Degrowth Handbook - Part II

The History of Degrowth Ideas

Degrowth as a normative concept with practical and analytical applications only really entered mainstream political discourse in the last 20 years, but its roots go back further.

The 1970s saw the emergence of the first and arguably most important pillar of degrowth thinking, what is commonly referred to as the ‘bioeconomic’ pillar of degrowth. The bioeconomic pillar is more commonly referred to as the ‘limits to growth thesis’. Pioneered theoretically by Romanian bioeconomist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and modeled by the Club of Rome, the limits to growth thesis hinged on Georgescu-Roegen’s application of thermodynamics to the economic process, and the Club of Rome’s pioneering systems theory modeling, both of which produced the conclusion that continued economic growth on a planet with finite resources is impossible. Put simply, if you want an economy to grow forever, you’ll need to use more and more resources, and with limited stuff, stuff eventually runs out. This, degrowthers argue, is the root of the climate crisis. We will discuss the limits to growth thesis more coherently in a later segment of this handbook.

Another pillar of degrowth emerged from anthropology in the 1990s, more specifically, from the post-development school. Spearheaded by French anthropologist Serge Latouche, the influence of anthropology links back to the pluriverse, a concept we discussed in the first part of this handbook. The post-development school insists that the Western development model is flawed. By the Western development model, I’m referring to the policies of Western, liberal democratic countries- Europe, the USA, Australia, etc.- whose efforts to develop the “poor” or “developing” countries of the Global South consist of imposing our own modus operandi, namely encouraging (and often imposing) private investment, liberal economic values of utility maximization and the belief in the market as the optimum method of provisioning. Degrowthers suggest (but are not the first to suggest) that this model is chauvinistic and ultimately colonial in nature. Who gave us the right to insist that our model is the best model? Are our societies so perfect that we think our methods are sacrosanct? Globalisation has failed to increase the lot of the Global South, which remains broadly impoverished by continued economic subjugation to the West. Again, I will dedicate a section of this handbook to post-development and the pluriverse.

This leads to the third pillar of degrowth, which suggests that beyond a certain point, economic growth and material wellbeing (the amount of stuff you own) stops making you any happier, this is known as the Easterlin Paradox. Are people really any happier than they were in the 1970s? The evidence suggests not really. We’re all familiar with that ephemeral feeling of happiness we get when buying something new. Sure, it makes us happier for a moment, but the novelty of your new purchase fades, until, of course, you buy something else. “Retail therapy” is not intrinsically satisfying and doesn’t really give sufficient meaning to life. The irony of this whole debacle lies in this- we in the West attempt to make ourselves happier by acquiring more stuff, this (excessive) consumption does not make us any more fulfilled and is at the same time driving climate breakdown, which I would uncontroversially suggest is going to make everyone a lot sadder. Degrowth looks at this predicament and asks what is enough? How much stuff do we need in order to ensure that we live happily, but also ensure that every other human being, living or to come can enjoy a happy life alongside us?

Finally, degrowth rests upon its fourth pillar of democracy, more specifically, a deepening and enhancing of democracy. Can we be said to really live in a democracy? What does democracy mean? The simple answer is rule by the people. The simple answer to whether we live in a democracy or not is yes. The people decide who rules the country. Yet this democracy can be said to be shallow. Most people’s political participation goes no further than the ballot box, if we even go there at all. What would it mean for us to deepen democracy? What degrowthers would argue is that we should be in direct control of the decisions that govern our lives, this is what is meant when degrowthers speak of autonomy. The relocalisation of aspects of our lives, energy, food, water, manufacturing and all opens up the possibility of making tangible decisions about how we live our lives. Power has for too long been outsourced to those who can’t be guaranteed to have our best interests at heart, degrowth hears “power to the people!” and applies it quite literally.

Degrowth started to flourish in the early 2000s when anti-consumerist and anti-advertising activists in France began to adopt degrowth as a useful framing for their struggle. In 2005 my eccentric professor Francois Schneider and his accomplices marched around France for a year, spreading the word, and eventually emerged the research collective - Research and Degrowth. Since then, biennial conferences and an ever-more lively group of activists, citizens, and researchers have been building this solution to the woes of modernity.

Degrowth is a well-known concept in continental Europe, yet its penetration into the anglophone world has been slow. Most of the political establishment in the UK is committed to growth, capitalism, and business as usual. Caroline Lucas, our only Green MP has flirted with degrowth, yet there remains work to be done to spread its ideals into public consciousness.

I don’t expect anyone to be convinced yet, but that’s alright. The next section of this handbook will build on ideas of happiness, wellbeing, and the meaning of life.

Cover illustration - The Growing Community (mural study, Alta Vista, Virginia Post Office, 1939) by Herman Maril. Courtesy the Smithsonian Museum of American Art