different understandings of progress in the various approaches to growth. The final
section presents a summary of the major findings.
1.2 Selected Examples of the Progress Paradox
in Economics
It is undisputed that progress has always been made in economics. This much is clear
from the separate disciplines within the field of economics. Since Solow’s original
growth model (1956), economic growth theory in subsequent decades has undergone
major development. In terms of his theoretical model of growth, further development
has concentrated on both a specification and a differentiation within a framework of
endogenous growth theory. The resulting justifications have greatly expanded the
state of knowledge supporting continuous growth. As mentioned at the start, economic progress is understood as the expansion of previously available insights or
knowledge. There has also been a very significant increase in knowledge at the level
of empirical research methods, for example, as shown by the continuous development of econometrics. This increase in knowledge or progress can be subsumed in
the concept of cumulative disciplinary progress (von Hauff 2014). However, the
increase in knowledge or progress has sometimes faced challenges that have not
been adequately solved to date. This is the situation described by Sturn as the
economic progress paradox (Sturn 2011). The paradox is not easily explained as a
failure of politics or business to adequately implement the research findings of the
economists. For example, relatively few contributions from neoclassical growth
theory address the potential conflict between growth and the environment
in-depth, which is a topic discussed in more detail in the next section. Acemoglu,
for example, completely neglects the problem of environmental pollution caused by
growth in his widely and internationally distributed textbook Introduction to Modern
Economic Growth (2009). This, despite the broad global consensus today that:
• Growth may often lead to pollution.
• Humanity is not capable of survival in the absence of functioning ecosystems.
• Creating economic wealth also depends on the availability of functioning
ecosystems.
It is useful at this point to present some of the reasons for the existence of the
progress paradox. Some economists complain that the increased knowledge is offset
by a series of hinderances, some of which are traceable to the contrasting views of
economics, seen alternatively as either a self-contained or an open discipline. One
much discussed example of this concerns the position taken on the human factor in
economics. The question of whether the findings and insights of behavioral economists or neurobiologists are considered in the specification of economic behavior
models is of great importance, especially, in the context of sustainable development
(von Hauff 2014, p. 36).
4
M. von Hauff
section presents a summary of the major findings.
1.2 Selected Examples of the Progress Paradox
in Economics
It is undisputed that progress has always been made in economics. This much is clear
from the separate disciplines within the field of economics. Since Solow’s original
growth model (1956), economic growth theory in subsequent decades has undergone
major development. In terms of his theoretical model of growth, further development
has concentrated on both a specification and a differentiation within a framework of
endogenous growth theory. The resulting justifications have greatly expanded the
state of knowledge supporting continuous growth. As mentioned at the start, economic progress is understood as the expansion of previously available insights or
knowledge. There has also been a very significant increase in knowledge at the level
of empirical research methods, for example, as shown by the continuous development of econometrics. This increase in knowledge or progress can be subsumed in
the concept of cumulative disciplinary progress (von Hauff 2014). However, the
increase in knowledge or progress has sometimes faced challenges that have not
been adequately solved to date. This is the situation described by Sturn as the
economic progress paradox (Sturn 2011). The paradox is not easily explained as a
failure of politics or business to adequately implement the research findings of the
economists. For example, relatively few contributions from neoclassical growth
theory address the potential conflict between growth and the environment
in-depth, which is a topic discussed in more detail in the next section. Acemoglu,
for example, completely neglects the problem of environmental pollution caused by
growth in his widely and internationally distributed textbook Introduction to Modern
Economic Growth (2009). This, despite the broad global consensus today that:
• Growth may often lead to pollution.
• Humanity is not capable of survival in the absence of functioning ecosystems.
• Creating economic wealth also depends on the availability of functioning
ecosystems.
It is useful at this point to present some of the reasons for the existence of the
progress paradox. Some economists complain that the increased knowledge is offset
by a series of hinderances, some of which are traceable to the contrasting views of
economics, seen alternatively as either a self-contained or an open discipline. One
much discussed example of this concerns the position taken on the human factor in
economics. The question of whether the findings and insights of behavioral economists or neurobiologists are considered in the specification of economic behavior
models is of great importance, especially, in the context of sustainable development
(von Hauff 2014, p. 36).
4
M. von Hauff