- This topic has 5 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated August 31, 2021 at 12:06 am by .
-
Topic
-
It seems that, as ecological economics and noticeably degrowth scholarship and ideas get more attention and – importantly – genuine support from grassroot/solidarity groups, there are more and more of “bashing” or “flak” of the whole school of thought. Recently there has been a round of “anti-degrowth” takes, from various economists and econ/finance commentators, including this one by Matthew C. Klein, former Barron’s.com journalist, whose works on international trade and imbalances I find very valuable. It goes to the point in which he suggests that degrowth scholars are “anti-human” since they’re allegedly against human/social development.
I think the general response to specifically degrowth has been very interesting, in that 1) the intellectual standard or integrity has been so so low: critics almost never cite what the adherents actually say or their works 2) it’s seemingly mostly none other than post-Keyneisan economists (or those who subscribe to PK ideas, which I find very important and valuable) who, rightfully, complain the low intellectual standard and bad-faith attacks of neoclassical economists, charge the same kind of low-standard, bad-faith attacks on degrowth (neoclassical/mainstream ones, as you know well, are wedded with Nordhaus’ euphoria and rarely care about this kind of intra-heterdox disputes.)
Perhaps the name “degrowth” sounds so un-meritocratic, and that’s the problem. Then indeed there are other names that we can use, such as doughnut economics (Raworth) or steady-state economics (Daly), which I think all suggest the same thing as degrowth. But that critics’ main issue with degrowth is that how uncouth it sounds exactly shows, I think, how low-standard attacks have been. As an outsider who find both schools valuable and want to study more (and I think both are compatible with each other), I think the attacks on degrowth is really about ideology and I genuinely don’t think there’s much good-faith critique of degrowth.
What’s interesting about PK critique of ecological economics is, while they ostensibly strive to base theories on “realistic” assumptions and seek “realism”, their willingness to assume away 1) thermodynamics (although this is standard for economics in general, with a handful of exceptions) 2) the political economy of consumerism and planned obsolescence, which induces unnecessary resource consumption 3) the lasting colonial relationship between the Global North and the Global South and net resource extraction from the Global South, which, I think, makes their world view totally irrelevant on this matter.
Has PK economics ever come out with a model of biosphere comparable to the system dynamics model famously utilized in the Limits to Growth report, which, despite all the tirades and dismissals from all sides, has been exonerated again and again as time passes? Probably not. Then I think the general PK commentary on ecology and ecological economics is not only wrong but also immaterial.
It seems, as Blair points out, critics suggest that degrowth is calling for immiseration. But that’s outright wrong. Ecological economics (or doughnut, steady-state; call it whatever you want) strives to explain the amount of resources necessary for a decent life, and it’s absolutely possible to maintain the standard of living while reducing energy and resource consumption – by removing unnecessary consumption induced by industrial sabotage and promoting public ownership and/of services – and it shows with meticulous empirical researches: see this paper by Julia Steinberger. But it seems critics never get this.
Take Klein’s argument. He seems to suggest that degrothwers “don’t understand macro”, since one’s spending means one’s income, improving life standards of low-middle class means more income and thus more consumption, and since “most consumption is done by low and middle class”, by calling for the reduction of consumption degrowth stands in front of the improvement of lives, therefore them being “anti-human.”
While I think this whole line of argument consists of so many starw-man arguments – ecological economics indeed accepted PK macro ideas and seek to explain the possibility of full employment and support it; see this Stock-Flow Consistent modeling by Tim Jackson of Canadian economy pursuing degrowth and this by Jason Hickel applying MMT ideas and this by Mathew Forstater, in which he suggests Jobs Guarantee (JG) as an ecologically-minded full employment policy – what’s interesting to me most is that this seems to be based on what Blair has described as economists’ confusing monetary side with real (physical) side.
I don’t know where he got the idea that “most consumption is done by low/middle class”, but we all know well and ecological economics shows that when it comes to actual carbon emissions and energy and resource consumption, it’s the rich doing it the most, radically. But what I think he’s talking about, perhaps unconsciously, is that it’s low and middle class that has the highest propensity to consume out of income, which is consumption in a monetary sense. Degrowth is mainly talking about consumption in physical sense and how reduction of it is entirely compatible with maintaining and improving the quality of life.
