Author: Nguyen Vo Minh Hung
Technology has become an important factor that affects our daily lives. The increasing availability of IT and telecommunications has narrowed the knowledge gap among countries and people. Technology has become a primary indicator of economic progress. Numerous articles extol the advantages of technology in management and forecasting, but a significant issue remains unaddressed in these studies: “What is the price of future technology”? Comprehensively answering this question necessitates the exploration of the concepts of future technologies and their influence on the economy. Such investigations facilitate understanding of the relationship between technology and the economic context that underlies people’s demand for innovations. Given that future technology does not exist yet, determining the manner by which we will pay for it is necessary. From this perspective arises the issue of the possibility of a future currency system in future economy, something like the current Bitcoin.
What is the Price of Future Technology?
On newspapers, we often read about issues related to future technologies: When will the world see flying cars? When will we be able to clone humans? These questions reflect the expectations of humans as we conquer the technological realm. Maciej (2005) regards technology as a key resource in corporate profitability and growth, as well as a primary driving force of contextual environments. The rapid development of technology has created an urgent need to measure its effects on social, economic, political, and natural environments. Particularly in the economic environment, technology is a major contributor that drives economic growth and human development. Thus, an overview of future technology should be analyzed to guarantee that society progresses in an appropriate manner.
In the past, Concord airplanes were touted as the next-generation innovations of the aviation industry. The reality proved to be a paradox in that this technology became useless and had no value in the market except for its brand name because its related services were too expensive for the majority of the people to afford them. By contrast, the brewing formula of Coca Cola has existed for more than a hundred years, earning billions of dollars for the company’s owners. Some may argue that the mechanisms that govern the performance of the aforementioned companies differ, but both are a reflection of market acceptance. Demand is the decisive factor in the lifecycle of a technology.
Globalization and the development of ICT and the Internet have narrowed the gaps among countries in terms of knowledge, and have stimulated a race in innovative development. Compared with past centuries, modern-day society is characterized by a more rapid progression in technological development, in which many directions are constantly explored. Underestimating the price of technology can lead to a bubble economy, which in turn, causes global financial crises. As scientists and technologists, we must begin with a belief that we can influence the future of technology (Florman, 1976). The questions that I seek to answer in the current work are as follows:
- What is the price of future technology?
- How can we influence this price?
These questions may be simple at first glance, but they reveal a host of problems that require extensive discussion. In future research, for example, these issues require addressing from several dimensions (e.g., temporal and spatial) and perspectives (e.g., personal, organizational). The systems through which such technologies function should also be examined.
Future technology: Demand perspective
Throughout history, technology has been proven instrumental in driving meaningful change in people, communities, and countries. Japan and the US are two typical examples of the significant changes that technology can induce. In 1945 when World War II ended, the role of the US as the global leader was not clearly expressed, and Japan was considered the most devastated nation, with the Japanese economy exhibiting its most dismal performance. After the cold war, along with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US became the strongest force that controls world events while Japan became the second largest economy. These achievements were made possible largely through technological innovation.
Future technologies are expected by humans. The UNDP’s Human Development Report (2001) states that, “people all over the world have high hopes that these new technologies will lead to healthier lives, greater social freedoms, increased knowledge and more productive livelihoods.” Although the way we view and employ technology reflects the ambitions of the human race, people have differing individual attributes. Each of their demands therefore also varies. Some may want to use technology to help others; some may prefer to employ it as a means of controlling others, and the rest may opt to forgo new technology altogether. Clearly defining the demand for future technology is a difficult task; thus, we should begin with a review of the nature of demand in economics.
In economics, demand is defined as the desire to own a commodity, as well as the ability and willingness to pay for it (O’Sullivan & Sheffrin, 2003). Together with supply, demand determines the value of a product or service. Demand for new technology is expected to be the competitive edge of a business system (Betz, 1993). Price (1996) discussed the demand for technology by looking into the concepts of “necessary technology” and “sufficient technology” in organizations. The author also argues that the imbalance between supply and demand stems from deficient technology management. Coe and Helpman (1995) identified international trade as the carrier of foreign technology embedded in capital goods. Technology trade occurs between two countries that have different levels of technology.
