Haute Lumière

Commerce · II.11 · MMXXVI · daylight

La Bourse  /  Volume II  /  Nº II.11

The Case Against This Book

Volume II — Foundations: The Paradigm and the Science

---

THE PLATE

---

THE LETTER

This chapter closes Volume II, and it is the one you should read first if you intend to teach from this edition.

Everything before it has argued a case. The economy is better described as a living system than as a machine; scarcity is a ratio rather than a quantity; value moves in flows that a stock-keeping accountancy cannot see; markets are ecological before they are mechanical. Ten chapters of evidence sit behind those sentences, and we believe them.

They may nevertheless be wrong, and some of them are. This chapter is where we say which, and how you would find out.

The reason for putting it at the end of the foundations rather than in an appendix is simple and it is not modesty. A department deciding whether to adopt a textbook is not asking whether its author is confident. It is asking whether the book can be marked. Whether a bright student can take a claim, find the thing that would disconfirm it, and go and look — and whether, when they come back with a result the book did not want, there is anywhere in the book for that result to land. A text with no such place is not teachable. It can only be believed or refused, and both of those are bad habits to teach a nineteen-year- old in an economics seminar.

So: what follows is the strongest case we can build against this edition. Not a straw version, not a version with the good parts trimmed. The growth economists with their child-mortality curves. Hayek on what a price knows that a dashboard cannot. Mancur Olson and the public-choice tradition on why your commons will be captured. Henry Hansmann on why, if worker ownership is so good, there is so little of it. Eric Neumayer, taking apart the alternative index this paradigm likes best. And the oldest charge of all, which is that "the economy is a living system" forbids nothing, predicts nothing, and can absorb any result you care to bring it.

We answer what can be answered. We concede what cannot. And then we publish the list: twenty-four load-bearing claims, fifteen of which forbid an observation, each with the finding that would kill it.

— The Editors

---

DISCOVERY

What is already working: criticism at its best

Begin, as always, with the positive core — and here the positive core is not a firm or a fishery. It is a practice. Criticism, done well, is one of the most productive instruments human beings have built, and the record of it working is much better than the record of it being pleasant.

The wager. In 1980 Julian Simon offered Paul Ehrlich a bet. Ehrlich chose five metals — chromium, copper, nickel, tin, tungsten — and a notional thousand dollars of each was tracked for ten years in real terms. In 1990 Ehrlich wrote Simon a cheque for $576.07: the basket had fallen by 57.6 percent. What is admirable is not who won. It is that two people with irreconcilable intuitions converted their disagreement into a settleable proposition with a date on it. And the sequel is better still: Kiel, Matheson and Golembiewski (2010) later ran the same wager across every decade for which data existed and found the outcome sensitive to the start year. The bet was right to be made and the conclusion was right to be qualified, and both of those are the same practice.

The spreadsheet. In 2013 a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Thomas Herndon, asked Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff for the spreadsheet behind their finding that economies with public debt above 90 percent of GDP grow at −0.1 percent a year. They sent it. Herndon, with Michael Ash and Robert Pollin, found a coding error, a selective exclusion and a weighting choice; corrected, the figure was +2.2 percent — a gap of 2.3 percentage points and the difference between a cliff and a slope. The part of this story worth teaching is not the error. It is that the authors sent the file. The discipline's best hour in a decade required exactly two things: a student who asked, and two senior economists who did not refuse.

The adversarial collaboration. In 2010 Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton reported that emotional wellbeing stopped rising with income at around $75,000 a year — $104,799 in 2023 dollars. In 2021 Matthew Killingsworth, with a much larger experience-sampling dataset, found no satiation at all. Rather than trade rebuttals, the two camps ran a joint reanalysis. Killingsworth, Kahneman and Mellers (2023) located the answer: the plateau is real for roughly the least happy fifth of people and absent for everyone else. Two teams, opposite findings, one procedure, one better answer — and nobody had to lose.