It’s in a sense comical that their critique sounds like that degrowth is somehow against improving the lives of the poor living in China or in Nigeria while condoning the consumption of Jeff Bezos’ or Bill Gates’ and find the poor people having a heating system or clean water problematic. (Again, this line of argument only makes sense when you entirely ignore the net extraction of resources and wealth from the Global South, as I explained above.) Indeed, degrowth is exactly calling for reducing consumption of the rich (both domestically and internationally) so that poor people can have a room to pursue development, also taking on the colonial Global North-South relationship.
Perhaps it is that we all well know that the relative affluence that those of us living in the Global North now enjoy is possible due to the net extraction of resources from the Global South, it’s inconvenient to admit it and deal with it. Perhaps it is true that it will be politically hard to convince the public in the Global North to cease the current mode of consumerist society so that the Global South will have the room to pursue development. Then people should just say that it’ll be politically hard to pursue degrowth, at least in the Global North, instead of suggesting that degrowth is somehow “anti-human.”
I have specifically two questions regarding this issue:
1) As this is well-known, income correlates with physical resource/energy consumption. But it seems to be true that, when it comes to propensity to consume out of income, it’s the low and middle-income class who have the highest propensity. And perhaps indeed it might be true that in monetary sense “most consumption is done by low/middle class.” Do you see some contraction here, and if so, what is the reason?
2) Why do you think that this confusion of monetary side with real (physical) side among economists persists? Why do economist think they’re really talking about the “real” side when they talk about monetary/nominal values? Perhaps it’s the residual effect of the “ritual” aspect of capitalism, which economists study and perhaps unconsciously absorb?
-
Replies
-
-
I don’t have an answer to either question, but I did have thought regarding de-growth, though not entirely in the sense used by its advocates.
From a CasP perspective, de-growth seems to be compatible in some sense with capitalism. The reason is, and please correct me if I’m wrong: if power is measured relative to society at-large, as long as overall de-growth is faster than that of dominant capital, there will still be differential accumulation. There would presumably be serious societal devastation and unrest, and the integration of dominant firms and government police power might reach extreme heights, but theoretically it is a possibility. National governments would also likely have to become more integrated than they are now, though a crisis makes good cause for unity.
To my mind, corporation-driven climate initiatives like carbon offsets seem designed for the possibility, if not eventuality, of differential ‘de-growth’: as the shrinking natural world gets increasingly capitalized into carbon offsets/assets, rising global carbon tax and regulation regimes will be provided with a “natural” market-mechanism to redistribute the right to pollute away from the rest of society in financially complex (as in fraudulent), technocratic fashion.
-
Hi
Interesting thread! As part of my PhD thesis, I am currently using CasP to analyse obstacles to degrowth transformations.
I just wanted to point out that degrowth is not a synonym of negative growth. I think economists (even many heterodox ones) tend to make this simplification because it fits well with their models. Degrowth – from my point of view -, is more an idea that promotes a mosaic of social processes, from collective experiments to oppositional and political movements – at a variety of scales – challenging the institutions underpinning growth. In the degrowth narrative, it is through these processes that a degrowth society could emerge. Therefore, I don’t think the feasibility of degrowth should be explored by asking “what happens to capitalism when GDP growth is negative?” (otherwise it is definitely an interesting question though). Negative growth might result from degrowth processes if they are successful. But well before that, degrowth transformations could influence differential accumulation patterns, challenge the architecture of capitalist power, and spark reactions from some specific groups of capitalists or dominant capital as a whole.
Regarding your questions, Brian, my thoughts,
1) If the propensity to consume is higher for low/middle class than for capitalists/absentee owners, more income equality might mean more consumption per capita (and thus more environmental footprint per capital). But it is economicist thinking. Capitalists instead of spending their money in consumption, use it to buy commodified power. It is not straightforward to assess the impact of commodified power, but it definitely has (major) consequences for the environment – because it shapes the institutions of society, including the very patterns of consumption.
2) As a non-economist I don’t know, but interesting question!
Cheers
Julien
-
There is no question that, measured in absolute energy term, consumption and income are positively correlated. But in focusing on this correlation and the lavish lifestyle of the rich we might be missing a bigger point.
