Ecological Complexity 9 (2012) 2–9

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ecological Complexity
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecocom

Original research article

An ecological economic interpretation of the Jevons effect

Nilton Bispo Amado a,*, Ildo L. Sauer a,b
a
Graduate Program on Energy – University of São Paulo (PPGE-USP), Avenida Professor Luciano Gualberto, 1289, Butantã, São Paulo, São Paulo State, Brazil
b
Institute of Electrotechnics and Energy – University of São Paulo (IEE-USP), Avenida Professor Luciano Gualberto, 1289, Butantã, São Paulo, São Paulo State, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This article develops an ecological economic interpretation of the Jevons effect. Moreover, it is argued
Received 4 February 2010 that under the neoclassical paradigm there are no elements with which to foresee the long-term
Received in revised form 13 September 2011 existence of this phenomenon. The objective of these arguments is to demonstrate that the Jevons effect
Accepted 31 October 2011
can be used to compare the ability of neoclassical and ecological economics describing the social
Available online 22 December 2011
appropriation of nature. This is elaborated in two steps. First, we show the importance of the thesis that
the economy cannot be cut off from the biophysical materiality of what is produced to give consistency to
Keywords:
the so-called Khazzoom–Brookes postulate. It is made clear that this supposition is exogenous to the
Jevon’s Paradox
neoclassical paradigm. Second, the supposition of the biophysical materiality of what is produced is
Sustainable development
Energy efficiency utilized to make an ecological economic interpretation of the Jevons effect. Afterwards, a comparison is
Energy analysis made between the neoclassical and the ecological economic perspectives. This comparison leads to the
following conclusions: (i) the persistent presence of the Jevons effect in the long run is an anomaly in the
neoclassical paradigm; (ii) the observation of the non-existence of the Jevons effect is a refutation of the
supposition that economic growth and biophysical materiality are not separable, a central thesis
defended by ecological economists. This situation makes possible to use the Jevons effect as a ‘laboratory
test’ to compare the ability of neoclassical and ecological economic paradigms to describe the social
appropriation of nature.
ß 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Polimeni and Polimeni (2006) published an article in this journal
showing the empirical relevance of the Jevons effect. In this work we
argue that the Jevons effect is important also for theoretical reasons
because it allows confronting the social appropriation description of
nature by neoclassical and ecological economics. This has been
overlooked in studies on the effect Jevons.
The Jevons effect is normally presented in the context of the
debate regarding the rebound effect, the phenomenon by which
increased energy efficiency stimulates the consumption of more
energy. This work does not aim to make a detailed presentation of the
literature on the rebound effect. For this purpose, the report of
Greening and Greene (1998), the special edition of Energy Policy (June
of 2000) and Alcott (2008) should all be consulted. In the rebound
debate, a careful distinction of the types of rebound is not always
made, which may indicate that the qualitative dimension of this
phenomenon is not given enough attention. The typology presented
here is based on the elaboration by Greening and Greene (1998), but
it does not strictly follow its steps and assumptions. Based on this
typology, the rebound effect can be classified as follows:
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 11 3091 2656; fax: +55 11 3091 2631.
E-mail address: nilton@iee.usp.br (N.B. Amado).
(a) Direct Rebound. The energy efficiency gains, ceteris paribus,
reduce the real price of energy services when reducing the
quantity of energy demanded by them. The consumption of
these services is therefore stimulated.
(b) Indirect Rebound. Due to the reduction of energy expenses, the
increase of the consumers’ income and the reduction of the
companies’ costs provoke secondary effects connected to the
consumption of other goods and services, which increases the
demand for energy. In this case, the rebounds are indirectly
connected to the price effect, that is to say, the reduction of
energy expenses allows an increase of the consumption of
other goods and services, which leads to a higher energy
demand.
(c) Usually, the effects of increasing energy efficiency at the
macroeconomic level are seen as the mere aggregate result of
the direct and indirect rebounds. In this perspective, an
increasing demand for energy results from the effect of the
energy efficiency gains over the totality of the activities of
output and consumption. These global results are called
economy-wide effects.
We agree with the distinction between economy-wide effects
and other types of rebounds. However, we argue that the economy-
wide effects cannot be taken as the mere aggregation of direct and
indirect rebounds. Actually, the view of the economy-wide effects

1476-945X/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2011.10.003
 N.B. Amado, I.L. Sauer / Ecological Complexity 9 (2012) 2–9
of energy efficiency gains as the aggregation of events occurring at
the microeconomic level is the corollary of considering the
economic system as a closed system. We do not adopt this
supposition.
If the economic system is viewed as an open system whose
reproduction happens through relations with the ecological
system, energy efficiency gains lead to both a fall in real energy
prices as an increase in the total quantity of socially available
energy. This last consequence is the direct implication from the
fact that energy efficiency gains always increase the social ability
to explore the physically available resources. Therefore, if the
economy-wide effects are not reduced to a mere aggregate effect of
direct and indirect rebounds, then the economy-wide effects can
be used to expose the open character of the economic system. As a
result of this open character, the dynamics of the economic system
implies that biophysical materiality inflows support the reproduc-
tion of monetary materiality flows usually observed in economic
domain. To be consistent with the distinction between economy-
wide effects and other types of rebounds, in this article we use the
term ‘‘Jevons effect’’ to refer specifically to the economy-wide
effects of energy efficiency gains.
As it is known, neoclassical and ecological economists disagree
greatly on the substitution possibilities between natural and
manufactured capital. However, the fact that a careful observation
of the Jevons effect can be a laboratory test to contrasting
suppositions adopted by each framework is something not yet well
appreciated. The main objective of this article is to demonstrate
that the Jevons effect is cardinal to interpret appropriately the
intensity and the way by which the economic system as a whole
relies upon primary inflows.
