Degrowth

{{bronze}}{{economics}}{{cquote|Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical, on a physically finite planet, is either mad or an economist.|||Kenneth E. Boulding (or Mancur Olson)<ref>[https://quoteinvestigator.com/2019/07/11/exponential/ Anyone Who Believes Exponential Growth Can Go On Forever in a Finite World Is Either a Madman or an Economist] (July 11, 2019) ''Quote Investigator''.</ref>}}
'''Degrowth''' is an [[economic]], [[academic]], and social movement that argues for letting [[GDP]] float in relation to human and environmental well-being and to reduce material throughput in economies with an extreme excess of production and supply. This is in contrast to the typical, mainstream economic goal of constant GDP growth. They argue the objective of constant economic growth is [[environmental]]ly and socially destructive, as well as unhealthy. 

The major stated aim of degrowth is in materializing a [[sustainable]] level of production in our ever-changing [[climate change|climate]].<ref>"[https://degrowth.org/definition-2/ Definition]" - Research and Degrowth</ref> It is associated with certain segments of the political [[left]]<ref>[https://medium.com/@wimnaude/degrowths-radical-political-project-to-de-develop-the-world-dc70560d9c9c Degrowth’s Radical Political Project to De-Develop the World (Wim Naudé, Medium, Feb 26, 2023)]</ref> and right.<ref>{{cite web |last1=  Forchtner|first1=Bernhard |last2=Olsen |first2= Jonathan|date= July 23, 2024|title= Against the Promethean: Energy throughput and the far-right politics of degrowth|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/25148486241266794?icid=int.sj-abstract.citing-articles.2 |volume=7 |issue= 5 |doi=10.1177/25148486241266794|website=SAGE Journals |access-date=February 9, 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last= Piper|first=Kelsey |date=February 7, 2025 |title= The right’s flirtation with degrowth, explained|url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/398696/degrowth-economy-trump-right-poverty |website= Vox  |access-date=February 9, 2025}}</ref>

==History of the concept==
The modern concept of degrowth was founded on the book ''Limits to Growth'' published in 1972, a report produced by the Club of Rome, which concluded that growth in a finite world was limited and that if society kept increasing production and population, it would face the limits of growth, which would lead to a sudden decline in both population and industrial capacity. Its core predictions seem to have held true.<ref>Graham Turner. [http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with Thirty Years of Reality.] CSIRO Working Paper Series 2008-2009.</ref><ref>"[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse]" - ''[[The Guardian]]''. Written by Graham Turner and Cathy Alexander. Published Sept. 2, 2014.</ref> The report suggested that growth trends could be altered to achieve sustainable ecological and economic stability.

Environmentalist Petra Kelly co-founded the German Green Party (Die Grünen) while a degrowth advocate, articulated under several books under her name in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

==Proposed policies==
Degrowth proponents tend to support [[Renewable energy|renewable energies]] and recycling, but consider that it still consumes natural resources to build and maintain, and so, the limitation of the consumption of energy and production is also necessary. They believe in reducing [[conspicuous consumption]] and useless consumption in general.  Many believers in degrowth oppose planned obsolescence and advertising, and they also believe in ending the over-reliance on [[car]]s. They do this by promoting [[Bicycle|biking]] and free public transportation.The degrowth movement is generally supporting  of a reform of agriculture, for example in supporting permaculture.
On the economy, the degrowth movement generally support cooperatives, local currencies<ref name="munich">[https://basicincome.org/bien/pdf/munich2012/mylondo_en.pdf Can the basic income lead to economic degrowth?]</ref> (and generally relocalisation of the economy),<ref>[http://mondediplo.com/2006/01/13degrowth?var_recherche=Serge+Latouche The globe downshifted]</ref> alimentary sovereignty.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20181115212732/https://www.degrowth.info/en/dim/degrowth-in-movements/food-sovereignty/ Food Sovereignty] - [[Internet Archive|Archived]] from "degrowth.info"</ref> Many Degrowth activists support public housing,  education, and [[Universal health care|healthcare for all]].<ref>"[http://www.projet-decroissance.net/?p=1640 Momentum Institute analyses Basic Income / Unconditional Autonomy Allowance: « Living income for free and egalitarian societies »]"</ref> Policies for universal basic income is also supported by some degrowth economists.<ref name="munich" />

