Degrowth – Sketching a new scientific Paradigm

“We live in an era of stagnation, rapid impoverishment, rising inequalities and socio-ecological disasters. In the dominant discourse, these are effects of economic crisis, lack of growth or underdevelopment. […] [But economic] growth is the cause of these problems and […] it has become uneconomic, ecologically unsustainable and intrinsically unjust.”

– D’Alisa et al. 2014

DG_RZ_Logo_01

On September 2nd 2014, no less than 3000 scientists, activists and artists met in Leipzig, Germany, for the 4th International Degrowth Conference. Seemingly, “degrowth” has gained momentum – a development that grabs the attention of decision-makers throughout politics and economic actors. This may seem counterintuitive as, at the core of it, degrowth questions the most fundamental narrative of last 40 years’ political economy: economic growth as the guarantee for prosperity, wealth, progress and human rights. It is hence worth to take a closer look at what degrowth is all about.

This article aims to provide a general overview of the current degrowth-discourse in all its different facets; it hereby hopes to increase the understanding of degrowth as a diverse field of different, but not contradictory ideas. Above all, the goal is to show that the current degrowth-discourse is far more complex than a simple “less economic growth” and may very well be a starting point for considerable changes in the political economy of the coming decades. These changes will, according to the degrowth-consensus, happen with or without current policy- and decision-makers; making knowledge about degrowth desirable especially for them.

What is degrowth?

„Degrowth signifies a critique of the growth economy. It calls for the decolonization of public debate from the idiom of economism and for the abolishment of economic growth as a social objective. Degrowth signifies also a desired direction, in which societies use less natural resources and organize and live differently than today.“

Federicio Demaria 2014a

Ideology? Economic concept? Framework? Paradigm? Social movement? The degrowth scholars – many of them based at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, the current center of the academic debate – deliberately avoid to settle this. As a superordinate term, the conceptual openness of degrowth is also used as a unifying strategy. With its specific history and political approach, degrowth is furthermore strongly connected to the Global North (discussion of the term in Myers/Kent 2004) and there is an on-going discussion whether the concept of degrowth also inherits potential for scholars, politicians and activists from the Global South. Keeping this in mind, we will now take a closer look at the variety of degrowth concepts, starting out with a short historical review.

(1) Historical background

First to be mentioned is the French term décroissance that was initially used by André Gorz in the 1970s (Gorz 1975, 1977). Back then, the emphasis of degrowth was put on the limits to economic growth due to limited natural resources. This specific focus was not by chance: “The Limits to Growth” (Meadows et al. 1972), a study performed by the Club of Rome in 1972, raised the global awareness of declining natural resources and the necessity for a social change in resource use. The findings and radical hypotheses of this study (together with other events like the first global oil crisis) triggered a worldwide socio-ecological movement and found expression in a variety of scientific literature, new social and political movements as well as new international institutions.

Later, in the 1980s, the scope of the term degrowth extended to the critique of utilitarianism, and eventually, in the early 2000s, added elements of a critique of “sustainable development”. Today the term degrowth gets more and more established: at international conferences, in research programs and scientific articles. The central concern however remains conceptualization and creation of alternative societies (D’Alisa et al. 2014).

(2) The idea of degrowth

To illustrate this, there a pretty and concise image: Three elephants and a snail. The first elephant stretches upwards and hence represents the idea of economic growth: more of the same. The second elephant stands motionless and thereby represents the concept of stagnation: ever the same. The third elephant finally lays flat on the ground, representing what recession means: less of the same.

All three elephants typify different paths of development within the same, growth-oriented, paradigm. Each of them strives to maximize, keep or reduce the same: material wealth, employment, resource use and so on. This illustration demonstrates the current landscape of public, political and economical discourses about economic growth and ecology, using terms like green economy, sustainable development, green new deal, steady state economy and many more.

Right next to the three elephants, a snail symbolizes what degrowth means in comparison: something completely different. The emphasis on slowness here reflects degrowth discourses about a “deceleration” of the every day life as well as about an affluence of time as elements of a degrowth society (cf. Rosa 2004, 2005, 2010). The small size of the snail compared to the elephants illustrates discourses about the quality of life, which weights more than the plain quantity of today’s material affluence (cf. Schumacher 1973 [1989], Fatheuer 2011, Welzer 2011) and relates to the necessity of a general change of societal valuing systems (Fromm 1976 [2005], Illich 1973 [2000]). The snail is hence the symbol and leitmotiv of the degrowth movement.