We aim to do this in two steps. First, we present the most
consistent contemporary neoclassical interpretation in defense of
the relevance of the Jevons effect written by Brookes (1990, 1992,
1993, 2000). In the presentation of Brookes’ (1990, 1992, 1993,
2000) ideas, emphasis is given to the fact that a central premise for
ecological economics is tacitly used, which is fundamental to his
arguments. Brookes (1990, 1992, 1993, 2000) makes the assump-
tion that the economic system cannot be independent of an
increase in energy usage inputs to obtain real economic growth. He
sees increasing energy inflows as an essential instrument to obtain
productivity gains and sustain economic growth.
Second, we use Lotka’s (1922a,b) hypothesis that organic
systems always increase energy inflows over time to change the
way how the Jevons effect is observed. Based on this hypothesis,
the incongruity is not the existence of the Jevons effect, yet rather
its possible absence. Finally, we compare the neoclassical and
ecological economic frameworks. It is argued that the lasting
existence of the Jevons effect is an anomaly for the neoclassical
framework. It is also argued that an ecological economic
interpretation of the Jevons effect can be used as a starting point
to build a falsifiable ecological economic theory of economic
growth.
2. The Jevons effect according to Brookes
The macroeconomic effects of the energy efficiency gains are
summarized by the so-called Khazzoom–Brookes postulate.
According to this postulate, economically justifiable energy
efficiency gains necessarily lead to an energy consumption higher
than otherwise. If this is true, the growth of an economic system
cannot be independent of the biophysical materiality of a growing
demand for goods and services. Otherwise, how can we be so
certain of the impossibility of economic growth without increasing
energy consumption? Actually, the main argument to question the
relevance of the Jevons effect is precisely the supposed possibility
of a dematerialized demand. This argument is used in the
3
controversy between Grubb (1990, 1992) and Brookes (1990,
1992, 1993), where the main assertions for and against the
relevance of available energy for the mechanisms by which
economic growth is produced are presented and criticized.
Brookes (1990, 1992, 1993, 2000) presents cogent arguments
showing the importance of the mechanisms by which the socially
available energy is increased. As Brookes (1990, 2000) himself
recognizes, he resumes a position already defended by Jevons
(1865) in the 19th century.
There are two central observations by Brookes (1990, 1992,
1993, 2000): (i) the economic use of energy resources is always
tied to the economic use of non-energy resources. The economic
use of energy resources is dependent on available quantity of
physical energy and the quantity of non-energy resources
necessary to make use of one unit of energy. Energy efficiency
gains act to reduce the quantity of non-energy resources necessary
to use energy, and (ii) the biophysical materiality of the economic
demand. The latter is affirmed less clearly than the former.
The first observation implies that energy efficiency gains and
new sources are both social strategies of increasing the socially
available energy. However, as Brookes (2000) rightly points out,
there are important differences. New sources increase the
physically available quantity of energy, thereby reducing real
energy prices; energy efficiency gains reduce real energy prices by
means of decreasing the necessary non-energy resources but do
not modify the physical availability of energy resources, therefore,
they tend to accommodate price rises.
How does the mechanism by which socially available energy is
increased operate? The relation between energy resources and
non-energy resources is tacitly tied by Brookes (1990, 1992, 1993,
2000) to the supposition of the biophysical materiality. This
connection is made to emphatically defend energy policies based
on increases in energy supply. The mechanism by which increasing
energy supply is used to increase energy consumption is seen by
Brookes (1990, 1992, 1993, 2000) as a strategy to obtain
productivity gains that cannot be abandoned.
Brookes (1990) considers two scenarios to defend the thesis
that energy efficiency gains lead to the highest energy consump-
tion. These scenarios also allow to know more clearly the
mechanism by which increases in socially available energy is
probably indispensable to increase productivity. One scenario is
that in which the energy price is a restriction to the economic
activity and the other is that in which it is not (Brookes, 1990, p.
199).
In the first scenario, if the energy price increases to the point of
becoming a restriction to the economic activity, as occurred in
1973 and 1979, the countries have three courses of action open to
them (Brookes, 1990, pp. 199–200): (1) to reduce the output; (2) to
substitute labor and capital for energy: they will be able to do so
because the higher energy prices signal that other available
resources are not being used; and (3) to introduce lower priced
energy sources.
Brookes (1990) discards option 3 in the specific context of the
article when addressing the question of the possible substitution
involving energy and others factors (that is, the effects of energy
efficiency gains). Option 1 is used only as a base for comparison,
which is consistent with the existence of a growing economy.
Brookes (1990) understands that the real cases are a combination
of options 2 and 3.
Under option 1, the consumers give up part of what can be
produced by the utilization of energy resources and accept to live
with a lower level of output. In such a case, the equilibrium
between supply and demand leads to a reduction of the energy
prices and energy consumption. Under option 2, the equilibrium
between supply and demand involves much higher prices as well
as higher energy consumption, compared to option 1. The
4 N.B. Amado, I.L. Sauer / Ecological Complexity 9 (2012) 2–9
substitution of labor and other forms of capital with energy
resources allows the consumers to deal with the price increases
without giving up the benefits of the utilization of the energy
resource. So, necessarily, the energy consumption will be higher
than if the substitution were not possible (Brookes, 1990, p. 200).
This is not a depreciation of the energy efficiency gains, but barely
the verification that its effects are opposite of those aimed by the
defenders of the energy efficiency policies (Brookes, 1990, p. 200).
Although it is unquestionable that the energy efficiency gains
are strategies to obtain productivity gains, as Brookes (1990, 1992,
1993, 2000) emphasizes, it does not follow from the scenario
exposed in the last paragraph that the demand for more goods and
services could not be independent from more units of energy, as he
claims. Why should it not be possible to reduce the consumption of
energy, which in this context has increased in price, by utilizing
other resources? Although the impossibility of this in the short
term can be admitted, what authorizes us to expect that it would
not be possible at some point? What prevents option 2 from, in the
long term, diminishing the absolute energy consumption? More
precisely: why should the demand be extensive in energy?
