There is a growing dissatisfaction with using standard measures of affluence, such as gross domestic product, as the sole conceptualization of human well-being. Experiments are underway with alternative metrics of well-being as ways of informing both research and policy. It is thus important to develop a theory of the production of human well-being to parallel theories of economic development and growth. The traditions of work in growth theory, sustainability theory, and household production functions provide the basis for an emerging structural human ecology of human well-being. Structural human ecology emphasizes the use of manufactured, natural, and human resources in producing well-being but is also attentive to the ways social structure shapes the production of well-being. While this approach is promising, several conceptual issues need to be addressed for it to realize its potential. In particular, we need greater clarity regarding measures of well-being and the ethical theory that underpins them and clearer thinking about the relationship between resources and capital.

Forty years ago a prescient analysis by Mazur and Rosa challenged long-standing assumptions about the relationship between natural resource use and human well-being (Mazur 2013a, 2013b; Mazur and Rosa 1974). At the time many theorists and policy makers assumed that increasing energy consumption per capita was essential for improving the standard of living; some even equated energy use per capita with development (Dietz, Burns, and Buttel 1990; Rosa 1983; Rosa, Machlis, and Keating 1988). Mazur and Rosa showed that when energy consumption was at low to moderate levels there was a strong, positive, and roughly linear relationship between per capita energy consumption and various aspects of lifestyle. But they also demonstrated that once a modest threshold was reached, increased energy consumption had no relationship to well-being. Easterlin (1974) made essentially the same argument regarding conventional economic growth and well-being—that beyond a modest threshold, increased affluence did not improve well-being.1 At about the same time, the wisdom or even the feasibility of growth was being questioned (Daly 1973; Georgescu-Roegen 1971; Meadows et al. 1972). If growth was generating environmental problems but was not substantially enhancing well-being, could and should growth continue? Of course, a counterargument was always articulated: with much of the world struggling to achieve a minimal level of consumption, further growth was justified despite its environmental costs. By the 1980s the discourse about growth was typically framed around concepts of sustainability and sustainable development.2 In most discussions of sustainable development economic growth was considered essential, but compared to conventional development arguments special attention was given to environmental impacts and resource limits. In a sense, the decoupling of well-being and environmental stress identified by Mazur and Rosa gained acceptance, but the decoupling of well-being and economic growth identified by Easterlin did not.

Despite a continued consensus on the importance of conventional economic growth and a narrow focus on growth in affluence as the goal of development policy, there have long been calls for alternative ways of thinking about well-being. As early as 1968, Robert Kennedy argued, “We cannot measure national spirit by the Dow Jones Average, nor national achievement by the Gross National Product” (Kennedy 1968). Efforts to develop social indicators emerged in the 1930s roughly in parallel with the initial development of the standard economic indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (Bulmer 1983; Hecht 2005; Kenessey 1994; Ogburn 1933).3 Since World War II the use of economic indicators has been standardized and routinized. But until recently, alternative measures of well-being have languished, even as dissatisfaction with equating well-being with the size of an economy has persisted.

Within development research and development policy analysis, alternatives to GDP per capita are gaining some headway. For over two decades, indicators such as the Human Development Index (HDI) have been used to complement the standard national economic accounts (Anand and Sen 1994; ul Haq 2003; United Nations Development Programme 2014). The HDI combines three measures of well-being—life expectancy at birth, level of education, and gross national income per capita (in previous versions GDP per capita)—into a single measure. Recently, a number of governments have begun experimenting with measures of well-being based on happiness or life satisfaction as reported on high-quality national surveys. In France, the “Sarkozy Commission” argued that GDP per capita and related measures from conventional national economic accounting were not sufficient metrics for assessing policy and setting goals (Stiglitz, Sen, and Fitoussi 2009). The British government has issued an initial series of reports on subjective well-being as a complement to standard economic indicators (Cameron 2010; Self 2014; UK Department for Environment 2011). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the US National Research Council have both issued reports on the measurement of subjective well-being in the service of national reporting (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2013; Stone and Mackie 2013; US National Research Council 2012). It is clear that policy discussions are beginning to explore concepts of human well-being that are broader than economic activity per capita.

This shift away from equating conventional measures of economic activity with well-being raises important challenges and opportunities for the sociology of development and environmental sociology. Here I raise two questions we must address if we are to take alternatives to GDP seriously.

What are appropriate measures of human well-being? I will argue that selecting a measure of well-being is to a substantial degree an ethical choice. While most environmental and development sociologists bring ethical concerns to their work, little of our literature analyzes the ethical foundations that underpin issues such as selection of a measure of well-being. This is in contrast to conventional economics, where, for better or worse, arguments for economic growth are justified by the logic that increased income allows individuals to satisfy their preferences and that preference satisfaction increases utility. Thus a utilitarian ethical theory is only a few steps away from focusing on GDP per capita as an appropriate measure of well-being. The HDI is motivated largely by Sen's capabilities ethics (Nussbaum and Sen 1993; Sen 1999a, 1999b). But sociologists have not had much voice in these discussions. This is clearly an area that warrants further work. Nonetheless, I will submit that there are at least two measures of well-being—life expectancy and self-reported subjective well-being—that reflect a normative consensus and are methodologically defensible, so that empirical work can proceed even as we think more carefully about the normative framework that underpins our analysis.

How must we reconceptualize models of growth and development to reflect an end point of human well-being? Much of development economics is about the factors that drive or retard growth. Much of the sociology of development and most macro-scale environmental sociology examine the adverse effects of conventional economic growth. But if we engage the arguments that affluence should not be equated with well-being, we will need a theory of what drives changes in well-being. A production function that links resources to well-being is a useful starting point for our thinking. But to specify such a function we first need to carefully delineate what we mean by resources, when resources are and are not capital, and how social structure shapes the use of resources to produce well-being.

Before suggesting approaches to answering these two questions, I will review the standard narrative of growth and sustainability theory to provide a context for current discussions. This leads us to an emerging approach that stands at the convergence of several streams of previous work. “Structural human ecology,” as this synthetic line of work is labeled, provides a standpoint both for developing a normative framework for well-being and for conceptualizing the production of well-being.

## GROWTH AND SUSTAINABILITY THEORY

Much of classical political economy was concerned with understanding what led to increased economic activity, what we would now call increased GDP (Richerson and Boyd 1997–98). The Wealth of Nations is centrally about economic growth (Smith 1801). Malthus in his Essay on Population ([1803] 1992), despite many limits in the analysis, was at least constructing an argument about what would lead to increased or degraded well-being. Ricardo (1817), after arguing for a labor theory of value and the distinction between use value and exchange value, devotes much of his analysis to the drivers of economic growth, including the problem of diminishing returns. Given the poverty of much of the population during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries it was understandable that these theorists saw increases in economic activity as desirable.4 Nor were classical growth theorists unaware of the relationship between the size of the economy and national power. And, as has always been the case, arguments for economic growth find support from those who feel they benefit from such growth, a group that always includes owners of capital and sometimes includes labor.

As modern economics developed a consensus on a utilitarian normative theory and on the assumption of rational choice as the basis for decision making, it was inevitable that increasing affluence would be seen as essentially equivalent to human well-being. More affluence would allow more choices, and under rational choice theory these choices would inevitably enhance utility (Stigler 1950a, 1950b).5 So the move away from accepting increased GDP per capita as an adequate measure of well-being is also a rejection of rational choice theory as an adequate model for human behavior, and vice versa.6

After World War II, the theory of economic growth was put into practice. Japan, much of China, parts of Southeast Asia and North Africa, many Pacific Islands, many nations in Europe, and the western regions of the Soviet Union had been physically devastated. The war had destroyed much of the manufactured resources needed for industrial production —heavy machinery, factories and refineries, railroads and bridges, and so on. In response, economic policy after the war strongly emphasized rebuilding this infrastructure, using both bilateral aid and loans from the newly created World Bank (formally the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association) as mechanisms. A major justification for this program was that economic growth fostered by rebuilding physical infrastructure would enhance well-being. But there were certainly other motivations. The West and the Soviet Union were starting the face-off that became the Cold War. Increasing industrial and agricultural production was essential to support re-arming for conflicts that many thought were inevitable. Growth in conventional economic output was also seen as a way of staving off economic policy conflicts that had strengthened during the Depression (Schnaiberg 1980). The emergence of what Eisenhower termed the “military-industrial complex” provided a mechanism through which public funds could be used to finance investment both in industrial production for defense and in the public infrastructure, such as roads and ports, that supported it (Pilisuk and Hayden 1965). Investments in the “Third World” provided new markets and new sources of raw materials. Even the vexing problem of inequality might be resolved through growth if one accepted the argument that growth ultimately led to lower levels of inequality.7 So it is not surprising that growth in GDP, and the investment in physical infrastructure to support such growth, took center stage in policy goals around the world.

### From Development Theory to Sustainability Theory

During the 1960s and 1970s the environment became a more central part of the policy agenda within most nations and in the global discourse on development. By the early 1980s the emphasis on conventional economic growth was tempered with concerns about the effects of growth on the environment, about limits to growth entrained in the exhaustion of natural resources, and about the link between affluence and well-being. Arguments for sustainable development or sustainability tried to integrate the traditional emphasis on economic growth with the emerging concerns about the environment and well-being. John Robinson's (2004) insightful essay on these concepts suggests that Lester Brown (1981) was first to use the concept of sustainability, although core ideas go back at least to the writings of John Wesley Powell (Worster 2001) and George Perkins Marsh (Marsh [1864] 1965). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature under the leadership of Lee Talbot used the term sustainable development and brought the concept into policy circles (International Union for the Conservation of Nature 1980). The Brandt report engaged issues of energy, population growth, and the environment (Independent Commission on International Development Issues 1980). But the popularity of the term sustainable development dates to the famed Bruntland report, Our Common Future (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987).

