Skip to main content

What is Degrowth?

Degrowth is both a social movement and a field of scientific research, which questions and criticises economic growth as an ideology. Degrowth is thus a call away from the almost religious pursuit of unquestioned growth just for the sake of growth, which characterises our capitalist system. Moreover, degrowth proposes a diversity of post-growth and post-capitalist alternative systems and ways of life that ensure human and planetary well-being within the boundaries of the biosphere.  Essentially, the main message of degrowth is that a prosperous world is not only very much possible without economic growth, but it actually requires us to abandon the endless pursuit of growth as it is essentially incompatible with societal well-being and the ecological boundaries of the Earth [1]. 

The current capitalist economic model is all about 'faster, higher, further, more and better'. To achieve this, it incites competition, exploitation, and pressure on all inhabitants of our planet. Thus, it cannot come as a surprise that this obsession with economic growth on a finite planet is not only making us eternally stressed and unsatisfied but is also deeply unsustainable and will sooner or later inevitably implode. We can see this ‘implosion’ play out before our eyes at this very moment, as our economic system is destroying the natural basis of life. Scientific research has warned us of the impact of economic growth on the biosphere for over 50 years and we are now witnessing, in real time, the logical consequences of striving for infinite growth on a finite planet. We thus suffer from stronger and more frequent climate catastrophes, food system failures, and resource shortages, causing human suffering, poverty, and forced migration.

By understanding degrowth as a radical alternative, we seek for a holistic transformation to a society that strives for social and planetary well-being for present and future generations.  Contrary to a competitive and binary ‘growth’ mindset, care for people and planet can go hand in hand; they even complement each other. Some of the shared values of a degrowth society are care, well-being, sufficiency, solidarity, democracy, decoloniality, and cooperation. To achieve degrowth, we need a fundamental transformation of our socio-economic systems and the way we live. This can happen in many ways; from energy communities, ecovillages and housing cooperatives on the ground to structural changes that radically democratise our political and economic institutions such as citizen assemblies replacing hierarchical governance systems, and non-profit worker-owned cooperatives replacing privately owned corporations. Humanity is but one part of the earth's ecological system.  We can operate in harmony with the biosphere if we create a system based on care and well-being rather than economic growth.   Degrowth activists and scholars have been pursuing this goal for the past 50 years. 

Essential to degrowth is:

  • Striving for the good life for all. This means slowing down with a focus on well-being, care,   and conviviality.
  • A reduction of production and consumption in the Global North and a liberation from the one-sided Western growth paradigm that is universally imposed on the rest of the world as “modernity” and “development”. This can make room for an autonomous path of social organisation both in the Global South and North. 
  • An expansion of democratic decision-making to enable genuine political participation through citizen assemblies of randomly selected citizens, participatory budgeting systems, referendums, and bottom-up democratic structures.
  • An orientation towards sufficiency and societal transformation rather than focusing on purely technological change and efficiency improvements to solve our socio-ecological problems.
  • Ensuring social justice and solidarity through social innovations and policies such as universal basic services (including health, education, energy, water, internet, transport, and housing), job guarantees, and a universal basic income.  
  • Reducing inequalities by ending fiscal havens and instoring minimum and maximum income levels as well as working to end all forms of discrimination and exploitation due to race, ethnicity, education, class, gender, disability, age, profession, etc.

Sources

[1] (Latouche, 2010). Farewell to Growth. Polity.

Veelgestelde vragen

1. The economic growth paradigm

1.1. What is the issue with the endless economic growth model?

Short answer

Economic growth of the current capitalist system, i.e. accumulation, is harmful to the environment and society. Economic growth, measured as growth of the Gross Domestic Product, is deeply and inherently coupled to the material expansion of economic activity, natural resource consumption, and outflows of waste and pollution. Economic growth therefore unavoidably leads to resource depletion, environmental degradation, and climate change. Economic growth prioritizes profit over environmental preservation and exacerbates ecological crises. Infinite economic growth is therefore impossible on a finite planet. Moreover, under a capitalist system, economic growth does not benefit most people. Rather, it causes rising income inequality, worker exploitation, and inadequate social provisions. The benefits of growth primarily go to the rich, while the majority of the world faces negative consequences. The pursuit of growth fails to address environmental and social well-being adequately. Despite this mounting evidence, political elites continue to prioritize policies that promote economic growth without considering its negative impacts. Degrowth therefore aims to shift towards alternative models that prioritize sustainability and social justice over perpetual expansion.

Long answer

Endless economic growth is a fundamental driver of environmental and social problems. The pursuit of perpetual economic expansion within the current capitalist system is deemed unsustainable and detrimental to both the planet and human well-being.

On the environmental front, endless economic growth perpetuates resource extraction and consumption patterns that deplete finite natural resources and degrade ecosystems. This includes deforestation, pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change. The relentless pursuit of economic growth often prioritizes profit over environmental preservation, leading to the overexploitation of resources and exacerbating ecological crises. Economic growth is thus inherently tied to the degradation of the natural environment that supports life on Earth. There are now over 5 decades of scientific research demonstrating that we cannot reach our climate targets and maintain the essential functions of the biosphere while expanding economic growth [1]. Even with increased efficiency and reduced environmental impact per unit of economic growth, total environmental impacts will only slow down rather than decrease if the economy keeps growing (Hyperlink to question 2.a.). Continuing growth-based environmental policies will thus lead to only minor improvements and will inevitably end up worsening the present climate breakdown and biodiversity collapse.

Moreover, the social consequences of endless economic growth are deeply concerning. Capitalist economic growth leads to rising income inequality, exploitation of workers, and precarious working conditions. The pursuit of profit maximization frequently disregards social needs, resulting in inadequate access to healthcare, education, affordable housing, and social security. This exacerbates social inequalities and deepens existing divisions in society.

While the world economy kept growing, inequality between the world’s richest and poorest has increased rather than decreased. Living standards in the Global North may have improved, but this has come at the expense of the rest of the world. Indeed, only a small percentage of the population has been able to hoard the benefits and wealth created by economic growth: between 2020 and 2023, the world’s richest 1% accumulated nearly two-thirds of all new wealth, leaving only one-third for the remaining 99%The world’s ten richest men now own more wealth than the poorest half of the entire human population. This blatant inequality is happening while 40% of the world population remains in poverty, and billions lack access to basic services like decent housing, water, sanitation, education, and healthcare [2]. The focus on economic growth in our societies has ‘economized’ and ‘commodified’ our existence. Most aspects of our culture and personal identities have been reduced to our status as consumers of products and as ‘human capital’ in the labor market. The primary purpose of life has become generating growth and profit, mostly to be captured by the wealthy classes. This is not only blatantly unjust but also replicates a culture and a lifestyle that is psychologically and physically unhealthy and curtails human well-being.   

Finally, the social and environmental costs of growth are interconnected. Most of the growth benefits the richest people, the rest must deal with the negative consequences: precarious working conditions, low wages, lack of access to basic services, inequality, etc. The world’s poor also bear the brunt of the impacts of environmental degradation and climate change while being least responsible for causing these problems. The world's richest 10% are responsible for half of global greenhouse gas emissions, while the bottom 50% emit only 10%.

Sources

[1]. Parrique T., Barth J., Briens F., C. Kerschner, Kraus-Polk A., Kuokkanen A., Spangenberg J.H. (2019). Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau. https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunked.pdf

[2] Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.

[3]. Yu, Z., & Wang, F. (2017). Income Inequality and Happiness: An Inverted U-Shaped Curve. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02052 

1.2. Why is GDP not a good indicator of societal prosperity?

Short answer

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a widely used monetary measure of the total value of goods and services produced within a country's borders over a specific period. However, GDP has limitations and has been criticized for its inability to capture the well-being and quality of life of a nation. It primarily focuses on economic output and material production, neglecting factors like income inequality, distribution of wealth, and the non-monetary value of unpaid work, such as caregiving and volunteering. GDP also fails to account for negative externalities, such as environmental degradation and social costs associated with economic activity. Alternative indicators, such as the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, offer a more comprehensive assessment of well-being by considering social, environmental, and economic factors. Despite the criticisms, GDP remains deeply embedded in our society and has yet to be replaced by an alternative indicator. Degrowth recognizes the limitations of GDP and seeks to explore alternative measures for evaluating societal progress.

