I write in response to the recent critique by Terry Leahy of my article ‘Beyond green growth, degrowth, post-growth and growth agnosticism’ in JAPE (94, Summer 2024/2025).
While it is great to open this sort of debate, it is crucial, first and foremost, to clarify what is being argued. My article in JAPE should not be characterised as making an argument for ‘green growth’ – which is a position I reject as being poorly formulated, overly rigid and lacking in qualification and nuance. The key arguments I put forward in the JAPE article were actually as follows:
- participants in this debate need to be clearer, consistent and more precise in outlining their position and in the construction and use of concepts and terminology that they use to describe their position.
- Economic growth is an aggregate measure that captures many diverse activities that range from environmentally helpful to harmful. The net environmental impact of economic is growth is inherently unstable and deeply dependent on a range of other variables. Given this, simplistic and fixed positions for (or against) economic growth are misconceived.
In rejecting these arguments, my critic presents established arguments drawn from the degrowth literature. Alas, these arguments serve to underlie points (a) and (b) above. Let me explain why this is so.
It is stated in Terry Leahy’s critique that “degrowth authors do not define degrowth as a reduction in GDP” and that degrowth is instead centrally focused on living within environmentally sustainable limits (alongside various other uncontroversial claims such as being in favour of conviviality, autonomy and the enjoyment of life). If this is all that degrowth stood for, there would be nothing to object to. It would also be hard to identify anything that marked out degrowth as a distinct position, or to understand why the term degrowth has been employed as a descriptor. However, and crucially, in the very same paragraph it is then stated that degrowth proponents “do have a consensus position on the relationship between GDP and environmental damage”, namely that when GDP falls environmental impact reduces. So, a hostility towards increasing GDP is an entirely defining characteristic of degrowth. Given this, it is reasonable to ask degrowth advocates to admit to themselves and others that, for better or worse, an anti-GDP stance is indeed a defining characteristic of degrowth. In the absence of this, the degrowth position is a walking contradiction.
Terry Leahy’s critique also bears out a point made in my JAPE article that there is a lack of clarity and consistency on the basic issue of causation within the degrowth literature. Leahy asserts that degrowth is concerned with directly targeting the rate of economic growth, stating that: “strangely he [i.e. Thornton] does not mention a single measure that de-growthers have advocated to cut economic growth per se” (paragraph 3). In other words, the causation posited by degrowth proponents (or at least as presented by Leahy) appears to run from decreased economic growth to increased environmental sustainability. This surprising pathway to environmental sustainability carries the burden of having to explain why policymakers should target a variable [GDP] that is strikingly indiscriminate (covering activities that range from environmentally helpful to harmful), unpredictable, difficult to control, and several steps removed from the biophysical impacts that matter.
Another problem with this stance of causation is that it sits very awkwardly with various specific environmental and social policies that many degrowth proponents have put forward to promote environmental sustainability. For example, as Stratford notes, many degrowth advocates favour industrial-scale investment in solar panels, wind turbines and public transport. This embrace of specific policy measures suggests that at least some degrowth proponents hold to the idea that negative GDP is a consequence, rather than a cause, of achieving environmental sustainability. In other words, this different account of causation fundamentally contradicts the earlier story of negative economic growth being a cause of environmental sustainability. This second account of causation carries the burden of having to explain why we can assume that all economies in all places and all times would contract in size if and when environmental sustainability is achieved via a suite of suitably ambitious policies.
Terry Leahy’s critique doesn’t make sufficiently clear whether he rejects specific environmental policy measures opposed by other self-identified degrowth proponents and instead really does advocate for the strikingly indiscriminate objective of targeting the growth rate in general. This lack of clarity comes in part from the fact he provides no specific measures that target the rate of economic growth – beyond broad calls for the end of capitalism, markets and money. It seems notable that such measures were stated without any indication as to how and by when such things are to be achieved. This seems unfortunate, given the urgency of many environmental challenges.
It is perhaps useful at this point to differentiate between general and niche responses to environmental and social challenges. If there are small, largely self-sufficient groups that are willing and able to live in the manner outlined by Leahy (and others) – and if that can achieved without cult-like mind control or heavy coercion – then that is both well and good. Moreover, certain ideas or practices associated with such communities, such as permaculture, can have wider applicability beyond those communities. However, the number of people who are both willing and able to live in small largely self-sufficient communities is currently tiny and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. In other words, such proposals are – at best – a niche rather than a general (i.e. global) solution, and at least some case studies of degrowth communities suggest it is a very niche solution indeed. In summary, niche strategies are fine in themselves, but they are no substitute for more general strategies.
I conclude by emphasising the clear implication of my arguments: the task is to put in place ambitious policies. Second-order effects on the rate of economic growth that flow from this policy driven response can be managed (a) if and when they occur; and (b) if and when they are seen as problematic. This will be challenge enough without environmentally concerned people being distracted and divided by assertions about relationship between economic growth and environment that do not appear to be well formulated, stable or clear. The policies available include new initiatives, such as personal carbon quotas and climate clubs, along with a wide range of tried and tested regulations, taxes, quotas and much else besides. As Jacob notes, “it is the panoply of state interventions in markets that have driven such progress as we have had. And it is much more far-reaching interventions that will be needed…” Whether one views getting such interventions in place as system reform or system change is likely to be somewhat in the eye of the beholder for quite some time, given different formulations of both capitalist and non-capitalist systems and the hybridities and fuzzy borderlines of all real-world economic systems.