The idea of “sustainable development” continued the emphasis on economic growth—increased economic activity per capita—even while paying attention to the harm done to the environment. For example, Our Common Future calls for a five- to tenfold increase in industrial activity to meet the needs of the poor. In this context sustainable development is defined as a process that “meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987:23). This standard definition is wholly anthropocentric. Changes in the biophysical environment and harm to other species may be tolerated if those actions don't put at risk the possibility that future generations can meet their needs. Of course this approach to sustainable development could justify the protection of a pristine environment and biodiversity to the extent that they are needed by humans. But under the sustainable development approach the environment is clearly a secondary consideration to meeting human needs and alleviating poverty.

Robinson (2004) also notes that the sustainable development approach led to a strong emphasis on technological fixes to environmental and resource problems. This was consistent with the legacy of conventional development. In both the capitalist West and the communist nations, development projects usually took the form of building new physical infrastructure. New technology for agriculture was also a critical element in efforts to increase food production—the “Green Revolution.” New seed types and the irrigation systems, pesticides, fertilizers, and credit systems to support them were a key part of development efforts. This shift in agriculture also was based on a shift from production for subsistence—distribution to the household and community—to production for the market.

The “technological fix” approach was not limited to hardware. The right institutions were seen as important as well. Initially there was struggle between communist and capitalist approaches to fostering growth. But by the 1980s, competitive markets with minimal government interference in the economy and no barriers to free trade (neoliberalism) became the conventional view of how to foster economic growth (Harvey 2005). The idea that the market was a perfect institution to solve the problems of developing countries reached its height in the 1980s, when “structural adjustments” were imposed on countries that required aid in response to their debt burdens (Bruce 1994; Harvey 2005; Peet 1996; Perkins 2005). From World War II onward, development policy was implemented largely through loans for the construction of physical infrastructure. Substantial funds were siphoned out of productive use via corruption, and many projects that were built never fulfilled their potential. The payment on debts from these loans was crippling for many nations. In exchange for renegotiations of these debts, governments were required to make policy changes that remodeled their countries into something closer to the neoliberal ideal of capitalism—what have come to be called structural adjustments. It was presumed by the advocates of these restructuring policies that well-functioning capitalist market institutions and free trade would lead to economic growth that would alleviate poverty (e.g., Sachs and Warner 1995). Problems of inequality were seen as secondary to problems of inefficiency and as being eventually alleviated by growth. In parallel, it was argued that the adverse effects of economic growth on the environment would eventually be ameliorated by affluence as nations moved along an environmental version of the Kuznets curve or underwent ecological modernization (Dietz, Rosa, and York 2010, 2012; Mol 1995, 2010; Selden and Song 1994; York, Rosa, and Dietz 2010). Many studies have examined the effects of these policies across a range of countries, and while results are mixed, the general pattern seems to be that structural adjustments were problematic for the environment and human well-being (Clapp and Dauvergne 2005; Glover 1995; Pfeiffer and Chapman 2010; Shandra, Shircliff, and London 2011; Shandra, Shor, and London 2008; Shandra, Shor, Maynard, and London 2008).

There were other nonhardware “fixes” intended to achieve economic growth. From the 1970s on, Garrett Hardin's hugely influential essay “The Tragedy of the Commons” erroneously convinced many that community-based management of resources was doomed to failure, despite, in many cases, the evidence of decades or even centuries of success (Dietz, Ostrom, and Stern 2003; Ostrom et al. 2002). It's not clear how much influence his arguments had on policy, since in many cases loss of community control predated his essay (Adams and McShane 1996; Anderson and Grove 1987; Peluso 1992; Peluso and Vandergeest 2001). But the idea that only markets or governments could successfully manage common-pool resources was part of the suite of beliefs that underpinned development policy in the late twentieth century. Indeed, arguments that structural adjustments would be beneficial for the environment often echoed Hardin's logic that only privately held (as opposed to community-managed) natural resources would be managed effectively.

### From Growth to Sustainability Theory

The core of the debate is a conflict about whether elements of the production function can be substituted for one another. Both conventional economic growth theory and sustainability theory examine the resources that are deployed to produce a desired outcome, in particular increased economic activity, or GDP.8 Most analyses focus on three key inputs: manufactured resources, natural resources, and human resources. Other factors may matter as well. Indeed neoclassical economic growth theory argues that much of economic growth is the result of changes in technology; thus the emphasis on technological fixes in many development policies (Solow 1957, 1994).

If the goal of sustainability is to enhance well-being at present while ensuring that future generations have sufficient wherewithal to provide for their well-being, can we deplete resources in one category but increase resources in another and still be providing an adequate portfolio to future generations (Neumayer 2010)? Advocates of weak sustainability suggest that there is substantial substitutability. So, for example, it might be a wise policy to dam a wild river for electrical production or convert high-biodiversity rainforest to commercial monocrop agriculture if that depletion of natural resources led to investments in infrastructure (manufactured resources) and education (human resources). Future generations would inherit a depleted portfolio of natural resources but could still achieve high well-being because of the increased stock of manufactured and human resources.

In contrast, advocates of strong sustainability argue that future generations have a right to an undiminished stock of each resource. One underpinning for this logic is ethical. Natural resources make a unique contribution to human well-being, and investments in human resources and manufactured resources cannot compensate for degradation of ecosystems. The other argument is that the technical possibility for substitution is limited. For example, greenhouse gas emissions may lead to a level of disruption of the global climate system that cannot be compensated for by increased manufactured infrastructure or education.

The debate about strong versus weak sustainability, substitutability, and the drivers of growth continues and is often quite technical. But it has the merit of focusing attention on the production function—how resources are deployed to achieve a desired end. The production function is a very useful way of framing a move from economic growth as a presumed societal goal to a concern with well-being more broadly defined. An emerging literature, usually referred to as “structural human ecology” to differentiate it from earlier versions of human ecology, is building on the idea of production functions to examine how well-being is produced (Dietz and Jorgenson 2013). In the next section of this paper I summarize the basics of this literature before turning to the two major research questions that the move toward a focus on well-being involves.

## FROM HOUSEHOLDS TO STRUCTURAL HUMAN ECOLOGY

### Household Production Functions

While classical growth theory applied the idea of a production function to a nation or to a firm, starting in the 1960s the “new home economics” theory suggested that the production function idea could be applied to the household (Becker 1965, 1960; Berk and Berk 1983; Lancaster 1966). The initial applications of this approach attempted to explain nearly all behavior in terms of self-interested utility maximization (Becker 1976). These efforts were certainly provocative. They inspired increased attention to issues such as time allocation within the household and women's opportunity costs associated with child rearing in a gendered division of household labor. Of course, from the start sociologists were skeptical of some of the unrealistic simplifying assumptions required to deploy these models (Blake 1968).

Despite the overemphasis on rational choice assumptions in early versions of household production theory, the idea of thinking about how well-being is produced within a household has led to a nuanced literature examining how households deploy the resources available to them in order to generate livelihoods (Bebbington 1999; de Sherbinin et al. 2008; Serageldin and Steer 1994). This approach takes into account resource constraints faced by households and also households' agency in crafting strategies to generate well-being in the face of those constraints. It allows for consideration of inequality within the household and across households. It incorporates power differentials and the power embedded in institutions and cultures. Much of the literature explicitly acknowledges that production of material goods and services and income is only one appropriate outcome for household activity; Sen's idea of capabilities is central to this line of research (Sen 1999b, 1982). And the household production approach supports the logic undergirding the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which took as its central theme the dependence of human well-being on ecosystems (Alcalmo et al. 2003; Carpenter et al. 2009; Reid et al. 2005).

Using the household production perspective, we can understand the interplay between ecosystems and human well-being in specific local contexts. For example, one of the largest threats to the giant panda in China's Wolong Panda Reserve is the extensive use of firewood by the households who live in the reserve (Chen et al. 2012). The households would prefer to use electricity, but even with government subsidies it is relatively expensive. The opportunities for earning cash locally are very limited. However, members of some households are able to find work in distant cities and send money back to Wolong. This substantially decreases the use of firewood. A key element in this livelihood strategy is using “weak ties”—indirect social connections—to find work in the distant cities. Some households are able to use social network connections to facilitate the use of human resources to generate cash, which in turn displaces the problematic use of natural resources. The household production framework also was able to show the effects of the 2008 earthquake (whose epicenter was adjacent to the reserve) on household resource use and resilience (Yang, Dietz, Kramer, et al. 2013; Yang, Dietz, Liu, et al. 2013).

As the Wolong example demonstrates, analysis guided by the logic of a production function, broadly defined, has been very fruitful not only for looking at how households generate livelihoods and well-being but also for understanding what drives household use of natural resources and the resulting stress placed on the environment. Such work underpins much of our understanding of land use change around the globe (Entwistle and Stern 2005; Moran 2010; Moran and Ostrom 2005; Rudel 2009; Rudel et al. 2009, 2005; Rudel and Horowitz 1993). There is also a literature examining the drivers of household-level use of energy in the developed world (Dietz, Stern, and Weber 2013; Stern 2014). And household-level analysis is an important way of framing problems of vulnerability to environmental change (McLaughlin 2012; McLaughlin and Dietz 2008; Turner 2010; Turner et al. 2003).

However, there are some important limits to household-level analysis that come from the lack of investment in environmental social science research. Most household studies are local to regional in scope. They draw their data from households within one or a few communities, and usually a study is conducted in only one nation. While this has yielded a rich literature, the lack of variation in institutions, policies, and culture means that such studies cannot disentangle the effects of these key influences on both human well-being and stress on the environment. To address this issue we have to engage a more macro-comparative perspective (Bebbington 1999).

