LINK TO ABSTRACT

Mr. Turnbull had predicted evil consequences, ... and was now doing the best in his power to bring about the verification of his own prophecies.

--Anthony Trollope (PhineasFinn, Chapter 25, as quoted in Popper 1963)

Pierre Desrochers' article in this issue provides an extensive reply to my assessment of his early work on the utilization of by-products in the nineteenth century (Boons 2008a, hereafter referred to as "my critique"). I value the opportunity to engage in a debate about this topic, especially in a journal with a broader economic focus. Understanding the ways in which firms deal with the by-products of their production activities is crucial for understanding processes of innovation as well as improving insight into the ecological impact of economic activities, themes that are both at the core of economics. (2) Embedding this understanding in long-term economic development is valuable because it links the interactions of economic actors to macro-economic change. Such change is deemed necessary by many analysts of modern societies that are concerned with issues such as climate change and resource scarcity.

Understanding why clusters of by-product exchanges emerge and persist over time requires a careful collection and analysis of empirical data, a task that is especially demanding when historical records are used. Historical sources never fulfill the requirements that one would satisfy when collecting data in the present. Part of my criticism of what I called the Desrochers papers dealt with what I felt to be a lack of care in dealing with such sources. In addition, through misrepresenting several key concepts in the analysis, conclusions were drawn that I felt to be simplistic.

I am sorry to say that in his reply to my critique, such simplicity again rears its head. In fact, all the points I raise below can be summarized into one sentence: Reality is more nuanced than represented by Desrochers. In this contribution I will try not to repeat my earlier critique. Instead, I add to points already made, and include some recent insights from the field to which Desrochers has pointed his arrows. My points are:

1. By-product use is a concept that needs to be carefully defined. If we adopt the definition of Desrochers, then the whole economy is rife with by-product use. For industrial ecology, the interest in by-product exchange is associated with its potential to reduce ecological impact, and therefore not all by-product use is equally relevant. A critique on how industrial ecologists conceptualize the coordination of such exchanges must work from the definition they use.

2. Industrial ecology (or sustainability science) is not one coherent set of ideas put forward by a group of scientists in full consensus. As in any scientific field, issues central to the field are hotly debated. The extent to which by-product exchanges are facilitated by the market mechanism is one of these issues. By pretending the field to be of one mind, Desrochers ignores such debates. This makes it difficult for him to see where he could contribute.

3. Governance in...