Pic DeGrowth 

(3) Analytical overview over the themes of the degrowth discourse

Within the degrowth discourse, we can localize five main motives which partly overlap and are inspired by different (academic) backgrounds: (3.1) The limits to growth, (3.2) degrowth as autonomy, (3.3) degrowth as re-politicization, (3.4) degrowth as critique of capitalism and (3.5) degrowth as societal transformation. In the following, we will have a closer look at each of them in order to give a better understanding of what degrowth means to the different degrowth scholars. Such broad understanding is the precondition for any policy maker who wants to talk about degrowth or criticize it.

(3.1) The limits to growth

As stated before, the discussion about the limits to growth is closely connected to the rise of the degrowth-discourse itself. Hence, this issue represents the broadest and most controversial field within the debate and is occupied by at least five different perceptions of “limits”.

  1. A) Among degrowth-economists, we find the conviction that the traditional growth economy is inefficient, since the costs rise faster than the achieved prosperity. In return, inequality and the concentration of wealth increase. (Piketty 2014) Apart from that, it appears to be obvious that resource-based economic growth cannot sustain itself endlessly in a world of limited natural resources. (Jackson 2011)
  2. B) Feminist scholars argue that economic growth is limited because it is inevitably based on the unfair exploitation of reproductive labour, for example the unpaid care-work of women for children and relatives (Duden 2011, Federici 2012). Additionally, a growth-economy establishes unequal access to resources and their distribution (Mies/Shiva 1993). Moreover, the increasing financialization of life undermines the social cohesion and does not contribute a better quality of life (Fraser 2012).
  3. C) Ecologists argue that economic growth is limited because it is unsustainable, which the strong causal relation between GDP and CO2 emissions confirms. Furthermore, the modus of growth does not allow a necessary dematerialization of society; therefore, the resource access is unlimited – impossible in a world of limited resources (Brand 2012). In a nutshell, this conviction refers to the critique of a topical idea among policy-makers: the decoupling of economic growth from resource use. From an ecologists’ point of view this is a dangerous illusion, because economic growth rests on consumption, which requires (material) products, transport and a production process. A closed recycling cycle as the basis of a decoupled economy would be the first successful perpetuum mobile. Thus, the ecological limits of growth cannot be evaded within the growth paradigm – decoupling does not lead to dematerialization.
  4. D) Besides this, economic growth is necessarily finite due to rebound-effects. This means that technical innovations can not achieve their aims to reduce resource-use, because the increased efficiency of technology also increases the total use of it and thus the total consumption of resources. If airplanes for example use fuel more efficiently, flights become cheaper and people can afford to fly more often – this causes the total amount of flights to increase and foils efficiency savings. This also accounts for other forms of resource efficiency like energy efficiency. Additionally, with the diminishing marginal utility of new goods comes the difficulty to create new markets for the ever growing economy (Altvater/Mahnkopf 2007).
  5. E) Finally, natural scientists broadly argue that economic growth is limited due to strict natural boundaries (Meadows et al. 1972, Altvater 1991, Rockström et al. 2009). Not only will Climate Change restrict growth – agricultural goods become much harder to produce in context of extreme weather effects – additionally peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak sand and many more will limit unrestricted economic development.

These perspectives do of course not all coexist peacefully. Even though they complement each other and often refer to one another, there is serious reciprocal critique. To give just one example, feminist scholars often criticize that the catastrophic “fife-minutes-to-midnight” atmosphere, created by natural scientists, blindly reproduces the specific gender and power relations which led to the current socio-ecological crises (Bauhardt 2009, Beck 2010). Furthermore, it is to be taken into account that not all authors perceive themselves as part of degrowth discourse, even though they might be adopted intensively by it (e.g. Rockström et al. 2009); this applies specifically to natural scientific approaches.

(3.2) degrowth as autonomy

Autonomy is issued particularly by authors like Ivan Illich (1973 [2000]), André Gorz (1983) and Cornelius Castoriadis (1990), which are today still vividly discussed by degrowth scholars. Their argument does, in contrast to many limits-to-growth-scholars, not assume that strict external, ‘natural’ boundaries of human development exist. Limits are here understood as the results of a collective social agreement for which the ‘natural’ boundaries (e.g. CO2 level of the atmosphere, pH value of the oceans) do not offer helpful orientation. Thus, according to these authors, there is a need for a new collective self-limitation to regain autonomy over the means of adjustment to the external conditions (cf. Illich 1973 [2000]), otherwise practical constrains will reproduce authoritarian power relations. In this analysis they conform to feminist scholars and anti-capitalist approaches.