The replication audit. The Open Science Collaboration (2015) attempted to reproduce 97 psychology studies with significant original effects; 35 replicated at conventional thresholds, a rate of 36.1 percent. Camerer and colleagues (2016) did the same for laboratory economics: 11 of 18, or 61.1 percent. Those numbers were widely read as a scandal. Read them again as an achievement. Two fields measured their own error rate and published it, which is more than most fields, most firms and most governments have ever done.

And the case closest to home. Elinor Ostrom's standing does not rest on the demonstration that commons can be governed. It rests on eight design principles that specify when they fail. In 2010 Cox, Arnold and Villamayor-Tomás tested those principles against 91 empirical studies and found them broadly supported — with three of the eight needing to be split, taking the set from 8 to 11. That is what a healthy research programme looks like from the outside: a framework that survives its own audit and comes out with three more moving parts than it went in with.

Five cases, one pattern. In each, somebody converted a belief into something that could come back wrong, and then let it. That is the entire method of this chapter, applied to this edition.

---

THE ARITHMETIC

What works, what does not, and what would have to appear

First, the growth case, stated at full strength. The most serious argument against a regenerative economics is not that it is unrealistic. It is that growth has already done what regeneration proposes to do, for more people, and faster. Since 1990 the share of humanity in extreme poverty has fallen by more than two-thirds; child mortality has more than halved; literacy is at its highest recorded level. Branko Milanović's objection is the sharpest in the literature and it should be quoted rather than paraphrased: for the four billion people below the median world income, degrowth is not an ethics, it is a sentence. Andrew McAfee and Jesse Ausubel add the empirical half — that rich economies have been using less physical material per unit of output, and in some cases less in absolute terms, for two decades.

Second, concede it, because it is true. Absolute decoupling has happened. The United Kingdom's territorial greenhouse gas emissions fell from 811 to 417 MtCO₂e between 1990 and 2022 — a fall of 48.6 percent — while real output grew. This edition does not dispute that figure and no honest reading can.

Third, price the concession, which is where the argument actually lives. The same country's consumption-based footprint, which counts the emissions embodied in what it imports, fell over its comparable published window by somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Territorial decoupling is therefore running at between 2.43 and 3.24 times the consumption-based rate — midpoint 2.78×. A band is given rather than a point because the consumption series is revised often, and the conclusion holds at every value inside it. Roughly two thirds of Britain's apparent decoupling is a fall in what Britain emits, and roughly one third is a fall in what Britain causes.

Now the rate. Global fossil CO₂ ran at 37.4 GtCO₂ in 2023 against a remaining budget of about 275 GtCO₂ for an even chance of holding 1.5 °C — 7.35 years at the current rate. Halving emissions by 2035 requires a decline of 6.11 percent a year. With world output growing at 3.0 percent, the carbon intensity of that output must fall 8.84 percent a year. Between 1990 and 2019 it fell 1.45 percent a year. The required rate is 6.08 times the observed one.

That is not a refutation of the growth case. It is a price on it, and it is the only form in which the argument can be conducted usefully. Anyone who maintains that growth and the budget are compatible now has a number to beat, and the number is six.

Fourth, the honest positive — the one place where the critique is answered by arithmetic rather than by a stance. The measurement critics are right about the Ecological Footprint, and they are right in a way that should be taught. Of humanity's demand of 1.71 Earths, the carbon component is about 60 percent — 1.026 Earths. Everything else that eight billion people do — crops, grazing, timber, fish, the ground under the buildings — comes to 0.684 Earths. The overshoot above one planet is 0.71 Earths, and the carbon term alone exceeds the whole of it by 0.316.

Read that twice. Blomqvist, Brook, Ellis, Kareiva, Nordhaus and Shellenberger are correct: "we are using 1.7 Earths" is, arithmetically, "our carbon emissions restated as the forest area that would absorb them." The index is not an independent measure of ecological limits; it is one measure wearing six. Giampietro and Saltelli are correct that the aggregation hides more than it shows.

