March 14, 2022
The degrowth model is gaining traction among economists and scientists alike. It challenges the deeply engrained capitalistic economies that have been plowing forward for centuries. Switching to a degrowth economy could be the key to mitigating climate change, while enhancing social and environmental wellbeing. By making changes both on small and large scales in the daily habits of individuals, governments, and industries, we will be able to cut back on consumeristic lifestyles as we shrink unnecessary sectors of the economy to focus on reclaiming the health of humans and the planet.
The market capitalism model is often considered the global standard for economic achievement and success. The model began in the 17th century and gained popularity with the Industrial Revolution. Over the past 200 years, capitalism has been a strong influence and advantageous for the wealthy. Constant growth in all sectors is both expected and considered desirable. However, as humanity is struck by the current climate crisis, many scholars and economists are beginning to introduce a new movement away from the normal capitalistic ideals. The concept of degrowth is transforming the lens through which people view the current strategies and technologies used to tackle climate change. By focusing more on social and environmental wellbeing in a deliberate manner, the degrowth movement is challenging the very building blocks of the gross-domestic product (GDP) proxy for economic prosperity and the idea that “growth is good”.
Giorgos Kallis, an ecological economist, political ecologist, and ICREA Research Professor at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, defines degrowth as “an ecological-economic perspective as a socially sustainable and equitable reduction of society’s throughput”.[1] The idea is to focus on the redistribution of wealth to all people and environments. This can be possible by rethinking our systems of daily life, including work schedules, food production, heating systems, transportation, and more. Degrowth aims to reframe goals in order to address the climate crisis by scaling down energy and resource usage to repair balance with the natural world.[2] This model would ultimately result in slower GDP growth. While this may seem alarming to those classically trained in economics, some do argue that GDP should not be used as a proxy for growth and that the degrowth model is quite different from a recession or depression, both of which are vehemently feared. Degrowth should be viewed as a more rational approach to mainstream economic endeavors. Rather than attempting to grow all sectors, regardless of purpose and use, societies should be considering what sectors actually need to grow and which sectors are too big. For example, under a Degrowth model, renewable energy and public transportation sectors would grow, while sectors such as SUV production, private cars, arms industries, and advertising would shrink.[3]
Kallis argues in his paper that sustainable degrowth is both inevitable and a political vision inviting societal transformation. He claims that new policies need to be part of a modern innovation that moves away from the “growth is good” rhetoric. Sustainable degrowth is not an end-all-be-all; rather, it is a strategy to slow the speed of “entropic degradation”.[4] While it may be inevitable that humans will eventually be gone from Earth, this idea suggests it will be sooner rather than later if there is no transition from current strategies to more thoughtful and effective ones. Further lending credibility to the notion of transition to a degrowth model is the fear among scholars that current global warming mitigation plans rely too much on unrealistic assumptions, and that these strategies are just propelling the planet further into a climate crisis. Carbon removal and capture technologies are still very much in their infancy, and the consequences of misjudgments could be severe. As evidence, our current economic systems risk both people and environments. Weather patterns are shifting, sea levels are rising, and storms are becoming increasingly frequent and intense. While planetary disasters increase, the current system also fails to deliver vital social benefits. According to the CNBC article, economic growth as it currently operates is not a viable mechanism for future prosperity.[5]
Selective degrowth is ultimately the goal in this process, entailing a redistribution of resources between public and private sectors. Slowing the progress of this transition, however, creates significant political debate over what services would be allowed to grow and what services would not. It is also important to note that essential public services do not need to grow in order to be maintained.