In our 2020 paper ‘Growing Through Sabotage’, we suggest that the more important question is what part of the energy captured by society goes to wellbeing and what part goes to sustaining and augmenting hierarchical power:
In the paper, we argue that, in the capitalist mode of power, ‘business as usual’ means that the hierarchical share tends rise, and that this relative increase becomes the main driver of energy capture.
If this view is correct, it means that as long as the current capitalist mode of power prevails and expands, the need for more and more hierarchical energy will continue to drive absolute energy capture higher and higher.
From this power viewpoint, the distribution of consumption between rich and poor is more a consequence than a cause.
-
Brian,
About the Keynesian critiques of degrowth (and others critiques by prominent heterodox economists like Branko Milanović), my impression is that they are based on the observation that the growth of real GDP correlates strongly with many measures of well-being. The problem is that they take this correlation and then (essentially) claim that GDP growth is the same as improving wellbeing.
At a more fundamental level, virtually all macroeconomists are taught to think in aggregate terms. At that level, the idea of ‘growth’ (or lack thereof) is simple. If GDP goes up, the economy grew. But things get more complex when we are trying to design an economy that is sustainable and one in which humans can flourish.
On that point, I think the ideas from Doughnut economics get it right, in the sense that they look at disagregated measures of resource use and of wellbeing. When you do that, it’s not even clear what ‘growth’ or ‘degrowth’ means.
Interestingly, I’ve been having an email conversation with Jason Hickel on this topic. I think the most important thing for degrowthers to achieve is to take the focus off GDP. GDP growth (or decline) just doesn’t matter.
If you have specific objectives for human well-being (improving life expectancy, infant mortality, education, etc.) you should focus on those directly. And if you have specific objectives for things you want to reduce (carbon emissions, fossil fuel consumption, etc.) focus on those directly.
What you see immediately is that there are a lot of messy trade offs. Some of the good things might go up. But some might go down. Likewise with the bad things. It’s a matter of democracy to decide how to weight these various trade offs.
For a century, politicians have had it easy. Their answer to society’s problems was basically ‘lets have more of everything’. Well, going forward that won’t be an option.
To answer your specific questions, it is true that lower earners spend more of their money directly on consumer goods. But I’m not sure that you can tie a specific portion of ‘resource consumption’ onto a specific class. How, for instance, do you allot the ‘consumption’ embodied in the construction of roads and freeways? Or skyscrapers?
About the confusion between ‘real’ and ‘nominal’, I think the confusion persists because money is easy to measure. That’s its purpose — to have a quantity. The world of resource use, however, is not so easily quantified. Well, that’s not quite true. There are many ways of measuring biophysical flows, but each has a different purpose and meaning.
To end with the big picture, I have almost no faith that humanity will voluntarily reduce its resource consumption. But I still think degrowth is a good idea because it gets us thinking about what we’ll be forced to do in the long term.
-
Interestingly, I’ve been having an email conversation with Jason Hickel on this topic. I think the most important thing for degrowthers to achieve is to take the focus off GDP. GDP growth (or decline) just doesn’t matter.
I would argue that GDP growth, more and more, does not represent economic growth but wealth transfer, and I would exclude extractive segments of the economy (e.g., healthcare and higher education) from the calculation of GDP.
Over 60% of healthcare costs are incurred by people over 50. Treating cancer is not something you can get a loan to do near the end of your life expectancy. You have to tap into your existing wealth or take on credit card debt, which can be fobbed onto your heirs.
By the same token, the payoff of higher education increasingly does not justify the cost of taking on high debt levels, a risk that can affect both the children and their families in negative ways. And I say this is somebody who believes that a college education is its own reward and would like to see everybody who wants a college degree given the opportunity to obtain one debt-free. I hate that there has to be a “payoff” for going to college, but that’s the reality we live in, if you have to borrow tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars.
There is Congressional testimony from Simon Kuznets regarding the value of GDP as a metric of well-being. You’ve probably seen it before, but if not, I can track it down (I know generally where it is on my hard drive). The money part of the quote is easy to find on Google, but I recall he provides a bit more context in the full testimony.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.