Abstract

This paper builds on the critique that Renaud Filleule addresses in this issue to radical ecological economics – known also as socio-ecological economics (SEE) – and more specifically to the works of one of his most famous representatives, Clive Spash. Filleule builds his critique from Austrian economics. I adopt a broader perspective. Indeed, although Austrian economics identifies key caveats of SEE, one may challenge its whole scientific substance on more general grounds. True, Clive Spash’s works are keen on putting forth methodological arguments to institute SEE not only as a scientific theory but also as the major paradigm in ecological economics. However, such arguments are unconvincing, amounting to activism-in-disguise of science, as reflected in Spash’s semantic ambiguity, his misconception of social science and overstated claims and pointless ordering of scientific knowledge. Moreover, Spash’s critique of economic growth is not only empirically wrong – as correctly noticed by Filleule – but also conceptually irrelevant. This is because defective theories necessarily lead to wrong or insignificant statements.