24 February 2016 6 3K Report

In 2012 there was formally a paradigm shift from the traditional market model of Adam Smith(economy only market)  to the eco-economic market or green market model(economy-environment based partnership market), yet micro-economics and macroeconomics seem to continue intact as nothing has happened......

And approaches designed to deal with the externalities, social and/or environmental, of Adam Smith's model such as environmental economics, green economics, and ecological economics and ideas such as the steady state model seem not to have changed or adapted either as far as I know..... 

Now that environmental externalities have been internalized fulfilling partially the 1987 bruntland commission request/critique ....and the green markets have formally taken over Adam Smith market means that there is a micro-economic and macroeconomic knowledge gap, and there is an environmental economic, green economic, and ecological economic knowledge gap as now the reality has changed the market they were trying to correct, the Adam Smith market no longer exist and for those previous ideas to apply to green markets they need to be updated as green markets are now limited only by social externalities....

If all these disciplines do not evolved and close those knowledge gaps created by the paradigm shift to match the reality of green markets, then they are violating the theory-practice consistency principle as the reality and paradigm has changed, but the theory has been left behind.... 

If the theory does no longer match the practice,  is it appropriate to keep using that theory like nothing has happened?...I think Karl Popper and Thomas Khun would be disappointed if that was the case, what do you think?

More Lucio Muñoz's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions