







































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 4 (1): 45–58, January 2021 

 
THEMATIC ESSAY  
 

Lonergan’s Contribution to Ecological Economics 
 

Terrance Quinn  
 
Abstract: This paper provides a brief introduction to Bernard Lonergan’s 
economic model, whose main features will contribute to a “transdisciplinary 
ecological economics”. Lonergan’s model was developed in the 1940s; however, 
some significant source documents only became available in the 1980s. It is worth 
looking at because it sheds light on current issues and may contribute to a needed 
“paradigm shift”. As in the searchings of contemporary ecological economics, the 
model calls for a new ethos. This paper touches on a few points for comparison 
between Lonergan’s model and mainstream and ecological economics. 

Keywords: Bernard Lonergan; Ecological Economics; Capital Goods; Consumer 
Goods; Production Chains; Redistribution; Omni-disciplinary.  

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Bernard Lonergan (1904–1984) is mostly known for his work in 
philosophy, foundations of science, and theology. From early on, however, 
a primary interest of his was economics (Shute 2010b, xxiii), to which he 
returned throughout his lifetime.1 Part of his original motivation was to 
help toward understanding and resolving the crisis now known as the Great 
Depression (c. 1929–1939). As it happens, Lonergan’s results in economics 
have largely been overlooked in mainstream, heterodox, and ecological 

 
 Professor Emeritus, Mathematical Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University, 1301 E. 
Main Street, Murfreesboro TN 37132 USA; terrance.quinn@mtsu.edu. 

Copyright © Quinn 2021. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 

4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v4i1.297  

1 Volume 21 of the 23 volumes of the Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan (University of 
Toronto Press) contains most of Lonergan’s finished work on economics (Lonergan 1998). 
Regarding Volume 15, some care is needed as it “is not… an archival record” (Lonergan 

1999, xii). See also Shute (2010b). 

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v4i1.297


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [46] 

economics. 2  But Lonergan’s economic model could contribute to what 
some now consider a needed “paradigm shift” (Spash 2019) in economics, 
ecology, and society.  

Regarding chronology, “we do not know when Lonergan made his key 
discoveries. [H]e first set them down in 1942, in ‘For a New Political 
Economy.’ … [in which] he lays out the fundamental set of dynamically 
related variables” (Shute 2010b, xxvii). Decades before ecological economics 
became a recognized area (Røpke 2004), Lonergan formulated a model that 
some would now consider “transdisciplinary” (Costanza 2019). Lonergan’s 
model incorporates “world process, the physical, the chemical, vegetal, and 
human potentialities” (Lonergan 1998, 11). It regards “economic process” 
as part of human living and therefore as being in support of “human 
welfare”, where human welfare is conceptualized as pertaining to multicultural 
societies, cultures, and (tacitly) ecologies (Lonergan 1998, 20). However, he 
also said that “not all is economic” (Lonergan 1998, 11), which will be 
touched on in Section 4. Regarding the structural part of his model, he 
writes that: “[t]he object of our investigation will be the general rhythm [of 
economic process] inasmuch as it is foundation and material fabric; or 
inversely, we are to study the pulsating flow of human activity, except 
insofar as it is purely cultural” (Lonergan 1998, 12). Later, he writes:  

From economic theorists we have to demand, along with as many other types 
of analysis as they please, a new and specific type that reveals how moral 
precepts have both a basis in economic process and so an effective application 
to it. From moral theorists we have to demand, along with their other various 
forms of wisdom and prudence, specifically economic precepts that arise out of 
economic process itself and promote its proper functioning. (Lonergan 2017, 
103)  

Lonergan’s model is to be based on facts and data obtained from observing 
how small and large businesses actually operate; the situations in villages, 
cities, and nations; actual banking; domestic and international production 
and supply chains; local and international finance; and instances of 
innovation and their real effects. A fundamental criterion to be met is that 
its conclusions be “a source of practical applications” (Lonergan 1998, 10).  

 
2 Some of Lonergan’s early work in economics first became available in the 1980s. For 
details on the complex provenance of manuscripts, see Shute (2010a, 3–14, 213–216), Shute 
(2010b, xiii-xxix), Lonergan (1998, xv–xvi), Crowe (1998), and Lonergan (1999, xi–xii). 
There is a modest amount of literature on Lonergan’s economics, which includes the 
following (peer-reviewed) publications: Shute (2010a), Shute (2010b) (historical, archival); 
Burley (1989), Burley and Csapo (1992) (preliminary leads on structure); Liddy et al. (2010) 
(searchings); Anderson (2016), Anderson (2001), Anderson (2002), Anderson (2012), Brown 

et al. (2018), Quinn (2018), Duffy (2018) (searchings and actual contexts). 