Hickel ''et al.'' (2022) writing an op-ed for ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' has made specific policy proposals in the aim of degrowth namely in:
*Scaling down [[fossil fuel]] industries, factory farming, fast fashion, and luxury transportation&nbsp;— this can be achieved by ceasing subsidies to fossil fuels, increasing taxation on such industries and re-investing the money into public services. 
*Abolishing planned obsolescence by pushing legislation that requires the production of products that will last as long as they’re able. 
*Redirecting the focus from increasing [[GDP]] to other relevant factors such as the public’s access to health, nutrition, shelter, etc.
*Reducing working hours so as to reduce production, energy usage, etc. Shorter working hours also means more shifts can be fit into the working day; expanding the number of jobs in a single firm. Couple this with a green job guarantee this prevents people losing their jobs and livelihoods in a transition to a degrowth economy. 
*Shifting to renewable energy sources, as well as implementing efforts to limit energy usage so as to limit the need to build more solar panels, wind mills, etc. 
*Expanding the use of social housing, universal healthcare, and worker co-operatives.<ref name = “nature article”>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04412-x - Hickel ''et al.'' (2022) writing for ''Nature''.</ref>

==Degrowthist arguments==
===Overshoot Day===
Earth Overshoot Day is the date on which humanity’s resource consumption for the year exceeds Earth’s capacity to regenerate those resources that year. In 2016, Earth Overshoot Day was in August 03.<ref>"[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/12/humans-have-already-used-up-2015s-supply-of-earths-resources-analysis Humans have already used up 2015's supply of Earth's resources – analysis]" - ''The Guardian''. Published Aug. 12, 2015.</ref>

===Peak minerals===
The degrowth movement argues that resource depletion will end up in peak minerals. For example, nickel and zinc could face production peaks in a few decades.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/04/mineral-resource-fossil-fuel-depletion-terraform-earth-collapse-civilisation Exhaustion of cheap mineral resources is terraforming Earth – scientific report] - ''The Guardian''. Published June 4, 2014.</ref>

===Climate change===
{{main|Climate change}}
Another obvious argument is that increases in economic growth in part follows from increases in production and increases in energy consumption, which in turn then drives increases in the release of [[Greenhouse effect|greenhouse gases]]. This is fundamentally at odds with the goals to reduce or outright eliminate the production of greenhouse gases as called for by organizations like the IPCC.<ref name = “nature article” /> A counter to this argument is typically that this is only the case if the means of production rely on the energy output of energy resources like [[coal]], but it would not be the case if the energy was provided by renewable sources instead. A problem with this reply is that with increased energy demands this would require the production of more and more renewable machines such as solar panels, which would then require the extraction of rare metals and greater land usage. This gets back into the previous problem of peak minerals, and the production of greenhouse gases in the manufacturing process. Regardless, if the manufacturing of a given good required the production of greenhouse gases on plant, then it would not particularly matter if the power used to keep the lights on in the factory was sourced from a wind turbine.

Another one of the challenges in regards to climate change is the rate of decarbonization required if GDP were to continuously grow at a rate of, say, 3% per year; the required rate of decarbonization would have to be at 10.5% every year in order to meet below the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming target.<ref name = “More”> Hickel, J. (2019). "Degrowth: a theory of radical abundance." ''Real-World Economics Review'' 87 (19), 54-68.</ref> This is openly acknowledged by the IPCC and the Paris climate agreement as unobtainable.

===Healthcare===
According to a report released by the World Health Organization, if policymakers didn't have a "pathological obsession" with GDP, more would be available to spend on healthcare.<ref>{{cws|https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/valuing-health-for-all-rethinking-and-building-a-whole-of-society-approach---the-who-council-on-the-economics-of-health-for-all---council-brief-no.-3|Valuing Health for All: Rethinking and building a whole-of-society approach - The WHO Council on the Economics of Health for all - Council Brief No. 3|World Health Organization}}</ref> Healthcare does not contribute to GDP spending in the same way that [[military-industrial complex|military spending]] does, however.<ref>{{cws|https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00723-1|Are there limits to economic growth? It’s time to call time on a 50-year argument|Nature}}</ref> Many degrowth scholars argue that the current system can cause psychological and physical damage to people and that social prosperity should be measured by only well-being and not GDP.