### Toward a Structural Human Ecology

Eugene Rosa often argued that a key finding of sociology is that “context matters” (Dietz 2013b; York 2013). Despite the many contributions of work at the household and local level, we have not learned as much about the effects of institutions, culture, and other structural factors as we would like. The problem is not one of conceptualization. The ideal research design is well known (Dietz et al. 2010). We would collect data at the individual level nested successively within households, communities, local geopolitical units (cities, counties, provinces, etc.), and ecosystems, with all those units nested in turn within nations. With such data, multilevel modeling could be used to account for contextual effects where features of larger units, such as institutions, culture, ecosystem structure and function, and climate, can influence causal relationships at the micro level. In addition, social and biophysical connections that are local as well as those that operate at a distance could be incorporated into models (Liu et al. 2013). Data on the same units over time—panel data—would allow powerful assessment of causation. While the social sciences have the conceptual and methodological framework in place to do this work, funding has never been available for anything approaching the kind of data collection effort required. The World Fertility Survey (Cleland, Scott, and Whitelegge 1987) and the International Forestry Resources and Institutions project (www.ifriresearch.net) (Wollenberg et al. 2007) are excellent examples of what can be achieved with data that captures variation across local contexts, even when we lack ideal data sets.

In the absence of data for contextual and network analysis that match the conceptual ideal, how can progress be made? Certainly work at the household level using local and regional samples will continue to be important for our understanding of well-being. But in parallel, macro-comparative work, building on a rich tradition in environmental sociology and the sociology of development, can contribute a great deal to our understanding of the production of well-being and the factors that influence it.

World systems theory and dependency theory have inspired a rich empirical literature showing the effects of global power relations on economic growth, on inequality, on well-being, and on the environment (Babones and Chase-Dunn 2012; Bornschier, Chase-Dunn, and Rubinson 1978; Burns, Kentor, and Jorgenson 2003; Burns et al. 1994; Chase-Dunn 1989; Clausen and Longo 2012; Jorgenson 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009; Jorgenson and Burns 2004; Lough 1999; Roberts and Grimes 2002; Rosa and Dietz 2012; Shandra et al. 2004; Shandra, Shor, and London 2009; Snyder and Kick 1979; York, Rosa, and Dietz 2003). The most recent development in that literature is a series of analyses of what is being called the Ecological Intensity of Well-Being (EIWB) (Dietz, Rosa, and York 2009). The EIWB literature asks what structural factors influence the production of human well-being and anthropogenic stress on the environment. Initial studies used a production function of the sort articulated in discussions of strong versus weak sustainability (Dietz, Rosa, and York 2009; Vemuri and Costanza 2006). Human well-being was modeled as a function of national affluence, human resources, and natural resources. Following the approach of Mazur and Rosa (1974), more recent applications have compared measures of anthropogenic stress on the environment (usually the ecological footprint or greenhouse gas emissions) to a measure of human well-being (usually life expectancy or subjective well-being) (Dietz and Jorgenson 2014; Dietz et al. 2012; Jorgenson 2014; Jorgenson, Alekseyko, and Giedraitis 2014; Jorgenson and Dietz 2014; Knight and Rosa 2011; Steinberger et al. 2012; Steinberger and Roberts 2010). By making comparisons across macrounits, typically nation-states, these analyses have begun to address structural influences: the role of institutions and the distribution of power, culture, and other factors hard to examine with research confined to the local level in one or a few places. Together, the macro approach and the micro approach complement each other and will allow for robust and nuanced understandings of the production of well-being, human stress on the environment, and the trade-offs between the two. This structural human ecology provides a vehicle for sociological contributions to debates about conventional economic growth and sustainability (Dietz and Jorgenson 2013). As we develop alternative approaches to conventional growth theory, many new research questions arise. I will suggest two challenges that are especially worthy of our attention.

## CHALLENGES FOR STRUCTURAL HUMAN ECOLOGY

### What Is Well-Being?

Selecting measures of well-being to use in theoretical and empirical analysis is inherently a normative or ethical decision. One advantage of a research program on the production of well-being is that it will encourage or indeed require researchers to be explicit about the ethical theory that underpins their choice of well-being measures. While sociologists have often been critical of the use of income or wealth as a normative standard, at least economists can invoke utilitarianism and a substantial body of normative theory as the basis for that focus (Dietz 1994; US National Research Council 1999b). I believe that nearly all sociologists, and certainly nearly all environmental sociologists and sociologists of development, have strong ethical concerns that underpin their work. But there is relatively little explicit discussion of ethical theory in our literature.

Perhaps the most prevalent normative sociological theory traces its roots to Dewey and Habermas and their argument for a deliberative foundation for ethics (Dewey 1923; Dietz 1994; Dietz and Stern 1998; Habermas 1993, 1996). This approach, often called analytic deliberation, has been incorporated into environmental social science initially around discussions of impact and risk assessment, then in larger discussions of environmental politics, and most recently in discussions of how best to integrate science and democracy (Dietz 2013a; Rosa, McCright, and Renn 2013; US National Research Council 2008). It has also been influential in the “capabilities” approach of Nussbaum and Sen, and thus in discussions of development (Nussbaum 2006; Sen 1999b). As noted, the HDI is largely driven by the capabilities approach and thus is only one step removed from deliberative ethics logic.

The capabilities approach may also be helpful in addressing a major problem for current approaches to well-being—they are wholly anthropocentric (Donaldson and Kymlicka forthcoming). Nussbaum (2006) has offered a persuasive argument that the capabilities approach can be extended to give ethical consideration to the well-being of nonhuman species. Clearly, a robust normative approach must be attentive to both the role and the well-being of nonhuman species in society (Dietz and York 2014; York and Mancus 2013). Careful consideration of how to take account of nonhumans in the ethical arguments underpinning our work is an important step in that direction.

How might a research program on the production of human well-being be organized around a deliberative ethics? An implication of deliberative ethics is that a broad range of views, including those of the public (interested and affected parties in Dewey's [1923] definition), must be engaged in drawing any ethical conclusions. Analytic deliberation has become a well-accepted approach when science is being deployed to inform decision making and assessments (US National Research Council 1996, 2008). But for more general research programs that are not tied to specific decisions or assessments, one solution has been to look toward public statements that can plausibly be taken to reflect a broad consensus. For example, Our Common Journey, a response by the scientific community to Our Common Future, uses major UN resolutions such as the Millennium Development Goals as guidance for what measures of well-being represent a broad consensus (Kates et al. 2001; US National Research Council 1999a).

This suggests a first criterion for any measure of well-being: there must be a broad normative consensus that the measure captures a feature of the world that is desirable. I would propose two further criteria. The measure must be driven by the condition of the bulk of the population and thus resistant to overweighting the situation of the most affluent and powerful: that is, the measure must be attentive to equity. Also, the methods used to assess the measure at levels from nation-states down to individuals should be well developed, robust, and feasible to deploy in a wide variety of circumstances.

I submit that there are at least two measures that meet these criteria. Generally, indicators of well-being are divided into objective measures and subjective measures. Among the objective measures, life expectancy at birth is the most commonly used. It has several advantages. There is a broad consensus within and across societies that lower mortality rates and higher life expectancies are desirable.9 For example, life expectancy is one of three elements of the HDI.10 Life expectancy is heavily influenced by infant and child mortality, which in turn are strongly correlated with maternal mortality, so life expectancy captures another set of measures that are often emphasized in such global statements as the Millennium Development Goals. It also captures access to sanitation, clean water, adequate and nutritious food, and freedom from indoor and outdoor air pollution and from other exposure to toxics. In addition, life expectancy is attentive to inequality. A society can achieve a high average level of affluence as measured by GDP per capita even with great inequality because a small number of super-rich can outweigh masses in poverty. But a few super-rich who can achieve exceptionally long life expectancies will not have any substantial influence on average life expectancy if most members of the society are impoverished and suffering from ill health and other risks. A few additional life years among the privileged cannot compensate for early deaths among the impoverished. So life expectancy has a built-in weighting against extreme inequality (one can emphasize this weighting by examining the life expectancy of disadvantaged groups when data are available). Finally, in most societies life expectancy is one of the easiest indicators of human well-being to measure with reasonable accuracy.11

Subjective measures of well-being ask representative samples of respondents to self-report how happy they are or how satisfied they are with their life overall or with aspects of their life (e.g., work, relationships, health). The methodology for conducting such surveys has evolved for several decades and is now quite sophisticated (Diener 2013; Diener, Inglehart, and Tay 2013; Diener et al. 2009; Kahneman and Krueger 2006; Kahneman et al. 1999; Krueger 2009; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2013; US National Research Council 2013). As a result, subjective well-being measures are being discussed as possible parallel metrics to the traditional national economic accounts and in some cases are even being implemented on a trial basis (Self 2014; Stiglitz et al. 2009; UK Department for Environment 2011). While there is less consensus for subjective well-being as a desirable social goal than there is for life expectancy, I believe there is enough agreement that this approach also is justified as a focus for further investigation. As noted, the methodology is well developed and can be applied wherever it is feasible to conduct a high-quality survey. And measures of subjective well-being are equitable in that a small subset of the population can have limited effect on the central tendency.

### What Is Capital?

Readers familiar with the literature on strong versus weak sustainability or on household livelihoods will note that I have been using the term resources (i.e., manufactured resources, human resources, natural resources) while the literature usually refers to “capitals” (i.e. manufactured capital, human capital, and natural capital). I have shifted to the resource language because the term capital has multiple meanings that can be conflated too easily when everything is seen as a form of capital. I prefer to reserve the term capital for resources that are used with the expectation of a positive return on investment—a profit. Or as Bourdieu (2008:280) puts it, capital is the “potential capacity to produce profits and to reproduce itself in identical or expanded form.” The growth theory that underpins much of sustainability theory is centrally concerned with increasing economic activity per capita or with increasing output per worker. So it is understandable that development, growth, and sustainability theory see as capital what I call resources. But to term material infrastructure, education, and ecosystem goods and services “capital” presumes an intention to deploy them to generate exchange values. It also assumes a set of social relations, norms, and institutions that allow these resources to be deployed to generate a profit via market exchange. Of course, in most of the world today resources are fungible—can be exchanged for money—and can be invested to seek profit.12 Thus most resources in the contemporary world are capital.