Actually, the argument of Brookes (1990) supports itself in
some respects that tacitly accepts the biophysical materiality of a
growing demand: (i) the growth of the economic system assumes
the growing output of objects, or bearers of biophysics materiality
capable of satisfying human needs; (ii) due to the biophysical
materiality of these objects, we cannot have economic growth
without increasing primary inflows in the form of energy in the
long run when the economic system is considered in its totality,
whatever be the combination of labor and manufactured capital
used; and (iii) the economic system is a growing economy and not
merely an economy in growth. These are conditions under which
the effective demand for energy is always increasing in the long
run.
Without the above suppositions tacitly made by Brookes
(1990), it is not possible to understand why the increase in price
of a specific resource would not be accompanied by the utilization
of substitute goods, leading to a drop in price and even in the
demand of this specific resource restricting the economic activity.
Only if we admit that primary inputs have concrete qualities such
that the economic system cannot grow when isolated from these
qualities can we accept Brookes’ (1990) explanation. Therefore, his
explanation tacitly uses a growth definition under which concrete
qualities and price system are interconnected and working as
complementary units.
To clarify the meaning of Brookes’ (1990) arguments, it is useful
to draw an analogy to the mental experiment made by Carnot to
show the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In essence, Carnot
argues that a heat engine cannot indefinitely increase its power
without increasing the absolute consumption of fuel. This is true
independently of the constructive arrangement of the machine;
that is, it is true independently of the combination of non-fuel
resources used to extract work.
Similarly, Brookes (1990) argues that in the long run it is
impossible to get a combination of factors able to provide
economic growth without increasing the absolute quantities of
energy used. This is true independently of the combination of non-
energy resources employed. Without this assumption, we cannot
reject the possibility of the advent of a pattern of technological
innovation where the economic growth can happen without
increasing energy flows. We can say that Brookes (1990) sees the
economic system as a gigantic heat engine using an algorithm
incorporating the dynamics of price levels. That is the reason why
the demand for fuel (energy) is always increasing.
Now, what does Brookes (1990) say about the second scenario,
in which the energy prices do not constitute themselves as a
limitation to the economic activity? In the analysis of this scenario,
Brookes (1990) refers to the works of Schurr (1982, 1984), who
investigated the behavior of the economy of the United States over
a long period of time.
Schurr’s (1982, 1984, 1985) first observation was that to
substitute labor and capital for energy leads to the growth of the
multifactor productivity (Brookes, 1990, p. 200). If the analysis
goes back far enough in time, this occurs as a drop in the energy
productivity (that is to say, it is observed an increase in the energy
intensity). However, for a long period of time, what is observed is
an increase of the productivity of the energy factor simultaneous
with the substitution of energy with labor and capital. This was
particularly true during periods of time when energy prices were
decreasing. It is noteworthy that high rates of improvement in
multifactor productivity were essentially not associated with
increases in energy intensity (Schurr, 1982, p. 7). Why were falling
energy prices not followed by increasing energy intensities at any
time during all of Schurr’s observations (1920–1969)? Schurr
(1984, p. 413) answers this question by saying that in reality there
was no drop in the intensity of energy use, but increase, pointing to
the following qualification:
‘‘But it rose relative to labor and capital inputs, not relative to
output. The statistics [. . .] show that between 1920 and 1973,
the ratio of total energy use to worker hours in the business
economy more than doubled and, in relation to capital,
increased by about 50%. Why, then, did energy use fall relative
to output? The apparent reason is that technological advance
(and related factors) exerted enough leverage on overall
productive efficiency for final output to have increased faster
than the growth in energy consumption’’.
The substitution of energy for labor and capital had such an
effect on the productivity of these two input factors that the
productivity of the factor energy grew less than the combined
productivity of these inputs (Brookes, 1990, 200). It is a truism that
if the productivity of the factor energy grows less than the
multifactor productivity without a drop in the inputs of capital and
labor, then the net effect is an increase in the total energy
consumption, even with a drop in the energy intensity (Brookes,
1990, p. 200). In short, both Schurr (1982, 1984, 1985) as Brookes
(1990, 1992, 1993, 2000) noted that low energy prices have been
associated with high overall productivity gains, decreases in
energy intensity and increases in total energy consumption.
In the above description of Brookes’ arguments shares are likely
to sound unclear or contradictory. How is possible to say that that
there was energy ‘substitution’ at the same time it is said that there
was an increase in total energy consumption? The obscurity here
stems from the inadequacy of the categories and terminology used
by orthodox economics to represent the role of natural resources in
the economic system reproduction. Even authors like Brookes
(1990, 1992, 1993, 2000), with rare insight about the role of natural
resources in the path of productivity gains triggered by the
Industrial Revolution, use the term ‘substitution’ loosely. His use
blurs the fact that the system is undergoing permanent growth:
the term ‘substitution’ suggests a stationary state entirely
inadequate to represent the situation since all factors are being
used in growing quantities and not being replaced. This confusion
would be avoidable if orthodox economics distinguished between
extensive and intensive variables and, consequently, between
extensive and intensive substitution.
An extensive variable represents absolute quantities, while
intensive variables measure relative quantities. For example, total
energy consumption is represented by an extensive variable, while
energy efficiency gains are represented by an intensive variable.
When economists say ‘energy substitution’ they mean an intensive
substitution. That is, they make reference to the fact that fewer
 N.B. Amado, I.L. Sauer / Ecological Complexity 9 (2012) 2–9
units of energy and more units of non-energy resources are used to
produce one unit of output. Here we say that there is ‘intensive
substitution’ of energy if the necessary quantity of energy to obtain
one unit of economic output is reduced; we say that there is
‘extensive substitution’ of energy if the reproduction of the
economic system happens by means of diminishing energy
inflows. In this last case, there is reduction in the energy per
capita consumption for a non-decreasing population.
The usual substitution terminology is particularly harmful
when we need to investigate the possible existence of biophysical
growth limits. The restriction condition implied by sustainable
development is the following: under what conditions can we
expect to have simultaneously extensive substitution of natural
resources and economic growth? In this context it is misleading to
say that variables are ‘substituted’ by observing only indicators
related to intensive substitution. Yet this is precisely what is made
very often in the debates on the contribution of energy efficiency
policies for sustainability.
