Why the Post-growth Debate Is Not a Wrong Turn

Abstract

In their paper Jakob and Edenhofer (2014) argue that reflecting on conßicts between “degrowth” and “green growth” concepts is a useless thing. Instead of discussing the growth issue it would make much more sense to focus on what they call a “welfare diagnostics” approach that deßnes minimum requirements for basic needs. No doubt, this approach has its merits. It is more or less similar to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. But since the authors leave out real-world conßicts and interests as well as the economic drivers of growth, capital accumulation and consumerism, their approach appears quite apolitical. To keep quiet about growth imperatives and their compulsive dimensions is not an adequate answer to the challenges of sustainability.

Welfare with or without Growth? Do We Need to Reduce Economic Activity to Protect the Environment and Increase the Quality of Life?

“…First, Seidl and Zahrnt (2015) as well as Loske (2015) emphasize the importance of weening our economies off their "addiction to growth" and criticize that this aspect receives too little attention in our work. Seidl and Zahrnt (2015) argue that growth is deeply engrained in the basic institutions of capitalism, such as monetary policy or social security.…”

“…Seidl and Zahrnt (2015) argue that growth is deeply engrained in the basic institutions of capitalism, such as monetary policy or social security. Loske (2015) points out that a postgrowth economy based on cooperation and sharing would look very different than our current economic system of a competitive market economy. In this regard, the main point of contention consists in a different understanding of the implied means-ends relationship to achieve human well-being.…”

“…Yet, Seidl and Zahrnt (2015) as well as Loske (2015) imply that a wide-spread addiction to economic growth prevents the adoption of measures that would improve well-being, but reduce economic growth. Our approach provides a general framework to assess trade-offs between different policy objectives.…”

“…Clearly, assessing the role of education in social welfare involves a complex analysis that cannot be restricted to economic growth. Loske (2015) criticizes our approach of welfare diagnostics as being one-sided, identifying critical minimal thresholds without discussing critical maxima, such as overconsumption. In our view, this criticism misses the point.…”

“…In this issue of GAIA, Seidl and Zahrnt (2015) as well as Loske (2015) have responded to our article and raised some criticism. We appreciate the opportunity to respond in turn and identify in which aspects our perspective on the issues at stake differs.…”