[47] Terrance Quinn 

A basic feature of the model is that it is in some sense an inverse of 
Newton’s discovery. Newton discovered that the apparently different 
motions of planets and the moon were one type of phenomenon. 
Lonergan’s insight was to work out the implications of what in some 
respects may at first seem obvious—that capital and consumer production 
are for distinct ends. That is, there are two types of production. In 
Lonergan’s model, then, the economy is made up of two “sub-economies” 
(one for capital production and one for consumer production) that are 
linked and mutually dependent. The details, however, are not obvious. 
What are the linkages and correlations? A model is obtained that, among 
other things, does not define economic growth in terms of volume (or 
GDP). This is crucial because that notion of growth is now known to be 
problematic—ecologically, economically, culturally, and societally. Among 
other problems, the GDP “merely measures the size of a nation’s economy 
and doesn’t reflect a nation’s welfare. … [or] the distribution of income 
across society” (Kapoor and Debroy 2019).3 

Some structural features of Lonergan’s model follow from the observation 
that production occurs along “levels” (Lonergan 1998, 244).4 There is, then, 
some overlap with Schumpeter, whose work was well-regarded by 
Lonergan. For instance, Schumpeter observed that “[i]t is good to classify 
goods in ‘orders,’ according to their distance from the final act of 
consumption” (Schumpeter 2012, 16). From archival material, it would 
seem that Lonergan read Schumpeter’s work “from the perspective of his 
own [already] elaborated view” (Lonergan 1998, xxv, n. 10). As is well 
known, similar distinctions were made by Kalecki (1990, 23): “We shall 
subdivide the economy into two sectors providing investment goods and 
consumer goods, respectively. In each sector, we include the production of 
materials and fuel will be allocated between the sectors according to the 
uses that are made of them in production”. Kalecki’s work was one of the 
catalysts for Lonergan’s later Essay in Circulation Analysis (Lonergan 1999, 
xli). These comments provide some preliminary historical context. Note 
that neither Schumpeter nor Kalecki developed a system of defining 
correlations and dynamics. 

 

 

 
3 For points of entry into the emerging literature, see also Stiglitz (2020), Coscieme et al. 

(2019), Goldsmith (2019), and The Economist (2019). 

4 In this context, “use” is in the sense of “capital goods”, that is, as with tools used (often 
many times) in the production of other goods rather than intermediate goods in production 

(Lonergan 1998, 249, 114–116, 246–250) and (Lonergan 1999, 41–43)). 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [48] 

2. SOME KEY ASPECTS OF LONERGAN’S ECONOMIC 
MODEL 

The production of consumer goods begins with natural resources. Along 
production chains, intermediate goods are moved along production chains 
toward becoming finished goods, and in that way contribute to consumer 
supply )C(S , which, in instances meets consumer demand )C(D . A production 

chain may be concentrated in a single business. For instance, a dairy farmer 
may do all the work of producing and providing milk directly to consumers. 
However, production chains are mostly collaborative; they can be local, 
regional, national, and international and can include various stages of 
wholesale distribution before the final sale, which removes finished goods 
from production. Let all payments )C(d  (expenditures) in all consumer 

production chains be denoted by )C(S)C(D
)C(d

→ . There are also capital goods. 

In the same way, then, let )P(S  denote capital supply that meets capital 

demand )P(D , and )P(d  stand for all payments (expenditures) along all 

production chains for capital goods. In this case, )P(D)P(S
)P(d

 . Let )C(m  

and )P(m  represent payments for maintenance and replacement (and more, 

e.g., innovation) of capital goods used in the production of consumer goods 
and capital goods, respectively. If an individual contributes to the 
production of consumer goods, personal income is denoted by )C(i , and 

for work that contributes to production of capital goods, it is )P(i .5 There 

is also a zone of economic activity that does not directly contribute to 
production, which Lonergan called redistributive. This includes, for instance, 
changing the ownership of finished goods;6 second-hand trade; changing 
the purpose of production; and banks helping production meet its diverse 
financial needs. Note that the purpose of production is not a property of 
materials. The purpose is found in the usage of finished goods 7  and, 

 
5 For example, if a painter earns wages for painting a home, their income is )C(i , while for 

painting a commercial property, their income is )P(i . See also note 7. 