In the process of economic growth, a strong tendency to
increase the total use primary inputs in the form of energy (an
extensive variable) simultaneously with the drop in the indicators
of energy intensity (an intensive variable) has been observed. As in
the debate between neoclassical and ecological economists these
distinctions and evidences, quite favorable to the position of
ecological economists, are generally not made it is highly likely
that the importance of them is not clear even to ecological
economists.
If considered alone, indicators of the energy intensity them-
selves constitute biased indicators of the economic system
behavior. The bias happens because the permanent process of
ongoing growth is not represented. By that, we mean that the fact
that the economic system is constantly regenerated to reproduce
itself in an extended scale is completely ignored when observed
only in terms of intensive variables.
When an increase of energy efficiency is used to produce the
same product quantity, it will diminish the consumption of
energy, like in a stationary economy. However, if these efficiency
increases are systematically used to increase the production by
increasing energy inflows it is not plausible to believe that
natural resources can be substituted in a literal sense. Actually,
the fact that the intensive substitution is not tied to extensive
substitution reveals the biophysical materiality of the growing
demand. Moreover, it signals the high opportunity costs of not
increasing energy consumption. If technologies are recurrently
designed to make more efficient use of a resource and yet its per
capita consumption continues to increase, there is a clear sign
that the opportunity cost of not increasing the resource use is
very high. In fact, the evidence we have today allows us to
reverse the neoclassical interpretation of the relationship
between technology and natural resources: it is wrong to
conclude that technology innovations have made us less
dependent on nature. On the contrary, the right conclusion is
that technology innovations have made possible to increase the
dependence on natural resources by making possible for the
economic system to increase energy and material inflows, as
Brookes (1990) rightly realizes. It is amazing how the majority of
orthodox economists claiming the opposite have successfully
convinced people.
To summarize, Brookes (1990) tacitly assumes the major
importance of biophysical materiality of what is produced to build
his arguments in both scenarios. The fact that the most cogent
argument to explain the Jevons effect be based on a central
supposition of ecological economics has some relevance. However,
more importantly, the supposition of the biophysical materiality of
the demand is totally exogenous to the neoclassical framework
although explicit in ecological economics.
5
Brookes (1990, 1992, 1993, 2000) description implies that
natural capital has had non-transferable functions to other
resources, even if observing the economic use of natural resources
focusing strictly in ensuring economic growth. If the pattern of
resource use presented by Brookes (1990, 1992, 1993, 2000) is
essential to describe the high economic growth ratios observed
since the industrial revolution, the distinction between natural
capital and manufactured capital is indispensable in explaining
economic growth. Given Brookes’ (1990, 1992, 1993, 2000)
arguments, it seems desirable to make an explicit ecological
economic interpretation of the Jevons effect. In the following
section, we use a hypothesis derived by Lotka (1922b) to do that.
3. Using Lotka to deduce the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate
An important aspect of Lotka’s approach is that his use of the
laws of thermodynamics is accompanied by the perception of the
insufficiency of these laws.1 They are not enough to determine the
energy and material inflows through organic systems over time.
What should we expect in relation to trends in energy and matter
inflows through organic systems? Do these flows tend to increase
or decrease? Or should we assume that the trend involving such
flows are randomly distributed around an average? Or maybe
these flows of energy and matter tend to some limit. Issues of this
nature certainly disturbed Lotka.2
Lotka believes that the inadequacy of the laws of thermody-
namics to determine the course of events in physical systems can
be overcome by incorporating the principle of natural selection as a
physical law (Lotka, 1922a). Lotka (1922a, p. 153) sees this
principle as a third law of thermodynamics. An eloquent example
of the application of this approach is Contribution to the Energetics
of Evolution. In this work Lotka (1922b) demonstrates that the
evolution of organic systems occurs in order to always increase the
circulation of energy and matter through the system.
No organism can exist without transforming energy into
species members. Therefore, for quantitative analytical purposes,
we can apply the reductionism of representing the organism as an
energy capture device which transforms energy in species
members:
‘‘It has been pointed out by Boltzmann that the fundamental
object of contention in the life-struggle, in the evolution of
organic world, is available energy. In accord with this
observation is the principle that, in the struggle for existence,
the advantage must go to those organisms whose energy-
capturing devices are most efficient in directing available
energy into channels favorable to the preservation of the
species’’. (Lotka, 1922b, p. 147)
The variations in the ability to capture energy does not
necessarily need to be generated by the organisms benefited from
them. Whenever such organisms arise the principle of natural
selection will operate to preserve them and consequently the
ability of the organic system to capture energy (Lotka, 1922b, p.
147). These propositions should not be taken as a deterministic
law. Since the set of variations that cause the evolution is not
limited, it cannot be guaranteed a priori that all changes will
1
Lotka (1922a, p. 151): ‘‘The two laws of thermodynamics are, of course,
insufficient to determine the course of events in a physical system. They tell us
certain things cannot happen, but they do not tell us what does happen’’. See also
(Lotka, 1922a, p. 152): ‘‘[. . .] Whether life is present or not, something more than the
first and second laws of thermodynamics is required to predict the course of events.
And, whether life is present or not, something definite does happen, the course of
events is determinate, though not in terms of the first and second laws alone’’.
2
See for instance Lotka (1921, 1922b). In these works the author investigates if
the evolution of organic systems tends to maximize the inflows involving a specific
physical quantity, energy.
6 N.B. Amado, I.L. Sauer / Ecological Complexity 9 (2012) 2–9
increase the flow of energy through the system (Lotka, 1922b, p.