(3.3) degrowth as re-politicization

The concern of this theme in the degrowth discourse is to use degrowth as a “missile word” in both the academic and the political context, to challenge the pseudo-consensus of sustainable development (Demaria 2014b). This attack comes from the term “sustainable development” that today advocates a priority of economic interests over ecology or social equality. Already in 1992, sustainability of economic growth meant continuous and stabile growth instead of ecological economics (Brand 2012: 28). This trend was reinforced in the past 20 years, producing concepts like green economy and green growth (critical: Wissen 2012).

Scientists and activists who want to use degrowth as a means of re-politicization therefore also call for a politicization of science, which ought to get involved against technocratic and growth-oriented politics. At this point, theoretical and practical aspects of the degrowth-discourse overlap.

(3.4) degrowth as critique of capitalism

Anti-capitalist scholars conceptualize economic growth as a capitalist imperative, used to solve social struggles over inequality with increased material wealth for everyone. From a politic-economical perspective it appears that internal economic drivers, like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (Marx 1894 [1975]: 221), cause the necessity for unlimited economic growth. Consequently, anti-capitalist scholars understand degrowth as a sketch of another, non-capitalistic society.

Modern political economists use Marx’ works as well as the works of later Marxists in a contemporary context and find these thoughts relevant for current ecologic and economic issues. To give an example, Brand and Görg (2003) investigate the financialization of nature through patents on genetic information, which are being established with the regulations of the Convention on Biological Diversity. They conclude that such instruments – the accumulation of nature as capital in form of patents – are effects of a capitalism, that, driven by crises in the centre (e.g. collapsing real estate markets), expands into its periphery; geographical as well as economical. In doing so, new practices of capital accumulation (e.g. annuities from patents) are being implemented by new state-alike actors (e.g. TRIPS) and lead to an increased deprivation of rights of indigenous people, women and local population as well as to intensified exploitation of natural resources (Brand/Görg 2003: 72ff., 215ff.).

(3.5) degrowth as societal transformation

Finally, we can identify scientists and activists in favour of societal transition or transformation projects as part of the degrowth discourse. This understanding of degrowth is far closer to (local) social movements than to academic institutions and aims to realize concrete utopias on smaller scales, e.g. transition towns, urban gardening, foodsharing. The goal of these local initiatives is to contribute to a more “humane” society, which leads a deliberately simple life in communities without material abundance.

Such communities produce goods with a high use-value instead of high profits, they are social inclusive, participatory, they try to reduce the amount of wage work and counterbalance the lower financial income by pursuing principles of sharing, local goods exchange and communal use of goods. In doing so, the production of goods becomes decentralized, the need for new goods decreases and the consumers regain sovereignty over the means of production.  Local money, basic income or maximal wages can often be found as elements of such societies which ensure fairness as well as societal participation. Thereby, the transition projects are generally formed by grassroots initiatives of local communities and thus do not depend on official legitimation or the establishment of legal frameworks. These “nowtopias” perceive themselves as a vivid exemplification of another society, as nucleoids of the future which already exist today.

Why is degrowth relevant to policy makers?

The diversity of the discussion sketched above shows that the idea of degrowth unites both natural and social scientists with – among others – economists, artists, social movements and feminist activists. Given the huge participation in the 4th International Degrowth Conference in autumn 2014, as well as the growing institutional and scientific relevance, it has become clear that degrowth is no longer a political niche phenomenon. Economic as well as ecological circumstances indicate that policy-making of the next decades will have to face ‘the growth issue’. Either activists or scientists or the plain confrontation with economical and ecological limits will put degrowth on the policy-makers’ agenda.

Apart from this, the degrowth-idea also offers considerable new opportunities for aspiring policy-makers. Being not yet established in conventional politics, it needs to be adapted to and implemented in the current policy discourses. Talking about implementation, we also have to consider that there is a significant lack of critique on degrowth, both from sciences and politics. But such critique is needed in order to harmonize the concept, which is inherently connected to the Global North with its affluent consumer societies, with the needs and concerns of people from the Global South. Additionally, many of the scholarly degrowth ideas need to be critically transmitted into political practise – a task which calls for experienced policy makers.

Here, one feature of degrowth needs to be highlighted: it is one of the few truly trans-disciplinary fields and implicates far more than just “less economic growth”. Trans-disciplinary means that the concept bridges the traditional boundaries between and within science, economy, social movements and politics. This is because degrowth is about other forms of social life, about different relationships with nature and one-another – in short: it is about moving towards a different society.