6 When a cow is purchased (or indeed, stocks or a multi-national corporation), banks and 
other lenders provide credit, with repayment plans. The world’s stock markets are second-

hand trade within the redistributive zone and are not part of the production process. 

7 If needed, milk originally intended to be food can be directed to non-food products (such 
as insecticides [Audic, Chaufer, & Daufin 2003]) and vice versa. Whether or not production 
is consumer or capital is always eventually determinate, but only (often long) after 
production and final sale. Iron ore may go on to become parts of a home (consumer good), 
an oven in a bakery (capital good used for the production of consumer goods) or a truck 



[49] Terrance Quinn 

therefore, the classification of production as capital or consumer cuts across 
sectors. Assembling these elements leads to the following diagram: 

Figure 1: Monetary Relations: Capital and Consumer Supply and Demand and 
Redistributive Relations 

 

 

Note: In this article, Lonergan’s wording “monetary function” has been substituted 
with “monetary relation”. This is to avoid confusion with other common meanings 
of the word function (such as “work” or “operate”)  

Payments )P(i  and )C(m are called “cross-over payments”. The arrows do 

not mean that money necessarily changes hands. The emphasis is, rather, on 
intended purpose. For example, a farmer allocates an amount of money for 
the purchase of milk for consumption by their family. That money is poised 
to contribute to )C(d . If, however, a tractor needs maintenance then, prior 

to being spent, a portion of that money could be redirected to help cover 
the tractor’s maintenance costs. The purpose of that money is forthwith 
directed to )P(d . In some cases, over several production periods, often 

there is an approximate equality, )C(m)P(m)P(d + . An example can 

illustrate the point. If a tractor is used to transport hay for dairy cows, that 
usage contributes to consumer production. If, on a different occasion, that 

 
used in a mine (capital good used for both capital and consumer production, depending on 

production chains, final sales, and usage). This reveals the need for statistical method. 

i(P)
 
)) 

 i(C) 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [50] 

same tractor is used to carry supplies needed to repair a barn, it is used in 
capital production. But there is only one tractor. Hence, maintenance costs 
can be partitioned as )C(m)P(m + . In general, the proportions 

)C(m:)P(m are determined by usage. Some capital goods are used for both 

capital and consumer production, some exclusively for capital production, 
while others exclusively for consumer production. For the economy as a 
whole, one needs to look at the actual combinations of maintenance, 
replacements, and purchases of new capital goods. It should be noted, 
however, that according to the model, approximate equality is not a 
mathematical identity. 

This provides a natural segue to discuss what Lonergan called phases. In 
early human hunter-gatherer groups, there were regular patterns of 
production and consumption. There was also innovation. Imagine a group 
living by water. They have spears, baskets for gathering, and other tools by 
which they secure necessities for survival and to support their way of life. 
At some point, for the first time, someone in the group uses a basket to 
capture several fish. The advantage is evident. Before long, new methods 
and tools are developed to make “fishing baskets”; then, there is a new 
abundance of food, techniques for preserving fish are learned, the 
population grows, other adjustments are made in living routines, there 
emerge new divisions of labour, and, in some cases, additional leisure time 
allows for developments in crafts and art. This story is fictional but based 
on historical sources. Indeed, similar transitions have occurred throughout 
history. On a larger scale, there was, for instance, the agricultural revolution 
in Medieval Europe: the invention, production, and use of the “heavy plow 
stimulated food production and, as a consequence, population growth, 
specialization of function, urbanization, and the growth of leisure” 
(Andersen, Jensen, & Skovsgaard 2016, 1). The use of the heavy plough 
“led to prosperity and literally created a breeding ground for economic 
growth and cities—especially in Northern Europe” (Lund 2013, 1). 8 
Lonergan points to the first and second industrial revolutions to further 
illustrate his point. Recent examples include what happened following the 
invention of the automobile, airplane, rocket engine, and digital technology. 
In each case, there was innovation followed by lags and a buildup of capital 
production; then there were further lags and finally accelerations in the 
consequent production of consumer goods and services that eventually 
became part of the “standard of living”. In ecological economics, there are 
numerous definitions of standard of living. In the present context, Lonergan’s 

 
8 This is not to imply that there was not also poverty, disease, social difficulties, and great 

hardships. 



[51] Terrance Quinn 

model uses the term to refer to actual rates of production and final sale of 
consumer goods, for better or for worse (Lonergan 1998, 23). (It is to be 
noted that rates of production and rates of final sale are distinct quantities.) 