However, I believe that the analytical distinction between manufactured resources (e.g., machinery, software, infrastructure), human resources (e.g., labor supported by education, skills), and natural resources (e.g., ecosystem goods and services) on the one hand and capital on the other is useful for conceptualizing past, present, and future human ecologies. All societies throughout the history of our species have deployed manufactured, human, and natural resources to generate well-being. But for most of human history the culture and institutions in place meant that profit as a result of exchange was not the typical goal in using those resources. It is undoubtedly true that in food-foraging societies better tools, better gathering techniques, and ecosystems more productive of food and fiber were valued. But it appears that the kind of exchange relationships that typify markets and that make various kinds of resources fungible were of modest importance for the majority of human history (Fukuyama 2011; Gowdy 1997).13 Further, even in contemporary societies, there is substantial contestation about what resources should and should not be exchanged to yield profit. Some forms of human resources are subject to fungible market exchange and thus are capital. But we place sharp limits on that exchange through laws, norms, and institutions to prevent, for example, slavery, child labor, sexual trafficking, and other abusive practices. We extend these limits to nonhuman resources as well. The first animal protection law was enacted in Ireland in 1635 to protect farm animals—horses and sheep in particular (Kalof 2007). It was the progenitor of numerous laws and norms that limit the exploitation of nonhuman animals as resources, capital, and labor (Dietz and York 2014). Protected areas such as national parks produce use value and perhaps some exchange value in the form of visitor expenditures. But while protected areas provide some services to humans, we have explicitly decided not to allow these ecosystems and their services to be fungible via exchange values in the market.

For all these reasons I have found that my thinking is much clearer when I differentiate between various forms of resources and the use of those resources as a form of capital. This distinction is also intended to respect and eventually engage the substantial work outside neoclassical economics on the nature of capital (e.g., Foster 1999, 2014; Foster, Clark, and York 2011; Harvey 2011; Mészáros and Foster 2010; Piketty 2014). Drawing a distinction between resources and capital avoids the presumption that the only value of a resource is the exchange value that comes from market transactions. The distinction also makes it easier to see that what is and is not used as capital is a result of agency and political struggle. Thus it allows visions of a future in which we can change what we consider to be appropriate to use as capital and what we do not.

The problems of equating resources and capital are exacerbated when we consider influences on well-being beyond the classical manufactured, human, and natural resources. Even the earliest analyses of the production of livelihoods by households discussed the idea of social capital, and political and cultural capital have also been invoked as possible components of a production function (Serageldin and Steer 1994). It is certainly true that factors beyond manufactured, human, and natural resources influence the production of well-being. But while the ideas of social, political, and cultural capital may be capturing some of those influences, I would suggest that conceptualizing them as capital is likely to be confusing.

Social capital is usually defined in terms of social network connections and trust. There is no doubt that networks and trust are important in generating human well-being. They can be key factors in gaining access to situations in which other resources can be either acquired or deployed (Chen et al. 2012; Coleman 2000; Dasgupta 1999;). But while network connections and trust certainly need to be considered in developing a better understanding of well-being, they are of a much different character than manufactured, human, or natural resources, especially in a capitalist market society. Typically network connections and trust are not privately “owned” and therefore cannot be exchanged directly for money or directly purchased with money. Granted, in most contemporary societies money can be used to carry out activities that can enhance an individual's social resources. As Bourdieu (2008:282) notes, manufactured capital (roughly his economic capital) is “immediately and directly convertible to money,” but his cultural capital (which is roughly human capital) and social capital are convertible “on certain conditions” and “in certain circumstances” respectively. In the contemporary world, manufactured, human, and natural resources are generally fungible, but social and other factors that influence the production of well-being are usually not. So households or individuals may be able to use trust and network connections as resources to enhance well-being. But to think of trust and network connections as capital—a resource invested to generate a profit in a market exchange—seems inappropriate.14

When we move from the individual or household to geopolitical units such as the nation, treating network connections or trust as resources seems even more problematic. First, it is critical to differentiate between social resources within a nation and the social resources of a nation in the world system. Certainly levels of trust and the network connections of individuals and organizations within a nation have a substantial influence on the ability of the nation to generate well-being for its citizens. For example, corruption, while certainly based on trust and network connections of a sort, is antithetical to the kind of social resources that might enhance the ability of a nation to create well-being for its citizens, and there is evidence that high levels of corruption facilitate environmental degradation (Mitra 2000; Welsch 2004). But these within-nation characteristics are different in kind from the relationships between nations.

A major insight of the sociology of development is the importance of a nation's position in the world system, which has been operationalized as a set of network relations at least since Snyder and Kick's important work (Chase-Dunn 1989; Chase-Dunn and Grimes 1995; Snyder and Kick 1979; Wallerstein 1974). Indeed, world polity theory suggests that these connections are dominant features in shaping policy and institutions (Buttel 2000; Frank 1997; Frank, Hironaka, and Schofer 2000; Shandra 2007; Shandra et al. 2009). International relations scholars also have argued that participation in the scientific epistemic community is critical for policy adoption (Cross 2013; Haas 1993). But here again we must be cautious about labeling such factors as resources, let alone as capital. Dependency and world systems theory and the substantial literature supporting them tell us that strong network ties can be disadvantageous for some nations because they represent relations of dominance and subordination. Under those conditions, it seems odd to refer to such strong network connections as a resource or a form of capital for the subordinate nation.

I would also suggest that power, and especially the ability to deploy violence, is too nuanced and important a concept to be treated analytically as simply political resources or political capital (Henry 2011; Mann 1986; Shwom 2011). Certainly, violence has been a major factor in the evolution of the world systems since its inception and has had profound implications for human well-being and the environment (Lough 1999; Mann 1986; Stonich and Vandergeest 2001). Wealth can be, and often is, deployed to finance violent actions. Militarization of nations seems to be detrimental to the environment and to human well-being (Clark, Jorgenson, and Kentor 2010; Jorgenson and Clark 2009; Kick, Nasser, Davis, and Bean 1990). But, as with network connections and trust, it may be more fruitful to conceptualize power and the mobilization of violence as factors that shape the ability to successfully deploy resources rather than as resources in themselves. Power can influence the return that comes from using resources by shaping culture and institutions to favor those with power over those without. In evolutionary terms, power reshapes the adaptive landscape (Dietz and Burns 1992; McLaughlin 2012; McLaughlin and Dietz 2008). Thus power seems too complex and dynamic a factor in societal evolution to conceptualize simply as a resource or as capital.

## CONCLUSION

My goal in this essay was to outline the intellectual foundations of, and challenges for, a structural human ecology of well-being. This line of work is promising in that it builds on several strong research traditions: the strong-versus-weak-sustainability debate, household production, and especially the macro-comparative tradition in both environmental sociology and the sociology of development. It has the potential to advance our theoretical understanding even as it provides results that are useful for shaping political debate and policy. The concerns I raise—encouraging a more nuanced discussion of how we might conceptualize well-being, drawing a distinction between resources and forms of capital, and avoiding theorizing all influences on well-being as resources or capital—are not fundamental obstacles to progress. Indeed, engaging with them should hone our theoretical and methodological thinking.

Of course, this short description of an emerging field, and especially the treatment of its intellectual forebears, is inevitably superficial. I have certainly smoothed over important subtleties and distinctions, and my characterization of some research traditions may be unsatisfying to those working in those traditions. But I hope that this essay, despite its limits, will encourage more scholars from diverse traditions to engage with the emerging literature that is attempting to understand how structural forces, including institutions and policies, impinge on our ability to improve human well-being.

