The above sections present a case for using ecological economICS as a theoretical base for analysing eco-efficiency. However, ecological economics is not beyond reproach. Before a final conclusion can be reached about the appropriateness of ecological economics in a study of eco-efficiency, some criticisms of ecological economics must be confronted.
First, ecological economics relies on the systems approach as effectively 'best practice' when it comes to dealing with complex problems. However, "not all authors are quite so sanguine about the systems approach" (Wolfenden, 1 999, p. 55). The systems approach has been criticised because it lacks explanatory power (von Bertalanffy, 1 968, p. 35). Those looking for simple projections (or forecasts) normally level this criticism at systems theory. However, forecasts are limited in their ability to explain behaviour beyond a couple of years especially in systems far-from-equilibrium (as already mentioned). This means that other analytical techniques - such as systems analysis - are required. Also, in a complex world, with many possible futures, models should not be judged on their explanatory power, but rather on their ability to investigate the many possible futures.
Another criticism levelled at systems thinking is that it does not include an 'intentional explanation,' which is important to the extent systems theory is used in an attempt to explain human action (Vedeld, 1 994, p. 5). This criticism is not entirely valid. Systems thinking does invol ve the consideration of the 'telos' or goal (von Bertalanffy, 1 968). Indeed, Ackoff ( 1 972) is clear about the importance of considering 'purposive' systems.
Systems thinking tends to place the whole above the individual - which is itself a value judgement. This highlights the role of values in systems thinking. It is beyond the scope of this research to address the issue in detail, except to note that adoption of a systems perspective involves an implicit value judgement.
Complex systems are just that - complex. This means that a systems-based approach to complex problems may have difficulties in articulating the problem (Common, 1 995, p. 220). Given this, it would not be appropriate for ecological economics to adopt a single methodology for addressing issues such as eco-efficiency. Instead, ecological economics is necessarily eclectic.
A second Issue that should be confronted is whether ecological economics offers any new insights into issues like eco-efficiency than the already established discipline of neoclassical environmental economics. Both ecological economics and environmental economics share a common concern for the sustainability of humans' habitat, and both are concerned with the impact of economic activity on the environment. Therefore, is ecological economics just a new name for an existing discipline, or does it incorporate new substance? Sahu and Nayak ( 1 994) address this question by comparing the 'paradigm,' 33 scarcity perceptions, problem-solving orientation and range of integration of neoclassical environmental economics and ecological economics. They conclude that the two approaches do differ sufficiently and provide "a unique example of 'niche diversification' . . . within . . . economics" (Sahu & Nayak, 1 994, p. 1 7). In particular, Sahu and Nayak ( 1 994) point to several differences that highlight the cleavage between the two disciplines. These include:
• paradigmatic differences (such as a market-based approach of environmental economics versus the biophysical approach of ecological economics);
• differences in world views (mechanistic versus evolutionary and holistic);
• different scarcity perceptions (relative versus absolute) .
In the words of Sahu and Nayak ( 1 994, p. 1 7), "humankind is richer" for the insights provided by ecological economics. Based on the findings of Sahu and Nayak, it can be concluded that ecological economics can provide unique insights into eco-efficiency that are overlooked by neoclassical environmental economics.
33 They appear to use this term loosely without defining it. Thomas Kuhn ( 1 962) introduced the concept
of a 'paradigm,' to define the structures and work of a scientific profession. A paradigm is a set of fundamental assumptions that form a scholar's picture of the world (Jablonsky, 1 995, p. 3). It is a shared framework that provides instruction about the scope, method and purpose of a particular science. Further, the paradigm determines the problems studied, the questions, the nature of evidence and the principles of interpretation for "the majority of people in the discipline" (Marris, 1 982, p. 94).
A third criticism of ecological economics is that its attempts to pursue 'pluralism' and transdisciplinarity can be seen as wishful thinking. Very few individuals have the capacity to be professionally familiar with more than one discipline. And given the call for transdisciplinarity, even interdiscipl inary team-based research does not appear to be satisfactory because ecological economics seems to require the ability to transcend disciplinary bounds. Does this make ecological economics unusable except to a few pundits? Common ( 1 995, p. 220) acknowledges the difficulty faced by ecological economics; "at one level the goal of a genuinely comprehensive understanding of the sustainability problem in all of its dimensions is clearly unattainable." However, this does not mean ecological economics should be discarded. As Common ( 1 995) points out, some physicists recognise the limits to understanding physical laws, but they do not conclude that physics should be abandoned. In the case of ecological economics, the operative point seems to be that "uncertainty is fundamental, and there is no uniquely correct way to proceed in the face of it" (Common, 1 995, p. 220).
In the face of such limitations ecological economics adopts two approaches. First, it is appropriately eclectic and attempts to take a more pluralistic approach in its analysis than other single disciplines. Attempts to move towards pluralism are appropriate because "for the foreseeable future . . . multiple models with alternative strengths and insights will be the best we have" (Norgaard, 1 985, p. 389)34. In the case of eco-efficiency, a pluralistic approach also appears appropriate for at least one reason; because of the many and varied interpretations of the eco-efficiency concept. Second, pragmatism appears to be a hallmark of an ecological economic approach. As already discussed above, ecological economics attempts to focus directly on problems, rather than particular intellectual tools used to solve them.