By looking to real events, Lonergan’s model identifies the possibility of four 
main phases (Lonergan 1998, 23). The phases are: (1) static (when aggregate 
capital and consumer production rates are each more or less constant); (2) 
capital production expansion; (3) ordinary consumer production expansion; and (4) 
cultural, when capital and consumer production are mainly for supporting 
expansion of the “material fabric of culture” (Lonergan 1998, 22). If it 
occurs, the static phase, as defined by Lonergan, is a matter of fact, neither 
a conceptual term nor a mathematical limit. It is found, for instance, in a 
group of hunter-gatherers for whom the making of tools, the use of tools in 
making other tools (“capital production”), the use of tools for making 
clothing and shelter and obtaining and preparing food (“consumer 
production”) and so on do not significantly change from one year to the 
next. In modern times, the dynamics of the static phase are seen in any 
village, city, or nation, wherein neither production nor population are 
significantly changing over time.  

But for a modern economy, finance is also a factor. Lonergan’s model 
implies that over time, cross-over payments (Figure 1) need to be more or 
less equal (Lonergan 1998, 46-48; 1999, 50, 69). Otherwise, monies needed 
to sustain consumer production are drained in support of capital 
production (or vice versa) (Lonergan 1999, 186) unless monies are added to 
the economy (Lonergan 1998, 58–62). However, the equality “may be static 
or dynamic. When it is static, the crossovers are constant; …, and so there 
results the [static phase]. … [W]hen they are increasing or decreasing 
equally … there may be an expansion or contraction” (Lonergan 1999, 77). 

Neither tractor factories nor tractors are made for their own sake. 
According to Lonergan’s model, capital production is for consumer 
production, and consumer production provides the material basis for a 
standard of living. Cultural development can occur at any time. In the 
cultural phase, both types of production, at least for a period of time, reach 
a “continuity” (Lonergan 1998, 47–50) which, de facto, supports whatever 
“development of cultural pursuits” (Lonergan 1998, 27) happen to emerge. 
It is not automatic. The opportunity can be wasted “just as anything else 
can be wasted” (Lonergan 1998, 22). The dynamics of the cultural phase are 
implicit when, for example, resources are directed to the widespread 
construction of places of worship, schools, universities, and art galleries. It 
should be noted, however, that in this phase, what is produced need not be 
so benevolent: “It finds [a] modern exemplar, from the economic viewpoint 
[Figure 1], in the armament race and the economics of conducting war” 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [52] 

(Lonergan 1998, 25). With all of this in mind, we can get some sense of 
why, regarding modern general equilibrium theories, Lonergan observed 
that: “the conception is exact, but it is not complete … it does not take into 
account the phases of the productive rhythms” [that occur] (Lonergan 
1998, 52).9 

In Freeman and Louca’s (2002) study, the data provided is suggestive of 
mutual dependencies among different kinds of production. Lonergan 
anticipated such results, but with precision. He observed that the four 
phases are merely “pure cases … first approximations” (Lonergan 1998, 25; 
much as a sine wave is a “pure case” in fluid dynamics [Lonergan 1998, 22; 
1998, 25–26]) and that different phases can be “simultaneous” (Lonergan 
1998, 25). These are important aspects of the model. They reveal 
Lonergan’s concrete heuristics, as well as the need for future 
developments. 10  Thus, an agricultural region could be experiencing the 
effects of a surge in a new tractor technology while another region in the 
same domestic economy could be experiencing the effects of increased 
consumer production (consequent, say, to an emerging modernization of 
the dairy industry). Another example—the development and propagation of 
cellphone technology—has involved (and continues to involve) sequences 
of surges at a global scale in both capital and consumer production. 

In Lonergan’s model, understanding, supporting, and guiding phase 
dynamics is a means to an end. The goal of economic activity is not mere 
production but to have ranges of instances of two types of production that 
are sufficiently in sync to support local standards of living that, in turn, 
drive cultural and societal development. Thus, Lonergan draws attention to 
the benefit of leisure. The economy  

[...] must not direct its main effort to the ordinary final product of the standard 
of living but to the overhead final product of cultural implements. It must not 
glory … in adding industry to industry and feeding the soul of man with an 
abundant demand for labor. It must glory in … the deepening that adds 
aggregate leisure, to liberate many entirely and all increasingly to the field of 
cultural activities. (Lonergan 1998, 20)  

Whether by increasing, decreasing, adjusting, or phasing out particular 
production chains or by introducing innovations, changes will contribute to 

 
9  There is some resemblance here to “punctuated equilibrium”, but while punctuated 
equilibrium is a conceptual model, phase dynamics are concrete and verifiable. 