Technology trade is a market that is also characterized by supply and demand, and an increase in consumption translates to a rise in demand. This assumption, however, does not hold true for future technology. We can define demand for future technology as the desire to own the innovations that will be produced in the future and the ability to pay for it. The key principle here is that because future technology is, as yet, non-existent, it is mostly sold as an “idea,” taking form only in people’s imaginations. Efforts have been directed toward forecasting and enabling technology, but no one can actually draw a definitive image of new or future technology. For this reason, future technological demands are driven by influencing factors that differ from those observed in economic demand or demand for other commodities. The first factor that requires discussion is the price of owning goods, in which the basic demand relationship between product quantity and price is highlighted. Increasing quantity reduces price, but we are currently unaware of the quantity of future technology. Which aspect, then, should we control first—quantity or price?
Second, no clear-cut price has been identified for future technology; it is determined by the demands of customers instead of the original price of a product. A good example is the latest financial crisis in 2008, which stemmed from the IT bubble. No one could forecast an appropriate price for software, and a company could earn millions over merely one night, a situation that diverges from the normal relationship of demand (Figure 1) with quantity and price (O’Sullivan & Sheffrin, 2005). The price of technology cannot be controlled, and therefore diverges from equilibrium and governing principles.
Figure 1: Demand curves (in red)
(Source: http://www.abigailgorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/supply-demand-curve-2.jpg)
Third, because demand depends on consumer income (Goodwin et al., 2009, p. 88), future technology can be an indicator of the wealth of high-income groups, and they can use new technology to control the market. The UNDP (2001) also argued that, “technology is created in response to market pressures—not the needs of poor people, who have little purchasing power.” Therefore, future technology depends on the demands of the rich, who may want a longer life and more convenient equipment, among others.
Fourth, given customer expectations on future price and future income (Goodwin et al., 2009, p. 89), future technology depends on public awareness of technology and their personal forecasts about future price and income. Their belief that better technology will be produced in the future will drive prices down and vice versa.
Future technology: Supply perspective
The price of current technology continues to considerably decrease. As Freeman and Perez (1998) indicate, the current perspective with respect to the technological paradigm is that future technology will produce a new range of products, services, systems, and industries; these will directly or indirectly affect almost every other branch of an economy. The US National Science Foundation also considers R&D performance an indicator of the stability of a nation’s economy (NSF, 2000, pp. 7‐4), as well as its ability to satisfy demands for future technology. Future technology supply pertains to the availability of a technology to consumers.
Again, because future technology does not exist just yet, this “availability” is based on technological change and forecast. Examining the growth of previous technologies indicates that innovations developed along the S‐curve in performance graph with two dimensions. People assume that future technologies will have the same characteristics (Montgomerie & Twiss, 1992). Although the labels of the axes in the aforementioned graph are considered controversial, the shape of future technology as indicated in the graph remains the same (Figure 2).
Similar to demand, supply is influenced by factors that determine the ability to provide future technology. The first factor is the price of owning future technology and the quantity of the products (Melvin & Boyes, 2002). From a supply perspective, the original value of future technology can be dictated only by the creator or inventor. Under the pressure of the market or sponsors, however, the original price can increase several times. The prices of related technologies also contribute to price increases in future technology. For example, a flying car’s technology may be developed using automotive and aviation technologies as bases. If the price of aviation technologies is very high, then the price of the flying car will accordingly rise.
Figure 2: Shape of future technology
(Source: http://smart-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/S-Curve1_261009.jpg)
Technological combination is another determinant that affects supply (Goodwin et al., 2009, p. 510). If more technologies are available, people will have more options and solutions. The combination of technologies will afford consumers the opportunity to compare the values provided by technologies and will enable informed responses to market changes. Similar technologies that are combined to create various innovations can be classified into many categories with specific prices suitable for the market. Government policies and regulations play a key role in future technology supply (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 2001, p. 53). Government intervention can either support the development of new technology or inhibit the combination of innovations. A technology can be available in South Africa but not in Vietnam; nuclear power is a good example. The Vietnamese government has not approved the use of nuclear power, so that efforts are still mostly on paper.
Figure 3: Limits of future technology
(Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldsctech/13/box7.gif)
With regard to the S-curve, the development of technology is constrained by physical, natural (Montgomerie & Twiss, 1992), and economic factors (Figure 3). When development approaches the allowable limit, an innovation breaks through the constraint and stimulates the development of new technology. To further illustrate the successive curve of new technology, the diagram proposed by Laird Close of the University of Arizona is displayed in Figure 4. The figure shows the states of technology development. The innovation of future technology depends on consistent efforts and advancements.