===Feminism===
{{main|feminism}}
Feminist criticisms of growth include that GDP measurements exclude unpaid labor such as care work or reproductive labor.<ref>Waring, Marilyn (1989). ''If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics.'' London: Macmillan. {{isbn|0-333-49262-5}}.</ref> Socialist feminist criticisms of growth include that growth relies on the exploitation of female labor.<ref>Fraser, Nancy (2017). ''Crisis of Care? On the Social-Reproductive Contradictions of Contemporary Capitalism.'' In: Bhattacharya, Tithi. ''Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentering Oppression.'' London: Pluto Press.</ref>{{rp|21|36}}

Feminists propose a reduction in work-time,<ref>Kallis, Giorgos (2018). ''Degrowth''. Agenda Publishing. {{isbn|978-1-911116-79-0}}.</ref> or a redistribution in care labor to more adequately account for gender imbalances in growth models.<ref>https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13545701.2021.1942511</ref>

==Arguments against degrowth and responses from degrowthers==
===Feasability===
[[File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg|thumb|250px|A graph and data used to illustrate how economic growth lifted billions from poverty. Proponents for growth worry that in the absence of economic growth, this trend will reverse.]]
The main argument against degrowth is that its proposals cannot be applied, that an economic model based on degrowth would be unable to supply enough food and other commodities, and that it would end with everyone being poor (or worse). Leisure time, long life, good health, literacy, education, female empowerment, and rights and protections for the vulnerable are all said to be central to having a happy and fair society, and all of these features are made possible by economic growth.<ref name=rich>{{Cite book |last=Mark. |first=Koyama, |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1337820056 |title=How the world became rich : the historical origins of economic growth |date=2022 |publisher=Polity Press |isbn=978-1-5095-4022-8 |oclc=1337820056}}</ref>{{rp|5}}

This sort of criticism is anticipated by the likes of economic [[anthropologists]] like Hickel, who argues that the major research tying GDP and economic growth to quality of life often ignore relevant confounding factors like public sanitation.<ref name = “Less”>Hickel, J. (2021). ''Less is more: How degrowth will save the world.'' Windmill Books. Available at Amazon [https://www.amazon.com/Less-More-Degrowth-Will-World-ebook/dp/B085L9XSM1 here].</ref> Historically, the narrative has been that even including for factors related to funding and efficacy of healthcare, GDP seems to be the primary predictor for quality of life measures and outcomes; and that countries with the highest GDPs tend to have the highest quality of life regardless of the quality of their healthcare.<ref name = “Less”/> 

Another criticism towards this narrative is the claim that the rise of capitalism from the 16<sup>th</sup> century onwards came with the closure of common resources, expansive [[Colonialism|colonization]] with the extraction of foreign natural resources, indigenous [[genocide]]s, the North Atlantic [[Slave]] Trade, and multiple famines in [[India]]. It’s difficult to argue that for the people victimized by such atrocities, their quality of life has been “improved”.<ref name=“Less”/> Of course, if you are inclined to see these as isolated events, and not as ongoing issues, then you may argue that this does not account for the fact that most of the economic growth happened after these “events”, in fact, within the 20<sup>th</sup> century. As economist Oded Galor puts it, describing periods of remarkably significant growth:
{{quotebox|Between 1870 and 2018, worldwide average income per capita surged by a previously inconceivable factor of 10.2 to $15,212 a year. Income per capita in the [[US]], [[Canada]], [[Australia]] and [[New Zealand]] rose by a factor of 11.6 to $53,756 a year; in Western Europe it rose by a factor of 12.1 to $39,790 a year; in Latin America, by a factor of 10.7 to $14,076 a year; in East Asia, by a factor of 16.5 to $16,327 a year; in Africa, while this improvement had been significantly smaller, income per capita still rose by a factor of 4.4 to $3,532 a year.<ref name=journey>{{Cite book |last=Galor |first=Oded |title=The Journey of humanity: the origins of wealth and inequality |date=2022 |publisher=Dutton |isbn=978-0-593-18599-5 |location=United States}}</ref>{{rp|111}}}}

This sort of response (not Galor’s per se) is partially based in a [[strawman fallacy]]. Of course the simple objection to this is that the on-going colonization of India; the extraction of natural resources from indigenous communities within the Americas, Africa, and Asia; and the various famines in reference did not “stop” before 1870. Ignorant still considering the [[Great Bengal Famine of 1943|Bengal famine of 1943]], which notably occurred in the 20<sup>th</sup> century. It is important to stress that neither Hickel, or other post-colonial critics are actually tying this phenomena as a direct consequence of economic growth itself. Rather, the argument being made is how the advent of [[capitalism]] and its subsequent development which measures its sustainability on the basis of growth required these atrocities to begin with. 