10 This is touching on future advanced work that will advert to local and global ebbs and 
flows (Lonergan 1998, 27) and other “micro-, meso- and macro-oscillations” in capital and 
consumer production. Thus, one may think of “economic series” as analogous to Fourier 

series, with phase dynamics determined by local and global circumstances. 



[53] Terrance Quinn 

economic progress if they (a) contribute to human welfare—societal and 
cultural (Lonergan 1998, 20) and (b) are (tacitly) ecologically sustainable. 
Therefore, there is the need for and possibility of providing economic 
counsel locally, regionally, and globally. The effectiveness of such efforts 
will depend partly on understanding the fundamental dynamical relations 
(Figure 1). Also needed will be “widespread collaboration” (Lonergan 1998, 
26) among locally and globally informed economists, bankers, financiers, 
and community members. In particular, the “practical economist [will be] as 
familiar a professional figure as the doctor, the lawyer, or the engineer” 
(Lonergan 1998, 37).11 

 

3. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS: TWO EXCERPTS 

Looking to the works of Spash (2012, 2019) and Costanza et al. (2016) gives 
some sense of the basic issues. But this is merely to give a preliminary 
indication of work that needs to be done. A detailed comparison of 
Lonergan’s model with views in ecological economics would be a major 
collaborative undertaking. 

Spash and Smith (2019, 1) see “economies as emergent … from and 
dependent upon … society and ecology”. They observe that “there are 
different types of economy … something typically ignored by economists” 
(2019, 8). They further point out that “once both the possibility of and need 
for alternatives are accepted then questions arise as to the varieties of social 
structure, means of social provisioning and waste disposal, and relationships 
with nature and biophysical reality” (2019, 9). Lonergan’s (1999, 4) model 
bears some resemblance in that it regards any economy as “a structure 
resting on the ecologies of nature and underpinning social and cultural 
structures”. The model also anticipates diversity, for developments are 
“according to the current conceptions and needs of the cultural field” 
(Lonergan 1998, 25); “communities devise their own schemes of 
recurrence” (Lonergan 1999, 4); and whatever the cultural and societal 
context, each economy “has its velocities and their changes of velocity [of 
production and consumption]” (Lonergan 1999, 4). Spash and Smith (2019) 
speak descriptively of “types of economy” and focus on “social structure” 
and “biophysical reality”. In contrast, Lonergan’s model partly focuses on 
answering the question, “How does an economy work, whatever the social 
structure and biophysical reality?” 

 
11  In precise terms, this would concretize a metaphor attributed to Keynes (1931): “If 
economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people on a 

level with dentists, that would be splendid” (Mankiw 2006, 21). 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [54] 

For another point of comparison, we can look to Costanza et al. (2016). 
They aspire to obtain “a comprehensive, non-linear, systems dynamics 
model that can track both flows and stocks of built, human, social, and 
natural capital and make projections into the future under different policy 
scenarios” (2016, 351). They seek a “‘narrative of change’ … within existing 
socioeconomic and geopolitical circumstances” (Costanza et al. 2016, 350) 
that is based on “current knowledge of how ecology, economics, psychology 
and sociology collectively contribute to establishing and measuring 
sustainable wellbeing” (2016, 352; emphasis added). 

There is an apt analogy: the structural component of Lonergan’s model is to 
actual economics what the periodic table is to actual chemistry. It does not 
imply “systems dynamics” which, by definition, are remote to concrete 
circumstances. An essential component of Lonergan’s model is an 
understanding of production processes and finance, whatever the 
community, culture, society, and policy scenarios. Also to be noted is that, 
as Sections 2 and 4 (below) reveal, the full model calls for new narratives of 
change and new knowledge, wherein many aspects of economic progress will not 
be measurable. Lonergan’s hope for a locally, globally, and concretely 
informed economics is not for a structure that would be imposed. Rather, it 
is for “a democratic economics that can issue practical imperatives” 
(Lonergan 1998, 5) that can be communicated widely so that almost 
everyone can understand. 

 

4. CONCLUSION 

Contemporary economic models distinguish between microeconomics and 
macroeconomics and define them differently. Lonergan’s model includes 
the fact that in both contexts, choices are made by agents. Economic events 
are defined by terms and relations, as expressed in Figure 1. The model also 
looks to aggregates, for which statistical methods (Lonergan 1998, 112, 
158–9) will be needed to investigate the actual patterns of local and global 
production and “concomitant” (Lonergan 1998, 9, 30, 144) monetary flows 
(Lonergan 1999, 4–5). (The notion of concomitant is a key aspect of the 
model.) 