Figure 4: Evolution of technology
In the chart, Close showed that existing technology develops during a period called “sustaining mastery,” whereas future technology goes through the “pioneering engineering and science” stage. These two periods determine the availability of future technology. Accumulatively, the successive technological S‐curves create an envelope of technology advancement (Figure 5). Close also discussed building firm foundations, which involves improving, augmenting, and applying in the sustaining mastery stage, and prospecting for new possibilities, exploring, evaluating, and inventing in pioneering engineering and science. These characteristics are crucial to future technology supply.
Figure 5: The S‐curve model of technology advancement
(Source: compiled from Kurachavy (2007))
Handscombe and Norman (1993) argued that what we are witnessing in the market is only technology in use, indicating that actual available technology is considerably larger in scale. This argument implies a huge gap between available technology and technology use, and that numerous possibilities can be explored in reaching the available technology curve (Figure 6). The authors also suggested that enterprises should create competitive advantage by regarding customer needs as a motivation for narrowing the gap. These ideas are discussed in more detail in the next section, which focuses on both supply and demand.
Figure 6: Potential of technology
(Source: A presentation from Biznet http://www.biznet.com.au/ebusiness.htm)
Mapping supply and demand: Price of future technology
General factors
Mapping supply and demand for future technology is difficult to accomplish because of the lack of fundamental arguments thus far. As mentioned above, the demand for future technology depends on what we have conceived of in our imaginations. Overestimating future technology can increase demand, thereby driving prices to soar and in turn creating a new economic bubble. Underestimation, on the other hand, will attract less attention from investors and consumers, which can paralyze the development of new technology. Thus, the best approach to controlling demand is to help people understand the actual value of future technology.
Another factor that links supply and demand is the quantity of future technologies. By increasing the quantity of available future technologies, we can reduce the price of a specific technology. The price reduction is motivated by arguing that demands differ from people to people. If the technology market offers many selections, the price of technology will be cheaper. For example, if a person is a beginner in graphic technology, he may not pay for a full license of Photoshop and instead opt for free-license software, such as GIMP. If GIMP and similar software are increasingly offered in the market, the price of Photoshop will drop. Demand for technology decreases under an increased supply of similar technologies. Price also becomes cheaper.
The next factor influencing demand is consumer income. High-income groups may take advantage of their money to create the privilege of using technology, and even attempt to hold a monopoly in the market. Narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor can be a solution to controlling demand. As UNDP’s Human Development Report (2001) states, “the broader challenge is to agree on ways to segment the global market so that key technology products can be sold at low cost in developing countries.”
Fighting poverty is the core factor in reducing demand and increasing future technology supply. The price of related technologies is equally important, although it does not link supply and demand. Related technologies contribute to the price of future technology, and the prices of related technologies are determined by identifying their limits. Depending on the inherent limits of a related technology, people can define the price of such innovation. Before new technology is introduced, we can forecast the price range of a technology and its utility. Government policies and regulations should be discussed in this mapping step. Governments can allow or inhibit the development of technology, thereby becoming a principal intervening factor in future technology supply. Policies and regulations can also be a means of controlling the demand for future technology. By enabling support of related activities, policies and regulations induce the creation of regulatory lobbies for controlling demand. Using educational policies, for example, governments can increase community awareness; with regulations, monopolies can be prevented and alternative technologies can be supported.
Diagram of the price of future technology
The above-mentioned arguments focus on the factors that affect supply and demand. Another important aspect is the mapping diagram. Future technology supply is generally based on the axes of performance and time or effort and advancement (Figures 2 – 5). However, incorporating the demand curve in the same chart to analyze the price of future technology is almost impossible. I attempt to establish the general frameworks for mapping supply and demand for future technology.
The first axis of the diagram is the competency level of a community; understanding the actual value of future technology can help an economy control demand and increase future technology supply. As shown in Figure 7 (UNDP, 2001), knowledge creativity can affect technological change and technological change creates advancements in human life. Two sides characterize future technology. Knowledge creativity pertains to the ability of creating new technology, which in turn, produces new technology supply.
Figure 7: Links between technology and human development
(Source: UNDP Human Development Report 2001)
The second axis, which is proposed in this article, is natural resources or environment. To date, we have not exploited substitute resources in space to replace materials on Earth. Inherent limits constrain many of our activities. With the significant effects of climate change, certain regions continue to experience escalating warming. The demand for green technology is critical to the sustained existence of humans. In future technology supply, the choices in input materials and output emissions are important. Lifecycle assessment (ISO 14040) is a favorable approach to learning about materials, production, and product usability.