## REFERENCES

REFERENCES
Adams, Jonathan S., and Thomas O. McShane.
1996
.
The Myth of Wild Africa: Conservation without Illusion
.
Berkeley
:
University of California Press
.
Alcalmo, Joseph, Neville J. Ash, Colin D. Butler, J. Baird Callicot, Doris Capistrano, Stephen R. Carpenter, Juan Carlos Castilla, Robert Chambers, Kanchan Chopra, Angela Cropper, Gretchen C. Daily, Partha Dasgupta, Rudolf de Groot, Thomas Dietz, Anantha Kumar Duraiappah, Madhav Gadgil, Kirk Hamiltion, Rashid Hassan, Eric F. Lambin, Louis Lebel, Rik Leemans, Liu Jiyuan, Jean-Paul Malingreau, Robert M. May, Alex F. McCalla, A. J. McMichael, Bedrich Moldan, Harold Mooney, Shahid Naseem, Gerald C. Nelson, Niu Wen-Yuan, Ian Noble, Ouyang Zhiyun, Stefano Pagiola, Daniel Pauly, Steve Percy, Prabhu Pingali, Robert Prescott-Allen, Walter V. Reid, Taylor H. Rickets, Cristian Samper, Robert Scholes, Henk Simons, Ferenc L. Toth, Jane K. Turpie, Robert Tony Watson, Thomas J. Wilbanks, Meryl Williams, Stanley Wood, Zhao Shidong, and Monika B. Zurek.
2003
.
Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Analysis
.
Washington, DC
:
Island Press
.
Anand, Sudhir, and Amartya Kumar Sen.
1994
.
Human Development Index: Methodology and Measurement
. UNDP Occasional Paper.
New York
:
United Nations Development Programme
.
Anderson, David, and Richard Grove.
1987
.
Conservation in Africa: Peoples, Policies and Practice
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Arrow, Kenneth J., Partha Dasgupta, Lawrence H. Goulder, Kevin J. Mumford, and Kirsten Oleson.
2012
.
“Sustainability and the Measurement of Wealth.”
Environment and Development Economics
17
:
317
53
.
Babones, Salvatore J., and Christopher Chase-Dunn.
2012
.
Routledge Handbook of World Systems Analysis
.
New York
:
Routledge
.
2014
.
“Methodological Developments in US State-Level Genuine Progress Indicators: Toward GPI 2.0.”
Ecological Indicators
45
:
474
85
.
Barney, G. O.
1980
.
Global 2000: The Report to the President. Entering the Twenty-First Century
.
Washington, DC
:
US Government Printing Office
.
Bebbington, A. J.
1999
.
“Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods, and Poverty.”
World Development
27
:
2021
44
.
Becker, Gary.
1960
.
“An Economic Analysis of Fertility.”
Pp.
209
40
in
Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries
, edited by
National Bureau of Economic Research
.
Princeton, NJ
:
National Bureau of Economic Research
.
Becker, Gary.
1965
.
“A Theory of the Allocation of Time.”
Economic Journal
75
:
493
517
.
Becker, Gary.
1976
.
“Altruism, Egoism and Genetic Fitness: Economics and Sociobiology.”
Journal of Economic Literature
14
:
817
26
.
Berk, Richard A., and Sarah Fenstermaker Berk.
1983
.
“Supply-Side Sociology of the Family: The Challenge of the New Home Economics.”
Annual Review of Sociology
9
:
375
95
.
Blake, Judith.
1968
.
“Are Babies Consumer Durables? A Critique of the Economic Theory of Reproductive Motivation.”
Population Studies
22
:
5
25
.
Bolt, Jutta, and Jan Luiten van Zanden.
2013
.
“The First Update of the Maddison Project: Re-estimating Growth before 1820.”
University of Groningen
,
Groningen
.
Bornschier, Voker, Christopher Chase-Dunn, and Richard Rubinson.
1978
.
“Cross-national Evidence of the Effects of Foreign Investment and Aid on Economic Growth and Inequality: A Survey of Findings and a Reanalysis.”
American Journal of Sociology
84
:
651
83
.
Boulding, Kenneth E.
1966
.
“The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth.”
Pp.
3
14
in
Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy
, edited by H. Jarrett.
Baltimore
:
John Hopkins University Press
.
Bourdieu, Pierre.
2008
.
“The Forms of Capital.”
Pp.
280
91
in
Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education
, edited by J. Richardson.
New York
:
Greenwood Press
.
Brown, Lester.
1981
.
Building a Sustainable Society
.
New York
:
W. W. Norton
.
Bruce, Rich.
1994
.
Mortgaging the Earth
.
Boston
:
Beacon Press
.
Bulmer, Martin.
1983
.
“The Methodology of Early Social Indicators Research: William Fielding Obgurn and ‘Recent Social Trends,’ 1933.”
Social Indicators Research
13
:
109
30
.
Burns, Thomas J., Jeffrey D. Kentor, and Andrew Jorgenson.
2003
.
“Trade Dependence, Pollution, and Infant Mortality in Less-Developed Countries.”
Contributions in Economics and Economic History
1
:
14
28
.
Burns, Thomas J., Edward L. Kick, David A. Murray, and Dixie A. Murray.
1994
.
“Demography, Development and Deforestation in a World-System Perspective.”
International Journal of Comparative Sociology
35
:
3
4
.
Buttel, Frederick H.
2000
.
“World Society, the Nation-State, and Environmental Protection.”
American Sociological Review
65
:
117
21
.
Cameron, David.
2010
.
“PM Speech on Wellbeing, 25 November 2010.”
.
Carpenter, Stephen R., Harold Mooney, John Agard, Doris Capistrano, Ruth DeFries, Sandra Diaz, Thomas Dietz, Anantha K. Duraiappah, Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, Henrique Miguel Pereira, Charles Perrings, Walter V. Reid, Robert J. Scholes, and Anne Whyte.
2009
.
“Science for Managing Ecosystem Services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
106
:
1305
12
.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher.
1989
.
Global Formation: Structures of the World-Economy
.
Oxford
:
Blackwell
.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher, and Peter Grimes.
1995
.
“World Systems Analysis.”
Annual Review of Sociology
21
:
387
417
.
Chen, Xiaodong, Kenneth A. Frank, Thomas Dietz, and Jianguo Liu.
2012
.
“Weak Ties, Labor Migration, and Environmental Impacts.”
Organization and Environment
25
:
3
24
.
Clapp, Jennifer, and Peter Dauvergne.
2005
.
Paths to a Green World: The Political Economy of the Global Environment
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Clark, Brett, Andrew K. Jorgenson, and Jeffrey Kentor.
2010
.
“Militarization and Energy Consumption: A Test of Treadmill of Destruction Theory in Comparative Perspective.”
International Journal of Sociology
40
(
2
):
23
43
.
Clausen, Rebecca, and Stefano B. Longo.
2012
.
“Forests, Food and Freshwater: A Review of World-Systems Research and Environmental Impact.”
Pp.
422
30
in
Routledge Handbook of World-Systems Analysis
, edited by Salvatore J. Babones and Christopher Chase-Dunn.
New York
:
Routledge
.
Cleland, J. G., C. Scott, and D. Whitelegge.
1987
.
The World Fertility Survey: An Assessment
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Coleman, James S.
2000
.
“Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.”
Pp.
17
41
in
Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundatons and Applications
, edited by E. L. Lesser.
Boston
:
Butterworth-Heinemann
.
Cross, Mai'a K. Davis.
2013
.
“Rethinking Epistemic Communities Twenty Years Later.”
Review of International Studies
39
:
137
60
.
Daly, Herman.
1973
.
.
San Francisco
:
Freeman
.
Daly, Herman E., and John B. Cobb Jr.
1989
.
For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future
.
Boston
:
Beacon Press
.
Dasgupta, Partha.
1999
.
“Economic Progress and the Idea of Social Capital.”
Pp.
325
424
in
Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective
, edited by Partha Dasgupta and Ismail Serageldin.
Washington, DC
:
World Bank
.
Dasgupta, Partha.
2009
.
“The Welfare Economic Theory of Green National Accounts.”
Environmental and Resource Economics
42
:
3
38
.
de Sherbinin, Alex, Leah K. VanWey, Kendra McSweeney, Rimjhim Aggarwal, Alisson Barbieri, Sabine Henry, Lori M. Hunter, Wayne Twine, and Robert Walker.
2008
.
“Rural Household Demographics, Livelihoods and the Environment.”
Global Environmental Change
18
:
38
53
.
Dewey, John.
1923
.
The Public and Its Problems
.
New York
:
Henry Holt
.
Diener, Ed.
2013
.
“The Remarkable Changes in the Science of Subjective Well-Being.”
Perspectives on Psychological Science
8
:
663
66
.
Diener, Ed, Ronald Inglehart, and Louis Tay.
2013
.
“Theory and Validity of Life Satisfaction Scales.”
Social Indicators Research
112
:
497
527
.
Diener, Ed, Richard Lucas, Ulrich Schimmack, and John Helliwell.
2009
.
Well-Being for Public Policy
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Dietz, Thomas.
1994
.
“‘What Should We Do?’ Human Ecology and Collective Decision Making.”
Human Ecology Review
1
:
301
9
.
Dietz, Thomas.
2013a
.
“Bringing Values and Deliberation to Science Communication.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
110
:
14081
87
.
Dietz, Thomas.
2013b
.
“Context Matters: Eugene A. Rosa's Lessons for Structural Human Ecology.”
Pp.
189
216
in
Structural Human Ecology: Essays in Risk, Energy, and Sustainability
, edited by Thomas Dietz and Andrew K. Jorgenson.
Pullman
:
Washington State University Press
.
Dietz, Thomas, and Tom R. Burns.
1992
.
“Human Agency and the Evolutionary Dynamics of Culture.”
Acta Sociologica
35
:
187
200
.
Dietz, Thomas, Tom R. Burns, and Frederick H. Buttel.
1990
.
“Evolutionary Theory in Sociology: An Examination of Current Thinking.”
Sociological Forum
5
:
155
71
.
Dietz, Thomas, and Andrew K. Jorgenson, eds.
2013
.
Structural Human Ecology: New Essays in Risk, Energy, and Sustainability
.
Pullman
:
Washington State University Press
.
Dietz, Thomas, and Andrew K. Jorgenson.
2014
.
“Towards a New View of Sustainable Development: Human Well-Being and Environmental Stress.”
Environmental Research Letters
9
:
031001
.
Dietz, Thomas, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul C. Stern.
2003
.
“The Struggle to Govern the Commons.”
Science
301
:
1907
12
.
Dietz, Thomas, Eugene A. Rosa, and Richard York.
2009
.
“Environmentally Efficient Well-Being: Rethinking Sustainability as the Relationship between Human Well-Being and Environmental Impacts.”
Human Ecology Review
16
:
113
22
.
Dietz, Thomas, Eugene A. Rosa, and Richard York.
2010
.
“Human Driving Forces of Global Change: Examining Current Theories.”
Pp.
83
132
in
Human Footprints on the Global Environment: Threats to Sustainability
, edited by E. A. Rosa, A. Diekmann, T. Dietz, and C. Jaeger.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Dietz, Thomas, Eugene A. Rosa, and Richard York.
2012
.
“Environmentally Efficient Well-Being: Is There a Kuznets Curve?”
Journal of Applied Geography
32
:
21
28
.
Dietz, Thomas, and Paul C. Stern.
1998
.
“Science, Values and Biodiversity.”
BioScience
48
:
441
44
.
Dietz, Thomas, Paul C. Stern, and Elke Weber.
2013
.
“Reducing Carbon-Based Energy Consumption through Changes in Household Behavior.”
Daedalus
142
:
78
89
.
Dietz, Thomas, and Richard York.
2014
.
“Animals, Capital and Sustainability.”
Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Human Ecology
,
Bar Harbor, ME
.
Donaldson, Sue, and Will Kymlicka. Forthcoming.
“Animals in Political Theory.”
In
The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies
, edited by L. E. Kalof.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Easterlin, Richard A.
1974
.
“Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot?”
Pp.
89
125
in
Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz
, edited by P. A. David and M. W. Reder.
New York
:
.
Ehrlich, Paul R.
1968
.
The Population Bomb
.
New York
:
Ballantine
.
Entwistle, Barbara, and Paul C. Stern.
2005
.
Population, Land Use and Environment: Research Directions
.
Washington, DC
:
.
Foster, John Bellamy.
1999
.
“Marx's Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology.”
American Journal of Sociology
105
:
366
405
.
Foster, John Bellamy.
2014
.
The Theory of Monopoly Capitalism
.
New York
:
NYU Press
.
Foster, John Bellamy, Brett Clark, and Richard York.
2011
.
The Ecological Rift: Capitalism's War on the Earth
.
New York
:
NYU Press
.
Frank, David John.
1997
.
“Science, Nature and the Globalization of the Environment, 1870–1990.”
Social Forces
76
:
409
37
.
Frank, David John, Ann Hironaka, and Evan Schofer.
