Explaining the Degrowth Movement. Is Degrowth Economics Possible?

A primer on degrowth as an alternative economic model to current late capitalism. Plus: unpacking terms like degrowth communism, ecological economics, ecosocialism, green growth, and post-growth.

Jun 18, 2024

The consolidation of wealth among the 1%. Resource depletion. Pollution. Soil desertification. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. Drought. Volatile weather and extreme weather events. Microplastics in everything. Supply chain breakdowns. The vanishing of the middle class. It’s easy to get overwhelmed by the sheer number of crises humanity faces, seemingly too varied for us to do anything about before time’s up (see my explainer on polycrisis and metacrisis for more on this).

Underlying all of them, though, is a global economic system that incentivizes specific narratives and metrics by which we assign value. Under the current iteration of capitalism (which Yanis Varoufakis argues isn’t even capitalism anymore, but “technofeudalism”), growth and competition are primary values, structurally superseding others. This is why the highest “good” a startup can achieve is exponential growth—to grow 10-100x in market capitalization. Yet we live on a finite planet with finite resources; it’s absurd to expect endless exponential growth forever.

What if there were an alternative to late capitalism/technofeudalism? One leading economic framework, “degrowth economics,” has gained traction among economists, alongside a growing body of other professionals and enthusiasts. Though its roots date back decades (even centuries, if you count the work of Thomas Malthus), the subject has received a surge of renewed interest following the recent (re)publication of Kohei Saito’s polemic Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto and Daniel Susskind’s Growth: A History and a Reckoning.

What is Degrowth?

Economic anthropologist and degrowth figurehead Jason Hickel describes degrowth as “a planned reduction of energy and resource throughput designed to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a way that reduces inequality and improves human well-being.”1

To bring humanity back within (or closer to) planetary boundaries, degrowth economics foregrounds the need to systemically downsize production and consumption through the implementation of key practices and strategies, which are outlined below.

For now, a simple degrowth movement definition:

The degrowth movement emphasizes the need for new narratives and principles about progress, a shift away from growth and productivity as the primary indicators of economic success toward factors like wellbeing and equity, and the implementation of new practices that transition systems away from modes of overconsumption and overshoot.

In academic circles, degrowth economics is regarded as a left-leaning economic philosophy that draws from Marxian economics. But given the broader degrowth movement’s spread across fields of study and national borders, it is now represented by a wider range of schools of thought and political philosophies.

The Rationale Behind Degrowth

Continuous economic growth, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), requires ever-increasing resource extraction and energy use. Yet already in 2024 the global economy has overshot several of Earth’s biophysical limits, as evidenced by:

CO₂ levels far exceeding the proposed safe limit of 350 ppm for climate stability, with a recent NOAA report finding May 2024 reached 427.6 ppm.2
Global wildlife populations declining by 69% since 1970 due to habitat loss and overexploitation.3
Global material footprint climbing from 27B metric tons in 1970 to 92B in 2019, with current projections indicating that number will double again by 2060.4

“Ecological overshoot” refers to when human demand exceeds the regenerative capacity of natural ecosystems. By prioritizing growth, and therefore continued (and increasing) resource extraction, the current economic system risks overshoot across many different categories and scales.

Degrowth proponents argue this overshoot trajectory is fundamentally unsustainable. Thus, rather than humanity pursuing more growth—or even maintaining current levels of growth—they advocate intentionally ramping growth down as fast as possible to facilitate a transition away from an economic system based on increasing GDP and toward one that prioritizes wellbeing, social equity, and living within ecological limits.

The History of Degrowth

In 1972, French theorist André Gorz coined the term “degrowth” (“décroissance” in the original French) during a debate organized by the Nouvel Observateur, saying, “Is the earth’s balance, for which no-growth—or even degrowth—of material production is a necessary condition, compatible with the survival of the capitalist system?”5

This directly followed the publication of The Limits to Growth, a groundbreaking report by a group of 17 MIT researchers led by Donella Meadows, commissioned by the Club of Rome. The report demonstrated that continued unchecked population and economic growth would eventually surpass the planet's capacity.

After several other mentions throughout the 1970s, the term went mostly dormant until 2002, when the French magazine Silence published a special issue titled “Decroissance soutenable et conviviale” (sustainable and convivial degrowth). This reignited interest in the term in France, notably through the work of French economist and philosopher Serge Latouche, who published Farewell to Growth in 2007. 2008 saw the first “International Degrowth Conference on Ecological Sustainability and Social Justice” in Paris, from which it spread to the rest of Europe and the world.

More recently, scholars have taken up the task of analyzing and in some cases critiquing degrowth through the lenses of decolonization (Jamie Tyberg), feminism (Corinna Dengler and Birte Strunk), Marxism (John Bellamy Foster), and more.

