Degrowth
Charlotte Akers, first published September 2020
“It can no longer be assumed that welfare is greater at an all-around higher level of production than a lower one . . . The higher level of production has, merely, a higher level of want creation, necessitating a higher level of want satisfaction.”
- John Kenneth Galbraith (Economist)
What does genuine progress look like? The established answer has long been Bigger equals Better, which generally refers to economic growth, rather than, say, increased distribution of resources. The 20th and 21st Centuries saw an impressive rise in global GDP, but Gross Domestic Product data is misused to indicate gross wellbeing, and therefore referred to as “progress”. The idea that exponential growth is essential to human progress set in motion a system that now brings us to breaking point: it cannot be sustained by a finite planet. Our growth-based economy just doesn’t square with our reality.
Enter ‘degrowthers’. Degrowth is an economic model designed for prosperity without reliance on capital and material growth. Under this system, wealth does not increase or decrease, but both resource-extraction and energy-use are limited to bring society back into balance with nature, while also reducing inequality and improving wellbeing – a levelling, you might say.
Degrowth is an economic model designed for prosperity without reliance on capital and material growth.
The name itself may sound a little negative, but is rooted in the French “décroissance” or Italian “la decrescita”, referring to a river reverting to its normal flow after a flood. Framed this way, it seems pretty applicable to our combined predicaments of climate crisis, mass conflict, and economic disparity; addressing the figurative (and literal) floods of the times.
The movement calls on wealthy nations to embrace zero or even negative GDP growth, as the more we produce and consume, the more damage we do to the living world – our home, and the tenuous source of our wealth.
Degrowth introduces a value system that places ecology above economy , arguing that economic growth is not only no longer possible, but no longer desirable; the ultimate cost far exceeding the benefits (largely enjoyed by an elite minority anyway). Degrowth proposes a remodelled economy; producing less because consumption would be dramatically less. It may sound radical, but our current model is hardly rational. We find ourselves living in an ideological paradox – the have-your-cake-and-eat-it approach.
Creating and consuming more and more stuff out of limited resources seems… like not the best plan. It’s not really a “plan” at all.
This socioeconomic theory would shift emphasis onto occupations based around community prosperity; such as nursing, teaching, care, farming, renewable energy, public transport, and skilled labour. It seeks to redirect energies away from profit, towards greater sovereignty, locality, equity, and respect for the biosphere.
Degrowth differs from Green Growth, which has been widely deemed an attempt at “greenwashing” on the part of corporations bent onupholding the socioeconomic status quo. Green Growth endorses existing economic systems, but with a few tweaks, such as swapping fossil-fuels for renewable energy (plus, reduce, reuse, recycle etc.). But degrowthers claim this strategy is based on the falsehood of “absolute decoupling” – wherein GDP is able to grow while carbon emissions miraculously decline.
However, the sheer scale of our economy cannot feasibly be converted into a circular system. A system designed for expansion will ultimately absorb all savings in energy and resources for the increase of profits, meaning that overall, environmental impacts will continue to worsen.
Degrowth calls for a change in thinking as much as in policy, asking us to remove financial growth from its position as priority No.1 and instead make sufficiency and sustainability the central values of society, allowing the ecosystem to flourish alongside human activity, not inspite of it.