Time is another fundamental factor in research on future technology. Figure 4 shows that the transition period between existing and new technologies is important in development. As illustrated in Figure 5, different periods can shape varied S‐curves and create different envelop curves of technology. Figure 6 shows that time expand the gap between potential and realized technologies.
On the basis of the discussion above, we now have a coordinate system for mapping supply and demand for future technologies. This system may enable mapping all issues related to technology development.
How do we Pay for Future Technology?
Mapping the supply and demand for future technology has shown that its market co-exists with supply and demand. The question now becomes, how do we pay for future technology? The three axes of the diagram do not show a monetary dimension because natural resource is incorporated in the diagram.
To estimate the price of future technology, I consider environmental economics, which also covers environmental issues in the calculation. The problem is that the current relationship between economics and natural systems is excessively complex, so that many scholars consider environmental economics a sub-sector of the natural and social sciences, rather than a problem of global economy. The environmental economic program of the US National Bureau of Economic Research defines environmental economics as follows (NBER, 2006):
“Environmental Economics […] undertakes theoretical or empirical studies of the economic effects of national or local environmental policies around the world […]. Particular issues include the costs and benefits of alternative environmental policies to deal with air pollution, water quality, toxic substances, solid waste, and global warming.”
In Coase theory, resource property rights can be used as a pollution control policy. Coase (1960) pointed out that under given assumptions, the most effective solution to environmental damage is creating an agreement between the people who cause pollution and the people who suffer from pollution. People can be compensated for ownership; that is, a polluter can be paid not to cause pollution. Thus, ownership is clearly defined and can be transferred by individuals, and companies are encouraged to effectively use natural resources. Consequently, future technology can be priced correctly.
The price of future technology is very difficult to measure and calculate because it is based on environmental value, but it is not inexecutable. Numerous methods for estimating the environmental values of products or services have been applied; these include surveys that estimate willingness to pay and willingness to accept compensation. Although unstable, this method can solve many problems in environmental economics and establish the basic concepts of environmental money.
From E-conomics to E-money
Environmental economics is a tool used to study the environment, and therefore follows an economic trend, not an environmental one. Ecological economics arose from the consideration of the effects of human activities on ecological systems. This discipline was founded by Kenneth E. Boulding, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Herman Daly, Robert Costanza, and their colleagues (Paehlke, 1995). However, no theoretical framework or knowledge structure for ecological economics has been proposed (Malte, 2008). According to Malte, ecological economics is defined by its focus on nature, justice, and time.
In detail, environmental and ecological economics share the same pillars in achieving sustainable development: society, economics, and environment (IUCN, 2006). These factors should be the elements of future studies (Kurian & Molitor, 2003). This three-pillar model can also explain the approaches to sustainable development and the differences between environmental and ecological economics (Figure 8). According to the IUCN (2006), the theoretical spheres are equal but in reality, the environmental sphere is smaller (environmental economic trend) and the world should implement measures to expand it (ecological economic trend). However, the aim of this article is not to present arguments on sphere scope but to highlight the necessity of e-money and the possibility of having this type of currency in the future.
Figure 8: Three pillars of sustainable development
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1988) defines environmental justice as follows:
“Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”
Nevertheless, a method for measuring fairness in environmental justice has not been established. Some recent attempts to re-establish the ecological footprint concept proved inefficient because no visible price or value could be used to evaluate the economy or consumer behavior. In the market, everything should be converted to price; that is, monetary value.
The first effort to price environmental values was that of Costanza et al. (1997) in an article published in the British journal Nature. The author valued the total capital resource of the Earth at US$33 trillion. He and his colleagues also believe that this value is the minimum estimation, and that profit from environmental investments can amount to 100 times higher. The second significant effort was that put forward by the Chinese government with the 2004 launch of “green GDP,” a project of Premier Wen Jiabao. Under this concept, China’s GDP was to be replaced by the green GDP because the financial losses caused by pollution had already amounted to 511.8 billion Yuan (US$66.3 billion), or 3.05 percent of the nation’s economy (Sun Xiaohua, 2007). The cost of resources and the environment has been calculated for several years in other countries (such as Norway in 1978 and Mexico in 1990), and China’s announcement was mostly a diplomatic and political move (China refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol). The green GDP is nonetheless a remarkable milestone in the realm of e-money.