The degrowth economic model has not been fully implemented by any economy to date. However, it is important to have some close examples to look to in order to understand the possible effectiveness of the model. Since 2015, Cuba has been the country to display an idea most similar to degrowth. The country was considered the most sustainably developed in the world. In 2015, it was the only country with a high United Nations Development Program Human Development Index along with a low ecological footprint. Cuba also exhibited a high standard of health and education services and outperformed capitalist countries typically considered more advanced like Britain and the United States.[6] Cuba also had an ideal Sustainable Development Index (SDI), which is another measure of a nation’s human development score. SDI scores are obtained by taking a country’s statistics on life expectancy, health, and education and dividing that score by its “ecological overshoot,” which is the extent to which the per capita carbon footprint exceeds Earth’s limits.[7] According to the Global Footprint Network, an international sustainability think tank, Cuba was just one of eight countries in 2015 to meet the two minimum criteria for global sustainable development. Cuba, along with Algeria, Colombia, Ecuador, Jamaica, Jordan, and Sri Lanka, enjoys a high human development rate while keeping its ecological footprint lower than 1.7 hectares per person. In contrast, the United States and China met the minimum human development index but missed the criteria of only 1.7 hectares per person. For perspective, the United States has an ecological footprint of 8.04 hectares per capita, nearly 50 percent greater than an average person in most European countries.[8]
While Cuba acts as a potential example for the degrowth economy and its mechanisms, there is still much debate on whether or not degrowth is truly a viable option. Imposing degrowth on society as a whole proves to be extremely difficult because it would involve an upheaval of normal societal functions. Additionally, many also argue that current technologies and strategies geared toward the climate crises should be further explored prior to shifting whole economies. Green innovation is high in demand as the global climate crisis becomes more urgent. By investing in green innovation, countries can provide more jobs and tackle climate solutions without having to completely upend their current economic systems. Other arguments include the idea that more appropriate measures of growth should incorporate the depletion of natural capital, and that good productivity growth would coincide with the political will to enact climate policies.[9] Prominent anti-degrowth economist Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh argues that the degrowth of a selected production activity is impractical as it would require draconian state intervention and other unrealistic, invasive measures.
The idea of a degrowth economy does appear to be far from the norm, so it is understandable that society may not immediately jump at the concept. Consumerism and growth have been at the heart of economic principles since the foundation of many countries, yet there are more realistic ways that degrowth could be implemented. The most obvious solution would be to make society switch to a less materialistic lifestyle. This is easier said than done, considering the massive amount of consumer marketing in our society. However, by purchasing fewer goods and instead reusing items already available, people can cut down on the amount of excess waste and disincentivize companies from creating so many extra and unnecessary goods. Governments could also ban certain practices, such as that of planned obsolescence. For example, phone companies assume that people will upgrade their cell phones after a few years and thus make it intentionally difficult to change the battery. Companies also provide incentives for purchasing newer and more expensive phones. This line of business uses excess resources. Consider the use of precious metals in the production process. The extraction methods for these metals are highly destructive to the environment. The replacement of working phones is solely done for profit. Degrowth can also be implemented in other ways, like switching from private cars to public transport, growing and buying local food, opting for organic foods, using empty houses rather than building new ones, and through local initiatives and volunteerism.[10]
Switching to degrowth strategies may appear difficult, but there are policies already available that governments can use to slow the rate of excessive economic growth. The question is whether or not governments will actually enact these policies to achieve the goals of degrowth. For instance, increasing taxes, while an unpopular action, is always an option to disincentivize. Higher taxes on goods with higher environmental or social costs would make people less likely to purchase or use them, however this could prove to be costly for those with lower incomes. There are also regulations that can be put in place to ban items like single-use plastics. The idea is to encourage companies to produce longer-lasting items, which would lead to lower consumption rates and reduced environmental impacts. Governments could also make human wellbeing a criterion for budgeting. New Zealand provides an example of this: their prime minister introduced a budget based on criteria centered around wellbeing, the environment, mental health, child poverty, and transitioning to a more sustainable economy. Finally, there could be subsidies put in place for environmentally friendly solutions as alternative energy sources could potentially be subsidized through taxes on carbon emissions.
Although a full-scale degrowth economy is unlikely to be implemented any time soon, the fact that so many scholars and researchers are considering this model indicates that the underlying principles may be needed. A focus on more is better and the idea that growth is good must be challenged in order to begin making a change toward a more livable and sustainable future. Society needs to understand that it cannot continue to abuse environmental systems; rather, society should work alongside nature to preserve the much-needed resources for future generations. Moving away from GDP as a measure of success and capitalism as the norm will require a great deal of change aimed at corporations, government officials, and even average citizens. The idea of change can be unnerving to many people on many different levels. Unfortunately, the ever-increasing degradation of the natural world which has led to the climate crisis has put humanity in a position that requires behaviors and attitudes to make major shifts and make them fast. The degrowth idea of economics is an important framework in which to begin implementing more environmentally thoughtful policies and actions. Considering the dire future circumstances regarding Earth’s climate, solutions are needed sooner rather than later. By using the degrowth model, societies will be better equipped at making real, positive change on behalf of both the people and the planet.
