We continue our series exploring alternative economic models. Here in the second part of our series on Degrowth, a model that calls for deliberately reducing energy and resource consumption within the economy, we examine the criticisms of degrowth.

Following our blog on the foundational concepts of degrowth, Madeleine Hewitt investigates the criticisms of degrowth.

Degrowth Would Disrupt the Global Economy

Jason Hickel, an advocate for degrowth, defines it in his article, What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification, as:

…a planned reduction of energy and resource use designed to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a way that reduces inequality and improves human wellbeing.” 

Hickel and other degrowth thinkers call for capitalism to be replaced and for high-income countries, particularly in the Global North to “de-grow” their economies. Lower-income and middle-income countries in the Global South are considered exempt from this. 

However, critics argue that any degrowth of high-income countries would also hit and destabilise lower-income countries due to economic interdependencies and reductions in global trade. As a lot of low-income countries economies are dependent upon exports of natural resources (oil, gas, minerals) to high-income countries.  

In addition, degrowth has been criticised as an inefficient way to reduce carbon emissions. Since carbon emissions would continue to rise in low-income and middle-income countries as they continue to industrialise. And that any redistribution of wealth towards lower-income countries as degrowth proposes, would stimulate economic growth in these regions causing resource consumption and emissions to rise further. 

Hurting the Poorest 

Degrowth has been described by some critics as  “austerity on the Western working class”.

Supporters argue that it would mean putting people’s wellbeing ahead of profit, to ensure a more sustainable existence for people and the planet. But critics say that any deliberate “degrowth” of the economy could lead to lower wages and job losses as industries shrink, impacting people’s livelihoods and driving up worse wealth inequality. They say degrowth as a policy agenda is politically impossible. 

Capitalism, whilst responsible for significant wealth inequality, has also lifted millions of people out of extreme poverty. Critics of degrowth argue that it risks leaving the world’s poorest behind, with 712 million people still living in extreme poverty, and that it’s economic growth which is necessary for low-income countries to develop and raise peoples’ standard of living. 

Environmental Destruction Predates Capitalism 

Many degrowth supporters argue that without capitalism there would be no environmental destruction – but critics contest this point. There’s no doubt that capitalism’s continuous pursuit of profit and growth, enabled by and propping up the fossil fuel industries, has led to unprecedented disruption to the world’s climate and widespread environmental destruction. 

But whilst capitalism is flawed, many civilisations caused environmental harm before capitalism even existed. When our ancient ancestors began the great human migration out of Africa and to other continents, so too did they precipitate the extinction of many of the world’s largest mammals: including woolly mammoths, giant ground sloths, and sabre-toothed tigers. Known as the Quaternary megafauna extinction, it occurred between 10,000 to 50,000 years ago and led to the extinction of more than 178 species. 

Over the course of human history, roughly three-quarters of deforestation in temperate forests occurred before the Industrial Revolution.  

Case studies of economic crises in Southeast Asia, the former Soviet Union, and Greece, have shown that struggling populations have turned to forests for firewood, increased poaching of wildlife, and used destructive techniques such as dynamite fishing. Therefore, critics assert that if degrowth caused any decline in people’s wellbeing or resource security, it’s likely to cause a backlash of environmental deterioration.  

Rich Countries Protect the Environment 

Critics of degrowth argue that it’s economic growth that secures more environmental protections. They cite the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC), which describes a pattern where, initially, as countries experience rapid industrialisation and economic growth, environmental pollution tends to worsen. However, as countries develop and become more aware of environmental concerns, environmental impacts decrease because of deindustrialisation (decrease in manufacturing) as developed economies transition to a dominant service sector and governments introduce stricter environmental regulations.  

And that it’s the world’s richest countries that are putting more land and water under conservation, reintroducing native species through “rewilding programs” into ecosystems, and funding biodiversity conservation grants such as the Darwin Initiative.

