This contribution provides an interim conclusion of the debate series from Economists for Future. Its starting point was an invitation from Economists for Future to discuss the necessary consequences of the climate crisis for economics.

The series since then has produced [1] [2] many valuable contributions, which we will recapitulate below. Unfortunately, the most significant result is that, within the series, a real debate has not taken place so far, and the actual discourse on the significance of the climate crisis for economics is still pending. There has been no debate in the sense of a discussion because all published contributions were in agreement that neoclassical climate economics is highly problematic—no one defended the mainstream, and a substantive debate on the criticism was hardly visible in public. Given the large readership of the debates, this cannot be attributed to insufficient reach.

This pattern, however, is also observed independently of the climate discourse. The vast majority of the neoclassical mainstream ignores the multiple, well-founded criticisms and continues to follow its paradigm unchanged. This behavior amounts to a refusal of discourse that makes a debate impossible. Furthermore, we argue that the refusal of discourse violates the responsibility of scientists and the resulting duties.

Five criticisms of neoclassical climate economics seem particularly relevant to us:

Denial of urgency: Neoclassical climate economics does not recognize the urgency to act and often acts as a brake on climate policy measures (e.g., Ötsch, Polotzek & Spangenberg, Keil & Wilken, Juricke & Suckow).

Unilateral focus on carbon pricing: Neoclassicism focuses monolithically on the use of market-based instruments, has a problematic concept of the market, and believes that the right pricing of external effects will largely bring about the necessary transformations on its own. However, this is unlikely (e.g., Ötsch, Frick & Huwe, Keil & Wilken).

Unrealistic models: The equilibrium models of neoclassicism cannot adequately depict the complex, dynamic, nonlinear economic system. They allow neither an analysis of climate-induced upheavals nor the transformations of the economic system. This leads to an underestimation of the dangers of climate change and a lack of imagination regarding possible climate policies. (e.g., Polotzek & Spangenberg, Keil & Wilken)

Ignoring normativity: Neoclassical economics claims to be value-free and non-normative, but is not. It prioritizes efficiency as the goal of climate policy over other values and makes numerous implicit value judgments. These should be explicitly discussed (e.g., Frick & Huwe, Polotzek & Spangenberg, Pissarkoi).

Neglecting relevant issues: Neoclassical climate economics often neglects distributional issues and attempts to consider economics and politics separately. However, these, as well as other issues, are crucial for the implementation of climate policies. (e.g., Frick & Huwe, Keil & Wilken, Shah, Fuss & Jacob, Thieme, Bohnenberg)

The criticisms relate to the content and quality of mainstream research. In addition, the quantity can also be critically examined. Oswald and Stern (2019) as well as Roos and Hoffart (2020) came to the depressing conclusion that there was very little economic research on the climate crisis. This has changed in recent years. At high level conferences such as the Allied Social Science Associations conference 2024, climate economics has become a key topic (DePillis 2024). But neoclassical climate economics is still in a questionable state as discussed by Keen (2020) and Stern et al. (2022).

The vast majority of the neoclassical mainstream denies its critics the discourse on its own research and the state of the discipline.

Overall, neoclassical climate economics is perceived as not very helpful, if not hindering, in finding answers to how the globally agreed-upon goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C or a maximum of 2°C can be achieved. However, the most serious accusation is that its recommendations, to pursue efficient climate policy and to conduct a cost-benefit analysis despite the risks of tipping points, can have catastrophic consequences. The temperature increase of around 3°C by 2100, considered optimal by William Nordhaus, poses a considerable risk of self-reinforcing effects with catastrophic consequences, reaching up to the destruction of human livelihoods, according to many climate scientists.
‍

Problematic refusal of discourse

Representatives of neoclassical climate economics should respond to this criticism in a scientifically appropriate manner, either refuting it or revising their statements. Roos and Hoffart (2020) argue that scientists in general, and economists in particular, bear academic and societal responsibilities and the resulting duties. Starting from these two types of responsibility, they argue for the responsibility of economists to combat climate change. In addition to the responsibility to conduct relevant research and consider the consequences of their own research, the duty to engage in open and non-coercive discourse, especially relevant in the context of this contribution, is crucial.