And the finding walks away from the audit unharmed — because the term that carries all of it is the one quantity in environmental science with three independent physical checks on it: the Mauna Loa record, ocean pH, and ocean heat content. The instrument fails and the conclusion does not depend on the instrument. That is the best possible outcome of a measurement critique, it is rare, and it happens here.

Fifth, the honest negative, and it is severe. Neumayer's charge against the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare and its successor the Genuine Progress Indicator is that their famous divergence from GDP after the 1970s is manufactured by a single term — the cumulative cost of non-renewable resource depletion, which rises monotonically because it was built to. Take a synthetic series: a welfare component of 100 growing at 1.5 percent a year, and a first-year depletion charge of 1.0 index points. With that charge escalating at 3 percent, the index turns down in year 27. At 2 percent, year 81. At 1.5 percent or below, it never turns down at all. The threshold is not in the data. It is in one assumption, read back.

Sixth, the rarity that has to be explained. Henry Hansmann's question is the hardest in this book and it has never been properly answered. Worker ownership is legal everywhere, admired widely, and more than a century old. In the United States there are on the order of 1,000 worker cooperatives employing roughly 10,000 people out of 160 million in work — 0.00625 percent, or 6.25 workers in every hundred thousand. Hansmann's explanation is that the costs of collective decision-making rise steeply with heterogeneity of interest, and that this, not capital markets or hostility, is what keeps the form rare. Jensen and Meckling's horizon problem and Ward's perverse supply response are the formal versions. A paradigm that recommends a form this scarce owes an account of the scarcity, and "capital is hostile" is not one, because capital is hostile to a great many things that are nevertheless common.

And the flagship carries the same wound. Of roughly 70,000 people who work for Mondragon, about 41,000 are worker-members: 41.4 percent are not, concentrated — as Errasti and colleagues documented in 2003 and Bretos and Errasti again in 2017 — in the retail division and in the foreign subsidiaries, which are conventional firms. The most cited cooperative on earth is, at group level, something under two thirds cooperative.

Seventh, and last, the charge that this edition is not science at all. Popper's test is whether a theory forbids an observation. Lakatos's sharper version is whether a programme predicts novel facts or only absorbs anomalies. "The economy is a living system" fails both. It forbids nothing; no possible finding is inconsistent with it; and it is exactly the kind of transfer from biology to economics that Philip Mirowski showed neoclassical economics had already botched once with physics. The charge is correct as stated. We do not contest it. We do something else with it, in the next movement.

---

DREAM

What becomes ordinary when a school can be wrong

Describe it in the present tense, because a dream in the future tense is a wish.

In the discipline that has absorbed this, every school publishes its kill list. A textbook's front matter carries, beside the table of contents, a register of its load-bearing claims and the finding that would retire each one. Students are set the register as an exercise in the first week: take one claim, find the study that could kill it, report whether it exists. Nobody finds this adversarial. It is simply how a course begins, in the way that a laboratory course begins with the calibration of an instrument nobody suspects.

Journals carry a standing section for disconfirmations of the journal's own prior findings, and the section is read first, because it is where the news is. An editor who cannot point to what their journal has retracted is regarded the way an auditor with no qualified opinions is regarded — not dishonest, merely unproven.

Inside firms, the programme that commits capital against a paradigm carries an independent validation function with standing and a budget, in the same way a bank's models do. The validator does not report to the programme. Their annual review names what they overturned, and the number is expected to be greater than zero; a validator who has never overturned anything is understood to have found nothing rather than to have confirmed everything.

Practitioners of living-systems economics and practitioners of the price mechanism sit on the same panels and argue about thresholds rather than worldviews, because the thresholds are written down and the worldviews are understood to be unfalsifiable on both sides. The conversation is shorter and it resolves. When the carbon-intensity decline rate for a decade comes in, one side concedes and the other does not gloat, because both of them wrote the number down in advance and the concession was priced.