The numerous technical features of Lonergan’s economic model have not 
been discussed. These technical features will prove critical in contemporary 
contexts and include adjustments in accounting, normatively distinct types 
of profit, the roles of the redistributive zone, identification of the world’s 
stock markets, 12  the structure of international trade, comparison with 

 
12 See note 6. 



[55] Terrance Quinn 

orthodox economics, as well as large-scale models of global natural 
resources, and the extent to which Lonergan’s model allows for a resolution 
of the problem of booms and slumps (an original motivation for Lonergan). 
But perhaps enough has been said to generate interest in the challenging 
and collaborative task of interpreting Lonergan’s densely written technically 
sophisticated texts on economics. Note, however, that because of the 
concrete referents, Lonergan’s model cannot be evaluated by merely 
comparing with other models. We will need to determine to what extent it 
bears out (or not) in actual businesses, production, finance, and innovation, 
locally and globally. 

Lonergan’s full model (not merely the structural results) and contemporary 
searchings in ecological economics further reveal that in some respects, the 
problem is, indeed, “trans-disciplinary” (Costanza 2019). Although, in light 
of efforts to develop holistic views (Spash 2012b; Spash 2012a; Gerber & 
Steppacher 2014), and an evident practical bent for global welfare (Costanza 
2019), ecological economics is to somehow be “omni-disciplinary”. 

There are, therefore, fundamental methodological problems that will need 
to be addressed. As observed by Hagens, “[w]e are desperately in need of a 
set of guideposts and principles that include not only ecology but also 
biology, psychology, physics and emergent behaviors” (Hagens 2020, 14). 
What will ecological economics look like, in a concrete sense, as it matures 
toward becoming a globally effective “meta-paradigm” (Costanza 2020)? 
These issues go beyond the scope of this brief review.13 

 

REFERENCES 

Allerton, M. 2016. “Functional Collaboration in Ecology.” In Seeding Global 
Collaboration, edited by P. Brown and J. Duffy, 209–219. Vancouver: Axial 
Publishing. 

Andersen, T. B., Jensen, P. S., and Skovsgaard, C. V. 2016. “The Heavy Plow and 
the Agricultural Revolution in Medieval Europe.” Journal of Development Economics, 
118: 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JDEVECO.2015.08.006 

Anderson, B. 2001. “Foreign Trade in the Light of Circulation Analysis.” Journal of 
Macrodynamics Analysis, 1: 9–31. 
https://journals.library.mun.ca/ojs/index.php/jmda/article/view/99 

 

 
13  Remarkably, Lonergan’s later work on historically emergent structures of global 
collaboration (Lonergan 1969) may prove useful. The relevance of that work to modern 
ecology is discussed in Allerton (2016, 218), which also briefly touches on linkages to 

contemporary economics. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JDEVECO.2015.08.006
https://journals.library.mun.ca/ojs/index.php/jmda/article/view/99


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [56] 

Anderson, B. 2002. “Basic Economic Variables.” Journal of Macrodynamic Analysis, 2: 
37–60. https://journals.library.mun.ca/ojs/index.php/jmda/article/view/104 

Anderson, B. 2012. “Is There Anything Special About Business Ethics?” Journal of 
Macrodynamics Analysis, 7: 54–68. 

Anderson, B. 2016. “The Fifth Functional Specialty and Foundations for Corporate 
Law and Governance Policies.” In Seeding Global Collaboration, edited by P. Brown 
and J. Duffy, 115–127. Vancouver: Axial Publishing.  

Audic, J.-L., Chaufer, B., and Daufin, G. 2003. “Non-Food Applications of Milk 
Components and Dairy Co-Products: A Review.” Lait 83 (6): 417–438. 
https://doi.org/10.1051/lait:2003027ï 

Brown, P., McShane, P., Shute, M., O’Leary, D., and Zanardi, W. 2018. “Do You 
Want a Sane Global Economy.” Journal of Macrodynamic Analysis, 11. Retrieved from 
https://journals.library.mun.ca. 

Burley, P. 1989. “A Von Neumann Representation of Lonergan’s Production 
Model.” Economic Systems Research 1 (3): 317–330. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09535318900000021 

Burley, P. and Csapo, L. 1992. “Money Information in Lonergan-von Neumann 
Systems.” Economic Systems Research 4 (2): 133–142. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09535319200000012 

Coscieme, L., Sutton, P., Mortensen, L. F., Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Trebeck, 
K., Pulselli, F. M., Giannetti, B. F., and Fioramonti, L. 2019. “Overcoming the 
Myths of Mainstream Economics to Enable a New Wellbeing Economy.” 
Sustainability 11 (16): 1–17. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4374 

Costanza, R, Daly, L., Fioramonti, L., Giovannini, E., Kubiszewski, I., Mortensen, 
L. F., Pickett, K. E. et al. 2016. “Modelling and Measuring Sustainable Wellbeing in 
Connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals.” Ecological Economics, 
130: 350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2016.07.009. 