148). The most one can say a priori is that it is more likely that
changes that favor the flow of energy and materials tend to be
selected (Lotka, 1922b, pp. 148–149). Indeed, it is hard to accept
this probabilistic reasoning presented by Lotka (1922b) without
having in mind the restrictions imposed by the laws of
Thermodynamics. The evolution relies on increases in the ability
to convert energy into species members, that is, it occurs in the
contours determined by the energy productivity of the species. Not
all variations that increase the energy productivity involve
increases in energy flows. However, recall that the laws of
thermodynamics impose restrictions as to increases in productivi-
ty in a heat engine operating with limited heat inflows and ensure
that productivity can be increased, for the same environmental
temperature, if it can operate with larger amounts of fuel. Clearly,
variations in energy productivity based in increasing energy
inflows are subject to fewer restrictions than other types of
variations in energy productivity. Therefore, the simultaneous
application of the laws of thermodynamics and the principle of
natural selection ensures that changes that increase energy inflows
are a priori more likely.
Actually, Lotka (1922b) showed, from a completely different
point of view, similar conclusions to those presented by Jevons
(1865) and reaffirmed by Brookes (1990, 1992, 1993, 2000). Both
believe that an increase in available energy always increase energy
consumption by a growing system. Both understand that to
increase conversion efficiency is to increase energy availability for
this system. This is central for Jevons (1865) and Lotka (1922b).
Would this convergence be fortuitous? The possibility that this
convergence says something about the specificity of the economic
role of natural resources has not been influent between ecological
economists discussing the Jevons effect.
It has already been said that is central in Lotka both the
perception of the inadequacy of the laws of thermodynamics and
the incorporation of the principle of natural selection as a physical
law. What the relevance of these considerations for the account of
the Jevons effect? This can be shown by a reasoning similar to that
of Lotka (1922b).
Certainly, the direction of the course of economic events in the
current production system is governed by the principle of
reproduction and accumulation of capital. The economic system
runs on a permanent unit between concrete used qualities and
abstract quantities given by monetary values (capital). Although
from the biophysical point of view the concrete qualities are a
priority, from the economic point of view the priority is for the
capital: the unity of concrete qualities and capital is changed and
modified repeatedly to increase as much as possible the rate of
capital reproduction. All the effects arising from this process are
taken into account by the producer only to the extent that
interferes with the reproduction of its own capital. In short,
variations in production are selected based on the principle of
reproduction and accumulation of capital.
The goods produced from this process are as susceptible to the
laws of thermodynamics as the biological structures that were the
focus of Lotka (1922b). From the standpoint of the producer, the
commodity is only a necessary mediator for capital reproduction.
Therefore, we can reduce the commodity to an energy capture
device which transforms energy in capital. By the principle of
reproduction and accumulation of capital innovations that
increases socially available energy tend to be selected. This
increase may occur either because the social capacity to make use
of a given amount of energy resources increased (efficiency gains),
and because new energy sources become viable. The two
possibilities are not mutually exclusive in any way.
Since the production of goods is subject to the laws
of thermodynamics and the principle of reproduction and
accumulation of capital, it is reasonable to expect a priori that the
development of the economic system occurs increasing the
circulation of energy through economic system: any increase in
socially available energy tends to be used to raise as much as possible
the rate of capital reproduction, leading to higher energy
consumption than what it would be observed in the absence of
such increase. Therefore, starting from the Lotka’s approach we
come to the same conclusion given by the so-called Khazzoom–
Brookes postulate.
Above we mention the principle of reproduction and accumu-
lation of capital and not merely principle of reproduction of capital.
This is not by chance. In its current form the use of markets as an
allocative system incorporates economic growth as an unques-
tionable goal that guides and gives meaning to economic activities.
Not mere reproduction, but reproduction with growth, is the goal
of economic activities. In a society where the maximization of
capital was not seen as the ultimate goal of production, it is
possible to speculate that efficiencies could result in reduced
consumption. But how to believe that this is possible in a society
that is organized around the principle that any increase in the
capacity of social production must be converted into increases of
capital reproduction rate? By principle, the reproduction of the
current economic system is always an extended reproduction.
The best way to represent the development of the current
economic system is to refer explicitly to the principle of
reproduction and accumulation of capital. Clearly, the material
properties used as production factors acquire economic meaning
only when viewed in light of this principle. Conversely, the
monetary dimension of capital cannot succeed without linking to
material properties such as those directly extracted from nature.
Although Lotka (1922b) have not mentioned the importance of
the principle of reproduction and accumulation of capital for the
explanation of the evolution of the present economic systems, he
clearly noted the importance of increasing the circulation of energy
and matter to obtain productivity gains. In this sense, it can be said
that he had a more materialistic vision of the process of
technological innovation than that provided by economic ortho-
doxy, since he explicitly recognizes the role of biophysical
materiality for the productivity gains that have been observed
since the industrial revolution.3 The vision of Lotka (1922b)
becomes quite plausible when one observes that the enormous
gains in productivity and efficiency, observed since the industrial
revolution, have been consistently linked to an ever-increasing
appropriation of ecosystem services (for the use of the concept of
ecosystem services see Burkhard et al., 2010 and also Spangenberg
and Settele, 2010). A neoclassical economist who carefully
analyzed the role of increasing appropriation of natural resources
to achieve productivity gains is Brookes (1990, 1992, 1993, 2000).
Brookes (2000) argues that the market for more efficient fuel is
larger than for less efficient fuel, or alternatively that for a resource
to find itself in a world of more efficient use is to appreciate a
reduction in its implicit price with obvious implications for the
demand. This is the neoclassical way of representing the fact that
any increase in the available energy supply has a tendency to
induce an increase in energy inflows through the economic system.
Rigorously speaking, the supposed ‘obvious’ implications for the
demand cannot be maintained without admitting the biophysics
materiality of this demand, although the neoclassical apparatus
does not contain the elements for such an assumption.
3
See for instance (Lotka, 1921, pp. 171–172): ‘‘The influence of man upon world’s
events seems to have been largely to accelerate the circulation of matter and energy
through such cycles, either by ‘‘enlarging the wheel’’, i.e., increasing the mass taking
part in certain cycles, or else by causing it to ‘‘spin faster’’, i.e., increasing the
velocity of the circulation, decreasing the time required for a given mass to
complete the cycle. In either case he has increased the energy turn-over per unit of
time’’.