This duty, which concerns both one's own and others' research, requires responding to criticism of one's own work and providing unbiased feedback. It includes general openness and awareness of intra- and interdisciplinary research developments, requiring critical self-reflection regarding one's own methodology, role, and normativity. The Alliance of Science Organizations in Germany sees this the same way. Deriving ten self-commitments from the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of science, it includes open discourse in science and engagement with dissenting opinions, as well as active exchange with society. The American Economic Association calls for similar things from economists in its Code of Professional Conduct:

"(…) an environment where all can freely participate and where each idea is considered on its own merits. Economists have a professional obligation to conduct civil and respectful discourse in all forums."

The vast majority of the neoclassical mainstream denies its critics the discourse on its own research and the state of the discipline. The highly critical articles by Keen (2020) and Stern et al. (2022) that carefully demonstrate the flaws of neoclassical climate economics have not been cited in major mainstream journals yet. The neoclassical climate economists under attack do not bother to respond to scientific criticism published in economic journals.  For a long time, some of the aspects mentioned above have been criticized by economists from various other schools of thought, independently of climate change (see, e.g., Simms).

It is noteworthy that in economics, it is common to speak of orthodox and heterodox economists - Orthodoxy is the correct doctrine, while heterodoxy includes false and therefore objectionable opinions. Such an understanding belongs more to the world of religion than to science! Therefore, it is not surprising that voices are becoming louder nationally and internationally (e.g., Rapley; Hauser; Nelson), which describe economics as a science like a religion and label the economist's profession as "the most important priesthood of our times.”

The mainstream definition of the discipline is evidence of the neoclassical belief in being the only true economics. The textbook definition states that economics is the science of choice under scarcity. However, this is only the understanding of neoclassical economics, which does not see itself as one school of thought among many. Other schools of thought have different definitions of the discipline, which are not found in the most used textbooks. The diversity of definitions makes it difficult to provide a single definition of economics and hence any new conceptualisation. 

It is consistent that representatives of a true doctrine understand the teachings of dissenters as wrong and unscientific. The simplest way to refuse discourse is to ignore criticism. When ignoring is no longer an option, the mainstream often responds evasively or dismissively, downplaying or discrediting the criticism. There are numerous examples of this, three of which we will briefly discuss.

A questionable handling of criticism is evident in the response of the Verein für Socialpolitik to an open letter from the Plural Economics Network, calling for more diversity in theories and methods and reflection on normative assumptions. The official response from then board member Michael Burda is more of a sham response, avoiding the actual criticism and playing it down without seriously engaging with it according to the rules of good discourse.
‍

Real pluralism concerns not only the “methodological” but also the “ontological” and “epistemological”

Burda breaks down the criticism into three aspects and ignores all six demands. He discusses these aspects, which bypass the actual criticism, in a superficial way. He debunks the "supposedly exaggerated mathematization" by referring to the importance of mathematics and well-known economists. There is no detailed explanation. In doing so, he commits at least two logical errors. Known as argumentum ad verecundiam or the authority argument, Burda dismisses the criticism by trying to create awe through references to renowned experts without bringing them or their arguments into the discourse. Additionally, he justifies the use of mathematics by claiming that many economists before him have done the same.

However, a reference to the current state is not sufficient to justify the desired state, known as the "is-ought" fallacy. This reaction, repeated in a similar way elsewhere, is not an adequate response to criticism. Moreover, Burda misinterprets the alleged methodological diversity of neoclassical economics as true pluralism, confusing plurality with pluralism. Real pluralism involves not only the methodological but also the ontological and epistemological levels. Neoclassical economics may practice different methods, but these are based on the same ontology, namely a focus on scarcity as the central economic problem. That is not plural. This year's annual meeting on "Climate Economics" provides a new opportunity to engage in a real discourse.