Costanza, R. 2019. “Ecological Economics 1.” Encyclopedia of Ecology 4: 258–264. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.11124-8. 

Costanza, R. 2019. “Ecological Economics 2.” Encyclopedia of Ecology 4: 265–269. 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00118-X 

Costanza, R. 2020. “Ecological Economics in 2049: Getting Beyond the Argument 
Culture To the World We All Want.” Ecological Economics 168: 106484. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2019.106484 

Crowe, F. 1998. “The Date of 'For a New Political Economy'.” In Collected Works of 
Bernard Lonergan: For a New Political Economy, edited by P. J. McShane, 319–324. 
https://utorontopress.com/ca/for-a-new-political-economy-3. 

Duffy, J. 2018. “Minding the Economy of Campo Real.” Divyadaan: Journal of 
Philosophy and Education 29 (1L): 1–24. 

Freeman, C. and Louca, F. 2002. As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the 
Information Revolution. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

 

https://journals.library.mun.ca/ojs/index.php/jmda/article/view/104
https://doi.org/10.1051/lait:2003027ï
https://journals.library.mun.ca/
https://doi.org/10.1080/09535318900000021
https://doi.org/10.1080/09535319200000012
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/16/4374
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2016.07.009
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.11124-8
https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00118-X
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2019.106484
https://utorontopress.com/ca/for-a-new-political-economy-3


[57] Terrance Quinn 

Gerber, J. F. and Steppacher, R. 2014. “Some Fundamentals of Integral 
Economics.” World Futures 70 (7): 442–463. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.982464 

Goldsmith, C. 2019. “Why GDP is No Longer the Most Effective Measure of 
Economic Success. World Finance. https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/why-
gdp-is-no-longer-the-most-effective-measure-of-economic-success. 

Hagens, N. J. 2020. “Economics for the Future – Beyond the Superorganism.” 
Ecological Economics 169: 106520. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2019.106520. 

The Economist. 2019. “Economic Growth Does Not Guarantee Rising 
Happiness.” The Economist, March 21. https://www.economist.com/graphic-
detail/2019/03/21/economic-growth-does-not-guarantee-rising-happiness. 

Kalecki, M. 1990. Collected Works of Michal Kalecki. Edited by J. Osiatynski and C. 
Adam Kisiel. Oxford University Press. 

Kapoor, A. and Debroy, B. 2019. “GDP Is Not a Measure of Human Well-Being.” 
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/10/gdp-is-not-a-measure-of-human-
well-being. 

Liddy, R. M., Byrne, P. H., De Neeve, E., St. Amour, P., Hoyt-O’Connor, P., 
Melchin, K. R., Finn, D., et al. 2010. The Lonergan Review. Perspectives from Bernard 
Lonergan. Volume 2. Forging a New Economic Paradigm. Retrieved from 
https://www.pdcnet.org/collection-
anonymous/browse?fp=lonerganreview&fq=lonerganreview%2FYear%2F6990%7
C2010%2F. 

Lonergan, B. 1969. “Functional Specialties in Theology.” Gregorianum, 50, no. 3, 
485–505. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23574178?seq=1. 

Lonergan, B. 1998. Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan: For a New Political Economy. 1st 
ed. Edited by Philip J. McShane. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442674981. 

Lonergan, B. 1999. Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan: Macroeconomic Dynamics: An 
Essay in Circulation Analysis.1st ed. Edited by C. C. Hefling, Frederick G. Lawrence, 
and Patrick H. Byrne. www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/9781442676879. 

Lonergan, B. 2017. “Healing and Creating in History.” In Collected Works of Bernard 
Lonergan: A Third Collection. Edited by R. M. Doran and J. D. Dadosky, 94–103. 
https://utorontopress.com/ca/a-third-collection. 

Lund, U. 2013. “How the Heavy Plough Changed the World, New Technology 
Ploughed its Way to Prosperity in Medieval Northern Europe.” ScienceNordic. 
http://sciencenordic.com/how-heavy-plough-changed-world. 