Social Democracy Saves the Environment

Some argue that wider environmental protection doesn’t come from reductions of GDP growth, but rather via public-sector infrastructure spending and stricter government regulation. 

For example: 

• In the United States, aggregate levels of six common air pollutants have declined by 77%, even as GDP increased by 285%, following the introduction of the Clean Air Act 1970. 
• Depletion of the atmospheric ozone layer due to the release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in industrial and domestic applications such as fridges and aerosols, posed a serious ecological crisis. Then the 1987 Montreal Protocol ban on ozone-depleting substances, including CFCs, enforced by national laws, has meant emissions have declined by 98%. Ozone depletion reversed by the 2000s and full recovery is expected by 2075.  
• The issue of acid rain has been largely abated following stronger regulations of Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide emissions by industry, following the Canada–United States Air Quality Agreement in 1991, and similar regulation introduced by the European Union. 
  

Proponents of degrowth argue that it’s necessary to help reduce carbon emissions. However, critics argue that this may be more effectively achieved through government interventions including carbon taxes and wealth taxes, since it’s predominantly the richest 1% in society that produce the majority of emissions. 

Is Decoupling Possible? 

Decoupling is a complete separation between GDP growth from any environmental impacts and is a key component of green growth. Over the past decade, over 11 high-income countries, including the UK, have claimed to reduce their CO2 consumption emissions while increasing their GDP (absolute decoupling). 

However, degrowth advocates argue that decoupling has not actually occurred, rather through global trade, high-income countries such as the UK, have offshored their industry and displaced the corresponding environmental impacts to lower and middle-income countries.  

In other words, what looks like “green growth” is really just an artifact of globalization.”

Jason Hickel, The Myth of America’s Green Growth 

Critics argue that decoupling has successfully occurred in high-income countries. They credit reductions in air pollution from highway vehicles and power plants following stricter government regulation as evidence of successful decoupling between GDP growth and reduced environmental impacts.  

Economic Growth Brings Innovation 

Dematerialisation is the absolute or relative reduction in the quantity of materials required to serve economic functions in society. In simpler terms, it’s the use of less resource and energy to make the same product.  

It’s widely recognised that growing demand for material goods and services by a growing global population and rising levels of affluence has increased pressure on natural resources causing the climate and biodiversity crises the world faces.  

But it’s also been argued that innovation brought along by economic growth has led to dematerialisation and efficiency gains in the economy, thereby also reducing environmental impacts. In this way it’s argued that capitalism encourages innovation and efficiency, as companies seek to reduce overheads and increase profits, thereby limiting environmental impacts.  

Examples  

• More food grown on less land: In the United States domestic crop tonnage has risen steadily over the years and in 2015 was more than 55% higher than in 1980. Over that same period total water used for irrigation declined by 18% and total cropland used by more than 7%.  

• Growing industry less air pollution: China’s manufacturing-heavy economy has been continuing to grow at a fast rate, but it has also managed to reduce its air pollution in densely populated areas by more than 30% between 2013 and 2017.  

Critics of degrowth argue that it would stifle and inhibit innovation and technological breakthroughs, which they point out tend to occur more frequently in high-income countries that invest in research and development.  

However, it can also be identified that the monopolisation of certain large tech companies has stifled innovation and competition. And that large companies have also been identified as cutting corners on environmental regulation – including illegal waste dumping – in order to reduce costs. Therefore, it must be recognised capitalism in practice has not actually resulted in the constant evolution of its own innovation and efficiency, but rather corporate lobbying and cross-sector monopolisation has led to stagnation and compounded environmental harms. 

Final Thoughts 

Criticism of the degrowth model has identified some significant flaws in its concept. However, at times these criticisms also gloss over the deep flaws also apparent in modern capitalism. 

With the fragile state of the environment and worsening wealth inequality, it’s clear there’s a need for a fundamental systematic change. But whether that is adopting a degrowth approach or another alternative economic model is still up for discussion.