Degrowth Communism, Explained

In fact, part of the renewed interest in degrowth in the 2020s stems from Kohei Saito’s concept of “degrowth communism.” First proposed in Marx in the Anthropocene (2020), and reiterated in the English translation Slow Down (2024), degrowth communism draws its notion of communism from Marx’s recently rediscovered ecological notebooks, which Saito claims (building on earlier arguments by John Bellamy Foster) reveal Marx critiquing both capitalism and economic growth—that in fact he not only advocated for communism but for degrowth as well.

Degrowth communism not only advocates for ramping down economic growth, but establishing models for collective ownership models and equitable distribution of resources. The idea is highly contentious, and has been met with both zealous interest—with Marx in the Anthropocene selling 500,000+ copies—and intense skepticism, even among leftists.

Principles of Degrowth Economics

Degrowth economics advocates theorize a “steady-state economy” in which economic activities do not surpass ecological limits, as with the current overshoot we’re experiencing across a range of different resources and industries.

Though there are many debates throughout the degrowth movement about core values, priorities, and strategies, some simplified principles of degrowth economics might include:

Ecological Balance & Sustainable Consumption. The current growth-centric model has led to widespread ecological degradation and resource depletion. Degrowth economics seeks to reimagine and implement systems that restore ecological balance by promoting sustainable practices and living within the means of the planet, such as the circular economy.
Social Equity. Traditional growth-driven economies often exacerbate social inequalities, leaving marginalized communities behind. Degrowth economics challenges this status quo by redistributing resources and fostering greater social cohesion. This also applies geopolitically, with nations working together to distribute resources more equitably to fight poverty and inequality, especially among richer nations.
Resilience and Adaptation. A degrowth approach enhances societal resilience by reducing dependency on fragile global supply chains and promoting local self-sufficiency. This resilience can better equip communities to adapt to shocks and uncertainties, such as climate change and global pandemics. This means localizing economic activity and increasing community self-reliance to reduce transport emissions and vulnerability.
Human Wellbeing. By prioritizing wellbeing over material wealth, degrowth economics encourages people to focus on what truly matters in life—health, community, and meaningful relationships. Advocates argue that this shift can lead to a happier and more fulfilling existence. This means prioritizing quality-of-life vs. growth indicators such as health, education, and life satisfaction vs. increasing GDP. This also entails reducing expected or baseline working hours and redistributing employment to improve work-life balance and share prosperity.

Degrowth Transition Efforts

While still marginalized, the degrowth movement has spurred initiatives aligned with its ethos:

The European Union's Circular Economy Action Plan aims to double circular material use rates by 2030.6
Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Scotland, and Wales have implemented Wellbeing Economy frameworks centered on societal flourishing over GDP, with Scotland emerging as arguably the most advanced.7
Community-led ‘Transition Towns’ across 50 countries (as of 2019) have emerged to promote local resilience through urban farming, renewable energy, etc.8

Degrowth vs. Ecological Economics, Ecosocialism, Green Growth, and Post-growth

Degrowth shares many features in common with other theories, including the aforementioned circular economy and steady-state economics, as well as ecological economics, ecosocialism, green growth, and post-growth. It is important to note that these are not mutually exclusive categories, but live within a “movement of movements”—and moreover that different practitioners will have different ideas about how exactly each term ought to be understand. Based on my research, I differentiate them as follows:

Degrowth vs. Ecological Economics

Ecological Economics is an interdisciplinary field of economics that addresses the interdependence and coevolution of human economies and natural ecologies, of which degrowth is one school of thought.

Degrowth vs. Ecosocialism

Ecosocialism is also arguably a broader field than degrowth. First proposed in 1980, Ecosocialism focuses on the abandonment of capitalism, combining ideas of ecology and socialism, resulting in a society without class hierarchies and wealth disparities—and one that is more balanced with the environment.9 Where it rubs up against degrowth is that proponents of ecosocialsm “[reject] the dualistic frame of growth versus degrowth, development versus anti-development,” because they see these binaries as quantitative rather than qualitative conceptions of change.10 A 2021 review of Jason Hickel’s Less is More proposed a more conciliatory approach, arguing that “Ecosocialism is the horizon, degrowth is the way.”11

Degrowth vs. Green Growth

Green Growth is another proposed economic philosophy, whose advocates hold that through new technologies and sustainable forms of development, GDP growth is still possible alongside shifts in consumption.12 They emphasize decoupling GDP from carbon emissions, reducing the environmental impact associated with each unit (i.e., dollar) of GDP. Green growthers tend to be more optimistic about human ingenuity and the future, and emphasize policy shifts as solutions. In a recent literature review, authors Max Polewsky, Stephan Hankammer, Robin Kleer, and David Antons evaluated how scholarship in Green Growth differed from Degrowth.13 They write:

Using a comparative analysis of the two research fields, we confirm several findings from previous reviews, including that Green Growth research is highly policy oriented, focuses on practical implementation and builds on empirical research methods, while Degrowth research is highly theory-driven, focuses on the analysis of complex human-nature interrelationships and builds on a sound theoretical and conceptual foundation.