The uniting element here is the conviction that the current ways of living in the Global North need to be dematerialized. The current growth economies will in all likelihood drift into stagnation sooner rather than later, with consequences for the democratic autonomy, individual wellbeing and social peace. In this context, turning away from growth paradigms can open up new spaces of societal participation and can thus revive democracy – and what could be more fascinating than engaging in a process that shapes our common future

Author Biography

Daniel Buschmann graduated in Political Science and Philosophy which he studied at Leipzig University and Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius. His main areas of interests are critical social theory, political ecology and socio-ecological transformations. Currently, he is writing his Master’s thesis in political science on “Characteristics of Hegemonic Discourses in Socio-Ecological Transformation” at the University of Vienna.

 

References

Altvater, Elmar 1991: „Die Zukunft des Marktes. Ein Essay über die Regulation von Geld und Natur nach dem Scheitern des ‚real existierenden Sozialismus’“, Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot: Münster.

Altvater, Elmar und Birgit Mahnkopf 2007: „Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie, Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft“, Westfälisches Dampfboot, 7. Auflage: Münster.

Bauhardt, Christine 2009: „Ressourcenpolitik und Geschlechtergerechtigkeit. Probleme lokaler und globaler Governance am Beispiel Wasser.“ In: Prokla 156, Seiten 391-406.

Beck, Silke 2010: “Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of adaptation”, in: Regional Environmental Change 11(2): 297-306.

Becker, Egon, Diana Hummel und Thomas Jahn 2011: „Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse als Rahmenkonzept.“ In: Groß, Matthias [Hrsg.]: „Handbuch Umweltsoziologie“, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Brand, Ulrich und Christoph Görg 2003: „Postfordistische Naturverhältnisse. Konflikte um genetische Ressourcen und die Internationalisierung des Staates“, Westfälisches Dampfboot: Münster.

Brand, Ulrich und Markus Wissen 2011a: „Die Regulation der ökologischen Krise“, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 36(2). DOI: 10.1007/s11614-011-0031-1.

Brand, Ulrich und Markus Wissen 2011b: „Sozial-ökologische Krise und imperiale Lebensweise. Zur Krise und Kontinuität kapitalistischer Naturverhältnisse“ in: Axel Demirovic, Julia Dück, Florian Becker und Pauline Bader [Hrsg.] „VielfachKrise. Im finanzmarktdominierten Kapitalismus“, VSA-Verlag: Hamburg.

Brand, Ulrich 2012: „Green Economy – the next Oxymoron? No Lessons Learned from Failures of Implementing Sustainable Development“, GAIA 21 (1): 28-32.

Brand, Ulrich und Markus Wissen 2012: “Global Environmental Politics and the Imperial Mode of Living: Articulations of State–Capital Relations in the Multiple Crisis”, Globalizations 9(4): 547-560. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2012.699928.

Castoriadis, Cornelius 1990: „Das Gebot der Revolution“, in: Ulrich Rödel [Hrsg.]: „Autonome Gesellschaft und libertäre Demokratie“, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.

D’Alisa, Giacomo, Federicio Demaria und Giorgos Kallis [Hrsg.] 2014: “Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era”, Routledge: London. Online: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781138000773/ und unter http://www.vocabulary.degrowth.org (24.10.2014).

Demaria, Federicio, Francois Schneider, Filka Sekulova und Joan Martinez-Alier 2013: “What is Degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement”, in: Environmental Values 22 (2013): 191-215. DOI: 10.3197/096327113X13581561725194.

Demaria, Federicio 2014a: “Degrowth: what?! An introduction”, Vortrag am 02. September 2014 auf der 4. Internationalen Degrowth Konferenz in Leipzig vom 02. bis 06. September 2014.

Online: http://programme.leipzig.degrowth.org/en/degrowth2014/public/events/129 (16.11.2014).

Demaria, Federicio 2014b: “Opening plenary: Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity”, Vortrag am 02. September 2014 auf der 4. Internationalen Degrowth Konferenz in Leipzig vom 02. bis 06. September 2014.

Online: http://programme.leipzig.degrowth.org/en/degrowth2014/public/events/40 (25.10.2014).

Duden, Barbara 2011: „’Gleichstellung’ oder ‚Feminisierung’ der Lasten des neosozialen Umbaus? Thesen zur Zeitgeschichte von Prekarisierung und Geschlecht“ (unveröffentlichtes Manuskript), Hannover.

