked this knowledge to the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of two well-known markets, the traditional perfect market and the red socialism market. Key concepts True perfect market, true imperfect market, the traditional perfect market a la Adam Smith, the red socialism market a la Karl Marx, the liberal market, the authoritarian market, market variability, equality, freedom, market structure
View
... In other words, establishing this link would help us in two ways: a) to see clearly the paradigm evolution routes available to save pure or capitalism model from paradigm failure due to binding social externality gap pressures; and b) to see the paradigm evolution routes possible when pure capitalism fails and the world moves away from pure or perfect capitalism. It has been indicated that pure capitalism a la Adam Smith (Smith 1776) can be saved from collapse by making it fully socially friendly (Muñoz 2016a) or by making it fully environmentally friendly (Muñoz 2016b) or by making fully socially and environmentally friendly (Muñoz 2016c ) or by patching it through externality management tools, be it social patches only or both social and environmental patches at the same time or only environmental patches such as the case of environmental externality management markets shows (Muñoz 2017). The initial call to save capitalism was made by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 in "Our Common Future" when calling for action away from capitalism as usual (WCED 1987). ...
Sustainability thoughts 145: How to link the general paradigm evolution model to the pure capitalism model when capitalism is under binding social sustainability gap pressures? The case of social fixes and social patches to save capitalism through social friendliness.
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2021
Abstract It can be said that all development paradigms when facing binding sustainability gap pressures must evolve, whether they persists in their original dominant form or not. And consistent with the above it can also be said: i) that to persist in dominant form a paradigm must perfectly shift or it must be patched, and ii) that when a paradigm fails the sustainability test it will flip perfectly or imperfectly towards the inverse opposite paradigm or it will flip towards authoritarianism. The above holds true for all dominant-dominated based paradigm structures when under specific binding sustainability gap pressures, including the pure capitalism paradigm under binding social sustainability gap pressures. This paper deals with the following general question and specific case: How to link the general paradigm evolution model to the pure capitalism model when capitalism is under binding social sustainability gap pressures? The case of social fixes and of social patches to save capitalism through social friendliness. Key concepts Sustainability, perfect markets, imperfect markets, sustainability markets, externality management markets, sustainability gap, paradigm fix, paradigm patch, paradigm shift, perfect paradigm flip, imperfect paradigm flip, dominant paradigm, paradigm evolution, traditional market, red market, social externality based market, authoritarianism based market, perfect social market, imperfect social market. Resúmen Se puede decir que todos los paradigmas de desarrollo cuando se enfrentan a presiones serias de brecha de sostenibilidad deben evolucionar, ya sea que persistan en su forma dominante original o no. Y en consonancia con lo anterior también se puede decir: i) que para persistir en forma dominante un paradigma debe cambiar perfectamente o debe ser parcheado, y ii) que cuando un paradigma no pasa la prueba de sostenibilidad se volcará perfecta o imperfectamente hacia el paradigma inversamente opuesto o se volcará hacia el autoritarismo. Lo anterior es cierto para todas las estructuras paradigmáticas dominantes-dominadas cuando se encuentran bajo presiones específicas de brecha de sostenibilidad bien serias, incluido el paradigma del capitalismo puro bajo presiones serias de brecha de sustentabilidad social. Este artículo se ocupa de la siguiente pregunta general y caso específico: ¿Cómo vincular el modelo de evolución del paradigma general con el modelo de capitalismo puro cuando el capitalismo se encuentra bajo presiones serias de brecha de sostenibilidad social? El caso de las correcciones sociales y de los remiendos sociales para salvar el capitalismo a través de la amistad social.
View
... In other words, establishing this link would help us in two ways: a) to see clearly the paradigm evolution routes available to save pure or capitalism model from paradigm failure due to binding environmental externality gap pressures; and b) to see the paradigm evolution routes possible when pure capitalism fails and the world moves away from pure or perfect capitalism. It has been indicated that pure capitalism a la Adam Smith (Smith 1776) can be saved from collapse by making it fully socially friendly (Muñoz 2016a) or by making it fully environmentally friendly (Muñoz 2016b) or by making fully socially and environmentally friendly (Muñoz 2016c ) or by patching it through externality management tools, be it social patches only or both social and environmental patches at the same time or only environmental patches such as the case of environmental externality management markets shows (Muñoz 2017). The initial call to save capitalism was made by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 in "Our Common Future" when calling for action away from capitalism as usual (WCED 1987). ...
Sustainability thoughts 136: How to link the general paradigm evolution model to the pure capitalism model when capitalism is under binding environmental sustainability gap pressures? The case of environmental fixes and of environmental patches to save capitalism through environmental friendliness.