O’Neill (2009) has recently taken another look at the financial crisis via ecological economics, in which he argued that the current crisis is not only financial in nature, but also ecological. In the presentation, he presented the terminology “ecological debt” with strong evidence while comparing the current ecological footprint with 1961’s: the current bio-demand at 2.7 hectares per person versus the previous 2.1 hectares per person. Another question arises here: “How do we pay for future technology”? The issue that needs consideration is the quota on pollution, which we can transform to another meaningful definition, “quotas on environmental damage,” in which organizations can apply for tradable emission permits. According to regulations, this quota is tradable from country to country and company to company with taxes and tariffs.
Lavoie (2005) approached ecological economics with more focus on consumer behavior. In the article “Post-Keynesian consumer choice theory and ecological economics,” he claimed that post-Keynesian consumer choice theory is highly relevant to ecological economics, and that ecological economists had already provided consumer behavior models that rely on a post-Keynesian theory of behavior. He pointed out the differences and similarities between “neoclassical” consumer behavior and heterodox approaches to determine customer satisfaction. Lavoie argued that if the environment is a criterion, then any defect in the environmental aspect of a product will cause customer dissatisfaction. This argument indicates that environmental value is a proportion of product value.
Is E-money Realistic?
A Google search for the keywords “e money” or “eco money” pulls up some meaningful websites and an intriguing Wikipedia article (Wikipedia, 2010). Eco-money was first introduced in Japan as a community currency, and it is used as an alternative and complementary currency that motivates ecological and socially responsible actions. Kusatsu in Shiga Prefecture was the first city in Japan to use eco-money (spring 1999), a move that encouraged other cities, such as Matsue, Shimane Prefecture, and Takaoka in Toyama Prefecture, to follow suit. Some municipalities intended to use the money to encourage tree planting and waste reduction. Some other Japanese scholars are also interested in this new concept (Figure 9).
The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets defines money as anything that is generally accepted in payment for goods or services or in the repayment of debts (Mishkin, 2007). Its main functions are as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a standard of deferred payment (Greco, 2001). Money can have different presentations: abstraction, idea or concept, or token. We can derive the definition of e-money from “money” and “e” concepts: e-money is the abbreviation of environmental money, ecological money, or even Earth money, and is anything generally accepted in payment for goods or the use of resources and services that affect the environment, as well as in repayment of debts, whether private or ecological. Considering the characteristics of money, the use of e-money is becoming a reality, but the definition above requires further study.
An increasing number of local currency systems are being established the world over. Although the labels may be directly related to carbon emission or renewable energy, the purpose of these currencies is similar to that of e-money. In Australia, Boya showed the effectiveness of new workable currency systems, in which 1 “tonne” of pollution can subtract US$100 from the global economy or add 100 Boya to the local economy (Maia, nd.). Japanese citizens (Edogawa) who used green power were given 30 Edogawatt bills per certificate (Juko-in, 2002):
“These are currently being used among people … as a certificate of debt or obligation in exchange for baby-sitting, carrying loads, translating and other small jobs. They have provided an incentive for creation of a mutual aid society within the community and we would like to make them a tool for deepening interpersonal relationships and trust.”
Figure 9: Cartoon by Prof. Hiroshi Takatsuki (2009)
Concluding Remarks
Future technology is a component of future research even though it does not exist just yet. To determine the price of future technology, I considered supply and demand; this approach enabled observing the interactions between them and the factors that may influence the price of future technology. These factors are public awareness, technology diffusion, poverty, prices of current technologies, and government policies. These determinants are integrated with one another and do not function independently. In the work of Linstone (1984), he presented the view of a system that involves nature, man, society and technology, as well as the interactions among them. Each pair of factors and the time axis can form a coordinate system for determining the price of future technology. In the current work, public awareness and natural limits were chosen to illustrate the interactions between supply and demand.
The price of future technology is a complicated subject that requires further study. Mapping supply and demand was one of the solutions for determining the equilibrium point that will indicate the correct price of future technology. This approach should be adopted to convert the above-mentioned coordinate system into a useful tool for forecasting future technology. Under the context of the economic crisis, many new developing economies (e.g., India, China, Russia) have put forward plans to replace the US dollar with a new reserve currency. China was the first country to argue the possibility of this replacement. However, the summit of leaders devoted to this particular issue has not resulted in a resolution because the leaders could not achieve a consensus. The most important issue was to the stronger influence of a single currency over others. Meanwhile, environmental issues, such as climate change, were neglected in these negotiations. Environmental economics and other relevant factors have been extensively discussed in literature. Some concepts such as environmental justice, environmental regulations, quotas, and taxes on environments have become more familiar ideas globally. Therefore, future technology should be thoroughly evaluated from the context of time, community competency, and natural resources because these can create a new market where e-money is used. Given the realistic functions of e-money, futurists and sustainable development supporters and economists should convert, modify, or develop a stronger scientific basis for a better world with a healthier global economy. Bitcoin is just a starting point.