Long answer

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a widely used economic indicator that measures the total value of goods and services produced within a country's borders over a specific period. It serves as a key measure of economic activity and is often used to assess a country's standard of living and economic growth. GDP was invented in the 1930s to provide the USA with an overview of the current state of the economy. However, GDP has its limitations and has been subject to criticism for both what it fails to capture and the aspects it includesThe inventor of the GDP himself warned against using it as an indicator of general societal progress [1; 2]. 

One of the main critiques of GDP is that it fails to fully capture the well-being and quality of life of a nation. GDP primarily focuses on economic output and material production, neglecting factors such as income inequality and distribution of wealth. It also fails to account for the non-monetary value of unpaid work, such as caregiving and volunteering, which plays a significant role in societies. Additionally, growth at higher levels of GDP no longer leads to improvements in overall welfare or happiness [3; 4]. Research shows that, after a certain point, increased wealth no longer adds further happiness. Reduced inequality, rather, has been shown to correlate with increased happiness [5].  There are other indicators that represent human well-being better than GDP does. 

Moreover, GDP does not account for the negative externalities associated with economic activity. It does not consider environmental degradation, resource depletion, or the social costs of production and consumption. GDP growth may be accompanied by detrimental effects on natural resources, pollution, and social well-being, yet these consequences are not reflected in the GDP metric [3; 4].

It is increasingly accepted that the GDP is not an adequate indicator for social welfare – not only by many mainstream academics but also by countries that have officially chosen to follow different sets of indicators (for example, ScotlandNew ZealandFinland, and Bhutan). Critics of GDP argue that alternative indicators, such as the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare or the Genuine Progress Indicator [6], provide a more comprehensive assessment of well-being by considering social, environmental, and economic factors. These measures incorporate aspects like education, health, inequality, and environmental sustainability. Another example is the Gross National Happiness Index, which has guided the government of Bhutan since 2008.

In conclusion, GDP falls short of capturing the holistic well-being of a nation. However, so far, no indicator has managed to replace the GDP. This is partly due to the deeper ideology of growth embedded in our capitalist society – GDP, portrayed as a symbol of welfare, has been ingrained into our ways of doing and thinking politically and economically for the last decades [1]. Degrowth recognises the limitations of GDP and explores alternative measures that provide a more comprehensive and inclusive evaluation of societal progress.

Sources

[1].  Parrique, T. (2019). The political economy of degrowth. Theses.hal.science. https://theses.hal.science/tel-02499463 - See Chapter 1

[2]. Hickel, J. (2020b). Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. Random House.

[3]. Van Den Bergh, J. C. (2009). The GDP paradox. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.12.001 

[4]. Kallis, G., Kerschner, C., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2012). The economics of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 84, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.017 

[5]. Yu, Z., & Wang, F. (2017). Income Inequality and Happiness: An Inverted U-Shaped Curve. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02052 6]. Lawn, P. A. (2003). A theoretical foundation to support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and other related indexes. Ecological Economics, 44(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(02)00258-6 

2. Green economic growth and other alternatives

2.1. Why can’t we just eliminate the environmental impact of economic growth and keep growing in a green way?

Short answer

Economic growth, environmental impacts, and social injustice have historically been closely intertwined. "Green Growth'' suggests that we can expand economic activity while safeguarding the environment by “decoupling” environmental impacts from GDP growth. However, there is no substantial evidence supporting this strategy. Absolute decoupling, Green Growth’s ideal scenario where economic growth is accompanied by an actual reduction in environmental damage, is not happening on a global scale. Green Growth necessitates an increasing amount of natural resources whose extraction will worsen environmental degradation. Mining activities already have dire ecological impacts on communities, particularly in the global South. Moreover, forestry and agriculture for biomaterials have already reached unsustainable levels. Therefore, Green Growth is highly unlikely to avert environmental catastrophes and cannot halt ecological breakdown on a scale and speed that would prevent climate breakdown and biodiversity collapse. 

Long answer

Throughout history, there has been a strong link between economic growth and environmental impacts. As economies expand, the environment tends to suffer. However, mainstream strategies like "Sustainable Growth" or "Green Growth" claim that we can achieve economic growth while simultaneously preserving biodiversity, preventing catastrophic climate change, and using natural resources sustainably. These strategies propose the concept of "decoupling," which aims to separate environmental damage from economic growth. However, it is essential to critically evaluate the feasibility of relying on decoupling to address our environmental challenges. To date, there is no substantial evidence supporting the idea that we can rapidly decouple environmental impacts from economic growth.

Decoupling can be broadly divided into two types: relative and absolute. Relative decoupling occurs when the environmental damage associated with each unit of economic growth decreases, but not enough to result in an overall decline in impacts. For example, in terms of carbon emissions, this means that emissions may grow at a slower rate than GDP, still leading to a net increase in climate impacts. On the other hand, absolute decoupling is a hypothetical scenario in which GDP growth is accompanied by a genuine reduction in environmental impacts (see image below).

Types of decoupling

      Different types of decoupling illustrated. The horizontal axis represents time. Only sufficient absolute decoupling is good enough; this has never been observed. Source: Timothée Parrique at the 2023 Beyond Growth Conference.

Although green growth proponents consider absolute decoupling as the ultimate goal, it is important to note that it has never been observed at a significant rate and scale. For instance, to achieve the targets outlined in the Paris Climate Agreement and effectively address the risks of climate change while maintaining economic growth, we would need to witness absolute decoupling on a global scale within a relatively short timeframe [1]. Advocates of green growth often point to examples from European nations where economies have seemingly achieved absolute decoupling of emissions. They argue that decoupling is occurring in these cases as energy-intensive industries become more efficient and renewable energy sources are integrated into the energy mix. However, scientific analysis reveals that these instances of decoupling are either relative in nature, temporary, only applicable to specific environmental factors, not occurring at a sufficiently rapid pace or a combination of these factors [2]. Consequently, despite efforts towards climate action, green investments, and enhanced efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and overall environmental impact have continued to rise unabated over the past 70 years.

Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that the focus on decoupling is often limited to carbon emissions. While absolute decoupling of emissions may be hypothetically possible worldwide, it is contingent on a global energy transition that effectively leaves fossil fuels in the ground. However, such a transition relies on an array of mineral resources, materials, and energy to acquire and process those materials. For instance, the production of electric vehicles is projected to drive a significant increase in lithium demand, with estimates suggesting it will be 42 times higher in 2040 compared to 2020. The extraction of lithium and other so-called transition minerals has significant ecological consequences and poses threats to the well-being of local communities, particularly in the global South.

The harsh reality is that achieving absolute, global decoupling at the necessary pace, scale, and scope to avert a climate catastrophe remains an unprecedented challenge and is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future. It is perplexing that many appear willing to bet the survival of human and non-human species on the highly improbable notion that technology alone will save us.

Sources

[1]. IPCC, 2022Summary for Policymakers. Policymakers [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, A. Reisinger, R. Slade, R. Fradera, M. Pathak, A. Al Khourdajie, M. Belkacemi, R. van Diemen, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, D. McCollum, S. Some, P. Vyas, (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf

[2]. Parrique T., Barth J., Briens F., C. Kerschner, Kraus-Polk A., Kuokkanen A., Spangenberg J.H. (2019). Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau. https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Decoupling-Debunked.pdf

2.2. Isn’t economic growth necessary for technological progress and innovation?

Short answer

The argument that capitalist growth is necessary to create technological innovations and address the major challenges of our time has major flaws. Technology can lead to efficiency improvements, but within a capitalist growth-based economy, technology also inevitably intensifies and accelerates resource consumption and leads to negative rebound effects. Technology in a capitalist society where decision-making around who controls and owns technologies and how they are used are undemocratic leads to many inequalities and social impacts, especially regarding technology access and benefit distribution. Growth-based capitalist economies thus hinder effective technological developments. A more inclusive and democratic technological approach could better consider environmental limits and promote conviviality, autonomy, repairability, durability, recycling, sharing, co-production, co-ownership, and relocalization. 

Long answer

Poverty, hunger, injustices, and inequality continue to plague societies while the climate crisis and biodiversity crises escalate. These realities raise pertinent questions about the effectiveness of the current technological system in adequately tackling the pressing challenges of the 21st century.

While technology can enhance resource efficiency in certain cases, it also tends to intensify material throughput and energy use. This leads to increased resource consumption and contributes to the depletion of natural resources and the degradation of ecosystems. Furthermore, the pursuit of economic growth driven by technology often yields rebound effects, where any efficiency gains are counteracted by escalated consumption or demand (see also question 2.1). 

Furthermore, the introduction of energy-intensive technologies into households may simplify certain tasks, but it concurrently escalates energy and resource consumption. For instance, seemingly trivial gadgets like battery-powered pepper grinders contribute to the overall energy demand, further straining our already overburdened resources and environment. Within the capitalist logic of competition and profit-seeking, consumer goods are designed to become obsolete and to be thrown away, thereby perpetuating a cycle of increased demand, material consumption, and energy usage.

Additionally, technology frequently displaces labor or relegates workers to monotonous tasks within extensive mechanized and automated systems. While automation can bolster productivity, it also leads to job losses and psychological issues, exacerbating income inequality as the primary beneficiaries are not the workers themselves.

Moreover, the current decision-making process regarding technological development and innovation is undemocratic. Corporate interests and profit maximization take precedence over the needs and desires of communities and the environment. This lack of democratic control often results in the development and deployment of technologies that do not align with the broader public interest or effectively contribute to resolving the pressing challenges we face. Relying solely on the profit motive hinders innovation in areas that private entities do not perceive as immediately profitable [1].

Contrary to the prevalent narrative, significant technological advancements are frequently the outcomes of public investments rather than private ones [2]. The development of the internet, GPS, and advancements in medical research, among many others, owe their existence to public funding and collaborative efforts. Relying exclusively on capitalist markets and private investments for technological progress disregards the critical role that public institutions and collective endeavors play in fostering innovation.

In conclusion, while technological innovation can undoubtedly play a role in addressing the great challenges of our time, the argument that we need capitalist markets, profits, and growth as the sole drivers of innovation is fundamentally flawed. In reality, capitalist growth impedes our ability to effectively steer technological innovations toward resolving many of the social and environmental crises we face today. Recognizing the inherent limitations and biases of the profit-driven approach and embracing a more inclusive and democratic framework for technological development is paramount in confronting the intricate challenges that lie ahead. The aims should be to balance the highest level of welfare that can be achieved with the given environmental limits [3]; to replace market-oriented with what is called ‘convivial technology’, technology that addresses use values, improves accessibility to resources and is socially and democratically managed; to abolish planned obsolescence and ensure that products are durable and easy to repair and recycle [3; 4]; to share technologies through repair cafés, tool-lending libraries, hackerspaces, maker spaces; to make sure technologies are open source and non-patented so useful innovations in solar panels, wind turbines or smart grids may be replicated freely, and ultimately to democratise decisions around who controls and owns technologies and what technologies to produce and how to produce them [5].

Sources

[1]. Schneider, F., Kallis, G., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.014 

[2]. Mazzucato, M. (2018). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public Vs. Private Sector Myths.

[3]. Schmelzer, M., Vetter, A., & Vansintjan, A. (2022). The Future is Degrowth: A Guide to a World Beyond Capitalism. Verso Books. 

[4]. Hickel, J. (2020b). Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. Random House.

[5]. Robra, B., Pazaitis, A., Giotitsas, C., & Pansera, M. (2023). From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective. Technovation, 125, 102760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760 

3. Conceptual questions

3.1. What is Degrowth?

Short answer

‘Degrowth’ is a provocative and radical idea that many people find difficult to understand. This is not surprising given the multiple confusing misconceptions we hear about it. Let’s get these out of the way! Degrowth is a social movement and a field of scientific research that argues that our colossal and highly unequal use of resources requires a radical societal transformation if we are to take sustainability and well-being seriously. While this goal can ultimately only be global, it is possible and advisable to start here and now, at whatever scale is reachable, with or without governmental backing. Degrowth calls for a radical reassessment of what needs to be produced vs. shrunk, how, by whom, for whom, and under what ownership system. So degrowth has never been about shrinking ‘everything’, ‘everywhere’. The first target of degrowth is industrialized, ‘overdeveloped’ regions. But even in those regions, some things would be produced and consumed much more in a degrowth scenario, like seasonal products, organic food, community-based services, solar energy, products from local cooperatives etc. Among the activities that need to be shrunk because they have a huge ecological impact and hardly anything to do with human well-being are the military-industrial complex, the corporate food regime of unhealthy hyper-processed goods, unnecessary banking and financial services, advertising, positional and luxury goods, private jets, and more. In essence, degrowthers aspire to move towards a society with human and nonhuman well-being at its heart [1, 2, 3]. 

Beyond this need for shrinking the economy, degrowth is also a radical provocation that forces us to rethink our entire societal system. It asks us to reconsider what we value in life and what kind of society we want to live in. Degrowth thus criticises the capitalist ethos of hyper-consumerism, hyper-individualism, and hyper-competitiveness, which negatively affects our mental and physical well-being. It calls out the absurdity of a system fueled by unbridled commands to consume senseless things and to compete against one another in order to fill the eternal  void of dissatisfaction it creates within us. Instead, degrowth proposes a society based on an ethics of care, conviviality, sufficiency, solidarity, social justice, ecological harmony, and well-being. Inspired by the wisdom of indigenous peoples in the Global South, as well as anarchist, feminist, and ecologist philosophies of the Global North, degrowth calls for a wholesale restructuring of our worldviews and our societal system so we may all have the freedom to live slower, more meaningful and healthier lives [4].

You can read more about degrowth at large in 'What is degrowth?', get inspired in the library, or find an answer to your specific questions in the FAQ. Still, got some questions unanswered? Don’t hesitate to contact us or join us at our next event, we would love to talk to you about it!

3.2. Does degrowth have a single definition?

Short answer

Degrowth does have core pillars that somewhat constitute a definition: social and ecological justice. Yet, it is also widely accepted to mean different things to different individuals in different parts of the world. In this way, degrowth is more of an umbrella term for various kinds of movements that embody similar values. Some of Degrowth’s most often mentioned pillars are democracy, sustainability, sufficiency, autonomy, community, care, solidarity, decoloniality, conviviality, and pluralism, [1] but this is not a complete list, and these pillars can be brought to life in many different ways. 

Long answer

A classic and often cited definition of degrowth is: “a planned and democratic reduction of production and consumption in rich countries to lower environmental pressures and inequalities while improving well-being

However, it is worth mentioning that this is but one definition of degrowth. Indeed, the concept is in continuous democratic development and debate, so there are countless definitions and visions of degrowth depending on the movements and actors that pursue it. 

Nevertheless, one can find core pillars and values common to all degrowth visions. This section will focus on four pillars of degrowth: sufficiency, care, democracy, and decoloniality. However, there are countless other important pillars of degrowth, including sustainability, pluralism, autonomy, conviviality, solidarity, and many more. This list is thus in no way exhaustive, and we encourage you to find out more about the key elements of degrowth in the “Degrowth Vocabulary”.

The first important value is sufficiency, which asks societies and individuals to consider how many material and monetary possessions are truly needed for a happy and fulfilled life. Questioning the material conditions for a good life helps us live more meaningful and slower lives in societies that value human beings and nature as ends in themselves, not merely as means to generate more wealth and production. Sufficiency also helps improve human and planetary well-being while reducing society's material and energy throughput. This reduction is key because our current levels of production have over-served their purpose and are no longer conducive to facilitating a prosperous life (see question 1.1), especially in the Global North.

