The Ecologist




 
Molly Scott Cato
More articles about
Related Articles

We scare people off by talking about 'degrowth'

Molly Scott Cato

14th July, 2010

The French have a much better word for it: 'decroissance'. Using ugly and frightening terms like 'degrowth' won't help pave the way for a new and exciting economics

For an orthodox economist, ‘growth’ is an article of faith. In his book The Growth Illusion, Richard Douthwaite reveals the almost religious awe in which this holy of holies of capitalist economics is held. Its conceptual power is so all-encompassing that an economist would have to call a decline in economic activity, such as that seen in 2009, an example of ‘negative growth’ rather than shrinkage or recession.

Plotting economic growth since 1955 on a graph makes clear how extraordinary is the situation in which we now find ourselves. It shows the consistently upward trend of economic activity in the UK since the end of the Second World War. Economic growth has been increasing exponentially since then. The recession following the financial crisis of 2008 is a dramatic break in the trend, clearly demonstrating a sudden reverse of the continuous series.

Cash = carbon

Although it is apparent to any economist who also has an interest in the environment that all economic activity has a carbon impact, this decline in production is not greeted with delight amongst our policy-makers—quite the reverse. Adair Turner cautioned against celebrating the 8.6 per cent fall in GHG emissions calculated for the second report from Climate Change Committee, of which he is the chairman, since these were only the consequence of the recession and so could not really count. I was reminded of my wicked temptation during the election period to encourage people  to vote Tory, since their chainsaw attack on the economy would inevitably push us back into recession.

Turner and his ilk, true believers in the neoclassical way, simply cannot see this from the other end of the telescope and realise that, not only is there an inevitable relationship between economic activity and carbon emissions, but that this means we have to move into a new economic paradigm where we can thrive without being in a state of perpetual expansion.

Fortunately, we are not all wedded to the capitalist growth model. A recent conference in Leeds held a practical working session on developing the alternative, a series of workshops where we revisioned key aspects of life—consumer behaviour, money, employment and population—in a no-growth world.

A nicer turn of phrase

What we are seeking is a managed descent or what Howard Odum referred to as ‘a prosperous way down’. Abandoning the true faith of capitalist economics is a good step. Another would be to find a cheerful phrase to sum up where we are going. The phrase ‘steady state economy’ (coined by Herman Daly) is ambiguous in terms of economic theory, as well as implying a state of stagnation that is neither appealing nor compatible with nature’s way of creative evolution. Daly’s teacher Nicolae Georgescu-Roegen used the word ‘degrowth’, whose French variant, 'decroissance', has spawned a whole political movement. In spite of these elegant associations, in English it is ugly and has unhelpful implications of a return to the horse and cart. At the Leeds conference, New Economics Foundation director Andrew Simms suggested we use the phrase ‘dynamic equilibrium’ for the central principle of the new economic paradigm, a suggestion that was met with warm murmers of approval.

Growth is a concept which has unfortunate associations of its own, being symptomatic of both cancer and obesity, diseases that are increasingly prevalent and stand as symbols of the destructive proliferation to which capitalist economies give rise. As we co-create the new paradigm we are learning that less really can be more. So next time you hear somebody saying how important it is that we return rapidly to the growth path so that we can ‘grow our way of the recession’ you could try proposing to them instead that they imagine a world where we flourish within limits while living in a dynamic equilibrium with our planet.

  READ MORE...
COMMENT
Economists think they are invulnerable and intellectually superior. We all suffer for it
'Rational Economic Man' can be a useful mathematical construct. The trouble is, far too many economists seem to have taken him to their heart, and now believe him to be real
COMMENT
Will putting a price on nature put environmentalists out of a job?
The launch of the massive economic ecosystem assessment, TEEB, will help force the natural world onto the corporate balance sheet. It's a step forward. But how will protesters react to the ground shifting under their feet?
INVESTIGATION
Farmers' markets, coops and repair shops will seed the new economy
It's called the 'Cinderella economy'. You know it as the local, sustainable businesses that don't make the GDP figures soar, but do provide jobs and glue communities together...
COMMENT
What would banks do in a green economy?
Banks - love 'em or hate 'em, they're an integral part of nearly every economic system. But just how would they function in a steady-state, earth-linked economy?