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2021
Abstract It can be said that all development paradigms when facing binding sustainability gap pressures must evolve, whether they persists in their original dominant form or not. And consistent with the above it can also be said: i) that to persist in dominant form a paradigm must perfectly shift or it must be patched, and ii) that when a paradigm fails the sustainability test it will flip perfectly or imperfectly towards the inverse opposite paradigm or it will flip towards authoritarianism. The above holds true for all dominant-dominated based paradigm structures when under specific binding sustainability gap pressures, including the pure capitalism paradigm under binding environmental sustainability gap pressures. This paper deals with the following general question and specific case: How to link the general paradigm evolution model to the pure capitalism model when capitalism is under binding environmental sustainability gap pressures? The case of environmental fixes and of environmental patches to save capitalism through environmental friendliness. Key concepts Sustainability, perfect markets, imperfect markets, sustainability markets, externality management markets, sustainability gap, paradigm fix, paradigm patch, paradigm shift, perfect paradigm flip, imperfect paradigm flip, dominant paradigm, paradigm evolution, traditional market, green market, environmental externality based market, authoritarianism based market, perfect environmental market, imperfect environmental market.
View
... If we use sustainable development theory to address a sustainability issue then we are using a non-science based approach to address that issue. It has been stressed recently that a science based approach to address environmental sustainability issues associated to development is the use of green market based development (Muñoz 2016a); and that a nonscience based approach to the same issue is through environmental externality market based development or dwarf green markets, which require a flipping of traditional economic thinking (Muñoz 2019) to make sense, but growth in environmental externality management markets or dwarf green markets is not green growth as they are not green markets. ...
Sustainability thoughts 130: Can green economies and green growth exist without green markets? If not, why not? What is the current main development implication of this?
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2021
All the talk prior to and during the 2012 Rio +20 conference was about moving away from business as always just as the Brundtland Commission asked in 1987; and shift towards a win-win environment-economy model, which meant that at the heart of this model there had to be a green market linking a new culture of green producers and green consumers, and this in turn would generate green growth that would drive green economy expansions. A three pillar development approach consistent with the theory-practice consistency principle and development thinking. It happened that suddenly after that 2012 Rio + 20 conference talk about using green markets as a way to fix the environmental sustainability gap affecting the traditional market model stopped; and the focus of development then went directly to promoting green growth and green economy thinking outside perfect green market thinking, making green growth and green economy thinking the two main pillar of development behind the current sustainable development goals agenda, an approach that violates the theory-practice consistency principle as without green markets there is no green growth, and therefore, there is no green economy; and hence, they can exist without green markets. Dropping green markets then meant that the theory-practice consistency principle was broken as green growth can only come out of green markets; and this decision to go without green markets makes the development approach being promoted and implemented after 2012 by major development players like OECD, the World Bank, the UN and its organizations and so on, a non-green market, non-science based approach as green growth appears to come out of somewhere other than from green markets, an idea that as indicated above violates theory-practice consistency principles, which creates a dilemma for those institutions. This is because green economies and green growth are then based on non-green markets, which leads to a model, component, and unseen component inconsistency in those markets. As market model consistency, market component consistency and unseen market component consistency matter when addressing sustainability problems, in this case, an environmental sustainability problem, this raises the questions: Can green economies and green growth exist without green markets? If not, why not?. If green growth does not come from green markets, where does it come from then? What is the current main development implication of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide an answer to each of those questions.
View
Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s model: Was Going Green the Only Option? If not, Is This Option the Most Sustainable One?
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2016
When the Bruntland Commission called in 1987 for the fixing of the traditional market model of Adam Smith through sustainable development means to make it socially and environmentally responsible and inclusive it set the wheels in motion for paradigm death and shift; and in the 2012 RIO conference the green market or green growth model was chosen as the formal substitute. And this raises the questions, was going green the only option to meet the Bruntland Commission's fixing request? If not, is this option the most sustainable one? Among the goals of this paper is to provide an answer to these two questions.
View
The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was the Arrow Impossibility Theorem Left Behind?