And the paradigm has lost arguments and survived them. Three of the twenty-four claims in the register have been retired by evidence. The edition has a second printing with those three struck and a note saying who struck them. It is a better book, and everyone can see exactly why.

---

DESIGN

The register, and the one cut

Here is the structure, and here is the cut this chapter has been walking toward.

We audited the edition against Popper's test and published the result. Twenty-four load-bearing propositions, drawn from all seven volumes. Fifteen of them — 62.5 percent — forbid an observation and carry a named kill condition. Nine of them — 37.5 percent — forbid nothing.

The nine are the ones the book is named after. The economy is a living system. Value is a flow. Everything is connected. Money is a relationship. Abundance is the ground state. Markets are ecosystems. Regeneration is the telos of economic activity. Every one of them is unfalsifiable. Every one of them is the sentence a reader would quote back to describe what this edition believes.

And not one of the nine is an input to a single instrument in this book.

Go and check it, because that is the claim. Open any Operationalize This movement in any volume and find the term sheet: the facility size, the signed baseline, the verification method, the repayment share, the reversion clause, the decision inequality. The inputs are savings, WACC, hazard rates, regeneration rates, crossover years, detection probabilities. The metaphysics is not load-bearing anywhere. It is the scaffolding that got the building up, and the building is standing on the fifteen.

So the cut is this, and it is conceded rather than argued: strike the title. Strike all nine. The edition is unchanged. Every instrument still prices. Every crossover still computes. Every appreciative question still returns better data than its deficit twin. The part of this book that cannot be argued with is also the part that does no work, and a reader who wants to reject the living- systems frame entirely may do so and keep the whole apparatus.

That is not a retreat. It is the difference between a paradigm and a toolkit, and it is the single most useful thing a foundational volume can tell a department that is deciding whether to teach it. You are not being asked to adopt a worldview. You are being handed fifteen falsifiable propositions and an instrument catalogue, and the worldview is optional and free.

The register, built. Four columns and nothing else.

The three rules that keep it honest.

1. A U-claim may stay in the book. It may not be cited as evidence, appear in a term sheet, or be used to answer an objection. Metaphors earn their keep by being memorable, and they lose the argument the moment they are asked to carry weight.
2. A kill condition may only be tightened, never loosened. This is the discipline that sustainability-linked bonds notoriously lack, where a step-up coupon is avoided by restating the KPI. Amendments are versioned and the previous version stays visible.
3. The reader of the register is never its author. A second reader with standing, named in the front matter, who did not write the chapter.

---

DESTINY

How it holds when nobody is enjoying it

Self-criticism has a half-life shorter than enthusiasm, because nothing about it is rewarding in the month it costs something. Three things make it hold, and only three.

It is in the standing pack, not the preface. A register reviewed at every edition and every major revision persists. A register reviewed when somebody remembers becomes a page nobody has read since the first printing. The trigger must be the calendar, never the conscience.

Somebody is paid to attack it and their standing does not depend on the result. This is the finding from bank model risk management and it was learned expensively: effective challenge requires competence, incentive and independence, and removing any one of the three reduces the function to ceremony. An unpaid critic is a volunteer, and volunteers are polite.

It has a second owner who is not the author. One person is a conscience. Two is a procedure.

Now the honest part — here is where this fails.

It fails when the register becomes a ritual: twenty-four rows, reviewed annually, all marked standing, nobody having gone and looked. A register with no retirements after five years is not a strong theory; it is an unread page, and it should be read as one.

It fails when a kill condition is quietly loosened at revision. This is the commonest failure and it does not feel like dishonesty from the inside — it feels like refining a definition.

It fails when the critic is captured, which happens by kindness rather than corruption. A validator embedded in a programme for three years has colleagues.

And it fails — most often — when the school answers a specific empirical objection with a general philosophical one. When somebody brings a number about cooperative failure rates and receives a paragraph about interconnection, the register has already stopped working, whatever the page says.

---

DELIGHT

The pleasure of being arguable

There is a specific and underrated pleasure in holding a position that somebody could take away from you.