2000
.
“The Nation-State and the Natural Environment over the Twentieth Century.”
American Sociological Review
65
:
96
116
.
Fukuyama, Francis.
2011
.
The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution
.
New York
:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux
.
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas.
1971
.
The Entropy Law and Economic Progress
.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Press
.
Glover, David.
1995
.
Journal of International Development
7
:
285
89
.
Gowdy, John M.
1997
.
Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Reader on Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment
.
Washington, DC
:
Island Press
.
Haas, Peter.
1993
.
“Epistemic Communities and the Dynamics of International Environmental Cooperation.”
Pp.
168
201
in
Regime Theory and International Relations
, edited by V. Rittberger.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Habermas, Jürgen.
1993
.
Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Habermas, Jürgen.
1996
.
Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy
. Translated by W. Rehg.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Hamilton, Kirk, and Cameron Hepburn.
2014
.
“Wealth.”
Oxford Review of Economic Policy
30
:
1
20
.
Hardin, Garrett.
1968
.
“The Tragedy of the Commons.”
Science
162
(
3859
):
1243
48
.
Harvey, David.
2005
.
A Brief History of Neoliberalism
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Harvey, David.
2011
.
The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism
.
London
:
Profile Books
.
Hecht, Joy E.
2005
.
National Environmental Accounting: Bridging the Gap between Ecology and Economy
.
Washington, DC
:
Resources for the Future
.
2011
.
“Ideology, Power, and the Structure of Policy Networks.”
Policy Studies Journal
39
:
361
83
.
Independent Commission on International Development Issues
.
1980
.
North-South: A Program for Survival
.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Ingham, Geoffrey.
2004
.
The Nature of Money
.
Cambridge
:
Polity Press
.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
.
1980
.
World Conservation Strategy
.
Gland, Switzerland
:
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
.
Jorgenson, Andrew K.
2003
.
“Consumption and Environmental Degradation: A Cross-national Analysis of the Ecological Footprint.”
Social Problems
50
:
374
94
.
Jorgenson, Andrew K.
2004
.
“Uneven Processes and Environmental Degradation in the World-Economy.”
Human Ecology Review
11
:
103
17
.
Jorgenson, Andrew K.
2006
.
“Unequal Ecological Exchange and Environmental Degradation: A Theoretical Proposition and Cross‐national Study of Deforestation, 1990–2000.”
Rural Sociology
71
:
685
712
.
Jorgenson, Andrew K.
2009
.
“The Transnational Organization of Production, the Scale of Degradation, and Ecoefficiency: A Study of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Less-Developed Countries.”
Human Ecology Review
16
(
1
):
64
74
.
Jorgenson, Andrew K.
2014
.
“Economic Development and the Carbon Intensity of Human Well-Being.”
Nature Climate Change
4
:
186
89
.
Jorgenson, Andrew K., Alina Alekseyko, and Vincentas Giedraitis.
2014
.
“Energy Consumption, Human Well-Being and Economic Development in Central and Eastern European Nations: A Cautionary Tale of Sustainability.”
Energy Policy
66
:
419
27
.
Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Thomas J. Burns.
2004
.
“Globalization, the Environment, and Infant Mortality: A Cross-national Study.”
Humboldt Journal of Social Relations
28
(
1
):
7
52
.
Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Brett Clark.
2009
.
“The Economy, Military, and Ecologically Unequal Exchange Relationships in Comparative Perspective: A Panel Study of the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1975–2000.”
Social Problems
56
:
621
46
.
Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Thomas Dietz.
2014
.
“Economic Growth Does Not Reduce the Ecological Intensity of Human Well-Being.”
Sustainability Science
,
August
, pp.
1
8
.
Kahneman, Daniel.
2003
.
“A Perspective on Judgment and Choice.”
American Psychologist
58
:
697
720
.
Kahneman, Daniel.
2011
.
Thinking Fast and Slow
.
New York
:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux
.
Kahneman, Daniel, Ed Diener, and Norbert Schwarz.
1999
.
Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology
.
New York
:
Russell Sage Foundation
.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Alan B. Krueger.
2006
.
“Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being.”
Journal of Economic Perspectives
20
:
3
24
.
Kalof, Linda.
2007
.
Looking at Animals in Human History
.
London
:
Reaktion Books
.
Kates, Robert W., William C. Clark, Robert Corell, J. Michael Hall, Carlo Jaeger, Ian Lowe, James J. McCarthy, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, Bert Bolin, Nancy M. Dickson, Sylvie Faucheux, Gilberto C. Gallopin, Arnulf Grubler, Brian Huntley, Jill Jager, Narpat S. Jodha, Roger E. Kasperson, Akin Mabogunje, Pamela Matson, Harold Mooney, Berrien Moore III, Timothy O'Riordan, and Uno Svedin.
2001
.
“Sustainability Science.”
Science
292
(
5517
):
641
42
.
Kenessey, Zoltan.
1994
.
“The Genesis of National Accounts: An Overview.”
Pp.
1
15
in
The Accounts of Nations
, edited by Zoltan Kenessey.
Amsterdam
:
IOS Press
.
Kennedy, Robert F.
1968
.
“Remarks at the University of Kansas, March 18, 1968.”
University of Kansas
,
Lawrence
.
Kick, Edward L., Randa Nasser, Byron L. Davis, and Lee Bean.
1990
.
“Militarization and Infant Mortality in the Third World.”
Journal of Political and Military Sociology
18
:
285
305
.
Knight, Kyle, and Eugene A. Rosa.
2011
.
“The Environmental Efficiency of Well-Being: A Cross-national Analysis.”
Social Science Research
40
:
931
49
.
Krueger, Alan B.
2009
.
Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations
.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
.
Kubiszewski, Ida, Robert Costanza, Carol Franco, Philip Lawn, John Talberth, Tim Jackson, and Camille Aylmer.
2013
.
“Beyond GDP: Measuring and Achieving Global Genuine Progress.”
Ecological Economics
93
:
57
68
.
Kuznets, Simon.
1955
.
“Economic Growth and Income Inequality.”
American Economic Review
45
:
1
28
.
Kuznets, Simon.
1979
.
Growth, Population and Income Distribution: Selected Essays
.
New York
:
W. W. Norton
.
Lancaster, Kevin J.
1966
.
“A New Approach to Consumer Theory.”
Journal of Political Economy
74
:
132
57
.
Liu, Jianguo, Vanessa Hull, Mateus Batistella, Ruth DeFries, Thomas Dietz, Feng Fu, Thomas W. Hertel, Roberto Cesar Izaurralde, Eric F. Lambin, Shuxin Li, Luiz A. Martinelli, William McConnell, Emilio F. Moran, Rosamond Naylor, Zhiyun Ouyang, Karen R. Polenske, Anette Reenberg, Gilberto de Miranda Rocha, Cynthia A. Simmons, Peter H. Verburg, Peter Vitousek, Fusuo Zhang, and Chunquan Zhu.
2013
.
“Framing Sustainability in a Telecoupled World.”
Ecology and Society
18
:
26
.
Lough, Thomas S.
1999
.
“Energy, Agriculture, Patriarchy and Ecocide.”
Human Ecology Review
6
:
100
111
.
Malthus, Thomas R.
[1803] 1992
.
An Essay on the Principle of Population
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Mann, Michael.
1986
.
The Sources of Social Power. Vol. 1. A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760
.
Cambridge
:
Cambridge University Press
.
Marsh, George Perkins.
[1864] 1965
.
Man and Nature: Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Actions
.
Cambridge, MA
:
Belknap Press
.
Mazur, Allan.
2013a
.
“Energy and Electricity in Industrial Nations.”
Pp.
121
38
in
Structural Human Ecology: New Essays in Risk, Energy and Sustainability
, edited by Thomas Dietz and Andrew K. Jorgenson.
Pullman
:
Washington State University Press
.
Mazur, Allan.
2013b
.
Energy and Electricity in Industrial Nations: The Sociology and Technology of Energy
.
Oxford
:
Earthscan
.
Mazur, Allan, and Eugene Rosa.
1974
.
“Energy and Life-Style: Massive Energy Consumption May Not Be Necessary to Maintain Current Living Standards in America.”
Science
186
:
607
10
.
McLaughlin, Paul.
2012
.
“Climate Change, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: Reconceptualizing Societal–Environment Interaction within a Socially Constructed Adaptive Landscape.”
Organization and Environment
24
:
269
91
.
McLaughlin, Paul, and Thomas Dietz.
2008
.
“Structure, Agency and Environment: Toward an Integrated Perspective on Vulnerability.”
Global Environmental Change
18
:
99
111
.
Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William Behrens III.
1972
.
The Limits to Growth
.
New York
:
Potomac Associates
.
Mészáros, István, and John Bellamy Foster.
2010
.
The Structural Crisis of Capital
.
New York
:
Monthly Review Press
.
Mitra, Siddhartha.
2000
.
“Corruption, Pollution, and the Kuznets Environment Curve.”
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
40
:
137
50
.
Mol, Arthur.
1995
.
The Refinement of Production: Ecological Modernization Theory and the Chemical Industry
.
Utrecht, Netherlands
:
Van Arkel
.
Mol, Arthur.
2010
.
“Ecological Modernization as Social Theory of Environmental Reform.”
Pp.
63
76
in
The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology
, 2nd ed., edited by M. R. Redclift and G. Woodgate.
Cheltenham
:
Edward Elgar
.
Moran, Emilio.
2010
.
“Progress in the Last Ten Years in the Study of Land Use/Cover Change and the Outlook for the Next Decade.”
Pp.
135
64
in
Human Footprints on the Global Environment: Threats to Sustainability
, edited by E. A. Rosa, A. Diekmann, T. Dietz, and C. C. Jaeger.
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Moran, Emilio F., and Elinor Ostrom.
2005
.
Seeing the Forest and the Trees: Human-Environment Interactions in Forest Ecosystems
,
Cambridge, MA
:
MIT Press
.
Neumayer, Eric.
2010
.
Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms
.
Cheltenham
:
Edward Elgar
.
New Economics Foundation
.
2009
.
The Happy Planet Index
.
London
:
New Economics Foundation
.
Nussbaum, Martha C.
2006
.
Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership
.
Cambridge, MA
:
Belknap Press
.
Nussbaum, Martha C., and Amartya Sen.
1993
.
The Quality of Life
.
New York
:
Oxford University Press
.
Ogburn, William F.
1933
.
“Recent Social Trends in the United States.”
In
Report of the President's Research Committee on Social Trends.
New York
:
McGraw-Hill
.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
.
2013
.
OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-Being
.
Paris
:
OECD
.
Ostrom, Elinor, Thomas Dietz, Nives Dolsak, Paul C. Stern, Susan Stonich, and Elke Weber.
2002
.
The Drama of the Commons
.
Washington, DC
:
.
Peet, Richard.
1996
.
The Unholy Trinity: The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization
.
London
:
Zed Books
.
Peluso, Nancy Lee.
1992
.
Rich Forests, Poor People: Resource Control and Resistance
.
Berkeley
:
University of California Press
.
Peluso, Nancy Lee, and Peter Vandergeest.
2001
.
“Genealogies of the Political Forest and Customary Rights in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand.”
Journal of Asian Studies
60
:
761
812
.
Perkins, John.
2005
.
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
.
New York
:
Penguin
.
Pfeiffer, James, and Rachel Chapman.
2010
.
“Anthropological Perspectives on Structural Adjustment and Public Health.”
Annual Review of Anthropology
39
:
149
65
.
Piketty, Thomas.
2014
.
Capital in the Twenty-First Century
. Translated by A. Goldhammer.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Press
.
Pilisuk, Mark, and Thomas Hayden.
1965
.
“Is There a Military Industrial Complex Which Prevents Peace? Consensus and Countervailing Power in Pluralistic Systems.”
Journal of Social Issues
21
:
61
117
.
