Bona diagnosis, bona curatio: How property economics clarifies the degrowth debate

Assessing the degrowth discourse: A review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals

“…Appendix A Philippe (2008) 19 Johanisova and Wolf (2012) 37 Domènech et al (2013) 2 Huppes and Ishikawa (2009) 20 Kallis et al (2012) 38 Garver (2013) 3 Cattaneo and Gavaldà (2010) 21 Klitgaard and Krall (2012) 39 Infante Amate and González de Molina (2013) 4 Hueting (2010) 22 Muraca (2012) 40 Jarvensivu (2013) 5 Kallis and Martínez-Alier (2010) 23 Nierling (2012) 41 Johanisova et al (2013) 6 Latouche (2010) 24 Speth (2012) 42 Kallis et al (2013) 7 Lietaert (2010) 25 Tokic (2012) 43 Kallis (2013) 8 Martínez-Alier et al (2010) 26 Trainer (2012) 44 Karlsson (2013) 9 Matthey (2010) 27 van den Bergh and 45 Lorek and Fuchs (2013) 10 Schneider et al (2010) 28 van Griethuysen (2012) 46 Mauerhofer (2013) 11 Berg and Hukkinen (2011) 29 Xue et al (2012) 47 Nørgård (2013) 12 Hall (2011) 30 Alcott (2013) 48 Sekulova et al (2013) 13 Kallis (2011) 31 Alexander (2013) 49 Sorman and Giampietro (2013) 14 Schneider et al (2011) 32 Boonstra and Joose (2013) 50 Andreoni and Galmarini (2014) 15 Alexander (2012) 33 Borowy (2013) 51 …”

Who owns the flows? Distinguishing ownership of resource flows from ownership of resource stocks clarifies debates about property bundles, commons tragedies, and degrowth

“…I then note that the recent shift of some commons scholars, particularly those of the Bloomington School, towards a focus on individual actions implies a shift in their level of analysis away from collective ownership of stocks and towards a greater focus on individual entitlements to flows. Similarly, in Section 5, I suggest that Gunnar Heinsohn and Otto Steiger's 'property premium' theory of interest, recently powerfully integrated into the degrowth debate (Steppacher and van Griethuysen 2008;van Griethuysen 2012), similarly takes resource stocks as the paradigm form of ownership in an attempt to justify interest payments in terms of the recompense for no longer being able to burden or collateralize a resource stock -again, typically, land. However, this theory has been criticized for being unable to account for loans that do not seem to be the result of burdening or collateralizing resources.…”

“…To the extent that interest-bearing loans incentivize debtors to return a greater value than they have borrowed, such loans are widely considered to drive growth even if not constituting an imperative, and a review of research into local credit systems found generalized positive interest rates to be incompatible with a postgrowth economy (Gerber 2015). Recent analyses have now placed changes in ownership institutions at the centre of the degrowth debate, both as a means to diffuse the explosive drive for growth attributed to the institution of property, and as a means to minimize the distributional conflicts that may arise in a nongrowing economy (Alexander 2011;Gerber and Steppacher 2017;Kallis et al 2015;Steppacher and van Griethuysen 2008;van Griethuysen 2012). In light of the analysis presented above, I end this article by contributing three points to that debate.…”

“…These motivations include the desire to be considered creditworthy in the future and the desire to avoid paying further interest (Allon 2015;Haiven 2014;James 2014;Schuster 2014). The demands imposed upon debtors, which Rolf Steppacher and Pascal van Griethuysen insightfully identify and discuss in terms of solvency, profitability, and time pressure (Steppacher and van Griethuysen 2008;van Griethuysen 2012), might be stronger when defaulters are at risk of dispossession, but nevertheless remain present when debts are unsecured. Though the pressures of avoiding dispossession and the processes of accumulation by dispossession are undoubtedly important features of the current economic system (van Griethuysen 2012; Gerber 2014), they are an incomplete picture of diverse ways in which property-related motives drive economic growth.…”

“…Ownership institutions are a fundamental link between the social and natural worlds and have long been central to the study of the ecological correlates of economic, social, and political processes. In recent years, the debates around degrowth have prompted consideration of the ways in which property institutions drive growth, and the role that changes to ownership may play in degrowth (Alexander 2011;Gerber and Steppacher 2017;Steppacher and van Griethuysen 2008;van Griethuysen 2012). Jonathan DeVore has most recently suggested that these degrowth debates may benefit from drawing together insights from many different frameworks of ownership, arguing that ''degrowth conversations, and progressive politics more broadly, can draw on these different frameworks to circumvent old antinomies'', antinomies which have long tended to dichotomize between private ownership and other ownership forms (DeVore 2017: 647).…”