Prosperity Without Growth – But How?

Pursuing economic growth on a finite planet – you’ve heard it before – is unsustainable and likely to produce more hangovers and headaches than most of us can stomach. But what are the alternatives? Anyone attempting to answer this question will likely end up with a copy of British economist Tim Jackson‘s recent book titled Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. Published late 2009 by Earthscan (now Routledge), the book “seeks viable responses to the biggest dilemma of our times: reconciling our aspirations for the good life with the constraints of a finite planet.” Fair enough, I thought and managed to get a copy from my local university library. And indeed, Prosperity Without Growth proves to be a surprisingly readable journey into the sometimes bizarre world of economics. Not only does it a good job summarizing some of the basics of economics lingo, it also walks the talk outlining potential alternatives to the hopelessly unsustainable economic track that we’re all on.

But first things first. What’s the problem with the status quo economic system? Sir Jonathon Porritt, one of the brightest stars and advocates in the sustainable development universe, put it as follows in an article in The Independent a while ago: “Millions of environmental campaigners seriously believe that we can mitigate climate change, slow the loss of threatened species and habitats, manage chronic water and resource shortages, and put an end to over-fishing and continuing soil erosion, whilst sticking with pretty much the same kind of economic growth that brought these natural systems to the edge of collapse in the first place. In all honesty, they’re mad.”

Which brings us directly to Tim Jackson and his book. The latter could be summarized as follows (make sure you read the book yourself though if you really want to understand the connections between prosperity and economic growth):

“Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question we must. The idea of a non-growing economy may be an anathema to an economist. But the idea of a continually growing economy is an anathema to an ecologist. No subsystem of a finite system can grow indefinitely, in physical terms. Economists have to be able to answer the question of how a continually growing economic system can fit within a finite ecological system.”

“The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the 1 billion people who still attempt to live on half the price of a cup of coffee each day. It has failed the fragile ecological systems on which we depend for survival. It has failed, spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic stability and secure people’s livelihoods.”

The economic crisis presents us with a unique opportunity to invest in change. To sweep away the short-term thinking that has plagued society for decades.”

“To protect economic growth we have been prepared to countenance – and have even courted – unwieldy financial and ecological liabilities, believing that these are necessary to deliver security and keep us from collapse. But this was never sustainable in the long-term. The financial crisis has shown us that it isn’t even sustainable in the short-term.”

“The dilemma of growth can be stated in terms of two propositions: 1. Growth is unsustainable – at least in its current form. Burgeoning resource consumption and rising environmental costs are compounding profound disparities in social well-being. 2. ‘De-growth’ is unstable – at least under present conditions. Declining consumer demand leads to rising unemployment, falling competitiveness and a spiral of recession. Failure to address this dilemma is the single biggest threat to sustainability that we face.”

“Resource efficiency, renewable energy and reductions in material throughput all have a vital role to play in ensuring the sustainability of economic activity. But it is entirely fanciful to suppose that ‘deep’ emission and resource cuts can be achieved without confronting the structure of market economies.”

“The dilemma of growth has us caught between the desire to maintain economic stability and the need to remain within ecological limits. This dilemma arises because stability seems to require growth, but environmental impacts ‘scale with’ economic output: the more the economy grows, the greater the environmental impact – all other things being equal.”

“Above all, there is an urgent need to develop a sustainable macro-economy that is no longerĀ  predicated on relentless consumption growth. The clearest message from the financial crisis of 2008 is that our current model of economic success is fundamentally flawed. For the advanced economies of the western world, prosperity without growth is no longer a utopian dream. It is a financial and ecological necessity.”

“The starting point for all of this lies in a vision of prosperity as the ability to flourish as human beings – within the ecological limits of a finite planet.”

“At the end of the day prosperity goes beyond material pleasures. It transcends material concerns. It resides in the quality of our lives and in the health and happiness of our families. It is present in the strength of our relationships and our trust in the community. It is evidenced by our satisfaction at work and our sense of shared meaning and purpose. It hangs on our potential to participate fully in the life of society.”

“Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings – within the ecological limits of a finite planet. The challenge for our society is to create the condition under which this is possible. It is the most urgent task of our times.”

And if you haven’t had enough already, watch Tim summarizing the book in this short video or check out his recent TED appearance in which he delivers “a piercing challenge to established economic principles, explaining how we might stop feeding the crises and start investing in our future”. More about the book, and to buy, visit: Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet.

Picture credit: anathea

 

6 thoughts on “Prosperity Without Growth – But How?

  1. The answer seems frustratingly close. The economic downturn has come at a good time – time to think. It’s what we choose to invest in now that matters.Food clothing and shelter are the basics of any economy. We must consider how we meet these needs sustainably then work out how we keep gainfully employed. Mischief is made by idle hands -I suppose that’s why Tim emphasises “places to meet”. Constant growth came from fossil fuelled industry that created over production and planned obsolescence filling up valleys for landfill as we go. There is something wrong with economic accounting that counts all this as benefit. The problem is that industrialised production makes some people very rich at the expense of those whose lives are overwhelmed by the effluent and rubbish.
    People have traded with each other before fossil fuels. It can’t be that hard.

    Like

    • You’re asking a quoetisn about the population explosion, and I’m answering to your comment on the risk of social catastrophies in the future. The truth is: I’m exactly as confused as you are. Given the most frightening climate science (and a whole lot of other disheartening environmental knowledge we are basing this discussion on), also I believe that anything and I mean that, quite literally anything might happen. Let’s think about it: what if the upper class of 3rd World countries, which quite naturally control the police and the armed forces, should start to take the population explosion DEAD seriously? And maybe decide to do something about it? The hard way. In terms of measures known from German history: I’m thinking of Bismarck’s REALPOLITIK and Hitler’s ENDLd6SNUNG. I mean realistically would the thought of a genocide solution always be too far fetched? I mean: the ruling class’s use of death squads within the police and the army is not a topic for medieval history classes. Just think about the carnage which took place in parts of Africa and The Balkans during the 1990s. I’d rather not think like that. Not voluntarily and not by force. This kind of thinking gives me the creeps, and makes me want to vomit. And this is the reason why I think we shall have to plan for a future of more than 9.2 billion people, starting from the year 2050. So call me a coward. I have been informed (I just don’t remember the source of this information) that we are already producing enough food to cater for more than 12 billion people. The problem is: most of this food is used to feed animals, and another large portion of this food simply goes to waste, as litter, as thrash, as garbage. We have a serious problem of food distribution, that’s all. Yes, this is the reason why millions of people around the world are still starving. But of course, not only for that reason, but also for the multitude of reasons that members of the more privileged classes alone must answer for. Like in Mumbai. Oh yes, I know a little something about Mumbai. I know that one of the largest slum areas of this world lies near to the town center of Mumbai. Mumbai is like Los Angeles, isn’t it? The center of the Indian film industry (like Hollywood), as well as the location of the most famous slums (like South Central, L.A.). Deforestation, desertification, water scarcity, food scarcity, etc., may well be the end product of manmade climate change. Not everywhere, but certainly in the developing world: in Africa, in Latin America, and in South Asia (all these according to the UNDP). Global warming / climate change may well turn into an international refugee catastrophe which is going to leave national politicians reeling with a feeling of naussea. But so long as there is food enough, there will be an ever-growing number of humans on this planet.

      Like

      • Thanks for your comment Annie. It does indeed take a good amount of optimism not to succumb to feelings of despair, considering the many challenges ahead. Population growth will come to a halt at some time (many European countries have a reversed trend and China’s one child policy is showing effects). Perhaps one day the Catholic church wakes up and helps stop unwanted pregnancies in the poorest places. In terms of food waste, you are quite right. Much of it gets dumped (I previously blogged about the future of food and the throwaway issue (taste the waste).

        Like

  2. Pingback: Green Growth or no Growth, or What? | Sustainability Leaders

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s