Closely linked to this is the notion of care. Care work occurs every day as people share love, affection, energy, and time with their family, friends, communities, and ecosystems. Care is a fundamental cornerstone of human civilisation that ensures the health and reproduction of life.  Yet, it is often invisible and undervalued by capitalism, and it is often performed by women, racialized people, ethnic minorities, and other historically marginalized groups. Care work includes activities focused on caring for human and non-human life, such as healthcare, education, childcare, gift-giving, community ecological conservation and restoration, organic urban agriculture, community composting, repair networks, and tool-sharing libraries. These activities are so much more than a simple exchange of resources and services. They foster human bonds and social relations that make life valuable in and of itself. They enable convivial networks of provisioning based on solidarity and social justice that ensure everyone can access the basic resources needed for life. Moreover, they create bonds between the giver and the receiver, which incites values of reciprocity, generosity, and selflessness and bring happiness and well-being while fostering slower and more meaningful forms of life. Care is thus the cornerstone to building a society beyond capitalist relations of private consumption, profit, individualism, and endless economic growth. [2]

These kinds of exchanges can be facilitated by another pillar of degrowth, democracy, which is the ability to govern ourselves in an equal, fair, and participatory manner. To enable meaningful democracies, degrowth advocates a number of innovations and policies such as deliberative assemblies of randomly selected citizens that can have an open, respectful and informed deliberation on the shape and form of the socio-ecological transition. Degrowth also advocates participatory budgeting, a democratic innovation that allows cities, regions, provinces and nations to collectively decide how to allocate their yearly budget. Degrowth also proposes the democratic governance of the workplace by fostering worker-owned non-profit cooperatives that follow sociocratic and horizontal decision-making practices. Moreover, degrowth advocated democratizing and reclaiming key institutions needed for the provision of basic services such as banking, energy, education, healthcare, telecommunications, transport, waste, and water. Finally, degrowth seeks to democratize inter-governmental organisations like the UN and create new democratic bodies to replace international organizations like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. [3] 

Finally, a central idea within degrowth thinking is “Decolonising the imaginary.” Degrowth is about questioning the beliefs inscribed upon us by society and unlearning the mental conditioning that has been embedded into our mentalities by dominant narratives and systems that promote economic growth, competition, hierarchy, individualism, patriarchy, ethnocentrism, racism, and egoism. Much of this conditioning is rooted in colonial history and years of oppression from hierarchical institutions of religion, state and corporate power in both the Global North and South. It is thus key to break free from those ascribed worldviews and to radically change the stories we live by. Degrowth thus aspires to a world where we no longer replicate oppressive values and ideas that place one culture, species, or way of life above any other. Instead, degrowth seeks to create radically plural, open, free, and fair societies where freedom means much more than just the freedom to choose what product to buy but rather the freedom to govern ourselves democratically and to live free from oppressive worldviews and systemic structures of exploitation and inequality. As the Zapatista put it, we must build “a world in which many worlds fit”. This means dismantling a world in which only the growth-based capitalist narrative exists. [4]   

Sources

[1]. Giacomo D'alisa, Federico Demaria, and Giorgos Kallis. 2014. Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era. New York ; London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

[2] Di Chiro G (2019) Care not growth: imagining a subsistence economy for all. Br J Polit Int Relations 21:303–311

[3] Fitzpatrick N, Parrique T and Cosme I (2022) Exploring degrowth policy proposals: A systematic mapping with thematic synthesis. Journal of Cleaner Production 132764 

[4] (Latouche, 2010). Farewell to Growth. Polity.

3.3. Is degrowth anti-capitalist?

Short answer

Capitalism is a system based on the private property of the means of production (industries, technologies, land, natural resources etc.), competitive markets, privatised financial systems, and government regulation and coercion. As such, capitalism depends on growth to provide profits to private shareholders, ensure state revenues, secure debt payments, and maintain geopolitical power. Without growth, capitalism becomes unstable and eventually collapses. Degrowth is thus inherently and necessarily calling for a post-capitalist system that can flourish without economic growth. This does in no way mean that all post-capitalist systems are compatible with degrowth thinking. For example, absolute monarchy or dictatorships are incompatible with degrowth values and principles of care, democracy, solidarity, and decoloniality (see questions 3.1 and 3.2). Degrowth does not propose a single political and economic system to replace capitalism (read also 'What is Degrowth?'). Rather, degrowth can be seen as an umbrella term for all ideas, concepts, academic disciplines, and movements that seek to transition from our current system to a post-capitalist one, in which humanity can thrive in harmony with the natural cycles of the Earth.

4. Degrowth versus regression

4.1. Isn’t degrowth a recession?

Short answer

Degrowth is not about regression or reducing the quality of life; it's about redefining progress. It is a transition towards a society that prioritizes well-being, equity, and sustainability over relentless economic growth. Moreover, degrowth clearly claims to improve the quality of life of poor and marginalized social groups that today cannot satisfy basic needs, such as housing, healthy food, education, and healthcare.

Long answer

Degrowth is not a recession; instead, it represents a democratically chosen and planned reduction of economic throughput of those who overconsume their fair share of resources. A recession, on the other hand, is a period of temporary, uncontrollable economic decline, generally identified by a fall in GDP. Recessions are characterized by involuntary job losses, reduced consumer spending, and simultaneous contraction in all sectors of economic activity.  Moreover, recessions notably hit the poorer groups of the population harder. Degrowth only advocates the reduction of consumption by the individuals and countries that overshoot their current fair share of planetary resources so they may bring their consumption back to sustainable levels. It is about reducing gross inequalities in overconsumption by the top 10% of the wealthiest people so that current and future generations may have a planet to live on. This is key as the wealthiest 10% of the population is responsible for 48% of annual GHG emissions, significantly more than the 50% poorest who emit 12% of annual GHG emissions [1]. The wealthiest 10% thereby consume close to 30 times more than their fair share of GHG emissions to stay within the Paris target of 1.5 C degrees, and the wealthiest 1% consume about 100 times more than their fair share [1].

Size of the Economy

    Illustration of a recession [2].

The COVID-19 pandemic provides a contrasting example. The economic downturn caused by the pandemic was not a degrowth scenario but a recession. The difference lies in intentionality, democracy, and planning. COVID-19 forced a sudden halt to many economic activities, leading to widespread unemployment, business closures, and economic hardship, and to a series of undemocratic decisions taken by companies and nation-states to address the crisis, often with a greater focus on economic profits rather than human well-being.

Degrowth, conversely, is a democratically planned transition with measures in place to ensure that people's well-being is not adversely affected. It proposes a systemic change that considers social welfare, environmental sustainability, and economic viability. Unlike the abrupt and unexpected halts during the pandemic, degrowth strategies strive to ensure a 'just transition' that promotes societal resilience and improves people's quality of life while reducing reliance on endless economic expansion. 

In a degrowth society, the focus shifts from increasing GDP to enhancing well-being, fulfilling basic needs, and decreasing environmental impacts. Measures like work sharing, reduced working hours, universal basic income, universal basic services (like free quality public education, child care, healthcare, transportation, etc.), and other social policies aim to maintain or even improve living standards despite a slowdown in traditional economic growth metrics. Moreover, redistributive policies such as property taxes, inheritance taxes, taxes on financial transactions, and ending financial loopholes and tax havens are proposed to ensure an equal and fair burden of the transition.

Therefore, while a recession and degrowth may both involve reductions in economic activity and output, their approaches, intentions, and outcomes are fundamentally different. Degrowth is not an economic downturn but a reimagining of societal priorities and a transformation of our economic systems for a sustainable and equitable future. 

Sources

[1]. Chancel, L., 2021. Climate change and the global inequality of carbon emissions 1990-2020. Paris. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00320.x

[2]. Tokic, Damir. “The Economic and Financial Dimensions of Degrowth.” Ecological Economics, vol. 84, Elsevier BV, Dec. 2012, pp. 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.09.011. 

4.2. Will peoples’ well-being suffer without economic growth?

Short answer

No, people’s well-being will not suffer without growth. In fact, degrowth proponents argue that well-being would improve because the liberation from the imperative of growth will free up resources and time to invest in activities that are directly important for well-being. Indeed, degrowth seeks to transition from a society focused on economic growth to one focused on human well-being and ecological sustainability. Rather than leading to a decline in well-being, this could actually enhance the quality of life and happiness for individuals and communities. 