Reid, Walter V., Harold A. Mooney, Angela Cropper, Doris Capistrano, Stephen R. Carpenter, Kanchan Chopra, Partha Dasgupta, Thomas Dietz, Anantha Kumar Duraiappah, Rashid Hassan, Roger Kasperson, Rik Leemans, Robert M. May, Tony (A. J.) McMichael, Prabhu Pingali, Cristián Samper, Robert Sholes, Robert T. Watson, A. H. Zakri, Zhao Shidong, Neville J. Ash, Elena Bennett, Pushpam Kumar, Marcus J. Lee, Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne, Henk Simons, Jillian Thonell, and Monica B. Zurek.
2005
.
Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis
.
Washington, DC
:
Island Press
.
Ricardo, David.
1817
.
On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
.
London
:
John Murray
.
Richerson, Peter J., and Robert Boyd.
1997–98
.
“Homage to Malthus, Ricardo and Boserup: Toward a General Theory of Population, Economic Growth, Environmental Deterioration, Wealth and Poverty.”
Human Ecology Review
4
:
85
90
.
Roberts, J. Timmons, and Peter Grimes.
2002
.
“World-Systems and the Environment: Toward a New Synthesis.”
Pp.
167
96
in
Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights
, edited by R. E. Dunlap, F. H. Buttel, P. Dickens, and A. Gijswijt.
Lanham, MD
:
Rowman and Littlefield
.
Robinson, John.
2004
.
“Squaring the Circle? Some Thoughts on the Idea of Sustainable Development.”
Ecological Economics
48
:
369
84
.
Rosa, Eugene A.
1983
.
“Energetic Theories of Society: An Evaluative Review.”
Sociological Inquiry
53
:
152
78
.
Rosa, Eugene A., and Thomas Dietz.
2012
.
“Human Drivers of National Greenhouse Gas Emissions.”
Nature Climate Change
2
:
581
86
.
Rosa, Eugene A., Gary E. Machlis, and Kenneth M. Keating.
1988
.
“Energy and Society.”
Annual Review of Sociology
14
:
149
72
.
Rosa, Eugene A., Aaron McCright, and Ortwin Renn.
2013
.
The Risk Society Revisited: Social Theory and Governance
.
:
Temple University Press
.
Rudel, Thomas K.
2009
.
“How Do People Transform Landscapes? A Sociological Perspective on Suburban Sprawl and Tropical Deforestation.”
American Journal of Sociology
115
:
129
54
.
Rudel, Thomas K, Gregory Asner, Ruth Defries, and William Laurance.
2009
.
“Changing Drivers of Deforestation and New Opportunities for Conservation.”
Conservation Biology
23
(
6
):
1396
405
.
Rudel, Thomas K., Oliver T. Coomes, Emilio Moran, Frederic Achard, Arid Angelsen, Jianchu Xu, and Eric Lambin.
2005
.
“Forest Transitions: Towards a Global Understanding of Land Use Change.”
Global Environmental Change
15
:
23
31
.
Rudel, Thomas K., and Bruce Horowitz.
1993
.
Tropical Deforestation: Small Farmers and Land Clearing in the Ecuadorian Amazon
.
New York
:
Columbia University Press
.
Sachs, Jeffrey D., and Andrew Warner.
1995
.
“Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration.”
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity
1
:
1
118
.
Schnaiberg, Alan.
1980
.
The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity
.
New York
:
Oxford University Press
.
Selden, Thomas M., and Daqing Song.
1994
.
“Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions?”
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
27
:
147
62
.
Self, Abbie.
2014
.
Measuring National Well-Being: Insights across Society, the Economy and the Environment, 2014
.
London
:
Office for National Statistics
.
Sen, Amartya Kumar.
1982
.
Choice, Welfare and Measurement
.
Cambridge, MA
:
Harvard University Press
.
Sen, Amartya Kumar.
1999a
.
Commodities and Capabilities
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Sen, Amartya Kumar.
1999b
.
Development as Freedom
.
New York
:
Random House
.
Serageldin, Ismail, and Andrew Steer.
1994
.
“Expanding the Capital Stock.”
Pp.
30
32
in
Making Development Sustainable: From Concepts to Action
, edited by Ismail Serageldin and Andrew Steer.
Washington, DC
:
World Bank
.
Shandra, John.
2007
.
“The World Polity and Deforestation: A Quantitative, Cross-national Analysis.”
International Journal of Comparative Sociology
48
:
5
27
.
Shandra, John M., Jenna Nobles, Bruce London, and John B. Williamson.
2004
.
“Dependency, Democracy, and Infant Mortality: A Quantitative, Cross-national Analysis of Less Developed Countries.”
Social Science and Medicine
59
:
321
33
.
Shandra, John, Eric Shircliff, and Bruce London.
2011
.
“The International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Structural Adjustment: A Cross-national Analysis of Forest Loss.”
Social Science Resarch
40
:
210
25
.
Shandra, John M., Eran Shor, and Bruce London.
2008
.
“Debt, Structural Adjustment, and Organic Water Pollution: A Cross-national Analysis.”
Organization and Environment
21
:
38
55
.
Shandra, John M., Eran Shor, and Bruce London.
2009
.
“World Polity, Unequal Ecological Exchange, and Organic Water Pollution: A Cross–national Analysis of Developing Nations.”
Human Ecology Review
16
:
53
63
.
Shandra, John M., Eran Shor, Gary Maynard, and Bruce London.
2008
.
“Debt, Structural Adjustment, and Deforestation: A Cross-national Study.”
Journal of World-Systems Research
14
:
1
21
.
Shwom, Rachael.
2011
.
“A middle range theorization of energy politics: The U.S. struggle for energy efficient appliances.”
Enviromental Politics
20
:
705
726
.
1801
.
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
. Vol.
1
.
Basel
:
James Decker
.
Snyder, David, and Edward L. Kick.
1979
.
“Structural Position in the World System and Economic Growth, 1955–1970: A Multiple-Network Analysis of Transnational Interactions.”
American Journal of Sociology
84
:
1096
1126
.
Solow, Robert M.
1957
.
“Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function.”
Review of Economics and Statistics
39
:
312
20
.
Solow, Robert M.
1994
.
“Perspectives on Growth Theory.”
Journal of Economic Perspectives
8
:
45
54
.
Speth, James Gustavus.
2008
.
“The Global 2000 Report and Its Aftermath.”
Pp.
47
50
in
Foundations of Environmental Sustainability
, edited by L. L. Rockwood, R. E. Stewart, and T. Dietz.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Steinberger, Julie K., and J. Timmons Roberts.
2010
.
“From Constraint to Sufficiency: The Decoupling of Energy and Carbon from Human Needs, 1975–2005.”
Ecological Economics
70
:
425
33
.
Steinberger, Julia K., J. Timmons Roberts, Glen P. Peters, and Giovanni Baiocchi.
2012
.
“Pathways of Human Development and Carbon Emissions Embodied in Trade.”
Nature Climate Change
2
:
81
85
.
Stern, Paul C.
2014
.
“Individual and Household Interactions with Energy Systems: Toward Integrated Understanding.”
Energy Research and Social Science
1
:
41
48
.
Stigler, George J.
1950a
.
“The Development of Utility Theory, I.”
Journal of Political Economy
58
:
307
27
.
Stigler, George J.
1950b
.
“The Development of Utility Theory, II.”
Journal of Political Economy
58
:
373
96
.
Stiglitz, Joseph, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi.
2009
.
The Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress Revisited.
Paris
:
Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress
.
Stone, Arthur A. and Christopher Mackie.
2013
.
Subjective Well-Being: Measuring Happiness, Suffering, and Other Dimensions of Experience
.
Washington, DC
:
.
Stonich, Susan, and Peter Vandergeest.
2001
.
“Violence, Environment, and Industrial Shrimp Farming.”
Pp.
261
86
in
Violent Environments
, edited by Nancy Lee Peluso and Michael Watts.
Ithaca, NY
:
Cornell University Press
.
Talberth, John, Clifford Cobb, and Noah Slattery.
2007
.
“The Genuine Progress Indicator 2006: A Tool for Sustainable Development.”
Report, Redefining Progress
,
Oakland, CA
.
Turner, B. L., II.
2010
.
“Vulnerability and Resilience: Coalescing or Paralleling Approaches for Sustainability Science?”
Global Environmental Change
20
:
570
76
.
Turner, B. L., R. E. Kasperson, P. A. Matson, J. J. McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley, J. X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M. L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pulsipher, and A. Schiller.
2003
.
“A Framework for Vulnerability Analysis in Sustainability Science.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA
100
:
8074
79
.
UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
.
2011
.
“Life Satisfaction and Other Measures of Wellbeing in England, 2007–2011.”
UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
,
London
.
ul Haq, Mahbub.
2003
.
“The Birth of the Human Development Index.”
Pp.
127
37
in
, edited by S. Fukuda-Parr and A. K. Shiva Kuma.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
United Nations Development Programme
.
2014
.
Human Development Report 2014: Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience
.
New York
:
United Nations Development Programme
.
US National Research Council
.
1996
.
Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society
. Edited by P. C. Stern and H. Fineberg.
Washington, DC
:
.
US National Research Council
.
1999a
.
Our Common Journey: A Transition toward Sustainability
.
Washington, DC
:
.
US National Research Council
.
1999b
.
Perspectives on Biodiversity: Valuing Its Role in an Everchanging World
.
Washington, DC
:
.
US National Research Council
.
2008
.
Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making
. Edited by T. Dietz and P. C. Stern.
Washington, DC
:
.
US National Research Council
.
2012
.
The Subjective Well-Being Module of the American Time Use Survey: Assessment for Its Continuation
.
Washington, DC
:
.
US National Research Council
.
2013
.
Subjective Well-Being: Measuring Happiness, Suffering, and Other Dimensions of Experience
.
Washington, DC
:
US National Research Council
.
Vemuri, Amanda W., and Robert Costanza.
2006
.
“The Role of Human, Social, Built, and Natural Capital in Explaining Life Satisfaction at the Country Level: Toward a National Well-Being Index (NWI).”
Ecological Economics
58
:
119
33
.
Wallerstein, Immanuel.
1974
.
The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century
.
New York
:
.
Welsch, Heinz.
2004
.
“Corruption, Growth, and the Environment: A Cross-country Analysis.”
Environment and Development Economics
9
:
663
93
.
Wollenberg, E., L. Merino, Arun Agrawal, and Elinor Ostrom.
2007
.
“Fourteen Years of Monitoring Community-Managed Forests: Learning from IFRI's Experience.”
International Forestry Review
9
:
670
84
.
World Bank
.
2006
.
Where Is the Wealth of Nations? Measuring Capital for the 21st Century
.
Washington, DC
:
World Bank
.
World Commission on Environment and Development
.
1987
.
Our Common Future
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Worster, Donald
2001
.
A River Running West: The Life of John Wesley Powell
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
.
Yang, Wu, Thomas Dietz, Daniel Boyd Kramer, Xiaodong Chen, and Jianguo Liu.
2013
.
“Going beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: An Index System of Human Well-Being.”
PLoS ONE
8
:
e64582
.
Yang, Wu, Thomas Dietz, Wei Liu, Junyan Luo, and Jianguo Liu.
2013
.
“Going beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: An Index System of Human Dependence on Ecosystem Services.”
PLoS ONE
8
:
e64581
.
York, Richard.
2013
.
“Metatheoretical Foundations of Post-normal Prediction.”
Pp.
19
29
in
Structural Human Ecology: New Essays in Risk, Energy and Sustainability
, edited by Thomas Dietz and Andrew K. Jorgenson.
Pullman
:
Washington State University Press
.
York, Richard, and Philip Mancus.
2013
.
“The Invisible Animal: Anthrozoology and Macrosociology.”
Sociological Theory
31
:
75
91
.
York, Richard, Eugene A. Rosa, and Thomas Dietz.
2003
.
“Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of Modernity.”
American Sociological Review
68
:
279
300
.
York, Richard, Eugene A. Rosa, and Thomas Dietz.
2010
.
“Ecological Modernization Theory: Theoretical and Empirical Challenges.”
Pp.
77
90
in
The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology
, 2nd ed., edited by M. R. Redclift and G. Woodgate.
Cheltenham
:
Edward Elgar
.

