Degrowth Criticism, Part 4
Degrowth isn't popular - yet.
Let’s continue with our exploration of the article, Four Problems for the Degrowth Movement. The author is Daniel Driscoll, a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Rhodes Center for International Economics and Finance at Brown University.
4. Degrowth doesn’t have an adequate theory of political transformation.
Driscoll argues that degrowth doesn’t have the political movement behind it to lead to political transformation. He’s not wrong.
Driscoll states that to evaluate movement successes and failures, many scholars will plug a movement into what they call a “political opportunity structure.” A political opportunity structure has three components: (1) public consciousness, (2) organizational or mobilizing strength, and (3) macro-political opportunities.
Public consciousness of degrowth is low.
To drive home the point that public consciousness of degrowth is low, Driscoll shows the following graph, comparing Google searches for “degrowth” versus “how to get rich”.
Degrowth isn’t exactly lighting the world on fire, but it is slowly trending in a direction of increased recognition, from about zero in 2004 to about 10 recently (100 on this scale indicates peak popularity). I think it fair to argue that the “popularity” measured by Google searches of degrowth isn’t necessarily the best measure of whether degrowth is having an impact, but it is a useful indicator.
Driscoll is correct, most people don’t know what degrowth is. That is why I started writing this blog.
Organizing or mobilizing strength is low, but growing.
Driscoll also correctly argues that degrowth currently lacks organizing strength. But that is slowly changing. The 2023 Beyond Growth Conference held last May at the European Parliament brought together some of the world’s preeminent thinkers on what a degrowth or post-growth world would look like. The International Degrowth Network is an international effort to bring the currently disparate degrowth community together to share best practices and grow the degrowth movement. Places like degrowth.info provide information for the degrowth curious including articles from nearly 4,000 authors on degrowth.
These resources are just the tip of the iceberg. If you go on any social media platform, from X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, and others, you will find thousands of people talking about degrowth. If you are so inclined, join them.
If you are reading this article, you likely live in a place with organizations spreading to word about degrowth. Talk to them. Spread the word.
There is little organizing strength behind degrowth compared to other movements because it is new to so many people.
Macro political opportunities aren’t there, yet.
Driscoll is also correct in stating that “there is no major social movement organization or institution centering degrowth in its platform. If such organizations do exist, they have feeble resources and networks, which are key ingredients for movement success.”
I disagree with him when he says that degrowth does not have a natural constituency. In, our current culture, it has a small one, but as people begin to realize the need to cut back on consumption and energy use, that will change. I hope it happens more by choice than catastrophe, but it will change.
Driscoll ends his article by arguing that we should focus on green growth instead of degrowth, stating that it isn’t a serious path forward for climate.
But as I’ve argued in the previous parts of this series, greening our current economy and degrowth aren’t mutually exclusive. They can complement each other. If you have more degrowth, you don’t need green growth to do as much. Greening what we have alone can’t get us to where we need to be on climate change without further pushing us past our planetary boundaries, which will just make things worse.
Remember our energy mix is still over 80% fossil fuels, so any “green growth” implies “fossil fuel” growth for the foreseeable future.
Those who argue for green growth without degrowth are either explicitly or implicitly saying “Don’t mess with capitalism, it will fix things.” That is likely because so many people have their wealth and sense of purpose tied up in the capitalist system in which we operate.
This isn’t a conspiracy, it is just people acting in what they perceive to be their self-interest. I would argue that their survival tomorrow should trump their comfort today, but not enough people see the world this way.
They will. It is just a matter of when.
Thanks for pointing that out Arwen. I hadn't seen that. I'll check it out.
its important to appreciate that we are talking about changing the central meme of our global civilization - economic growth. This has never been done before and we frankly dont know how to do it. One approach we are taking in NZ is to work at developing resilient communities from a degrowth perspective - meaning in the simplest way possible, with the smallest ecological footprint possible, and with a focus on universal basic needs ( both material and non-material). Given all the uncertainties we face, one certainty we can be confident of is that universal basic needs will be relevant. Indeed, they will become more relevant as they are increasingly challenged by the many risks we face. This approach will allow at least some people to be prepared for the uncertainties ahead, and provide living examples of how to live well with less. Unless we have our basic needs met, and meet them within biophysical limits, little else matters. Degrowth is unlikely to ever be popular or mainstream until it is too late.