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2016
When paradigm shift takes place the knowledge base of the old paradigm is left behind. If an axiom is proven true, everything derived from that axiom is true. If an axiom is proven false, everything supported by that axiom is false. When there is a paradigm shift, the axiom that was true in the previous paradigm is false in the new paradigm and therefore, everything derived from old paradigm to be applied in the new paradigm is false as now there is a paradigm shift knowledge gap. And if the knowledge base of the old paradigm is used in the new paradigm then you create a theory-practice inconsistency. Hence new paradigms require either a new axiom or a fixed old axiom; and this leads to a house of cards fall down effect: the main card/Axiom falls and the other cards on the top of it fall because the paradigm has shifted. In other words, when a paradigm shifts it leaves the previous knowledge base behind, creating a knowledge fall down effect reflected in the paradigm shift knowledge gap. And this situation is consistent with paradigm refutation a la Karl Popper as the old paradigm and its knowledge base is left behind and a paradigm shift knowledge gap is created; and it is also consistent with the growth of knowledge a la Thomas Kuhn as this knowledge gap must be closed with new ideas or with fixed old ideas. Among the goals of this paper are: a) to share a general choice or preference framework that can be linked to independent, partially co-dependent, and fully codependence assumptions; and b) to use the case of the Arrow Impossibility Theorem as one unintended consequence of paradigm shift to show that the paradigm shift from an independent choice model (the traditional market) to a partially codependent choice model(the green market) has left it behind as part of the house of cards fall down effect.
View
Did Adam Smith Miss the Chance to State the Goal and Structure of Sustainability Markets in His Time? If Yes, Which Could Be Some of the Possible Reasons Behind That?
Data
Full-text available
  • Mar 2016
At the time of Adam Smith the structure of reality in which the formal economy came to exist had the structure of a complex sustainability market, where there is full inclusion and no externality neutrality. If the prevailing economic view at that time would have been proactive in terms of envisioning markets with social and environmentally caring invisible hands then probably Adam Smith would have used that complex sustainability structure to state then the goal, form and relevant aspects of sustainability markets and make them the heart of the formal economy. These fully inclusive markets would have brought us through a slow, but optimal growth path. However, the dominant view during the industrial revolution period appears to have been that there were no social limits nor environmental limits to economic growth; and that may be the reason why Adam Smith went to state at that time the goal, structure and relevant aspects of the traditional market ruled by a fully uncaring invisible hand as the soul of the formal economy. These markets have brought us since the industrial revolution to now through a fast bare growth path. Adam Smith’s traditional market model went without any formal academic challenge since the industrial revolution to 1987 when the Bruntland Commission pointed out: a) that it was not working given the increasingly worse and worse poverty and environmental conditions that have come with it; and b) that it needed to be fixed immediately by making it socially and environmentally friendly and inclusive. And that meant that we needed a caring invisible hand after all in the market since the industrial revolution and hence we need to fix Adam Smith economy only model now. Recently even Pope Francis has called for environmental and social justice in our modeling. The above raises the questions, Did Adam Smith missed the chance to state the goal and structure of sustainability markets in his time? If yes, which could be some of the possible reasons behind that?
View
Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations under Win-Win and No Win-Win Situations
Data
Full-text available
  • Mar 2016
The history of science is one based on revolutions and discourse where a new paradigm arrives challenging the status quo with the promise of progress and if the evidence is there to justify paradigm shift on the basis of that promise the consensus will be to shift paradigms. Apparently the shift from Adam Smith’s traditional market paradigm to the eco-economic or green market paradigm formalized in 2012/RIO conference meets all the requirements for paradigm shift listed above, but it was based on the accumulated environmental evidence for change only (e.g. pollution and degradation) leaving out the accumulated social evidence for change (e.g. poverty and inequality), but a progress towards sustainability none the less. Not much seems to be written from the point of view of sustainability about paradigm changes such as paradigm death, paradigm shift and paradigm mergers. General goals of this paper are a) to introduce a sustainability inversegram that can be used to state paradigm death and shift expectations under win-win and under no win-win situations; and b) to use this expectation framework to show the structure before and after the paradigm shift from the traditional market to the green market under win-win eco-economic conditions.
View
Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations under Win-Win and No Win-Win Situations
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2016
The history of science is one based on revolutions and discourse where a new paradigm arrives challenging the status quo with the promise of progress and if the evidence is there to justify paradigm shift on the basis of that promise the consensus will be to shift paradigms. Apparently the shift from Adam Smith’s traditional market paradigm to the eco-economic or green market paradigm formalized in 2012/RIO conference meets all the requirements for paradigm shift listed above, but it was based on the accumulated environmental evidence for change only (e.g. pollution and degradation) leaving out the accumulated social evidence for change (e.g. poverty and inequality), but a progress towards sustainability none the less. Not much seems to be written from the point of view of sustainability about paradigm changes such as paradigm death, paradigm shift and paradigm mergers. General goals of this paper are a) to introduce a sustainability inversegram that can be used to state paradigm death and shift expectations under win-win and under no win-win situations; and b) to use this expectation framework to show the structure before and after the paradigm shift from the traditional market to the green market under win-win eco-economic conditions.
View
The Unintended Consequences of Paradigm Death and Shift: Was the Arrow Impossibility Theorem Left Behind?
