Hullo Matthew

I'm not sure whether I can give an answer that will convey any information of which you are not already fully aware. However, I have browsed through your paper with Stein and will offer a few tangential thoughts.

First, as a biophysical scientist I don't have much patience for extracting meaning from postmodern deconstructionist waffle which seems disconnected from biophysical reality and the day-to-day lives of people affected.

Second, I would recommend that you read Richard Sanders' article explaining the fundamental problem at the core of economics which renders it blind to the biophysical limits to development and economic activity. Sanders also explains convincingly why the contemporary definition of sustainability as a condition achieved through balance of the economic, social and environmental limbs is conceptually incoherent and therefore un-implement.

Economics and markets are socio-economic constructs that are superimposed upon the biophysical fabric. They are highly dependent on the values of the key decision-makers involved: there is nothing normative about them. The discourse in economics about markets as if they were independent, autonomous, self-managing entities in which governments "interfere" at our mutual peril is total nonsense as markets don't even exist without a range of government utilities. In an industrial society, markets are a creature of governments. The strength of markets is that they coordinate between buyers and sellers within the statutory framework that governments have created. When the statutory framework changes, the markets can adjust without the need for central bureaucratic coordination. That strength is undisputed, but in much economic writing the bounds are commonly invisible or arose spontaneously.

The biophysical world of natural resources and energy also constrain markets but because the statutory restrictions on extraction of resources and discharge of pollutants back into the biosphere are weak and misaligned with biophysical reality, markets do not operate within the biophysical limits. The disconnect is now large enough to threaten human existence.

The other comment I would make is that it can be misleading to look for economic logic in the economic constraints applied to urban decision-making. Follow the power trail! Your paper recognises power as a factor. Economic theory is somewhat weak in its explanation of power and how power distorts decision-making regardless of likely economic outcomes. Power is difficult to slot into general equilibrium modelling .

Sanders and I share a scepticism about free trade which is relevant to your exploration of international and national competitive marketing. Free trade is a race to the bottom and marketing Adelaide in competition with other cities has some major defects. First, within a single national economy, the competition is likely to be a zero-sum game. Second, competition with other cities especially overseas ones but also within Australia, is resource hungry. Transporting people such as tourists across the planet consumes irreplaceable fossil fuels and has a short-term future. When the world finally wakes up to the seriousness of the climate change crisis, international travel will become rare.

I have touched on the dis-benefits of trade in the attached magazine article (non-peer-reviewed and copyrighted). It doesn't deal directly with your question but does explain why cities should aim to become self-sufficient and not depend upon cannibalising other cities at the expense of fossil fuels.

I'm happy to have another go at a response if I have missed the target or to converse via my Griffith email address if you wish.