 N.B. Amado, I.L. Sauer / Ecological Complexity 9 (2012) 2–9 7

When Lotka (1922b) reduces the organism to an energy Table 1

Evolution of energy use (1949–2004).
converter in elements of the same species he provides a starting
point to the systematic recognition of the biophysics materiality. Energy consumption five-year intervals, 1949–2004
This starting point supports itself in the observation that the Year Energy consumption Energy consumption
organism’s reproduction presumes the reproduction of the per person per real dollar of GDP
objective conditions for the organism’s reproduction. Lotka (in million Btu) (in thousand Btu per
(1922b) realized that the organism’s body is part of the objective chained dollar taking
2000 as the reference year)
conditions to be reproduced to guarantee the reproduction of the
organisms’ ethology. From the biophysics point of view both 1949 214 19.57
1954 225 17.74
organisms as commodities are ‘produced’, meaning that Lotka’s
1959 244 17.80
(1922b) perspective can be used to make an economic ecological 1964 270 17.28
interpretation of economic growth. In the next section we develop 1969 324 17.43
implications of this approach for a positive analysis of the Jevons 1974 346 17.13
effect. 1979 359 15.64
1984 325 13.20
1989 344 12.17
4. Implications for the observation of the Jevons effect 1994 339 11.39
1999 347 10.22
The positive analysis of the effect Jevons has been marked by 2004 343 9.40
the idea that energy intensity indicators, a measure of intensive Source: Downloaded from Energy Information Administration (EIA) site: http://
substitution, would be enough to determine the relevance of this www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0105.

phenomenon (see for instance Schipper and Grubb (2000) in which

an applied methodology to build energy intensity indicators is
used to defend the irrelevance of the Jevons effect). Instead of
observing the relationship between indicators of intensive
substitution and total consumption of resources, the methodology
has tacitly assumed unproven relations between intensive and
extensive substitution to restrict the analysis to indicators of
intensive substitution. Nevertheless, only in a steady state
economy indicators of intensive substitution would be enough
to support directly conclusions relative to extensive variables, for
the simple reason that in this case the extensive variables remain
constant. Without specifying the relationship between extensive
and intensive substitution, there is no way to use energy intensity
indicators to conclude that intensive substitution contributes to
the extensive substitution of energy resources.
An increase in energy intensity does not necessarily indicate a
decline in economic efficiency of energy resources utilization. This
increase indicates only that the increase in demand for energy is
greater than the increase in efficiency. However, a decline in
energy intensity truly indicates an increase in economic efficiency.
The causes for a possible drop in energy intensity can vary greatly,
ranging from incremental improvements in pre-existing processes
to structural changes. A possible structural change is the transition
from an economy based on energy-intensive industries to less
intensive ones, with energy-intensive industries being transferred
to other regions or countries. Although the relevance of all these
relations, bearing in mind some care it is possible to use energy
intensity indicators as part of the relevant evidences to character-
ize the socio-economic appropriation of nature.
In a growing economy is essential the simultaneous observation
of intensive and extensive substitution. Furthermore, the observa-
tion of the indicators of intensive substitution should aim solely to
establish whether any increase in energy and material inflows are
due to an efficiency loss by the economic system. The importance
of observing these patterns can be made clearer through an
example (Table 1).
It is clear that in the 1949–2004 period it increases considerably
the economic efficiency in the energy resources utilization, given
the observed decrease in energy intensity. But why, despite this
huge increase in intensive substitution, there is no evidence of
extensive substitution? Instead, the trend in the intensive
substitution was recurrently accompanied by what we here call
extensive complementation, as shown by the increasing trend in
per capita energy consumption.
If we go back further in time, these patterns persist. Per capita
energy consumption data from Schurr and Netschert (1960)
covering the 1850–1955 period also show this tendency to always
increase. Interestingly, the energy intensity grows in U.S.A. in the
1880–1920 period, but it persistently decreases in the 1920–1955
period. This body of evidence ensures that economic efficiency in
the use of energy resources has increased consistently since 1920
at least. Nevertheless, the per capita energy consumption has
always a tendency to increase, even when we extend the analysis
to 1850. Why the persistent trend of increasing energy efficiency
does not lead at any time the economic system to display a
downward trend in per capita energy consumption?
Actually, the difficulty of substituting extensively natural
resources even in the midst of pronounced efficiency gains can
be taken as strong evidence of the existence of the Jevons. Such
evidence may even be viewed as placing the burden of proof on the
shoulders of those who deny the existence of this phenomenon: if
the effect Jevons does not exist, why is it so difficult to reduce per
capita energy inflows even in a long trajectory of pronounced gains
in efficiency?
It is important to emphasize that the crucial evidence regarding
the effect Jevons are increasing per capita energy associated with
the process of economic growth. Indicators of intensive substitu-
tion are relevant only as evidence that this trend cannot be
attributed to a decrease in the efficiency of the economic system.
We cannot say that in the period 1880–1920, in which the energy
intensity increased, there was efficiency loss. Indeed, further
studies are needed to explain why there was a persistent upward
trend in energy intensity followed by a persistent tendency to fall.
The development patterns, shown above, have not received
enough attention because of the prevalence of monetary pre-
analytical views on the description and explanation of economic
processes.4 As argued persuasively by Giampietro et al. (2006), the
construction of quantitative analysis is always linked to the
purposes of those who use them, which has a decisive influence on
the perspective of observation adopted by analysts. It is possible
that the excessive focus on monetary material dimension is
blinding analysts and decision makers for important patterns
involving non-monetary material dimensions, such as those
relating to energy and materials inflows. Actually, it is reasonable
to say that evidence patterns supporting the thesis that the Jevons
effect is real and relevant are present at least since the industrial
revolution. It should not be seen as a fortuitous event that the
4
But obviously alternatives to the monetary pre-analytic view are not
completely absent, see for instance Stahel (2006) and Spangenberg and Settele
(2010).