Most people carry their economics the way they carry a temperament — as something that cannot be lost, only defended. It is heavy. Every new finding has to be either absorbed or fought, and both are work, and neither ever ends. The register makes the weight put-down-able: fifteen rows, and if one of them goes, it goes, and the other fourteen are unaffected and so are you.

And there is the particular delight of the margin. A student with a pencil, circling a claim on page four hundred, writing is this true? in the white space — that is the thing this book was made for, and a book that has left room for it has done something a lecture cannot do. The marked-up copy is worth more than the clean one. It always was.

Best of all is the moment of being corrected cheaply. A finding arrives, a row is struck, the edition is better by Thursday, and nothing has been lost except a sentence nobody was using. Being wrong at small scale, early, in public, is one of the least painful experiences available to a working mind, and almost nobody arranges for it. The people who do are conspicuously lighter than the people who do not.

---

OPERATIONALIZE THIS

At the level of finance

An epistemology with no budget line is a preference. Here is the instrument, in the form a risk committee will recognise, because it already exists and is already supervised.

The structure: an independent validation function, chartered on the model of SR 11-7.

The Federal Reserve and OCC's Supervisory Guidance on Model Risk Management (SR Letter 11-7, 2011) requires banks to maintain a model inventory, to validate every model independently of its developers, and to document the "effective challenge" that validation provides — challenge that the guidance says requires competence, incentive and influence together. That is, almost exactly, a claim register with a paid adversary. You are not inventing governance. You are borrowing a supervised standard and pointing it at a paradigm instead of a pricing model.

The mechanics.

• The inventory. Every claim your programme's business case depends on, in the register's four columns. If a claim cannot be written so two readers would test it identically, it is a U-claim and may not appear in the business case.
• Independence. The validator does not report to the programme sponsor and is not appraised by them. Internal audit is the usual home and is usually already funded.
• Tiering. Validate in proportion to exposure. A claim carrying £4m of commitment gets a full review; a claim carrying £40k gets a reading.
• Trigger. Annual, plus on any material change to a kill condition. A loosened kill condition is itself the trigger — that is the clause that stops rule two being quietly broken.
• Output. A written opinion with one of three verdicts: standing, contested, retired. Never a score. Scores get averaged and averages get reported and reported averages stop being read.
• Escalation. A retired verdict on a Tier 1 claim goes to the committee that approved the commitment, within the quarter, with the capital implication attached.

The balance-sheet treatment. Validation is an operating cost, not a project cost, and it must not sit inside the programme's own budget — a validation line a sponsor can cut is not independent, whatever the charter says. Where the programme capitalises an asset whose useful life depends on a Tier 1 claim, the validation opinion is the evidence supporting that life estimate, and your auditors will want it long before you want to write it.

The counterparty. Internal audit first. External assurance only once you have two completed cycles and can show a retirement — because an external validator reviewing a function that has never overturned anything is being asked to review a filing cabinet.

The number that decides it. One figure, and it belongs on the first page of the charter:

   P(claim is wrong) x loss if wrong x P(validation detects it)
   ----------------------------------------------------------  >  1
                     validation budget

Worked, on a £4,000,000 programme where the load-bearing assumption has a 15 percent chance of being wrong and failure would cost 60 percent of the programme — an expected loss of £360,000. At a 60 percent detection rate the expected loss avoided is £216,000 against a validation budget of 3 percent, or £120,000: a ratio of 1.80×. The break-even detection rate is 33.3 percent.

The soft term is P(detect) and it is named rather than buried, because it is the only one a firm actually controls and the only one that can be gamed to zero. A validation unit without independence, competence or influence detects nothing at any budget. That is the whole of the argument for paying the critic properly, expressed as an inequality.

The first ninety days.

---

APPRECIATIVE QUESTIONS

Twelve, for a room

Discovery — what is already working

1. When has someone in this room changed their mind because of a number, and what was it about the way that number arrived that made it possible?
2. Think of a time a criticism of our work turned out to be the most valuable thing we received that year. What did the critic do that made it usable?
3. Which of our current beliefs has already survived a serious attempt to kill it — and who made the attempt?