The fundamental divide that really matters is between those that are favour of effective policies to protect the environment and climate and those that oppose (or have no interest) in such policies. My underlying concern is that much of the literature on economic growth and environment distracts and divides us from seeing this reality. It would be so much better to more fully unite around policies that seek to prevent further environmental damage by changing what is being produced and consumed, how it is being produced – including what form of energy is used – and how waste products are dealt with. This is the practical political economic task to direct our thoughts and actions towards.
Anitra Nelson | Mar 21 2525
Tim, you remind me of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty who insisted that his meaning of a word was ‘just what I want it to mean’. Like Alice, I protest ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things’. The movement stridently critiques ‘growth’ and does not fetishise GDP. For the link between infinite growth and ecological degradation take a look at this work: https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745343778/a-social-ecology-of-capital The unclarity in the degrowth (and many other such) movements is essentially between those who plump for an anti-economic grassroots approach and a top-down policy-oriented strategy. We live with that distinction. Moving in both directions at once is most likely to achieve success.
Tim Thornton | Mar 21 2525
Anitra, let me respond to each of your comments in turn. First, what exactly is the concept or word that you are arguing I have used in an inconsistent or unclear way? This detail is conspicuously lacking. Second, it is not clear how (and indeed, if) you are delineating ‘growth’ from ‘economic growth’ (i.e. GDP) in your comment above. In any event, the focus of my analysis is on the relationship between economic growth (GDP) and the environment. Third, I put forward no argument in favour of infinite economic growth in either my article or the rejoinder and so you are bringing in a red herring that that has the potential to distract from and even (inadvertently) misrepresent that arguments I have made. Fourth, you appear to see a lack clarity (what you term ‘unclarity’) as a benign thing, perhaps even a virtue? In contrast, I would argue a lack of clarity is major intellectual problem as it can easily function as a cover for incompatible, contradictory, constantly shifting, or poorly thought through ideas. It also is likely to create major practical problems if and when attempts are made to apply unclear ideas to real world challenges. Fifth, it is clearly noted in my rejoinder above that small, largely self-sufficient communities (by which I assume you mean ‘anti-economic grassroots’ approach) can complement larger systematic approaches at change. However, it also noted that such communities are very much a niche option and so there is a requirement for more general analysis and solutions for the level of the nation-state and above. Unfortunately, in these wider domains, the analysis, various posited solutions, and even the terminology of ‘degrowth’ are regularly an (inadvertent) gift to nefarious forces who have little or no interest in protecting the environment or the welfare of others.
Terry Leahy | Mar 22 2525
I will comment in two halves. Degrowth is so named by its adherents in relationship to a degrowth in materials and energy use. That is quite specific enough for a definition that distinguishes degrowth from other positions. It is not defined as a degrowth in GDP. At the same time degrowth authors agree on this empirical proposition. Growth in GDP has always been associated with a growth in material and energy use. Based on that alone, they believe that it is very unlikely that continued growth in GDP will not be associated with increases in environmental impact. They have a variety of explanations of the empirical connection. They call for a degrowth in material and energy use and expect a fall in GDP to follow any such strategy.
This kind of distinction between a definition and an empirical finding is not that hard to follow. It is like saying that the concept ‘orange’ is defined in relation to shape, the colour, the juice etc. But it is an empirical finding that oranges are grown in countries, A,B,C and D. However, if we found oranges in country E, we would not have to change our definition of ‘oranges’.
The second part of Thomson’s reply is a strange misinterpretation of what I said in the paper in PPE. Readers should go back to what I said there. Thomson attributes a view to me that is the close to the opposite of what I said. I had no idea I was being so obscure. It’s a worry.
Terry Leahy | Mar 22 2525
CORRECTION. It is Thornton, not Thomson.
Anitra Nelson | Mar 25 2525
Hi Tim, in response to your five questions: (1) you misinterpret ‘degrowth’; (2) I distinguish between ‘economic growth’ and ‘GDP’ while you compound them together as ‘economic growth (GDP)’; (3) the reference to infinite growth is to capitalist growth M—>M’ and/or your ‘economic growth’; (4) my point was practical rather than theoretical: following different strategies for achieving degrowth is likely to optimise chances for success; (5) I think we need to agree to disagree on the whole cluster of points you make here. FYI, forthcoming, https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Handbook-of-Degrowth/Nelson/p/book/9781032645247
Tim Thornton | Mar 25 2525
Hi Anitra and Terry. Thanks for your responses. Anitra, yes, there are numerous and deep differences of viewpoint here. These are very unlikely to be resolved within the constraining format of a comments thread on a blog piece and so I am currently of the inclination not to add anything more than I already have to this thread. My JAPE article, Terry’s critique of it, my rejoinder and everyone’s comments above, outline where the points of disagreement are and thus hopefully provide a useful resource for others to survey and evaluate. Best regards Tim.