APPENDIX
Betz, F. (1993). Strategic Technology Management. McGraw – Hill, New York (p. 9).
Coase, R. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics. Vol.3 (pp. 1-44).
Coe, DT. & Helpman, E. (1995). International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review 39 (pp. 859 – 887).
Costanza, R. et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological Economics 25(1) (pp. 3–15).
EPA. (1988). Definition of Environmental Justice. Retrieved on 20th April 2012 from: http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/
Florman, S. (1976). The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. St. Martin Press, New York, NY.
Freeman, C. & Perez, C. (1988). Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behavior. In G. Dosi et. al. (eds.). Technical Change and Economic Theory (pp. 38 – 66). London: Pinter.
Goodwin, N., Nelson, J., Ackerman, F. & Weissskopf, T. (2009). Microeconomics in Context. 2nd ed. Sharpe.
Greco, T.H., Jr. (2001). Money: Understanding and Creating Alternatives to Legal Tender. Chelsea Green Publishing Company, USA.
Handscombe, RS. & Norman, PA. (1993). Strategic leadership. 2nd ed. London: McGrawHill.
IUCN., (2006). The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century. Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, January, 2006 (pp. 29-31).
Juko-in. (2002). The Citizen ‘s Strategy for Creating a New World. Retrieved on 1st May 2010 from http://juko-in.or.jp/Eactivity.htm
Kurachavy, D. (2007). Application of S –shaped Curves. TRIZ-Future Conference 2007: Current Scientific and Industrial Reality, Frankfurt : Germany.
Kurian, G.T. & Molitor G.T.T. (2003). Encyclopedia of the Future. Vol.2, (pp. 815 – 816).
Lavoie, M. (2005). Post-Keynesian consumer choice theory and ecological economics. Economics, Sustainability, and Natural Resources. Springer Netherlands.
Linston, H.A. (1984). Multiple perspectives for decision making: Bridging the gap between analysis and action. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers (pp. 38 – 81).
Maia. (nd). Maia Maia: The Atmosphere Connects Us All. Retrieved on 1st May 2010 from http://www.maiamaia.org
Malte F. (2008). How to be an ecological economist. Ecological Economics. Vol.66(1), (pp. 1-7).
Melvin, M. & Boyes, W. (2002). Microeconomics. 5th ed. Houghton Mifflin.
Mishkin, F.S. (2007). The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets. Alternate Edition Boston: Addison Wesley ISBN 0-321-42177-9 (p. 8).
Montgomerie, G. & Twiss, B. (1992). Forecasting for technologists and engineers – A practical guide for better decisions. Peter Peregrinus (pp. 72 – 75, 79 – 95).
NSF. (2000). Science and Engineering Indicators 2000. Washington DC, National Science Foundation. Retrieved on 1st May 2010 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind00/
NBER. (2006). Environmental Economics Working Group Descriptions. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved on 1st May 2010 from http://www.nber.org/workinggroups/ee/ee.html
O’Neill, D.W. (2009). The Global Financial Crisis: An Ecological Economics Perspective. Submitted to the 8th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics.
O’Sullivan A. & Sheffrin, S. (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall (pp. 79).
O’Sullivan, A. & Sheffrin, S. (2005). Microeconomics. 4th ed. Pearson.
Paehlke R. (1995). Conservation and Environmentalism: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis (p. 315).
Price, RM. (1996). Technology and strategic advantage. California Management Review Vol. 38(3) (pp. 38‐56).
Samuelson, P. & Nordhaus, W. (2001). Microeconomics. 17th ed. McGraw‐Hill.
Sun Xiaohua. (2007). Call for return to green accounting. China Daily, 19 Apr 2007. Retrieved on 1st May 2010 from: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-04/19/content_853917.htm
Takatsuki, H. (2009). Cartoon: ‘Eco-money’ is a currency that promotes local sustainability. Retrieved on 1st May 2010 from http://www.japanfs.org/en/manga/pages/028929.html
UNDP Human Development Report. (2001). Making new technologies work for human development. Oxford University Press.
Wikipedia. (2009). Search on “eco money”. Retrieved on 1st May 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-Money
Học liệu mở có định hướng 