Dream — what becomes possible

1. If every proposal in this organisation arrived with the finding that would retire it, what would our approval meetings sound like?
2. Imagine we are known as the firm whose critic is the best-paid person in the department. What have we gained that we do not have now?
3. If we could retire one belief a year and be admired for it, which would go first?

Design — what we build

1. What are the five claims our largest current commitment actually rests on, and could two of us write them identically?
2. Which of our claims forbid an observation, and which forbid nothing? Who here would classify them differently, and on which line?
3. What would it take for a person in this organisation to be genuinely rewarded for overturning something we announced?

Destiny — how it holds

1. What would have to be true for our register to still be reviewed when everyone in this room has moved on?
2. Who is the second reader — the person who did not write it — and what standing do they need to do the job honestly?
3. What is the first sign we would see that our kill conditions were being softened rather than tightened, and who would notice it first?

---

WORKS CITED

Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson.

Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge.

Lakatos, I. (1970). "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, 91–196.

Mirowski, P. (1989). More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics. Cambridge University Press.

Hayek, F. A. (1945). "The Use of Knowledge in Society." American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

Mises, L. von (1920). "Die Wirtschaftsrechnung im sozialistischen Gemeinwesen." Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften, 47. Translated as "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth."

Lange, O. (1936–37). "On the Economic Theory of Socialism." Review of Economic Studies, 4(1), 53–71 and 4(2), 123–142.

Grossman, S. J. and Stiglitz, J. E. (1980). "On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets." American Economic Review, 70(3), 393–408.

Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press.

Buchanan, J. M. and Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. University of Michigan Press.

Hardin, G. (1968). "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

Cox, M., Arnold, G. and Villamayor-Tomás, S. (2010). "A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management." Ecology and Society, 15(4), 38.

Araral, E. (2014). "Ostrom, Hardin and the Commons: A Critical Appreciation and a Skeptical View." Environmental Science & Policy, 36, 11–23.

Bardhan, P. and Mookherjee, D. (2000). "Capture and Governance at Local and National Levels." American Economic Review, 90(2), 135–139.

Hansmann, H. (1996). The Ownership of Enterprise. Harvard University Press.

Ward, B. (1958). "The Firm in Illyria: Market Syndicalism." American Economic Review, 48(4), 566–589.

Domar, E. D. (1966). "The Soviet Collective Farm as a Producer Cooperative." American Economic Review, 56(4), 734–757.

Vanek, J. (1970). The General Theory of Labor-Managed Market Economies. Cornell University Press.

Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1979). "Rights and Production Functions: An Application to Labor-managed Firms and Codetermination." Journal of Business, 52(4), 469–506.

Craig, B. and Pencavel, J. (1992). "The Behavior of Worker Cooperatives: The Plywood Companies of the Pacific Northwest." American Economic Review, 82(5), 1083–1105.

Pencavel, J., Pistaferri, L. and Schivardi, F. (2006). "Wages, Employment and Capital in Capitalist and Worker-owned Firms." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 60(1), 23–44.

Fakhfakh, F., Pérotin, V. and Gago, M. (2012). "Productivity, Capital and Labor in Labor-managed and Conventional Firms: An Investigation on French Data." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 65(4), 847–879.

Burdín, G. (2014). "Are Worker-managed Firms More Likely to Fail than Conventional Enterprises? Evidence from Uruguay." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 67(1), 202–238.

Errasti, A. M., Heras, I., Bakaikoa, B. and Elgoibar, P. (2003). "The Internationalisation of Cooperatives: The Case of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation." Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 74(4), 553–584.

Bretos, I. and Errasti, A. (2017). "Challenges and Opportunities for the Regeneration of Multinational Worker Cooperatives: Lessons from the Mondragon Corporation." Organization, 24(2), 154–173.