Fatheuer, Thomas 2011: “Buen Vivir: Latin America’s new concepts for the good life and the rights of nature”, Heinrich-Böll Foundation, Publication Series Ecology, Volume 17: Berlin.

Federici, Silvia 2012: “Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle”, Common Notions/PM Press: Brooklyn/Oakland.

Fraser, Nancy 2012: “Can Society be Commodities all the way down? Polanyian reflections on capitalist crisis”, FSMH Working Paper Nr. 18.

Fromm, Erich 1976 [2005]: “To Have or to Be? The Nature of the Psyche”, Continuum International Publishing Group.

Görg, Christoph 2003: „Regulation der Naturverhältnisse. Zu einer kritischen Theorie der ökologischen Krise“, Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot: Münster.

Görg, Christoph 2011: “Societal Relationships with Nature. A Dialectical Approach to Environmental Politics”, in: Andrew Biro [Hrsg.]: “Critical Ecologies. The Frankfurt School and Contemporary Environmental Crisis”, University of Toronto Press: Toronto.

Gorz, Anrdré 1975: « Écologie et Politique », Galilée: Paris.

Gorz, Anrdré 1977: « Écologie et Liberté », Galilée: Paris.

Gorz, Anrdré 1983 : „Wege ins Paradies. Thesen zur Krise, Automation und Zukunft der Arbeit“, Rotbuch Verlag: Berlin.

Illich, Ivan 1973 [2000]: “Tools for Conviviality”, Marion Boyars Publishers.

Jackson, Tim 2011: “Prosperity without Growth. Economics for a Finite Planet”, Routledge: Landon.

Journal of Cleaner Production [Hrsg.] 2013: “Special Issue: Degrowth: Form Theory to Practice”, Volume 38.

Online: http://www.degrowth.org/publications (25.10.2014).

Marx, Karl 1894 [1975]: „Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Dritter Band“, in: MEW 25, Dietz Verlag: Berlin.

Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers und William W. Behrens III. 1972: “The Limits to Growth”, Universe Books: New York.

Mies, Maria und Vandana Shiva 1993: “Ecofeminism.”, Zed Books: London.

Myers, Norman und Jennifer Kent 2004: “The New Consumers: The Influence of Affluence on the Environment”, Island Press: Washington.

Mühlen-Achs, Gitta 2003: „Konstruktionen des anderen Geschlechts“, in: Mühlen-Achs, Gitta/Schorb, Bernd [Hrsg.]: „Geschlecht und Medien“, München.

Muraca, Barbara 2013: “Décroissance: A Project for a Radical Transformation of Society*”, in: Environmental Values 22 (2013): 147–169.

Piketty, Thomas 2014: “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”, Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

Rockström, J., Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Asa Persson, F. Stuart III Chapin, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Björn Nykvist, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sörlin, Peter K. Synder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svendin, Malin Faklenmark, Louise Karlberg, Robert W. Corell, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hansen, Brian Walker, Diana    Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen, Jonathan Foley 2009: “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Ecology and Society 14 (2): 32. Online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/ (15.11.2014).

Rosa, Hartmut [Hrsg.] 2004: „fast forward. Essays zu Zeit und Beschleunigung“, Hamburg.

Rosa, Hartmut 2005: „Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne“, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.

Rosa, Hartmut 2010: “Alienation and Acceleration. Towards a Critical Theory of Late-Modern Temporality”, Nordic Summer University Press: Malmö.

Schumacher, Ernst Friedrich 1973 [1989]: “Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered”, Harper Perennial.

Welzer, Harald 2011: „Mental Infrastructures: How Growth Entered the World and Our Souls“, Heinrich Böll Foundation, Publication series ecology, Volume 14: Berlin.

Wichterich, Christa 2012: “The Future We Want – A Feminist Perspective”, Heinrich-Böll Foundation, Publication Series Ecology, Volume 21: Berlin.

Wissen, Markus 2012: „Post-neoliberale Hegemonie? Zur Rolle des Green-Economy Konzepts in der Vielfachkrise“, Kurswechsel.

Picture credits:

Cover Picture: Logo of the Degrowth conference, Leipzig 2014, available here

Picture 2: by author, with reference to Frederico Demaria’s opening session of the Degrowth conference, Leipzig 2014, available here

One response to “Degrowth – Sketching a new scientific Paradigm

  1. Pingback: The Biggest Challenge – The Growth Paradigm and its Roots in Society | Global Public Policy Watch·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s