Long answer

It is key to understand the difference between "economic growth" and "human well-being" [1]. While economic growth is described with a quantitative measure like GDP (see also question 1.2), human well-being is a qualitative indicator that looks at people’s core life satisfaction and personal feelings. Studies have shown that increased GDP does not lead to increased happiness or well-being beyond a certain point. This phenomenon, known as the Easterlin Paradox, finds that, as a country gets richer, its citizens do not necessarily get happier. The World Happiness Report often finds that countries with the highest GDP figures like the USA and Luxemburg are outperformed in terms of happiness by countries with much lower GDP figures, like Costa Rica and Finland, both of which often top the happiness metrics. 

Index of Life Satisfaction

    Relationship between GDP per capita and life satisfaction.

In contrast, a degrowth economy prioritizes well-being and sustainability over material expansion. It emphasizes factors like work-life balance, solidarity, equitable distribution of resources, ecological conservation, quality public services, and strengthening local communities. Often undervalued in a growth-oriented economy, these factors significantly contribute to human happiness and life satisfaction. 

Moreover, the degrowth model promotes a fair and just transition towards a sustainable economy, ensuring that nobody is left behind in the process. Policies like universal basic income, universal basic services [2], job guarantees, and work-sharing schemes [3] are often discussed as strategies to safeguard individuals' economic security in a post-growth society. 

All in all degrowth is about flourishing within our planet's ecological limits and creating a society focused on well-being rather than unnecessary accumulation. 

Sources

[1]. Sandberg, Maria, et al. “Green Growth or Degrowth? Assessing the Normative Justifications for Environmental Sustainability and Economic Growth Through Critical Social Theory.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 206, Elsevier BV, Jan. 2019, pp. 133–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.175.

[2]. Akbulut, Bengi. “Degrowth.” Rethinking Marxism, vol. 33, no. 1, Routledge, Jan. 2021, pp. 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2020.1847014.

[3]. Sekulova, Filka, et al. “Degrowth: From Theory to Practice.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 38, Elsevier BV, Jan. 2013, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.022 

4.3. Will people lose their jobs without economic growth?

Short answer

No, the transition to a degrowth economy does not necessarily mean the economy will enter a recession (see also question 4.1) or that people will lose their jobsDegrowth envisions a transformation of our current work paradigm towards a more balanced and equitable model, ensuring job security and personal well-being. Rather than causing a recession or mass job losses, it advocates for planned economic slow-down in harmful sectors and an increase in employment in sustainable ones. If we all work in sectors that bring real socio-ecological value, then we can all work less.

Long answer

In a traditional growth-oriented economy, recessions and job losses often occur when there is a sudden, unexpected downturn in economic activity. However, degrowth advocates for a planned, intentional slowing down of economic activity to achieve sustainable and equitable societies. 

While some sectors that are harmful to the environment will need to shrink or be phased out in a degrowth scenario, such as fossil fuels, financial services, and private jets, new opportunities will emerge in other sectors. There will thus be more jobs in areas such as renewable energy, local organic farming, repair and maintenance services, education, healthcare, public culture, and the arts. 

In light of the degrowth philosophy, it's vital to re-envision our understanding of work. Currently, there's a myriad of work that, although of immense societal value, such as domestic work, childcare, or eldercare, is undervalued. Conversely, there are 'bullshit jobs,' roles filled with meaningless tasks that contribute little to society and happiness. These jobs are often overvalued, creating a misalignment between societal value and compensation. The degrowth philosophy calls for a revaluation of 'work' and 'jobs,' seeking a redistribution of workloads and pay that better aligns with societal value. This transition centers on human well-being and a mindset of sufficiency. It opens up possibilities for reducing working hours, with the implementation of a four-day workweek being one tangible example. Such a shift could help decrease unemployment, improve work-life balance, alleviate stress, and enhance personal freedom and leisure time, underscoring the potential benefits of aligning work with degrowth principles.

Universal Basic Income is often proposed as a mechanism within a degrowth strategy to ensure that everyone has an economic safety net, irrespective of their employment status. This can also free people to engage in non-wage earning yet socially beneficial activities, such as volunteering, arts, or caregiving.

Sources

[1] Akbulut, Bengi. “Degrowth.” Rethinking Marxism, vol. 33, no. 1, Routledge, Jan. 2021, pp. 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2020.1847014. 

5. What does degrowth look like?

5.1. What are the real-life examples of degrowth in practice?

Short answer

Degrowth demands a radical transformation of our entire socio-economic system. It involves both social, economic, and ecological change. This systemic change is built on real-life practices of sufficient living, where people start experimenting with material reduction, cooperation, conviviality, and ecological regeneration.  Examples are permaculture activities and housing or energy cooperatives. Around the world, other movements incorporate degrowth values, for example, Buen Vivir in South America. These practices are inspiring examples showing how to build a wider social and political movement that demands a democratisation of the economy, a divestment from harmful environmental production, and a redistribution of wealth.  

Long answer

The degrowth paradigm proposes a reduction of consumption and production to reach environmental sustainability, social justice and well-being, and can, therefore, take many different shapes and forms in practice. A common example is cooperative housing. Cooperative housing is a form of living affordably where inhabitants collectively own their own dwellings and share many essential facilities: meals, tools, vehicles, or anything that makes no sense to own individually, such as a lawnmower [1]. In the Netherlands this way of living is increasing, as the Vrijcoop association is showing. They aim to make housing accessible, and affordable through community living, as well as to build sustainably, reducing the raw materials needed and using more eco-compatible structures (modular, wood etc.). 

A Zone to Defend (ZTD also known as ZAD for Zone à Défendre in French) is a further example. ZTDs occur when activists physically occupy a space to block the development of polluting projects. The most famous ZTD took place in France, where activists set up a camp for over a decade to block the construction of an airport. The blockade succeeded, and certain activists are planning to stay permanently and are in the process of obtaining permits. 

Another important aspect of degrowth in practice is commoning. Commoning is the act of creating and maintaining relationships between people and communities around the use of a particular key resource or space. Commoning aims to maintain the availability of a resource for the use of all members of society. This is done by avoiding the privatisation and exploitation of the resource by individuals for profit. Today, commoning often takes the shape of community gardens or energy cooperatives. Further well-known examples of degrowth in practice include permaculturelittle free libraries, tool-sharing networks, community fridges, various types of co-operatives (farming, stores, energy), eco-villages or repair cafés [2]. 

Degrowth encompasses a pluriverse of worldviews; it is ‘a world in which many worlds fit.’ In practice, it takes place in different ways around the world. Similar movements and ideas exist around the world, such as Buen Vivir in South America, the Zapatistas in Mexico, Ubuntu in Africa, Ecological Swaraj in India or the Buddhist inspired Gross National Happiness Index in Bhutan. These movements are all alternatives to the current growth paradigm and are holistic approaches to life where humanity co-habits Earth instead of dominating it [3]. 

Sources

[1]. Lietaert, M. (2010). Cohousing’s relevance to degrowth theories. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 576–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.11.016 

[2]. What is commoning and why is it so important? (2021, April 5). https://www.commonsnetwork.org/2021/04/05/what-is-commoning-and-why-is-it-so-important/ 

[3]. Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Acosta, A., Escobar, A., & Demaria, F. (2019). Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary. Tulika Books.

5.2. How does degrowth apply to me personally?

Short answer

Although degrowth is primarily a movement focused on systemic change, it starts from the individual awareness that this systemic change is necessary. Individuals are political subjects, meaning that they combine daily choices of degrowth with political mobilisation in degrowth-related movements. Systemic change is rooted in everyday life, but it also needs political activity oriented to pressure institutions and politics to transform our system away from a capitalist growth-oriented society. 

Long answer

Degrowth is primarily a movement that advocates a complete restructuring of societal and economic institutions to realign them with what matters for human prosperity and environmental preservation. Some of the key values of degrowth are solidarity, decoloniality, care, democracy, sustainability, conviviality and simplicity. These values are performed at the interpersonal level, in the way individuals relate to each other in the everyday. However, individuals are also influenced by institutions, laws, financial tools, and governments. This is why degrowth aims for a collective effort to change the growth-dependent features of our society and thereby transform our system beyond capitalism. Individual practice and collective mobilisation reinforce each other. A degrowth transition needs both individuals and broader political movements. 