Hickel and economist Giorgos Kallis, another prominent degrowther, have expressed skepticism of green growth (to put it mildly), claiming “it is not a thing.”14

Degrowth vs. Post-growth

Post-growth is used in two different ways. First, post-growth differs from degrowth by simultaneously developing practices that counteract growth and overshoot while retaining those which are already effective (i.e., advocates seek to not inadvertently throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater). In this way Post-growth might be seen as sitting to the (economic) left of Green Growth but to the right of degrowth. Advocates of post-growth view problems through the lens of systems thinking, and aim to promote, link, and expand existing ideas, technologies, systems, initiatives, and actions. Philosopher Kate Soper, for example, proposed the notion of “alternative hedonism” to imagine a new vision of the “good life” that recircuits hedonism away from consumerism and toward the joys of being.

Post-growth is also sometimes regarded in its “noun” form—that is, referring to the state in which humanity has successfully transitioned away from a growth economy and toward a wellbeing economy. Under this reading, degrowth can be seen as a set of principles, practices, behaviors, and policies which might bring about a post-growth world. An example of this used in a sentence: “And no continent is better placed to benefit from a degrowth transition towards a post-growth economy than Europe.”15

Degrowth’s Critiques and Challenges

Degrowth does not lack for critics, nor for challenges to adoption.

In “Degrowth: We can't let it happen here!” Economist

Noah Smith

summarizes three of the primary challenges facing degrowth economics by paraphrasing others’ arguments, writing:

“[Ezra] Klein pointed out that major reductions in living standards would be politically unacceptable in rich countries.
[Branko] Milanovic showed that meaningful global degrowth would have to go beyond rich countries; it would have to stop poor countries from escaping poverty, which would be both politically untenable and morally wrong.
[Kelsey] Piper noted that coordinated global degrowth would take much more economic central planning than we’re actually able to do.”

Beyond the concerns about the impacts of degrowth employment, economic stability, international relations, and current models of governance are echoed, Smith goes on to deride degrowth as more of an activist agenda than rigorous field of study, with leading figures making unsubstantiated claims outside of their fields of study and promoting in-group jargon. He writes that they create “an alternative sphere of knowledge populated almost entirely by their own people … who are admitted to the club based on their shared acceptance of degrowth’s foregone conclusions.”

As a writer, a less esoteric and more practical challenge I see facing degrowth is that while the ideas are appealing, the language is not. “Growth” isn’t a term exclusive to the economy. Growth also refers to maturation and thriving, ranging from individual growth to growth in relationships to the growth of communities. With this view in mind, the first impression of the word “degrowth” insinuates a ramping down toward death or reversing a positive action. As trivial as this may seem, I actually see it as a major obstacle to the adoption of the idea at mass-scale. This is one reason I’m biased toward post-growth (but more on that in a future piece!).

Understanding the tension between the ideals of degrowth and the shape of its challenges comes down to two famous quotes:

“It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” —Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek.

and

“[The] power [of capitalism] seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.” —Ursula K. Le Guin.

Contemporary capitalism (or Technofeudalism) feels more overwhelming by the day—as inescapable as the ground beneath our feet, the air in our lungs. Seeking to dismantle such power, or to even make incursions into it, can feel like a fool’s errand.

For all the perceived flaws in the degrowth movement, and the challenges degrowth strategies will face in public adoption, its continued magnetism lies in the fervent, underlying belief that it is still worthwhile to fight, that perhaps there is a critical mass of people willing to fight for a new value system.

In Slow Down, Kohei Saito writes that Degrowth’s critics—who in this case also include those who can’t imagine the end of capitalism—suffer from “a poverty of imagination that simply accepts the status quo as unchangeable.”

One way of thinking about degrowth is as a vector rather than as an end state, the “radical flank” of alternative economics which busts open our collective thinking about how prosocial, liberatory systems could actually develop. Yes, it’s worth taking degrowth proposals seriously—whether that’s to put them to the test as real-world policy or identify their shortcomings and demand better—but most of all we can view the degrowth movement as an invitation to imagine otherwise and build solidarity toward futures where Earth is still habitable for human beings.

In fact, this is exactly what Serge Latouche outlined all the way back in 2007:

“To begin with, ‘de-growth’ is… no more than a banner that can rally those who have made a radical critique of development, and who want to outline the contours of an alternative project for a post-development politics. Its goal is to build a society in which we can live better lives whilst working less and consuming less. It is an essential proposition if we are to open up a space for the inventiveness and creativity of the imagination, which has been blocked by economistic, developmentalist, and progressive totalitarianism.”