The second example refers to an article in Der Spiegel by economist Rüdiger Bachmann from 2012, in which he defends his discipline against critics. The title "Learn our language before you join the discussion" symbolizes how he confronts critics, namely by discrediting them. Known as the classic ad-hominem fallacy, Bachmann attacks not the arguments of his opponents but the individuals themselves, violating scientific rules of discourse. In a response article, students expressed their dismay and criticized:

"The insinuation that we do not master the language of economists and should therefore not participate in the discussion is outrageous. And the associated attempt to intimidate us is inappropriate for a discussion."

Disinterest and a lack of openness to discourse are also evident in the rejection of an invitation to the "Roundtable dialog on pluralism in economics." According to Negru and Negru, no neoclassical economist accepted the invitation sent by the International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education in 2015. A similar picture is presented in the call for papers for the first debate series in 2019. According to the initiators, only one out of 24 submissions did not come from the field of Plural Economics.

Ignorance, lack of respect, and logical fallacies seem to be a widespread response pattern. The neoclassical mainstream ignores and responds arrogantly, which not only demonstrates bad manners but has no good reason. Since the ongoing criticism of the state of economics, arrogance is inappropriate. The violation of responsibility within the framework of open discourse is ultimately a violation of good scientific practice and unfortunately not an isolated case. As we argue in Roos and Hoffart (2020), the practice of neoclassical economics leads to conflicts with and violations of other responsibilities, prompting us to argue for a crisis of responsibility in economics.
‍

What to do?

But who, specifically, is criticized in the context of climate economics? A prominent target is, for example, the German Council of Economic Experts, to whom Roos (2020) also makes some of the above accusations. In principle, however, all economists are addressed, who, for example, propagate carbon pricing as a sufficient instrument to address the climate crisis, avoid discourse, or lead it with unfair means against scientific practice. How could this change? At least three ways are conceivable.

Firstly, representatives of the mainstream can be directly confronted repeatedly and invited to debates. This must preferably happen in formats and forums where it is difficult to avoid the debate. This requires public attention beyond academic circles.

Climate change is too complex and too important to allow only one economic perspective to be heard in public and political discourse.

Secondly, private or public research funds could be awarded with the requirement to illuminate a topic from different perspectives in terms of an intradisciplinary examination of alternative approaches. An example is the study "Social Wellbeing within Planetary Boundaries," commissioned by the German Environment Agency, in which the neoclassical concept of green growth is contrasted with the concept of degrowth from ecological economics, and the arguments for and against both positions are extensively discussed. Authors from differently positioned institutions worked on the study, ultimately reaching the synthesis concept of the precautionary post-growth position. The contribution from aus dem Moore (RWI) and Hofmann (IÖW) from the Makronom debate series is a rare example that a real discourse is possible when external incentives exist.

Finally, expert committees and councils could be deliberately filled with representatives of different schools of thought. These committees could be given the public mandate to present socially relevant topics in a balanced way from different perspectives. Essential for an open discourse in economics is more pluralism and responsibility. For us, a pluralism that accepts the coexistence of different schools of thought and demands a constructive exchange between them is highly desirable.

In this sense, we explicitly invite the recipients of our criticism to a constructive discourse—perhaps turning the next debate series into a real debate in the sense of a respectful, academic debate. There have been different currents of (climate) economics for a long time, showing valuable alternatives for research and teaching. However, these are marginalized by the mainstream. The climate crisis is too complex and too important to allow only one economic perspective to be heard in public and politics.

___________________________________

Disclaimer: This article is a translated version of an article that was originally published in German language as part of the Economists For Future Debate Series. Hence, some of the linked references are in German. This article was written by the authors as an interim commentary, reflecting on the public engagement of the initial few Economists for Future Debate Series by neo-classical economists. Much of it remains true even as we finish publishing the 5th debate series. The content of this article has been updated by the authors as late as in 2024.

About the author:

Franziska M. Hoffart is a senior researcher at the SOFI Göttingen and associate researcher at the DIW Berlin, with experience in scientific policy consulting. She studies the energy transition within the context of the just transition. Her research focuses on transition risks, scenario analysis, and the responsibility of economists in the Anthropocene.

Michael Roos is a Professor of Economics at Ruhr-Universität Bochum. In his research, he deals with sustainability transformation from a complexity economics perspective. He particularly investigates questions related to the energy transition, mobility transition, and climate change.