Most of the structural change will need to be initiated at a systemic, international, and national scale. Nevertheless, cultivating values such as care, conviviality, and simplicity cannot be artificially imposed by an external force but must be driven by democratic processes. 

The first thing that you could do is to begin the process of self-reflection to challenge your own beliefs and behaviours, as well as question those of the people around you. In this way, we will begin to acknowledge the aspects of ourselves that need to change in order to bring about a new paradigm. All of us have the capacity to do this: to cultivate the values that deep down we know are the essence of life. It is in our nature to want to develop loving relationships with the beings around us, it is just that in our current dominant worldview and capitalist system, there is very little value placed on doing so. Degrowth encourages individuals to rediscover these forgotten aspects of empathy, care, regeneration, and explore how that can improve their life. So do challenge your own pre-conceived notions, “decolonise your imaginary” as Serge Latouche would say, and do not hesitate to discuss degrowth with others and have open constructive debates on the topic with your friends, family, colleagues, and networks! You might be surprised to see how receptive people are to these ideas. 

Secondly, degrowth is also a collective practice. Many grassroots initiatives such as community gardens, eco-villages, and co-operatives (see also question 5.1) embody the values of degrowth because they focus on establishing societies and communities based on care, reciprocity, and harmony with Nature. Find out what care practices are happening around you and join them!

Thirdly, degrowth is a political practice. Systemic change needs mobilization towards political and institutional transformation. This means finding democratic ways to end unsustainable practices while encouraging transformative policies, and ultimately, to transition towards another socio-ecological regime. Degrowth thrives from social, political, and environmental movements that question the existing institutions that sustain capitalism. So join a social movement or party around you and strive to bring about much-needed political and institutional change!

6. Strategies on how to get there

6.1. Is degrowth on the table in politics/policies?

Short answer

Transitioning towards a degrowth society involves key approaches such as policy changes, economic reorganisation, reduction of work hours,  universal basic services, education and cultural change, relocalisation, and circular economy practices. The transition requires public engagement and a strong focus on social and environmental justice. To achieve these goals, it is important to mobilise international action networks, and political movements, that demand degrowth policies. This can be done by democratising decision-making and creating spaces of autonomy from the imperative to economic growth. To make accessible basic services to everybody, reduce excess consumption and production, and institute a universal basic income could be key policies to enable this autonomy.

Long answer

In 2019, the European Parliament declared a climate emergency and the European Commission came forward with the European Green Deal. As groundbreaking as this was perceived back then, today 400 experts and civil society organisations are asking for this European Green Deal to be fundamentally redesigned. In an open letter, they call for a European Green Deal with the values of degrowth at heart. 

This open letter was released on the first day of the 2023 Beyond Growth Conference organised in the European Parliament. The open letter also advocates for permanent change of EU structures to end it’s growth-dependency. A concrete example of that was given at the closing plenary of the Beyond Growth Conference: the need for a European Commissioner for the well-being of future generations [1], inspired by the example of Wales

Other concrete pathways towards a degrowth society at the European level follow the values and basic principles of degrowth policy. One meaningful example in terms of fairness and well-being for all is a reformed fiscal framework. Taxation can help people and their well-being by fundamentally transforming fiscal systems so they tax resources and pollution while also redistributing wealth. This would in turn facilitate and encourage European member states to invest in a green transition and quality public services and get the ball rolling for a truly fair and sustainable ecological transformation. 

In terms of staying within our planet’s biocapacity, another example of a degrowth policy is the ‘Right to repair’, which the EU is also legislating on as part of its circular economy strategy. However, degrowthers advocate for EU policies to evolve towards a mentality of ‘sufficiency’; where we don’t just use and repair our products in more sustainable ways, but go further by stopping the consumption of stuff we don’t need. This can be achieved by putting high restrictions on advertisements and even banning ads for highly polluting goods like fast fashion, private automobiles, and electronics. This can also be done by increasing the minimum guarantee period on products to 5 or more years. 

The European level of decision-making has big potential to create new structures on a big scale, exactly what the degrowth movement is advocating for. It will be crucial that these plans, deals, programs and policies emerge in a democratic way, and empower citizens in shaping the ecological transition.  

Many degrowth policies and activities also take place in the everyday life of cities. Progressive municipalities are often already implementing policies advocated by degrowth researchers such as subsidizing housing cooperatives, limiting urban sprawl, regenerating soil and ecosystems through urban agriculture, reducing wasteful consumption, banning advertising, investing in slow mobility and public transport, improving schools, culture, and art, divesting from airports, fostering renewable energy cooperatives, replacing parking lots and highways with green infrastructure, and taxing excess incomes and multiple home-ownership. 

All policies that hold the basic principles of degrowth at heart can, in essence, be called degrowth policies, such as providing free, universal, quality healthcare and education. Although they may not always explicitly be called that way, many degrowth policies are already here in many cities and countries, improving your daily life. 

In terms of politics, there is no ‘degrowth party’ in the Netherlands or elsewhere in the World. Yet, there are parties that hold the same values at heart and thus are, implicitly or explicitly, pushing for degrowth. An explicit example happened in March 2023, when GroenLinks invited Jason Hickel to the committee of Economic Affairs and Climate of the Dutch Parliament to discuss degrowth pathways. The pan-European Diem25 party also holds similar principles and objectives to degrowth. 

Many of these degrowth policies, finally, are made possible through the daily hard work of social, environmental, and political movements in cities and countries. Activists are busy every day to create public legitimacy and political pressure to put these issues on the agenda. Resistance against evictions, airports extensions, fossil infrastructures, drillings, mining, indigenous rights violations, deforestation and many more are essential factors to keep the democratic debate on a fair and sustainable policies. 

Sources

[1] Fitzpatrick N, Parrique T and Cosme I (2022) Exploring degrowth policy proposals: A systematic mapping with thematic synthesis. Journal of Cleaner Production 132764 

6.2. What policies does degrowth propose?

Short answer

Degrowth aims for a fundamental transformation of society towards a post-capitalist system that does not depend on economic growth and can thereby ensure human well-being within the ecological boundaries of the Earth. Policies have a vital role to play here, to structurally transform societies in a democratic manner. Some of the main degrowth policies include reducing working hours, establishing universal basic services, creating a job guarantee program, setting-up maximum and minimum incomes, and fostering political and economic democratisation [1]. 

Long answer

On the first day of the Beyond Growth Conference in the European Parliament in May 2023, over 400 experts and civil society organisations sent out an open letter, calling on degrowth policies for the future based on four basic principles [2]:  

Biocapacity: This includes policies aiming to ensure human activities remain within the Earth’s ecological and resource boundaries. Examples of such measures are renewable energy transition strategies, biodiversity conservation and restoration programs, a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, food waste reduction policies, and any other policy that has sufficiency at its core, that is “enough, for everyone, forever”.

Fairness: Policies, programs, and frameworks that pave the way to redistribute resources, labour, land, wealth, or income in a more socially and ecologically just way, both within and between countries. Working towards a European framework for fair tax systems is a prime example, as are countless anti-discrimination laws and progressive taxation policies. Other examples include the elimination of financial paradises, the establishment of carbon and wealth taxes, and the creation of both minimum and maximum incomes. At an international level, such policies include financial reparations and technology transfers from the Global North to the Global South. 

Wellbeing for all: Policies that ensure access to basic needs and services for all, such as universal basic income, job guarantees, universal basic services (including the human rights to health, transport, care, housing, education, gender equality and social protection etc.), and price controls for essential goods and services.

Active democracy: Active democracy is both the way to get towards a degrowth society, and the way to govern it. By including citizens in policymaking, decentralising decision-making, and reclaiming the commons, one can ensure that power is distributed in a more equal way, leading to more fair, effective, legitimate, and empowering policies. Research has shown that in democratic decision-making structures, citizens make much more progressive and sustainable decisions than politicians [3]. Citizen assemblies and participatory budgeting systems thus often lead to much more transformative policies than what top-down representative institutions currently adopt. Democracy doesn’t, however, only apply to public governance; active democracy and co-decision-making should also apply to the workplace by creating horizontal worker-owned cooperatives where workers decide on what and how to produce. 