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2016
When paradigm shift takes place the knowledge base of the old paradigm is left behind. If an axiom is proven true, everything derived from that axiom is true. If an axiom is proven false, everything supported by that axiom is false. When there is a paradigm shift, the axiom that was true in the previous paradigm is false in the new paradigm and therefore, everything derived from old paradigm to be applied in the new paradigm is false as now there is a paradigm shift knowledge gap. And if the knowledge base of the old paradigm is used in the new paradigm then you create a theory-practice inconsistency. Hence new paradigms require either a new axiom or a fixed old axiom; and this leads to a house of cards fall down effect: the main card/Axiom falls and the other cards on the top of it fall because the paradigm has shifted. In other words, when a paradigm shifts it leaves the previous knowledge base behind, creating a knowledge fall down effect reflected in the paradigm shift knowledge gap. And this situation is consistent with paradigm refutation a la Karl Popper as the old paradigm and its knowledge base is left behind and a paradigm shift knowledge gap is created; and it is also consistent with the growth of knowledge a la Thomas Kuhn as this knowledge gap must be closed with new ideas or with fixed old ideas. Among the goals of this paper are: a) to share a general choice or preference framework that can be linked to independent, partially co-dependent, and fully codependence assumptions; and b) to use the case of the Arrow Impossibility Theorem as one unintended consequence of paradigm shift to show that the paradigm shift from an independent choice model (the traditional market) to a partially codependent choice model(the green market) has left it behind as part of the house of cards fall down effect.
View
Did Adam Smith Miss the Chance to State the Goal and Structure of Sustainability Markets in His Time? If Yes, Which Could Be Some of the Possible Reasons Behind That?
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2015
At the time of Adam Smith the structure of reality in which the formal economy came to exist had the structure of a complex sustainability market, where there is full inclusion and no externality neutrality. If the prevailing economic view at that time would have been proactive in terms of envisioning markets with social and environmentally caring invisible hands then probably Adam Smith would have used that complex sustainability structure to state then the goal, form and relevant aspects of sustainability markets and make them the heart of the formal economy. These fully inclusive markets would have brought us through a slow, but optimal growth path. However, the dominant view during the industrial revolution period appears to have been that there were no social limits nor environmental limits to economic growth; and that may be the reason why Adam Smith went to state at that time the goal, structure and relevant aspects of the traditional market ruled by a fully uncaring invisible hand as the soul of the formal economy. These markets have brought us since the industrial revolution to now through a fast bare growth path. Adam Smith’s traditional market model went without any formal academic challenge since the industrial revolution to 1987 when the Bruntland Commission pointed out: a) that it was not working given the increasingly worse and worse poverty and environmental conditions that have come with it; and b) that it needed to be fixed immediately by making it socially and environmentally friendly and inclusive. And that meant that we needed a caring invisible hand after all in the market since the industrial revolution and hence we need to fix Adam Smith economy only model now. Recently even Pope Francis has called for environmental and social justice in our modeling. The above raises the questions, Did Adam Smith missed the chance to state the goal and structure of sustainability markets in his time? If yes, which could be some of the possible reasons behind that?
View
View
View
Build Capacity for International Health Agenda on the "Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development"
Article
  • Sep 2015
United Nations (UN) adopted 17 global sustainable development agenda to the year 2030 in the 68th general assembly on september, 2015. The global agendas and goals are important for 3 reasons: (1) to adopt the international standard for determining the health status; (2) to identify areas in need of attention; and (3) to advance international cooperation regarding health issues. In the area of infectious diseases, our goals include the eradication of human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome, tuberculosis, and malaria as well as a substantial reduction of hepatitis by the year 2030. In the area of non-communicable diseases, our goal is to reduce premature mortality ({\leq}70years) at least 30% by the year 2030. Preventive activities such as smoking cessation, alcohol abstinence, nutritional measures, and physical activities, should also be promoted intensively nationwide. It is also necessary to establish stringent policies for control hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and hypercholesterolemia. Additionally, environmental health, injury by traffic accident, mental health, and drug and alcohol abuse are important health policies. Furthermore, in the area of international health and cooperation, maternal and child health remain important areas of support for underdeveloped countries. Education and training towards the empowerment of health professionals in underdeveloped countries is also an important issue. The global agenda prioritize resources(manpower and budget) allocation of international organizations such as UN, World Health Organization, United Nations Development Programme, and World Bank. The global agenda also sets the contribution levels of Official Developmental Assistance donor countries. Health professionals such as professors and researchers will have to turn their attention to areas of vital international importance, and play an important role in implementation strategies and futhermore guiding global agenda.
View