Photo by Jing Yang on Unsplash
Recently, (in May) three academics (Julian Kirchherr, Dennis Jansen, Kris Hartley) published a paper titled: Varieties of degrowth: an analysis of archetypes in the Journal of Industrial Ecology.
These researchers saw that degrowth discussions were becoming more varied and nuanced, and felt that the topic had not been studied systematically enough - which could limit progress in better understanding degrowth. They addressed this perceived gap in understanding through research and lengthy interviews with 40 experts in the degrowth field. The experts they interviewed were mostly academics in Europe, though some were sustainability professionals, consultants, activists and even artists.
They concluded that degrowth currently comes in four different varieties:
1️) Eco-reformist degrowth – which uses market reforms and business innovation to green the current system.
2️) Systemic change degrowth – which relies on strong government intervention to restructure the economy
3️) Transformative degrowth – which focuses on shifting societal values, supported by institutions
4️) Sufficiency-driven degrowth – which emphasizes grassroots action, local living, and reduced consumption.
Dig a little deeper
Here is a little more detail on how to differentiate between these four variants, in the words of the researchers themselves.
The eco-reformist degrowth archetype emphasizes an economic approach that primarily involves businesses and consumers. As places of exchange where externalities originate, markets are seen in this archetype as the primary setting for degrowth. The objective is to channel the operation of markets towards the generation of environmental and social benefit rather than capital accumulation alone. Achieving this vision potentially involves confronting powerful interests and actors that are likely to resist change.
Systemic change degrowth holds that institutional guidance through state intervention is imperative given the urgency to act decisively on systemic crisis. This archetype assumes that businesses will not reliably adopt non-exploitive practice and individuals will not reliably alter their consumption behaviors in altruistic ways. Rather, degrowth must be pursued through policies that regulate business and individual behavior, as supplemented by the centralization or nationalization of industries crucial for basic societal needs.
Transformative degrowth promotes incremental and small-scale interventions, aiming to replace the prevailing growth model with one focused on social wellbeing and non-exploitive practices. This advocates for institutionally induced change through shifts in cultural factors, emphasizing personal and collective values and norms. This archetype assumes that a durable form of degrowth is not one externally imposed but internally and endogenously motivated.
Sufficiency-driven degrowth holds that meaningful pro-environmental change comes from grassroots efforts and should focus on cultural shifts in the organization of society. It rejects techno-optimism and technological dependency while critiquing over-centralization of economic and social activity.
The graphic below from the paper shows these four different archetypes, with sufficiency and eco-reformist fueled by more grassroots efforts, and transformative and systemic change depending more on institutional changes.
The authors of the paper themselves say that there is overlap in some of these categories and acknowledge that you don’t have to pick one and completely disregard all aspects of the others. Any degrowth effort is likely to dip its toe in more than one of these categories. For example, bioregionalism, which looks to connect people more with the places they live in order to better protect and manage those places, can be seen as eco-reformist and sufficiency driven. Bioregionalism can even be transformative degrowth as cultural norms change to incorporate more bioregionalism. Bioregionalism can then become systemic change if local and federal authorities recognize a local population’s sovereignty over their place and their right to make decisions about how it is managed.
I feel that I am working more in the sufficiency and eco-reformist camps with my work here in this blog and in the more institutional spaces with my work at Arketa Institute. I believe the kind of change that is needed is more likely to come from the grassroots than institutions. I think that policy and government changes follow culture, they don’t lead them.
I thank Julian, Dennis and Kris for their work. We need more work like this to move the conversation forward and get degrowth out into the mainstream. I don’t feel a focus on sufficiency is that radical, as all it does is admit the limits to growth. But I understand that in a world where economic growth is expected to continue forever on a planet with finite resources, the consensus may not be operating from a rational position.
Survey time
Please read the paper and share it with others if you are so inclined. And tell me, which category of degrowth DO YOU think will be most effective:
Thanks for this. This topic relates to this new paper as well: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2026.2668252
There are many important and progressive ideas in all of these approaches. But none of them address the magnitude of degrowth needed to achieve a steady-state economy, nor the urgency in achieving this goal. At least a 70 to 80% reduction in our ecological footprint is required to allow the biosphere to regain the massive loss of biomass we have destroyed over the past few centuries (approx half of the total global biomass since the 1700's). None of the proposed degrowth approaches clarify such a target, nor do they propose degrowth scenarios that come close to achieving such a goal in the next couple of decades, before irreversible ecological tipping points occur. Degrowth is the answer, but we need a clear target to develop appropriate strategies. The required actions will be very disruptive, and unless we are prepared to embrace the necessary disruption, we won't get there on time.