Ecological / contemporary

Degrowth

c. 2002– · also: décroissance
Depth
Open in the Navigator →

Degrowth argues that indefinite economic growth is both ecologically impossible on a finite planet and a poor proxy for well-being, and calls for a planned, democratic reduction of production and consumption in wealthy economies toward a steady-state economy that fits within ecological limits.

Its key distinction is between prosperity and throughput — the flow of energy and raw materials through the economy. Beyond a certain threshold, it argues, more output stops adding to human flourishing while still consuming the planet, so the aim becomes sufficiency rather than expansion: shorter working hours, universal public provision, repair over replacement, and well-being measured by health, security, and time rather than GDP.

It draws on older roots — the steady-state economics of Herman Daly, the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth (1972), Georgescu-Roegen's thermodynamics of the economy — and revived as décroissance in France before becoming an international movement (Latouche, Hickel, Jackson) with a growing academic literature and its own conferences.

It is deliberately a direction rather than a fixed blueprint, and its proponents span reformist and anti-capitalist positions, united less by a single programme than by the rejection of growth as the organizing aim of economic life — which sets it against almost the entire existing political spectrum, left and right.

Its critics, including many on the left, argue that 'degrowth' is a self-defeating slogan, that green growth and rapid clean-energy deployment are the realistic path, and that deliberately shrinking output risks unemployment and hardship, especially for the poor; degrowthers reply that they target wealthy overconsumption and rich-world throughput, not the basic needs of the global South.

Like nearly every position it maps, the instrument quietly assumes a growing economy as the neutral background of politics. Degrowth attacks that background assumption itself, which is why it registers as an extreme rather than as the rejection of a shared premise the other entries never state.

Why it is placed here — Econ × Social

Collective-leaning and liberty-side, emphasizing democratic and non-market provision over both central planning and the market.

Why it is placed here — Liberty × Equality

Equality-leaning, pairing redistribution with sufficiency and relying heavily on participatory institutions as guarantors.

Why it is placed here — Order × Change

Strongly change-oriented, since it rejects an aim — growth — shared across almost the entire existing political spectrum.

Why it is placed here — Universal × Particular

Universalist, addressed to wealthy economies on behalf of the whole planet and future generations, with a thin solidaristic community.

Why it is placed here — Individual × Collective

Balanced, with positive duties framed as sufficiency and care, extended to future generations as much as to present members.

The axis distributes duties among present humans. Degrowth's central obligation is intergenerational and planetary — restraint now for the sake of those not yet born — and there is no pole here for a duty owed across time.
What the whole instrument misses
The instrument, like nearly every position it maps, takes a growing economy as the neutral background against which political choices are made. Degrowth's whole argument targets that background assumption itself, so it appears as an extreme when it is in fact a rejection of the shared premise the other entries never state.
Sources
  • Serge Latouche, Farewell to Growth, 2007
  • Jason Hickel, Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World, 2020