Thank you to Dr. Tony Kerzmann of the University of Pittsburgh’s Swanson School of Engineering for providing insightful feedback.
Works Cited
Berwyn, Bob. “Is the Controlled Shrinking of Economies a Better Bet to Slow Climate Change than Unproven Technologies?” Inside Climate News, Inside Climate News, 17 June 2021, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18062021/degrowth-economies-climate-change-technology-gdp/.
“Ecological Footprint by Country 2022.” Ecological Footprint by Country 2022, 2022, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/ecological-footprint-by-country.
Kallis, Giorgos. “In Defence of Degrowth.” Science Direct, Elsevier, 15 Feb. 2011, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800910005021.
Meredith, Sam. “A Guide to Degrowth: The Movement Prioritizing Wellbeing in a Bid to Avoid Climate Cataclysm.” CNBC, CNBC, 27 May 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/19/degrowth-pushing-social-wellbeing-and-climate-over-economic-growth.html.
“Only Eight Countries Meet Two Key Conditions for Sustainable Development as United Nations Adopts Sustainable Development Goals.” Global Footprint Network, Global Footprint Network, 23 Sept. 2015, https://www.footprintnetwork.org/2015/09/23/eight-countries-meet-two-key-conditions-sustainable-development-united-nations-adopts-sustainable-development-goals/.
Pettinger, Tejvan. “Degrowth – Definition, Examples and Criticisms.” Economics Help, Economics Help , 26 Apr. 2020, https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/164203/economics/degrowth/#:~:text=In%20a%20positive%20sense%2C%20degrowth,and%20spending%20on%20social%20services.
Trinder, Matt. “Cuba Found to Be the Most Sustainably Developed Country in the World, New Research Finds.” Studio for Sustainability and Social Action, 10 Jan. 2020, https://sites.psu.edu/sovas3a/2020/02/03/cuba-found-to-be-the-most-sustainably-developed-country-in-the-world-new-research-finds/.
[1] Kallis, Giorgos. “In Defence of Degrowth.” Science Direct, Elsevier, 15 Feb. 2011, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800910005021.
[2] Meredith, Sam. “A Guide to Degrowth: The Movement Prioritizing Wellbeing in a Bid to Avoid Climate Cataclysm.” CNBC, CNBC, 27 May 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/19/degrowth-pushing-social-wellbeing-and-climate-over-economic-growth.html.
[3] Meredith, Sam. “A Guide to Degrowth: The Movement Prioritizing Wellbeing in a Bid to Avoid Climate Cataclysm.” CNBC, CNBC, 27 May 2021.
[4] Kallis, Giorgos. “In Defence of Degrowth.” Science Direct, Elsevier, 15 Feb. 2011.
[5] Meredith, Sam. “A Guide to Degrowth: The Movement Prioritizing Wellbeing in a Bid to Avoid Climate Cataclysm.” CNBC, CNBC, 27 May 2021.
[6] Trinder, Matt. “Cuba Found to Be the Most Sustainably Developed Country in the World, New Research Finds.” Studio for Sustainability and Social Action, 10 Jan. 2020, https://sites.psu.edu/sovas3a/2020/02/03/cuba-found-to-be-the-most-sustainably-developed-country-in-the-world-new-research-finds/.
[7] Trinder, Matt. “Cuba Found to Be the Most Sustainably Developed Country in the World, New Research Finds.” Studio for Sustainability and Social Action, 10 Jan. 2020.
[8] “Ecological Footprint by Country 2022.” Ecological Footprint by Country 2022, 2022, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/ecological-footprint-by-country.
[9] Meredith, Sam. “A Guide to Degrowth: The Movement Prioritizing Wellbeing in a Bid to Avoid Climate Cataclysm.” CNBC, CNBC, 27 May 2021.
[10] Pettinger, Tejvan. “Degrowth – Definition, Examples and Criticisms.” Economics Help, Economics Help, 26 Apr. 2020, https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/164203/economics/degrowth/#:~:text=In%20a%20positive%20sense%2C%20degrowth,and%20spending%20on%20social%20services.
Thank you to Dr. Tony Kerzmann of the University of Pittsburgh’s Swanson School of Engineering for providing insightful feedback.
Image via Pexels Free Photos
Policy & Political Review 