The division between these principles is not always clear, and it shouldn’t be as these concepts are deeply interlinked and interdependent. Any degrowth policy proposal should thus include policies and actions from all four principles. Indeed, only when combined in a holistic policy package can such policies transform our society towards an entirely new system rather than simply reforming capitalism. 

Sources

[1] Fitzpatrick, N., Parrique, T., & Cosme, I. (2022). Exploring degrowth policy proposals: A systematic mapping with thematic synthesis. Journal of Cleaner Production365, 132764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132764

[2] Post-growth Europe: 400+ experts call for well-being economy - Friends of the Earth Europe. (2023, 9 juni). Friends of the Earth Europe. https://friendsoftheearth.eu/publication/post-growth-europe-letter/

[3] Hickel, J. (2020). Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. Random House.

6.3. How is degrowth going to finance the welfare state?

Short answer

The financing of a welfare state in a degrowth economy represents a significant shift from the conventional growth-dependent paradigm. Degrowth involves an explicit rejection of the historical dominance of what is defined as ‘trickle down economics’: the belief that in order to generate well-being for everybody, we need to push for activities that generate private wealth and profit. Rather than relying on perpetual economic growth to generate public revenue, a degrowth approach would look towards redistributive policies, changing our monetary system, and revaluating care labour. 

Long answer

As we explore the principles of degrowth, a pertinent question often arises: how would a degrowth society finance the welfare state? The shift from a growth-oriented economy to a degrowth model requires substantial changes in our financial systems and policies. Here are some potential mechanisms that could serve as a blueprint for financing the welfare state under degrowth, emphasizing redistributive policies, monetary and financial system reforms, labor revaluation and working hour reductions, and universal basic services and income.

Here are some examples of how degrowth could finance the welfare state:  

Redistributive Policies [1]: One key aspect of financing the welfare state under degrowth is through progressive taxation and redistribution to reduce excessive wealth disparities and sustain essential services. This could include higher taxes on wealth, property, and high incomes and a reduction or elimination of subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and environmental degradation. Taxation of luxury goods and ecologically harmful products can also be useful to generate revenues and encourage sustainable consumption practices. 

Monetary and Financial System Transformation[2]: In a degrowth scenario, the current debt-based monetary system would have to be transformed, as it is one of the drivers of the necessity for constant economic growth. Proposals include the introduction of complementary and local currencies, as well as public banking and mutual credit systems to democratize money creation and circulation. Modern monethary theory also teaches us that we can print money in sovereign ways to finance the transition without increasing public debt or causing excessive inflation. 

Revaluing Labor and Reducing Working Hours [3]: The revaluation of labor in a degrowth society could mean higher wages for essential but often undervalued work (like care work and teaching). Also, by reducing the working week, and at the same time sharing of work, can lead to a more equitable distribution of employment and income. The idea is that everybody can work if everybody works less. Work can be redirected from jobs that do not bring collective value (for example fossil industry, intensive agriculture, SUV production, luxury goods, financial transactions) to sectors that do bring social value, like healthcare, education, regenerative agriculture, sustainable energy, home isolation, social housing, public transports etc. 

Universal Basic Services and Income [4]: Instead of financing individual welfare programs, degrowth proponents suggest a shift towards universal basic services and a universal basic income, which could be more cost-effective and provide a safety net for all citizens, while guaranteeing free, quality public services for all like university education, daycare, healthcare, transportation, energy, internet, etc. The approach to basic services is that by providing for essential needs we can also effectively reduce all costs related to growth, such as health care costs due to unhealthy or insufficient diets. 

It's important to note that while these financing mechanisms provide a blueprint for a degrowth society, their implementation would need to be context-specific and could vary greatly from one society to another. The transition would also require careful and democratic planning and policy-making to ensure social equity and justice. The ultimate goal is to ensure everyone's basic needs are met while living within our planet's ecological boundaries. 

Sources

[1]. Cosme, Inês, et al. “Assessing the Degrowth Discourse: A Review and Analysis of Academic Degrowth Policy Proposals.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 149, Elsevier BV, Apr. 2017, pp. 321–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.016.

[2]. Kallis, Giorgos, et al. “The Economics of Degrowth.” Ecological Economics, vol. 84, Elsevier BV, Dec. 2012, pp. 172–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.017.

[3]. Dengler, Corinna, and Birte Strunk. “The Monetized Economy Versus Care and the Environment: Degrowth Perspectives on Reconciling an Antagonism.” Feminist Economics, vol. 24, no. 3, Taylor and Francis, Oct. 2017, pp. 160–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2017.1383620.

[4]. Büchs, Milena. “Sustainable Welfare: How Do Universal Basic Income and Universal Basic Services Compare?” Ecological Economics, vol. 189, Elsevier BV, Nov. 2021, p. 107152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107152

6.4. How can we pay for the transition?

Short answer

Financing the degrowth transition involves tax reforms, redirection of existing spending, issuance of green bonds, public banking, and monetary policy changes, implementation of universal basic services, potential debt cancellation, and community financing. However, it's more than finding new funding sources; it's about rethinking how we value work, resources, and prosperity. 

Long answer

Financing the transition to a degrowth society involves a combination of approaches, leveraging both public and private resources. Some impactful pathways are: 

  1. Tax Reform [1]: Policies can be adjusted to tax overconsumption, pollution, and high income and wealth. For instance, implementing a carbon tax would both reduce emissions and provide funding. Likewise, a wealth or financial transaction tax could generate substantial revenues. 
  2. Redirection of Existing Spending: Governments currently spend vast amounts on environmentally damaging activities, such as subsidies for fossil fuels. Redirecting this expenditure towards sustainable initiatives could free up significant resources for the degrowth transition. 
  3. Debt Jubilee [2]: Some argue for canceling or restructuring public and private debt, freeing up income and expenditure for ecological transition. 

It's crucial to note that a degrowth transition is not just a matter of finding new sources of funding, but also of fundamentally rethinking how we value different kinds of work, resources, and prosperity. As Jakob Hafele from the ZOE institute rightly mentioned at the closing plenary of the Beyond Growth Conference: ‘The money for a degrowth transformation is there, it’s just currently stuck on the Cayman Islands. The estimates of up to $36 trillion hidden away by individuals alone, if properly taxed, could provide substantial funds. The redirection of these vast fortunes could support policies such as universal basic income, public banking systems, and the shift towards a circular economy, all pillars of a degrowth economy. Moreover, modern monethary theory teaches us that governments can print money in sovereign ways to pay for the transition without increasing public debt or causing excessive inflation. Indeed, money can simply be issued by governments for social and ecological objective instead of allowing private banks to create it and sell it to states as debt. 

Sources

[1]. Fitzpatrick, Nick, et al. “Exploring Degrowth Policy Proposals: A Systematic Mapping With Thematic Synthesis.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 365, Elsevier BV, Sept. 2022, p. 132764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132764.

[2]. Keen, Steve. “The Macroeconomics of Degrowth: Can Planned Economic Contraction Be Stable?” Springer eBooks, 2022, pp. 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6530-1_9.

7. Degrowth in the Global South

7.1. Is degrowth against economic growth in the Global South?

Short answer

No. Degrowth is not against growth in the Global South.  Degrowth supports activists and scholars from the Global South who fight for a sustainable, just, and egalitarian flourishing of the people of their regions and countries. 

Long answer

Degrowth proponents are not suggesting that degrowth applies universally to everyone around the globe. Degrowth is not a new imperialism. A large emphasis is placed on reducing resource and energy consumption in the Global North, which is largely exceeding its share of planetary boundaries, especially the richest individuals in the Global North. In fact, the degrowth of ‘overdeveloped’ countries is the only way to ensure that countries in the Global South have the planetary resources space to meet the basic needs of their population [1].

Degrowth supports the many intellectuals, activists, and practitioners from the global South who have criticized growthism and suggested alternatives such as Buen Vivir from Latin America and Ubuntu from Africa. They all know very well that the Global South cannot look at the Global North’s current model of unequal and unsustainable development as a guide and aim to reach those same levels of consumption. The expansion of the Global North has often been rooted in the values of individualism, instrumental rationality, commodification of life, the separation of humans and nature, and unlimited wants. Being able to unlearn these values in exchange for values based on community and well-being is part of what a number of degrowth advocates have referred to as the “decolonisation of the imagination” [1]. 