## Notes

I thank J. Foster, R. Gunderson, A. Jorgenson, J. Shandra, R. York, and J. Zhao for very helpful suggestions on these issues; R. Kelly for able assistance; and especially the anonymous reviewer for Sociology of Development for insightful comments that have greatly improved the paper. This research was supported in part by Michigan AgBio Research.

1.

I will use the term affluence in the conventional sense to mean the amount of economic activity in a nation and in particular economic activity per capita.

2.

Robinson (2004) makes important distinctions between the discourses of sustainability and sustainable development. However, for simplicity in this essay I will use the terms interchangeably.

3.

GDP is roughly the value of all goods and services purchased in an economy in a given year. GDP can be thought of as the size of an economy or the amount of economic activity taking place in a nation. The differences between GDP, gross national product, and national net national income are important for some purposes but need not concern us here. Hecht (2005) provides a useful overview of the standard measures of the national economic accounts and several important alternatives to them.

4.

For example, the GDP per capita of England in 1700 was about $1,540 (in 2005 dollars) and in 1800 was about$2,200 (Bolt and van Zanden 2013). By way of contrast, the 2013 GDP per capita for Egypt was about $1,566 and for Morocco was about$2,500 (both in 2005 dollars).

5.

Even from the start of utility theory in 1738, Daniel Bernoulli, by specifying that marginal utility is a logarithmic function of income, acknowledged that there were diminishing returns to utility from increased consumption. But the basic argument linking growth to utility still holds.

6.

Thus it is no surprise that Daniel Kahneman, who is a leader in questioning narrow rational choice theory, has also turned his attention to the measurement of subjective well-being (Kahneman 2003, 2011; Kahneman and Krueger 2006; Kahneman, Diener, and Schwarz 1999).

7.

This argument is usually called the “Kuznets curve,” but Simon Kuznets (1955, 1979) was careful to note that the historical experience with declining inequality in England and the United States that was the basis for his analysis might not generalize to future trajectories of inequality.

8.

The conflicts and complementarities between economic growth theory and sustainability theory are well articulated in papers and commentaries in Ecological Economics 22(3).

9.

Arguments that quality of life at the end of life may decline are important for policy and decision making, but extending the life of older members of a society by a few years has little impact on overall life expectancy.

10.

I prefer not to use the HDI itself as a measure of well-being because its other two components are both measures of resources that might be used to achieve well-being. Education is a human resource that almost certainly enhances well-being, but it is better thought of as an input rather than an end in itself. And of course the search for alternative measures of human well-being is motivated in large part by dissatisfaction with treating GDP per capita as well-being.

11.

Adjustments to national economic accounts are another possible objective measure of well-being (Hecht 2005). In some cases the justification for a measure invokes normative arguments (Bagstad, Berik, and Gaddis 2014; Kubiszewski et al. 2013; New Economics Foundation 2009; Talberth, Cobb, and Slattery 2007). But the theoretical justifications for most of these measures are responses to the challenges of the strong-versus-weak-sustainability debate and growth theory in general. Many of them are trying to adjust traditional national accounts, such as GDP, to take account of degradation of the environment when used as a sink for pollution and of depletion of natural resources (Arrow et al. 2012 and commentaries; Dasgupta 2009; Hamilton and Hepburn 2014 and related papers in special issue; World Bank 2006). Surely these metrics need further consideration by the sociological community, but so far they have not been much discussed or deployed in empirical work in sociology.

12.

As Ingham (2004:3) notes: “Money is one of our essential social technologies.” Marx, Weber, and Simmel made important contributions to the theory of money. Sociologists, and in particular sociologists of development and environmental sociologists, might benefit from a more nuanced examination of how culture and social institutions shape the relationships among money, resources, capital, and power.

13.

As Fukuyama (2011:142) puts it, “The anachronistic application of contemporary property rights theory to historical situations leads to fundamental misunderstandings.”

14.

Of course, some business models for Facebook, LinkedIn, and other social networking services would have the service “own” the information about network connections and attempt to profit from that knowledge. And it is certainly true that lobbyists, media producers, and other “deal makers” sell their network connections and the trust of others. So there may be situations where network connections and trust are acting as capital. But I would argue that it is best to be cautious and treat these as special cases rather than to label all trust and network connections as capital.