Webb, S. and Webb, B. (1920). A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain. Longmans, Green.

Neumayer, E. (1999). "The ISEW — Not an Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare." Social Indicators Research, 48(1), 77–101.

Neumayer, E. (2000). "On the Methodology of ISEW, GPI and Related Measures: Some Constructive Suggestions and Some Doubt on the 'Threshold' Hypothesis." Ecological Economics, 34(3), 347–361.

Ravallion, M. (2012). "Troubling Tradeoffs in the Human Development Index." Journal of Development Economics, 99(2), 201–209.

Blomqvist, L., Brook, B. W., Ellis, E. C., Kareiva, P. M., Nordhaus, T. and Shellenberger, M. (2013). "Does the Shoe Fit? Real versus Imagined Ecological Footprints." PLoS Biology, 11(11), e1001700.

Giampietro, M. and Saltelli, A. (2014). "Footprint to Nowhere." Ecological Indicators, 46, 610–621.

Haberl, H. et al. (2020). "A Systematic Review of the Evidence on Decoupling of GDP, Resource Use and GHG Emissions, Part II: Synthesizing the Insights." Environmental Research Letters, 15, 065003.

Parrique, T. et al. (2019). Decoupling Debunked: Evidence and Arguments Against Green Growth. European Environmental Bureau.

McAfee, A. (2019). More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources. Scribner.

Ausubel, J. H. (2015). "The Return of Nature: How Technology Liberates the Environment." The Breakthrough Journal, 5.

Asafu-Adjaye, J. et al. (2015). An Ecomodernist Manifesto.

Milanović, B. (2019). Capitalism, Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World. Harvard University Press.

Nordhaus, W. D. (2013). The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World. Yale University Press.

Kahneman, D. and Deaton, A. (2010). "High Income Improves Evaluation of Life but Not Emotional Well-being." PNAS, 107(38), 16489–16493.

Killingsworth, M. A. (2021). "Experienced Well-being Rises with Income, Even Above $75,000 per Year." PNAS, 118(4), e2016976118.

Killingsworth, M. A., Kahneman, D. and Mellers, B. (2023). "Income and Emotional Well-being: A Conflict Resolved." PNAS, 120(10), e2208661120.

Herndon, T., Ash, M. and Pollin, R. (2014). "Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff." Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(2), 257–279.

Reinhart, C. M. and Rogoff, K. S. (2010). "Growth in a Time of Debt." American Economic Review, 100(2), 573–578.

Open Science Collaboration (2015). "Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science." Science, 349(6251), aac4716.

Camerer, C. F. et al. (2016). "Evaluating Replicability of Laboratory Experiments in Economics." Science, 351(6280), 1433–1436.

Kiel, K., Matheson, V. and Golembiewski, K. (2010). "Luck or Skill? An Examination of the Ehrlich–Simon Bet." Ecological Economics, 69(7), 1365–1367.

Simon, J. L. (1981). The Ultimate Resource. Princeton University Press.

Ehrlich, P. R. (1968). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (2011). Supervisory Guidance on Model Risk Management. SR Letter 11-7 / OCC Bulletin 2011-12.

Forster, P. M. et al. (2024). "Indicators of Global Climate Change 2023." Earth System Science Data, 16, 2625–2658.

Friedlingstein, P. et al. (2023). "Global Carbon Budget 2023." Earth System Science Data, 15, 5301–5369.

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (2024). UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Final Figures. National Statistics.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. UK's Carbon Footprint. National Statistics, successive releases.

Global Footprint Network. National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts. Successive editions.

Note on figures. The claim register, the decoupling ratios, the footprint decomposition, the ISEW threshold demonstration, the cooperative shares and the validation inequality are computed in lib/verify/II_11.py and reproduced by python3 lib/verify.py II.11, which prints every input with its unit and source before it prints a result. The UK consumption-based fall is given as a published band rather than a point because that series is revised; the conclusion holds at every value inside the band, and the band is printed.