Sources

[1]. Serge Latouche, & Macey, D. (2013). Farewell to growth. Polity. 

[2]. Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F., & Acosta, A. (2019). Pluriverse : a post-development dictionary. Tulika Book.

7.2. Isn’t economic growth needed to fight poverty and inequality?

Short answer

Economic growth, at its current global scale and scope, is increasing inequalities and thus worsening relative poverty [1]. 

Long answer

Degrowth questions the blanket claim that ‘growth is needed to fight poverty and inequality’. What does ‘growth’ mean on the ground? What kind of ‘wealth’ does it create and for whom? At the grassroots, it turns out that high growth rates are not necessarily good news for the poorest and most vulnerable inhabitants of the Earth. Let’s take India as an example. India’s “pattern of dazzling economic growth”, noted Kathy Walker, “has been propelled by a powerful ‘reinforcing mechanism’ through which ‘inequality drives growth and growth fuels further inequality’”. Such mechanisms can demystify the current common sense that growth leads to more welfare. First, India’s massive growth rates have often helped the rich rather than the poor, and in 2017, 73% of the wealth generated went to the richest 1%. Second, growth has repeatedly been jobless, especially in the countryside where growth is often synonymous with mechanisation. Third, far from eliminating poverty, growth has relied on the poor, who provided cheap arms and cheap land. Finally, growth has created new poverties, undermining meaningful local activities and ecologies, and fostering accumulation by dispossession and by commodification. [2]

The economic development of the Global South is sometimes attributed to the growth of consumption in the Global North, because it allows resource extraction and manufacturing jobs to thrive in the Global South. But this claim does not live up to reality. In fact, there is no win-win in the current international trade regime since the Global South exports more labour and natural resources than it receives in return from the Global North, a pattern known as “unequal exchange”. This has resulted in a net drain of resources and labour from the Global South worth nearly $242 trillion USD between 1990 and 2015. This is 70 times more money than would be needed to end extreme poverty  [3]. If poverty is to be alleviated, the Global North needs to degrow in order to allow the Global South to use its resources to improve the health and livelihoods of its people, rather than exporting its wealth to the North.  

Sources

[1]. OXFAM. “Richest 1% Bag Nearly Twice as Much Wealth as the Rest of the World Put Together over the Past Two Years.” Oxfam International, 16 Jan. 2023, https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years.

[2].  Gerber, J.-F., Akbulut, B., Demaria, F., & Martínez-Alier, J. (2020) Degrowth and environmental justice: An alliance between two movements? In: Coolsaet, B. (Ed.), Environmental Justice: Key Issues, pp. 94-106. London: Routledge.

[3]. Hickel, Jason, et al. “Imperialist Appropriation in the World Economy: Drain from the Global South through Unequal Exchange, 1990–2015.” Global Environmental Change, vol. 73, 1 Mar. 2022, p. 102467, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802200005X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102467.

7.3. Does degrowth mean reversing population growth?

Short answer

Degrowth criticizes the ways we produce and consume, and the way we organize the appropriation of wealth, not the number of people living on the planet. Wealth distribution and uncontrolled consumption pose a greater issue than population size. 

Long answer

Green fascist perspectives often suggest that population growth is at the root of environmental degradation, and so we should control fertility and reproduction. However, it is important to recognize that resource use is not equal among all humans around the world. A small percentage of wealthy people are responsible for a much greater level of resource consumption than the majority of poor people in the world, so it would not be fair to say that these people are equally responsible for ecological degradation and climate change. Approximately 70% of the world’s resources are consumed by the richest 10% of the global population, while the poorest 10% barely consume 1% [1]. The  wealthiest 10% of the population is also responsible for 48% of annual GHG emissions, significantly more than the 50% poorest who emit 12% of annual GHG emissions [2]. If we all lived like the average person in North American then we would need over 5 planets to meet everyone’s excessive consumption and production wants (see Each country’s Overshoot here). Yet research shows that we can meet the needs of 10 billion people within the means of the planet if we changed our systems of provision in a fair manner and better distributed our resources within the globe [3]. 

Degrowth is primarily focused on the reduction of inequalities and improvement of human and planetary well-being for all inhabitants of the Earth. A lower population would reduce ecological pressure, but this should not be achieved with policies that restrict the autonomy of poor people’s reproduction to justify increased consumption and wealth accumulation of the rich. The focus should be on improving health conditions to reduce mortality, as well as improving access to education, family planning, and support for the voluntary reduction of reproduction. This can guarantee better life conditions while also degrowing our economies to depend less on cheap labour and lower our outputs. Capitalist growth economies, on the other hand, thrive with growing consumption coming from a growing demand and a growing population. Therefore, it is economic growth that further drives population growth because it depends on it. If we want to decrease our population to reduce ecological pressure, we should do so by developing degrowth economies that don’t depend on endless consumption growth, and provide well-being for all [4]. 

Sources

[1]. Marín-Beltrán, Isabel, et al. “Scientists’ Warning against the Society of Waste.” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 811, 10 Mar. 2022, p. 151359, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721064378, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151359.

[2]. Chancel, L., 2021. Climate change and the global inequality of carbon emissions 1990-2020. Paris. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00320.x

[3] Millward-Hopkins, J., Steinberger, J. K., Rao, N. D., & Oswald, Y. (2020). Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario. Global Environmental Change65, 102168.

[4]. Giorgos Kallis. Degrowth. Newcastle Upon Tyne, Agenda Publishing, 2018.

7.4. How does degrowth relate to the Global South?

Short answer

Degrowth aims to get society to shed the activities that are not serving humanity’s prosperity and focus instead on re-establishing humanity’s connection to itself and the Earth. Many worldviews coming from the Global South have been embodying this aim for centuries. Therefore, the importance of such worldviews is recognised in shaping degrowth into an inclusive movement that can be applied all over the world, but with a variety of labels. ‘Degrowth’ is indeed not necessarily an appropriate label everywhere, and it shouldn’t be universalized. 

Long answer

At its core, degrowth is a vision for socio-cultural transformation whereby we, as a society, collectively and democratically move away from the aspects of our growth-oriented systems that are damaging Nature, and therefore, to ourselves. 

One major issue with current systems is the unfair distribution of the effects of environmental and societal damage. Historically speaking, economic growth in Global North countries has been the largest cause of human-caused CO2 emissions. Although, in the present day, some countries such as China and India are becoming very large CO2 emitters, most Global South countries have not been responsible for human-caused climate change. Therefore, degrowth advocates that Global North countries bear most of the load for combating climate change in the short-term future, whilst Global South countries are allowed to develop responsibly. After their sufficient development, global South countries would need to let go of economic growth, so that a global sustainable and egalitarian steady state economy can be estalished[1]. 

Another major issue is the notion that humans are separate from Nature. This has allowed the colonization of natural resources and the exploitation of living beings for their capacity to produce capital. Therefore, degrowth focuses on ‘decolonising our imagination’ from this “monoculture” and reestablishing the connection between humans and Nature. Doing so means unlearning these destructive practices rooted in the colonial mindset of conquering and controlling. It also means giving ourselves a new societal narrative and worldview that can help us construct a new social paradigm and regenerative socio-ecological relations [1]. 

Such alternative visions have been put forward by many social movements (see also question 5.2), especially in the Global South, sometimes for generations. These movements often use ancient and indigenous knowledge that teaches humans to lead fruitful lives whilst cultivating a harmonious relationship with other living beings. This is something our world deeply needs in order to undo the damage that has been caused by the dominant worldview. One example of this is the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, where many Global South communities formed an agreement that outlined a fundamentally different approach to combating climate change and biodiversity collapse. 

Sources

[1]. Kothari, A., Demaria, F., & Acosta, A. (2014). Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the Green Economy. Development, 57(3-4), 362–375.

[2]. Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Acosta, A., Escobar, A., & Demaria, F. (2019). Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary. Tulika Books.