Thermodynamics and economics

NOV 01, 1984

The laws of the conservation of energy and of the increase of entropy constrain the processes by which raw materials are transformed into consumable goods, and therefore have implications for the way economists model these processes.

DOI: 10.1063/1.2915973

Robert U. Ayres

Indira Nair

While physical sciences deal with the interactions of matter and energy, economics can be said to deal with the production and exchange of goods and services. Because goods and services incorporate matter and energy, the physical sciences are clearly relevant to economics. In particular, one can expect the laws of thermodynamics to impose constraints on economic processes as they do on physical processes (figure 1). It is clear that the laws of conservation—of matter and energy, for example—have implications for the use of resources and for the generation and treatment of wastes. The law of the increase of entropy—the second law of thermodynamics—constrains economic processes to those that reduce available work, increasing the entropy of the Universe.

This article is only available in PDF format

References

1. R. U. Ayres, A. V. Kneese, Am. Econ. Rev., June 1969, p. 282;
N. Georgescu‐Roegen, The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Harvard U.P., Cambridge, Mass. (1971);
H. Daly, Toward a Steady State Economy, Freeman, San Francisco (1973);
J. Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, Viking, New York (1980).
2. For a modern discussion see, R. Dorfman, P. Samuelson, R. Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis, McGraw‐Hill, New York (1958).
3. J. von Neumann, Rev. Econ. Studies 13, 1 (1945–46).
4. F. Soddy, Cartesian Economics, Hendersons, London (1922).
5. H. T. Odum, Environment Power and Society, Wiley, New York (1971);
B. Hannon, Ann. Am. Acad. Political Social Sci. 410, 139 (1953);
M. Gilliland, Science 189, 1051 (1975).https://doi.org/SCIEAS
6. D. A. Huettner, Science 192, 101 (1976). https://doi.org/SCIEAS
For a more technical discussion of the relation between the two kinds of optima, see R. S. Berry, G. Heal, P. Salamon, Resources and Energy 1, 125 (1978).
7. A. S. Manne, R. G. Richels, J. Weyant, ORSA Journal (ORSA/TIMS Bull.) January–February (1979), p. 1.
8. P. Wicksteed, An Essay on the Coordination of the Laws of Distribution, MacMillan, London (1894).
9. N. Georgescu‐Roegen, “The Economics of Production,” in Energy and Economic Myths: Institutional and Analytical Economic Essays, Pergamon, New York (1976), p. 61.
10. E. Gyftopoulos, L. J. Lazaridis, T. Widmer, Potential Fuel Effectiveness in Industry, Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass. (1974);
and Proc. Nat. Mtg. Detroit, 16–19 August 1981, Am. Inst. Chem. Engineers (1981).
11. R. M. Solow, Am. Econ. Rev. 64, 11 (1974).
12. K. Anderson, J. Econ. Theory 4, 251 (1972); https://doi.org/JECTAQ
R. M. Solow, Rev. Econ. Studies 41, 29 (1974);
J. Stiglitz, Rev. Econ. Studies 41, 123 (1974).
13. R. Cummings, W. Schultze, unpublished preprint.
14. C. E. Shannon, W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Information, U. Illinois, P., Urbana, 111. (1949).
15. L. Brillouin, Science and Information Theory, Academic, New York (1956).
16. E. T. Jaynes, Phys. Rev. 106, 620 (1957).
17. G. Nicolis, I. Prigogine, Self Organization in Non‐Equilibrium Systems, Wiley, New York (1977).
18. B. J. Skinner, Am. Scientist 64, 263 (1976).https://doi.org/AMSCAC

More about the Authors

Robert U. Ayres. Carnegie–Mellon University, Pittsburgh.

Indira Nair. Carnegie–Mellon University, Pittsburgh.