Content
Aug 5, 2026
Looking for Consensus
Economists have a reputation for disagreeing with one another. Turn on a news program, read an editorial page, or follow a policy debate, and it is easy to come away with the impression that economists are deeply divided on nearly every important issue. But is that actually true?
A recent (data collection ongoing) international survey of environmental and natural resource economists suggests otherwise. In fact, economists who study environmental and natural resource issues appear to share substantial agreement on many of the most important challenges facing society today. The survey with early results from 2025 (including 193 observations), asked environmental and natural resource economists from Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania about a wide range of environmental topics and policy questions. Participants were members of major professional organizations representing economists who work on issues such as agriculture, natural resources, conservation, energy, climate change, and environmental policy. The goal was simple: determine whether economists from different parts of the world hold similar views about environmental challenges and potential solutions.
The answer was largely YES.
More Agreement Than Disagreement
Across 52 survey questions, respondents demonstrated a clear majority or supermajority consensus on nearly three-fourths of the issues examined. Some of the strongest areas of agreement involved foundational concepts that would be familiar to any student of economics as presented for a sample of statements in Table 1. For example, more than 84 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that unregulated markets provide public goods in optimal quantities. Similarly, more than 76 percent agreed that common-pool resources face the classic "tragedy of the commons" problem. These results suggest that economists around the world largely agree that environmental and natural resource problems often arise because markets alone do not account for all social costs and benefits.
Economists also showed strong agreement on sustainability. More than 90 percent agreed that resource management should meet the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That level of agreement is notable given the diversity of countries, institutions, and backgrounds represented in the survey.
Natural Resources Matter
Perhaps unsurprisingly, economists specializing in environmental and resource issues expressed strong concern for the management of natural resources. More than 90 percent agreed that forests should be managed for multiple uses rather than a single objective. Respondents also expressed high levels of concern about biodiversity, fish and wildlife habitat, groundwater resources, forest conservation, and overfishing. For agricultural states such as Nebraska, these findings are particularly relevant. Many of the resource challenges facing agriculture involve balancing production goals with long-run stewardship of land, water, and ecosystems. The survey results suggest that economists around the world broadly support approaches that recognize both economic productivity and resource conservation.
Table 1: Selected Areas of Strong Consensus
| Issue | Percent Agreement |
| Forests should be managed for multiple uses | 91.8% |
| Resource use should consider future generations | 90.3% |
| Protecting biodiversity is a concern | 86.2% |
| Government action is needed to address environmental justice issues | 85.2% |
| Addressing climate change is a concern | 81.6% |
| Transferable fishery quotas are more efficient for managing fishery resources than open access | 81.0% |
| Marketable permits or emissions taxes are more efficient for regulating pollution than set standards | 73.1% |
Markets and Regulation Are Not Opposites
One particularly interesting finding is that economists simultaneously supported environmental regulation and market-based policy tools. Many public discussions frame environmental policy as a choice between markets and government intervention. The survey results suggest that economists often view the two as complements rather than substitutes. Respondents generally agreed that governments have an important role to play in addressing environmental problems. Yet, they also favored market-oriented approaches when environmental regulation is necessary.
For example, nearly three-quarters of respondents agreed that emissions taxes or marketable permits are more economically efficient than traditional emissions standards. Likewise, economists strongly supported the use of transferable quotas in fisheries management.
In other words, economists generally recognize that environmental and natural resource problems often require policy intervention, but they frequently prefer policies that preserve incentives and flexibility rather than relying solely on rigid command-and-control regulations.
Where Does Disagreement Remain?
While the overall level of agreement was surprisingly high, some issues generated much less consensus. The most notable area involved taxes.
Questions about energy taxes, environmental tax incentives, and the use of tax revenues frequently produced mixed responses or large numbers of neutral answers. This pattern suggests that economists may agree about broad environmental goals while differing on the best fiscal tools to achieve them. One possible explanation is that tax policies often depend heavily on local institutions, political systems, and economic conditions. A policy that works well in one country may be less effective or less politically feasible in another. The survey also found less agreement on certain highly localized issues, including hazardous waste management, food safety, and electric vehicle infrastructure. These topics often vary substantially across regions and may reflect different local experiences.
A Global Profession with Shared Foundations
Perhaps the most important takeaway from the study is that environmental and natural resource economics appears to function as a genuinely global profession. Despite differences in geography, culture, political systems, and levels of economic development, economists from around the world shared common views on many core principles. They broadly agreed about the importance of sustainability, the need for effective resource management, the existence of environmental market failures, and the value of incentive-based approaches to environmental policy. At the same time, they differed on some specific policy tools and on issues that are particularly dependent on local circumstances.
That combination of agreement and disagreement is exactly what one might hope to see in a healthy scientific discipline. Broad principles are widely shared, while debate continues about implementation and context. In a world facing increasingly complex environmental challenges – from water scarcity and biodiversity loss to climate change and resource management – the existence of substantial global professional consensus is important.
Environmental economists may not agree on everything. But according to this survey, they agree on considerably more than they disagree.
References:
Haab, Timothy C., and John C. Whitehead. 2017. “What Do Environmental and Resource Economists Think?” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 11(1):43-58.
Kosnik, Lea-Rachel and Simanti Banerjee. 2026. “Degree of Global Professional Consensus in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics.” Working Paper.
Kosnik, Lea-Rachel, John C. Whitehead, and Timothy C. Haab. 2026. “An Updated Consensus Survey of Environmental and Natural Resource Economists.” Contemporary Economic Policy DOI: 10.1111/coep.70025.
Authors:
Lea-Rachel Kosnik,
University of Missouri-St. Louis (kosnikl@umsl.edu)
Simanti Banerjee,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (simanti.banerjee@unl.edu)