Abstract
"Solar Employs, Nuclear Destroys" say the bumper stickers, and while public debate may find the opinions of technologists to be of interest with respect to the second half of the slogan, it is up to social and economic analysts to deal with the first half. Do "soft path" technologies such as conservation and solar energy create more jobs? If they do, is that good? A prima facie case could be made that projects which require relatively more labor are regressive, leadings us all to work harder just to maintain the same level of existance. In this essay, Dan Luria and Lee Price examine this question on a theoretical level, first establishing what is really meant by "capital intensive" and "labor intesive "projects andsho wing that this is largely a question of the time distribution of labor. They then examine the impact of various contingencies on the job-creation aspects of these two types of projects. Furthermore, they attempt to clarify the distinction which must be made between long term political solutions to problems as opposed to "technicalfixes" which can at best provide a transitory and insubstantial relief.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.