 

Previous Articles...

Users Comments

Re: We scare people off by talking about 'degrowth'
Posted By danielmietchen 1 July 14, 2010 12:00:39 PM

Nice take on a crucial problem: If resources are limited (and they are), so is growth - how do we communicate that? A few issues, though: (1) It is probably correct to say that "We scare people off by talking about 'degrowth'", but can the solution be to coin yet another euphemism? If so, we should probably go for 'natural', 'balanced', 'healthy' or 'holistic' economy, since these labels seem to do quite well in terms of PR. But keep in mind that we also scare (some) people off by talking about 'democracy', 'evolution', 'gender inequality', 'public peer review', 'environmental footprint', 'homework', or even 'health insurance' - does this mean we should stop discussing these topics (or hide them behind layers of euphemisms) because some people might be offended? (2) The meanings of "décroissance" and "degrowth" are identical, and so I would expect that preferring one over the other simply correlates (inversely) with the relative command of the two languages - using foreign words is often necessary to be precise, but it is also a common euphemistic strategy. The proposed alternative, "dynamic equilibrium", is just another way to describe situations for which the term of art (at least in systems theory) would be "steady state": when the flows (of matter, energy, money - you name it) to and from a system balance each other. Non-vanishing flows make the system dynamic, whereas the equilibrium (itself just another word for balance) makes it steady, i.e. robust with respect to lower-scale perturbations. (3) Everybody - including the people you are afraid to offend - should worry about major perturbations to the current system, as they are ahead in terms of peak oil, peak fish, peak Helium and so on (just pick your favourite), climate change or world population. But given that an economy geared towards eternal growth will certainly have a harder time to cope with such perturbations (the keyword being resilience) than an economy near equilibrium. So how do we communicate that? Perhaps by simplifying the debate even further, e.g. by estimating the number of Earths that we are using versus those that we have: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/14/9266/F1.expansion.html . Surely, there is a certain amount of buffering capacity in the system, but it is limited. Even the most outspoken proponents of "technology will save us" ideas will ultimately concede that there is just one inhabitable planet that we know of, and that we won't be able to settle onto another one before fossil fuels run out (and even if we could, this would not solve the problem, just shift it in time). If all this does not help, we still have the analogy of cancer and healthy tissue.

Re: We scare people off by talking about 'degrowth'
Posted By EC052111 1 July 16, 2010 03:11:51 AM

Of course, steady state does mean dynamic equilibrium. Daly is fully aware of the dynamic nature of the enclosing world in which we operate.

Re: We scare people off by talking about 'degrowth'
Posted By Tristram 1 July 26, 2010 11:51:52 AM

French "décroissance" has exactly the same meaning than english "degrowth". And this debate about "let's not frighten people with this word" is having a lot of speach in France too. I like the word "degrowth", because it fits well with its content. It's not the word which is frightening for a lot of people, it's what it means ! French degrowth theorist Paul Ariès is saying it is an "explosive-word", meaning its goal is to shock people to make them think by themselves about economic growth.

The words are not the problem
Posted By Stefan_Thiesen 1 August 8, 2010 11:39:15 AM

Well. People nowadays are afraid of "degrowth" as people in Darwin's days were afraid of evolution (and quite a few still are today). In any case there will always be those who are willing - and able - to face reality and those, who prefer ideologies and religions. The WORDS, as the readers of this Journal know well, need not be changed, as the term "Economy" contains the Greek terms Oikos (house) and Nomos, roughly meaning "the law" but also area, quarter, forest, meadow. It is not far fetched to literally translate it is "the law of house-holding with given resources", especially in the context of certain Greek myths, like the tale of Erisychthon. So - what we need is not a new word - we do have the correct word. But our global activities strayed away from this meaning and reflect quite the opposite behavior. So what we need is a REAL economy that reflects nothing more and nothing less than reality. My favorite quote is: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away". (Philip K. Dick) Such is that.
Post a Comment
 

Members