The argument in general also ignores the degree to which indigenous genocide as considered was ongoing up into the 1990’s, if we are willing to cast the Canadian {{wpl|residential schools}} as examples of cultural genocide. There also a sort of pre-supposition that the negative effects of [[slavery]] ended with its abolition in the United States. A complicit denial of {{wpl|generational trauma}} and subsequent sociological effects that developed out of slavery in the form of {{wpl|systematic racism||.}}

As stated earlier, a problem with many studies citing causal interaction between GDP and Quality of Life measurements is the fact that they don’t account for the influence of public utilities like sanitation.<ref name=“Less”/> Basic sanitation involving the simple separation of sewage from drinking water dramatically improved health outcomes and helped prevent the spread of infectious diseases. But due to the requirement to dig up privately owned land and the massive constructive projects to create the infrastructure, many private landowners initially opposed the early sanitation efforts.<ref name=“Less”/>

While it's true that nations with higher incomes generally have better life expectancies than poorer nations, this isn't, as, at least according to Hickel, an ''automatic'' relationship:
{{quotebox|'The historical record is clear that economic growth itself has no direct, necessary positive implications for population health,' Sretzer points out. 'The most that can be said is that it creates the long-term ''potential'' for population health improvements.' Whether or not that potential is realised depends on the political forces that determine how income is distributed. Progress in human welfare has been driven by progressive political movements and governments that have managed to harness economic resources to deliver robust public goods and fair wages. In fact, the historical record shows that in the ''absence'' of these forces, growth has quite often worked ''against'' social progress, not for it.<ref name=“Less” />}}

This is backed up by [[statistics]] on [[water]] sanitation in the United States. The improvement in water sanitation alone between 1900 and 1935 is responsible for roughly 75% of the decrease in infant mortality rates, and ''half'' the total decline in mortality rates overall.<ref name=“Less” /> Hickel points out that, excluding sanitation, the most significant impactor on life expectancy rates is "access to universal healthcare, including child [[vaccination]]."<ref name=“Less” /> After that, it's access to education, especially [[women]]'s education. "The more you learn, the longer you live."<ref name=“Less” />

All of this argued above by the likes of those like Hickel draws [[skepticism]] on the direct tie between societal happiness, health, and other measures as directly caused by and as solely a consequence of economic growth. This of course, does not by any means directly suggest that a degrowth economic model is therefore sustainable and would not itself lead to things like famine, as proponents of economic growth maintain.

Hickel and others objected to the growth-proponents' objections on the grounds it confuses degrowth for an economic [[recession]].<ref name=“More”/> There is an argument to be made that the removal of systems of artificial scarcity would prevent the sort of economic consequences we would see during a recession due to the re-opening access to public resources, the dramatic reinvestment into public services, and the simple fact that a post-capitalist economic system of degrowth would not be reliant on growth to sustain itself as the current capitalist system is required to do.<ref name = “More”/>

===Growth leading to technological innovations, and carbon decoupling===
An argument used against degrowth is that technological innovation will lead to ways to produce more while using fewer resources.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-11-09 |title=Is infinite economic growth possible on a finite planet? |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2021/11/09/is-infinite-economic-growth-possible-on-a-finite-planet/ |access-date=2023-02-18 |website=LSE Business Review}}</ref> For example, [[Norman Borlaug]]'s artificial selection and shuttle breeding research significantly increased wheat yields across [[Latin America]], [[Africa]], and [[Asia]] in the middle part of the 20th century.{{fact}}