8 N.B. Amado, I.L. Sauer / Ecological Complexity 9 (2012) 2–9
expanded reproduction of the economic system has always been
supported by increasing per capita energy inflows. This occurs
even today with highly capitalized economies and in a political
reality probably more concerned with environmental issues than
at other times. We did a statistical test to determine whether there
is any trend of decreasing per capita inflows involving the ten
largest OECD economies (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Korea, Mexico, Spain, United Kingdom, United States).5 The
hypothesis that there is a downward trend for energy inflows
can only be accepted for Germany. Yet the result of Germany
should be viewed with caution. First, it is important to note that the
data were used ignoring the impact of reunification, in 1990. In
addition, there are intrinsic limitations to the test performed: the
test measures only applied to direct energy consumption, not
taking into account the energy consumed indirectly through
embodied energy in goods and services imported from other
countries. For an analysis of the importance of this last point in the
Brazilian case see Schaeffer and Sá (1996).
An economic-ecological interpretation of economic facts must
position themselves about the observable trends involving energy
and material inflows through the economic system. Just as the laws
of thermodynamics are insufficient in Lotka (1922a,b) are also in
the context of the Jevons effect. It is essential to recognize that the
course of events involving the flow of energy and matter is directed
by the principle of reproduction and accumulation of capital. This
principle should not be confused with the mere existence of money
and markets. The principle of reproduction and accumulation of
capital requires that activities that increase the capital reproduc-
tion rate have priority over all other, what is much more than the
mere existence of money and markets.
Without assuming that the increasing energy inflows observed
since the industrial revolution is a direct consequence of the tie
between biophysical and economical materialities, the standards
of per capita consumption of energy and economic growth
observed since then are unexplainable.
If we start from the neoclassical perspective, which assumes that
the material nature of the factors used in production is irrelevant to
explain the economic facts, these patterns are a real anomaly. Since
the nature of the employed material factors is irrelevant, increasing
and decreasing inflows are equally likely. Why then this persistent
trend of the economic system to reproduce based on increasing
energy inflows? If the economic system has the flexibility assumed
by neoclassical economists, why even today, about 250 years after
the industrial revolution, there is strong evidence that economic
production cannot dematerialize itself? Why increasing circulation
of goods based on declining rates in the circulation of energy and
matter are not observed?
We have to choose between submitting the hypothesis
constructed from Lotka (1922b) to testing or close our eyes to
what the evidences tell us. It is likely that the difficulty to
understand the meaning of these patterns is due to the absence of a
production theory alternative to the neoclassical one. Feyerabend
(1965) argues that without an alternative theory facts that refute
the accepted theory are no longer perceived by the community,
becoming hidden facts6. It seems unclear to ecological and
5
The data used in the test were obtained from the on line OECD database. We
used the Cox and Stuart test for trend. This technique was used to test the
hypothesis that there is a downward trend of per capita energy consumption
adopting a significance level of 5%. A detailed description of this technique, which is
a particular type of hypothesis testing, can be found in Conover (1980, pp. 132–
139).
6
Feyerabend (1965, p. 177): ‘‘Now if it is true, as was argued in the last section,
that many facts become available only with the help of alternatives, then the refusal
to consider them will result in the elimination of potentially refuting facts. More
specifically, it will eliminate facts whose discovery would show the complete and
irreparable inadequacy of the theory’’. Italics in the original.
neoclassical economists that the Jevons effect, for different
reasons, it is critical for both and that the increasing circulation
of matter and energy through the economic system is important
evidence to assess the ability of these two paradigms to describe
this phenomenon. In fact, if we use the term contradiction in the
sense proposed by Ravetz (2006), that is, as something that cannot
be resolved within the terms of reference used by the analysts to
describe and perceive the system, then the Jevons effect should be
recognized as a neglected and persistent contradiction.
While the effect Jevons is an anomaly in the neoclassical
perspective, their absence is a strong incongruity to the ecological
economics. The observation of a long-run economic growth
without increasing energy inflows would be a proof that the
economic role of natural resources can be accomplished by others
resources categories. Indeed, it is doubtful that ecological
economics can consolidate itself without providing a satisfactory
explanation for the Jevons effect. If the economic system can grow
without increasing the flow of primary inputs, neoclassical
economists would be right when betting on substitution technol-
ogies. As already said, the term ‘‘substitution’’ is usually used
loosely, yet this does not prove that there can be no real
substitution technologies, that is, extensive substitution of natural
resources.
In a sense, the relative position between neoclassical and
ecological economists is analogous to that between kinematics and
thermodynamics in physics. We cannot restrict ourselves to
kinematics if we want to explain why heat always flows from hot
to cold body, as the reverse process is also possible and equally
likely from kinematics standpoint. With thermodynamics the
conception that there is a preferred direction in the occurrence of
physical events is incorporated systematically in science. Geor-
gescu-Roegen (1971, p. 196) sees clearly the significance of this to
scientific theories:
‘‘If science were to discard a proposition that follows logically
from its theoretical foundation, merely because its factual
realization has never been observed, most of modern technol-
ogy would not exist. Impossibility, rightly, is not the password
in science. Consequently, if one cornerstone of science is the
dogma that all phenomena are governed by mechanical laws,
science has to admit that life reversal is feasible. [. . .]Classical
thermodynamics, by offering evidence- valid according to the
code of scientific court procedure – that even in the physical
domain there are irreversible processes, reconciled science’s
stand with generally shared common sense [. . .]’’
What is not forbidden is allowed. If the basic suppositions used
by a science does not forbid an event, this event can happen. So
why does not reversibility happen? In other words, irreversibility
is an anomaly if Physics is reduced to Classical Mechanics.