Mankiw, N. G. 2006. “The Macroeconomist as Scientist and Engineer.” Journal of 
Economic Perspectives 20 (4):29–46. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20.4.29 

Quinn, T. 2018. “Anatomy of Economic Activity: There Are Two Main Flows.” 
American Review of Political Economy 13. www.arpejournal.com/archived-
issues/volume-13-issue-1-papers-and-proceedings-of-the-2018-icape-
conference/anatomy-of-economic-activity-there-are-two-main-flows/. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.982464
https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/why-gdp-is-no-longer-the-most-effective-measure-of-economic-success
https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/why-gdp-is-no-longer-the-most-effective-measure-of-economic-success
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2019.106520
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/03/21/economic-growth-does-not-guarantee-rising-happiness
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/03/21/economic-growth-does-not-guarantee-rising-happiness
https://hbr.org/2019/10/gdp-is-not-a-measure-of-human-well-being
https://hbr.org/2019/10/gdp-is-not-a-measure-of-human-well-being
https://www.pdcnet.org/collection-anonymous/browse?fp=lonerganreview&fq=lonerganreview%2FYear%2F6990%7C2010%2F
https://www.pdcnet.org/collection-anonymous/browse?fp=lonerganreview&fq=lonerganreview%2FYear%2F6990%7C2010%2F
https://www.pdcnet.org/collection-anonymous/browse?fp=lonerganreview&fq=lonerganreview%2FYear%2F6990%7C2010%2F
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23574178?seq=1
https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442674981
../../Downloads/www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/9781442676879
https://utorontopress.com/ca/a-third-collection
http://sciencenordic.com/how-heavy-plough-changed-world
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20.4.29
../../Downloads/www.arpejournal.com/archived-issues/volume-13-issue-1-papers-and-proceedings-of-the-2018-icape-conference/anatomy-of-economic-activity-there-are-two-main-flows/
../../Downloads/www.arpejournal.com/archived-issues/volume-13-issue-1-papers-and-proceedings-of-the-2018-icape-conference/anatomy-of-economic-activity-there-are-two-main-flows/
../../Downloads/www.arpejournal.com/archived-issues/volume-13-issue-1-papers-and-proceedings-of-the-2018-icape-conference/anatomy-of-economic-activity-there-are-two-main-flows/


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [58] 

Røpke, I. 2004. “The Early History of Modern Ecological Economics.” Ecological 
Economics 50 (3–4): 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.012. 

Schumpeter, J. 2012. The Theory of Economic Development. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction 
Publishers. 

Shute, M. 2010a. Lonergan’s Discovery of the Science of Economics. 1st ed. 
https://utorontopress.com/ca/lonergan-s-discovery-of-the-science-of-economics-
2. 

Shute, M. 2010b. Lonergan’s Early Economic Research: Texts and Commentary. 1st ed. 
Edited by M. Shute. https://utorontopress.com/ca/lonergan-s-early-economic-
research-2. 

Spash, C. L. 2012a. “New Foundations for Ecological Economics.” Ecological 
Economics 77: 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2012.02.004. 

Spash, C. L. 2012b. “Towards the Integration of Social, Economic and Ecological 
Knowledge.” In Towards an Integrated Paradigm in Heterodox Economics, edited by J.-F. 
Gerber and R. Steppache, 26–46. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230361850_2 

Spash, C. L. 2019. “Time for a Paradigm Shift: From Economic Growth and Price-
Making to Social Ecological Economics.” SRE Discussion Papers. 
https://epub.wu.ac.at/7288/1/sre-disc-2019_07.pdf. 

Spash, C. L. and Smith, T. 2019. Of Ecosystems and Economies: Re-connecting Economics 
with Reality. https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwsre/sre-disc-2019_03.html. 

Stiglitz, J. E. 2020. “GDP Is the Wrong Tool for Measuring What Matters.” 
Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gdp-is-the-wrong-
tool-for-measuring-what-matters/. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.012
https://utorontopress.com/ca/lonergan-s-discovery-of-the-science-of-economics-2.
https://utorontopress.com/ca/lonergan-s-discovery-of-the-science-of-economics-2.
https://utorontopress.com/ca/lonergan-s-early-economic-research-2
https://utorontopress.com/ca/lonergan-s-early-economic-research-2
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2012.02.004
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230361850_2
https://epub.wu.ac.at/7288/1/sre-disc-2019_07.pdf
https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwsre/sre-disc-2019_03.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gdp-is-the-wrong-tool-for-measuring-what-matters/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gdp-is-the-wrong-tool-for-measuring-what-matters/

