Synopses & Reviews
Jane Jacobs has spent years changing the way we think about economic life in general. Now, in
The Nature of Economies, Jacobs proposes a radical notion that has breath-taking common sense: economies are governed by the same rules as nature itself. With the simplicity of an extremely wise and seasoned thinker, Jane Jacobs shows us that by looking to nature, we can develop economies that are both efficient and ecologically friendly.
The Nature of Economies is written in dialogue form: five intelligent friends discussing over coffee how economies work. The result is a wonderfully provocative, truly ground-breaking work by one of the great thinkers of our time.
About the Author
Jane Jacobs is the author of several books, including the classic The Death and Life of Great American Cities, which redefined urban studies and economic policy, and the bestselling Systems of Survival. She lives and works in Toronto.
Author Q&A
Why are you drawn to using Platonic dialogue as a writing device? Platonic dialogue allows you to circle around and look at a topic from various angles. Using characters enables you to explore different perspectives and to show objections to the arguments. It is very functional.
Do you think that politicians and business leaders are as concerned with environmental issues as they should be?
I think that businesses have become much more interested, except for some of the extractive businesses such as the fisheries or those that directly exploit natural resources. Lots of companies have become interested in the idea that concern about natural capital [green issues] is ultimately a way of saving money. There are now large corporations whose object is to do ecologically sound manufacturing — this was not so ten years ago. Now, it is not just ecologists — although they have led the way — but also industrialists, designers and business people who are embracing the idea of living off the yield rather than digging into the principle. A good example of this type of businessperson is Paul Hawken, co-author of Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Business schools and economists, however, have not been intellectual leaders in this area. I'm not impressed with politicians. I think they are all far too willing to sacrifice anything to maintain jobs. The fisheries are an example of that. But we should be used to it. There are guys who lobby hard to get nerve gas storage in their constituencies because it means jobs!
Why has the discipline of economics — among many — been so slow to recognize the idea that ecology and economics must receive equal consideration?
Unfortunately, you can't wave a magic wand so that everyone will understand the concept. We have had several centuries of the idea being pounded into us that we are different from the rest of nature rather than part of it. We belong here; we are part of it. We learn a lot from mistakes — or ought to — like the cod fishery disaster, but I think we rely too much on trying to learn from mistakes. We don't learn enough from success, which is really a failing of the so-called "science" of economics. Economists have been fixated on mistakes, disappointments, poverty and the downfall of nations instead of learning from where things have been working, where things have been prosperous. Marx and Keynes, two of the most influential economic thinkers in human history, were both learning from mistakes. Entirely. Not from success. Orthodox economics, as a discipline, seems to be in a lot of trouble. Economists don't have a clue about how economies really expand and I read lots of articles in publications such as the Wall Street Journal and The Economist, which will admit that they don't have any real ability to forecast accurately. I don't despair that a real science of economics won't grow. I'm sure it will and I think it will be modelled after the life sciences. This book is not, however, a fight with the world of economics. It is not "good guys" versus "bad guys." Slowly, the economists are learning that the old definitions of capital, such as money, treasure and liquid assets, must change to include the study of natural and human capital.
Is there an economic model, anywhere in the world, that is on the "right track," ecologically speaking?
Not entirely, no, but there are a lot things that are very important economically that are on the "right track." For instance, there is a section in my book that deals with silicon chips and how valuable they are, even though physically, all they are is a little bit of sand and copper. What makes them valuable is the human element that goes into the design. The human element does not run out; it becomes more abundant the more it is used. I think many of the world's economies are beginning to manufacture things that rely less on the exploitation of actual resources.
Are you optimistic that policy makers will implement your ideas to help with the enormous environmental and economic problems that we face in this new millennium?
From the very beginning of my writing career with The Death and Life of American Cities — which the planners just hated — I feared that my book wasn't going to make any difference as to how things were done. I would tell my husband that they [the planning community] hadn't learned anything, that my book was going to fail and that nobody was paying any attention. I had hoped to open people's eyes, to introduce a way of doing things differently. My husband responded by saying, "Jane, think how long the Bible has been around and people still don't do what it says!" I then decided that I wasn't Atlas with the world on my shoulders and I was just going to do the best that I can. What I really learned to do was to get off my high horse of how things ought to be and what people should be doing, and I began to look at how ideas really do evolve. Somebody once put it in this grim way: "Progress occurs funeral by funeral!" What happened was very few of the people who were in the field as planners changed their way of thinking as the result of my writings. People have vested interest in what they already know. But some of their students changed their way of thinking. So, when you ask whether my books will really influence anyone, I think it will be the next generation. Basically, I'm optimistic about young people and a particular trait they all seem to share: they don't know how hard it is to accomplish something! When you are older, you know how much you have to go backwards in order to go forward. Fortunately young people don't know this. I think that old people who dwell on how futile things are are real traitors to the cause of change. Success is not guaranteed but progress does occur. When young people rebel against stuffy sticks in the mud, they are so right. That's the hope of the world!
Postscript: When we had finished the interview and I was preparing to leave her home, I noticed a copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets sitting on a nearby table and I commented how much my seven-year-old was enjoying the series. Jane Jacobs' face lit up — she told me that she too was reading J.K Rowling's books. In particular she was enjoying the author's send-up of the British class system and the great architectural detail of the book's setting. My daughter would have trouble discussing the mismanagement of the fisheries with Jane Jacobs, but it's great to think that the two of them could have a chat about Harry Potter's problems with his snotty upper-class nemesis, Malfoy. —Matthew Sibiga
From the Hardcover edition.