Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about Less Is More, please sign up.

Answered Questions (2)

Sebastian Rowan Branko Milanovic, known for his work on income distribution and inequality, is a quite outspoken critic of degrowth. He has written a number of blog p…moreBranko Milanovic, known for his work on income distribution and inequality, is a quite outspoken critic of degrowth. He has written a number of blog posts criticizing the movement, mostly focusing on the lack of political will to achieve it, and advocating economic growth as the only way forward.

(one of Branko's posts: https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/b...)

Branko fails to really give an honest critique of degrowth, though, relying on strawman characterizations of the theory. If you do read his criticisms, I really do recommend you also read the responses from degrowth writers (e.g. https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/b...

https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...).

It is good to read multiple sides of arguments, but just because something has critics, doesn't mean the truth necessarily lies somewhere in the middle. The body of literature advocating for degrowth has made, I believe, an ironclad argument against the possibility of endless growth. (less)
Keith Akers Good question. The problem is that what we need, according to many degrowth advocates, is a physical downsizing of the material throughput of the econ…moreGood question. The problem is that what we need, according to many degrowth advocates, is a physical downsizing of the material throughput of the economy. "Dynamic homeostasis" or "steady-state economy" (a la CASSE) are good concepts, and accurately represent our ultimate goal, but do not focus on the essential problem: in the near future, we are looking at making the economy smaller.

It is this shrinking which is the most obvious feature of any degrowth ideas, and this is going to leap out at anyone who is objectively considering degrowth. (Also, "dynamic homeostasis" is too many syllables.) Less land use, less use of mineral resources, hopefully no use of fossil fuels, less consumption, fewer people. The term "degrowth" captures this, so even though it may not be a winning slogan, it is an honest one and an amazingly short one: two syllables. So for brevity and accuracy, "degrowth" seems to be the default.

Having said that, degrowth advocates have different ideas of the proper mix of this "less". For example, most advocates say that some growth is necessary in the less developed countries, to provide them with an adequate living standard, but the rich countries must substantially shrink their consumption so that not only their consumption, but the grand total of all world consumption declines. Advocates might also say, e. g., that we could ditch livestock agriculture, but keep washing machines (or some other trade-off of technologies).

Kate Raworth wrote an excellent post criticizing the term here: https://frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/why-.... She says that "degrowth" leaves ambiguous whether we are talking about physical shrinking of the economy or just shrinking of the GDP. To me it's fairly clearly that this is an environmental concept and we are talking about shrinking of the environmental impact, by whatever means necessary. (less)

Unanswered Questions

About Goodreads Q&A

Ask and answer questions about books!

You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.

See Featured Authors Answering Questions

Learn more