Economic growth also makes available the resources and the new technologies needed to tackle important challenges. The [[United Kingdom]] saw its carbon emissions fall by 38% between 1990 and 2017, from 600 million tonnes to 367 million tonnes. However, the country's GDP (adjusted for inflation) increased by over 60% in the same period.<ref name=rich>{{Cite book |last=Mark. |first=Koyama, |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1337820056 |title=How the world became rich : the historical origins of economic growth |date=2022 |publisher=Polity Press |isbn=978-1-5095-4022-8 |oclc=1337820056}}</ref>{{rp|5}} Additionally, economic growth also results in more resources to combat environmental problems. For instance, a growing GDP means that the society will be able to combat deforestation better.<ref name=rich>{{Cite book |last=Mark. |first=Koyama, |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1337820056 |title=How the world became rich : the historical origins of economic growth |date=2022 |publisher=Polity Press |isbn=978-1-5095-4022-8 |oclc=1337820056}}</ref>{{rp|225}} Furthermore, there's evidence that poorer regions might pollute even more than rich regions. A region with 50 million people and an income of $10,000 per capita emits significantly more carbon than a region with 10 million people and an income of $50,000 per capita, despite the fact that the two regions have precisely the same aggregate income. This argument essentially being, we should strive for more, not less growth to tackle [[climate change]].<ref name=journey/>{{rp|117}}

All this information presented does rub against the previously-mentioned required rate of decarbonization, to which this example with the UK does not even remotely meet the targets for.<ref name = “More”/> Ignoring that detail, the case made above would be example of the notion of "environmental decoupling" which is the notion that environmental impact and/or resource consumption can be reduced alongside economic growth as measured by GDP. 

A literature review authored by Vadén, et al. (2020), and published in the journal ''Environmental Science and Policy'', included 179 articles published between 1990 - 2019, and concluded there was a lack of robust evidence for international and absolute resource-decoupling from economic growth.<ref name = "Vaden"> T. Vadén, V. Lähde, A. Majava, P. Järvensivu, T. Toivanen, E. Hakala, J.T. Eronen, Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature, Environmental Science & Policy,Volume 112, 2020,Pages 236-244, ISSN 1462-9011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.016.</ref> The vast majority of the studies looking at environmental decoupling did so on the basis of studying relative decoupling, and not absolute decoupling. Most of the studies that did look at absolute decoupling did not look at resource decoupling, but impact decoupling; and only a small minority of those studies even looked at decoupling on economy-wide or national scales.<ref name = "Vaden"/> The studies that did look at economy wide or national scales only did so measuring relative decoupling. Such results lead the authors to conclude:
{{QuoteBox| "The research literature in our review tells of the historical situation up to date, and the evidence does not suggest that decoupling towards ecological sustainability is happening at a global (or even regional) scale. The literature finds evidence of impact decoupling, especially between GHG emissions (such as CO<sub>X</sub> and SO<sub>X</sub> emissions) in wealthy countries for certain periods of time, but not of economy-wide resource decoupling, least of all on the international and global scale." - p.243 <ref name = "Vaden"/>}}

The authors also suggest that the appeals to the existing evidence that show relative decoupling within particular nations can be misleading, given the environmental impact or resources consumption overall can still increase ''globally'' and ''absolutely'' with the rise of GDP.<ref name = "Vaden"/> This may be due to the dependence that many industrialized nations have on developing nations to produce their products. If the resource consumption is not happening within the national boundaries but outsourced to another country it can ''look as if'' GDP rises as resource consumption falls, when in actuality, it is not.

Their articles ends with the following passage:
{{QuoteBox| “In view of this, it seems that the claim that the economy can grow while at the same time the “environmental bads” diminish needs further support from sources other than empirical research literature. The claim needs to be supported by detailed and concrete plans of structural change that delineate how the future will be different from the past.
Otherwise the onus of the claim will rest on the abstract possibility of decoupling; an abstract possibility that no empirical evidence can disprove but that in the absence of robust empirical evidence or detailed and concrete plans rests, in part, on faith." - p.243.<ref name = "Vaden"/>}}

==Notable degrowth proponents==
*[[Murray Bookchin]]
*{{wpl|Jason Hickel}} (economic anthropologist)
*{{wpl|Tim Jackson (economist)}}
*{{wpl|Giorgos Kallis}}
*{{wpl|Donella Meadows}}
*[[George Monbiot]]
*[https://timotheeparrique.com/ Timothée Parrique] (economist)
*{{wpl|Kate Raworth}}
*{{wpl|Julia Steinberger}}
*{{wpl|Petra Kelly}}
*Kate Raworth (economist)

==See also==
* [[Peak oil]]
* [[Peak uranium]]

==External links==
* [https://degrowth.org/ Website of "Research & Degrowth"]
* {{wpa| Degrowth}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Environmentalism]] 
[[Category:Economic philosophies]]

Categories: Environmentalism, Economic philosophies