In the neoclassical perspective no hypothesis about the nature of
the factors used in production is assumed. The concrete qualities
used to gain economic growth are not relevant in explaining the
observed economic facts. Prices and markets should be articulated to
any available evidences to explain these facts. To describe the Jevons
effect, the neoclassical economists must reconcile their representa-
tion about the role of prices and markets to the historical knowledge
of technological patterns used to get productivity gains. It is
important to note that important aspects of these patterns are
exogenous to the neoclassical framework. Actually, the adoption of
exogenous factors in an explanation is not necessarily a defect, but
there is more than that here. It is worth noting again that if the
production does not depend on the material nature of the production
factors increasing flows involving a specific material property are as
likely as decreasing flows. This makes disturbing the long-observed
correlation between economic growth and increasing inflows of
 N.B. Amado, I.L. Sauer / Ecological Complexity 9 (2012) 2–9
energy and materials. It must be explained why economic growth
with decreasing inflows is not observed even in the reality of the so-
called developed countries.
On the other hand, the absence of effect Jevons is a denial of
the assumption taken by strong sustainability that economic
growth and biophysical materiality cannot be untied. It is
precisely because it is an unacceptable incongruity in the
perspective of ecological economics that a consistent theory
denying the absence of Jevons effect is necessary and beneficial
for ecological economics. If we want to investigate whether the
mechanism by which growth is produced is economically
incompatible with non-increasing primary inputs, it is essential
that a falsifiable theory linking natural resources and economic
growth be used.
The importance of Lotka’s (1922b) hypothesis lies in the fact
that it provides a starting point for building an ecological economic
theory of economic growth. In theory, it is possible to use careful
observations to test the link between energy inflows and capital
accumulation here proposed using Lotka (1922b). If this hypothe-
sis is refuted, it forces ecological economics to provide new
explanations; if it is not refuted, it can be used to build an
ecological economic theory of production. This theory should
explicitly forbid long run trajectories of economic growth without
increasing energy and material inflows and provide testable
reasons for this impossibility.
5. Conclusion
The Jevons effect can be used to compare the ability of
neoclassical and ecological economic frameworks to describe the
relations between nature and the economic system. The long
tendency involving increasing inflows and economic growth are
strong evidence of the existence of the Jevons effect. Without
assuming the relevance of the Jevons effect these tendencies
cannot be explained. In the perspective of neoclassical economics
there is no reason to long run tendencies involving increasing
inflows; in the perspective of ecological economics the absence of
the Jevons effect in a growth economy is a incongruity. The
observation of the Jevons effect from the ecological economic
perspective can be used as a starting point to build a falsifiable
ecological economic theory of economic growth.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Blake Alcott for the many discussions that
one of the authors had with him. Without such discussions, this
article would not be possible. We are responsible for any errors or
limitations still present. This work is part of a research program
9
supported by PNPD-CAPES (Programa Nacional de Pós-Doutorado-
CAPES).
References
Alcott, B., 2008. Historical overview of the Jevons Paradox in the literature. In:
Polimeni, J.M., Mayumi, K., Giampietro, M., Alcott, B. (Eds.), The Jevons Paradox
and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements. Earthscan, London, pp. 7–78.
Brookes, L., 1990. Energy efficiency and economic fallacies. Energy Policy 18, 199–
201.
Brookes, L., 1992. Energy efficiency and economic fallacies – a reply. Energy Policy
20, 390–392.
Brookes, L., 1993. Energy efficiency fallacies – the debate concluded. Energy Policy
21, 346–347.
Brookes, L., 2000. Energy efficiency fallacies revisited. Energy Policy 28, 355–366.
Burkhard, B., Petrosilo, I., Costanza, R., 2010. Ecosystem services – bridging ecology,
economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity 7, 257–420 Edition devoted
to the concept of ecosystem services.
Conover, W.J., 1980. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Wiley, New York.
Feyerabend, P., 1965. Consolations for the specialist. In: Lakatos, L., Musgrave, A.
(Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1971. The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Giampietro, M., Allen, T.F.H., Mayumi, K., 2006. The epistemological predicament
associated with purposive quantitative analysis. Ecological Complexity 3, 307–
327.
Greening, L.A., Greene, D.L., 1998. Final Report Energy Use, Technical Efficiency, and
the Rebound Effect: A Review of the Literature. Report prepared for the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
Grubb, M., 1990. Energy efficiency and economic fallacies – a reply. Energy Policy
18, 783–785.
Grubb, M., 1992. Reply to Brookes. Energy Policy 20, 392–393.
Jevons, W.S., 1865/1965. The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of
the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-mines, 3rd edition 1905.
Augustus M. Kelley, New York.
Lotka, A., 1921. Note on moving equilibria. Proceedings of the National Academy of
the Sciences of the United States of America 7, 147–151.
Lotka, A., 1922a. Natural selection as a physical principle. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 8, 151–154.
Lotka, A., 1922b. Contribution to the energetics of evolution. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 147–151.
Polimeni, J.M., Polimeni, R.I., 2006. Jevon’s paradox and the myth of technological
liberation. Ecological Complexity 3, 344–353.
Ravetz, J.R., 2006. Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards
sustainability. Ecological Complexity 3, 275–284.
Schaeffer, R., Sá, A.L.de, 1996. The embodiment of carbon associated with Brazilian
imports and exports. Conversion Management 37, 955–960.
Schipper, L., Grubb, M., 2000. On the rebound? Feedback between energy intensities
and energy uses in IEA countries. Energy Policy 28, 367–388.
Schurr, S.H., 1982. Efficiency and productive efficiency: some thoughts based on
American experience. The Energy Journal 3, 3–14.
Schurr, S.H., 1984. Energy use, technological change, and productive efficiency: an
economic-historical interpretation. Annual Review of Energy 9, 409–414.
Schurr, S.H., 1985. Energy conservation and productivity growth – can we have
both? Energy Policy 13, 126–132.
Schurr, S., Netschert, B.C., with Eliasberg, V.F., Lerner, J., Landsberg, H., 1960. Energy
in the American Economy, 1850–1975 – An Economic Study of its History and
Prospects. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Spangenberg, J.H., Settele, J., 2010. Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of
ecosystem services. Ecological Complexity 7, 327–337.
Stahel, A.W., 2006. Complexity, oikonomı́a and political economy. Ecological Com-
plexity 3, 369–381.