As green growth loses traction among researchers, ‘post-growth’ thought is no longer a fringe position

WHEN she took to the floor to give her State of the Union speech on Sep 13, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen largely stuck to the script. Describing her vision of an economically buoyant and sustainable Europe in the era of climate change, she called on the European Union (EU) to accelerate the development of the clean-tech sector, “from wind to steel, from batteries to electric vehicles”.

“When it comes to the European Green Deal, we stick to our growth strategy,” she said.

Her plans were hardly idiosyncratic. The notion of green growth – the idea that environmental goals can be aligned with continued economic growth – is still the common economic orthodoxy for major institutions such as the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The OECD has promised to “strengthen (its) efforts to pursue green growth strategies… acknowledging that green and growth can go hand in hand”, while the World Bank has called for “inclusive green growth” where “greening growth is necessary, efficient, and affordable”.

Meanwhile, the EU has framed green growth as “a basis to sustain employment levels and secure the resources needed to increase public welfare… transforming production and consumption in ways that reconcile increasing GDP (gross domestic product) with environmental limits”.

However, our survey of nearly 800 climate policy researchers from around the world reveals widespread scepticism towards the concept in high-income countries, amid mounting literature arguing that the principle may neither be viable nor desirable.

Instead, alternative post-growth paradigms including “degrowth” and “agrowth” are gaining traction.

Green growth, agrowth and degrowth

But what do these terms signify?

The “degrowth” school of thought proposes a planned reduction in material consumption in affluent nations to achieve more sustainable and equitable societies. Meanwhile, supporters of “agrowth” adopt a neutral view of economic growth, focusing on achieving sustainability irrespective of GDP fluctuations.

Essentially, both positions represent scepticism towards the predominant “green growth” paradigm, with degrowth representing a more critical view.

Much of the debate centres around the concept of decoupling – whether the economy can grow without corresponding increases in environmental degradation or greenhouse gas emissions. Essentially, it signifies a separation of the historical linkage between GDP growth and its adverse environmental effects.

Importantly, absolute decoupling rather than relative decoupling is necessary for green growth to succeed. In other words, emissions should decrease during economic growth, and not just grow more slowly.

Green growth proponents assert that absolute decoupling is achievable in the long term, although there is a division regarding whether there will be a short-term hit to economic growth.

The degrowth perspective is critical that absolute decoupling is feasible at the global scale and can be achieved at the rapid rate required to stay within Paris climate targets.

A recent study found that current rates of decoupling in high-income countries are falling far short of what is needed to limit global heating to well below 2 deg C, as set out by the Paris Agreement.

The agrowth position covers more mixed, middle-ground views on the decoupling debate. Some argue that decoupling is potentially plausible under the right policies – however, the focus should be on policies rather than targets, as this is confusing means and ends.

Others may argue that the debate is largely irrelevant, as GDP is a poor indicator of societal progress. A “GDP paradox” exists, where the indicator continues to be dominant in economics and politics despite its widely recognised failings.

Seven out of 10 climate experts sceptical

How prevalent are degrowth and agrowth views among experts? As part of a recent survey completed by 789 global researchers who have published on climate change mitigation policies, we asked questions to assess the respondents’ positions on the growth debate.

Strikingly, 73 per cent of all respondents – or seven in 10 – expressed views aligned with “agrowth” or “degrowth” positions, with the former being the most popular. We found that the opinions varied based on the respondent’s country and discipline.

While the OECD itself strongly advocates for green growth, researchers from the EU and other OECD nations demonstrated high levels of scepticism. In contrast, over half of the researchers from non-OECD nations, especially in emerging economies such as the Brics nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – were more supportive of green growth.

Furthermore, a disciplinary divide exists. Environmental and other social scientists, excluding orthodox economists, were the most sceptical of green growth.

In contrast, economists and engineers showed the highest preference for green growth, possibly indicative of trust in technological progress and conventional economic models that suggest economic growth and climate goals are compatible.

Our analysis also examined the link between the growth positions and the GDP per capita of a respondent’s country of origin. A discernible trend emerged: as national income rises, there is increased scepticism towards green growth.

At higher income levels, experts increasingly supported the post-growth argument that beyond a point, the socio-environmental costs of growth may outweigh the benefits.

The results were even more pronounced when we factored in the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, suggesting that aspects beyond income, such as inequality and overall development, might influence these views.

In a world grappling with climate change and socio-economic disparities, these findings should not simply be dismissed. They underline the need for a more holistic dialogue on sustainable development, extending beyond the conventional green growth paradigm.

Post-growth thought no longer fringe

Although von der Leyen firmly stood in the green growth camp, this academic shift is increasingly reflected in the political debate.

In May 2023, the European Parliament hosted a conference on the topic of “Beyond Growth” as an initiative of 20 Members of the European Parliament from five different political groups; it was supported by more than 50 partner organisations.

Its main objective was to discuss policy proposals to move beyond the approach of national GDP growth as the primary measure of success.

Six national and regional governments – Scotland, New Zealand, Iceland, Wales, Finland, and Canada – have joined the Wellbeing Economy Governments partnership. The primary aim of the movement is to transition to “an economy designed to serve people and planet, not the other way around.”

Clearly, post-growth thought is no longer a fringe, radical position within those working on solutions to climate change. Greater attention needs to be given to why some experts are doubtful that green growth can be achieved, as well as potential alternatives focused on wider concepts of societal well-being rather than limited thinking in terms of GDP growth. THE CONVERSATION

Ivan Savin is an associate professor of business analytics and research fellow at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, ESCP Business School. Lewis King is a postdoctoral research fellow in ecological economics, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.