Figure 1 

The Degrowth Snail

Let’s learn about degrowth! Countering the mainstream desire for a green economy, some researchers defy the possibility of infinite economic growth by presenting ecological limits and only partial help from technology and efficiency. In this short article, I wish to deconstruct all misconceptions of degrowth while staying critical. Throughout the reading, you will discover the fundamental notions of degrowth and some of its related schools of thought, namely Marxism and Ecofeminism.  

Degrowth, usually understood as a highly controversial economic alternative to capitalism, has been proven a viable pathway in various studies. Degrowth is defined as a deliberate and planned downscaling of harmful environmental activities, meaning that societies willingly stop intensive production considering the limited accessibility to resources (Research & Degrowth, 2010). Degrowth entails that humanity must restrain from material and energy overconsumption by limiting its thirst for capital accumulation. In turn, the problem is not an external challenge but lies within the structure of capitalism. Countering misconception, degrowth does not mean returning to medieval life conditions. The transformation would recenter the existing capital toward essential and need sectors, and reduce or remove the non-essential sectors (Savini, 2024). For instance, luxury or advertising are industries that are not vital for human beings’ survival. Similarly, fast fashion would cease to exist. The fashion industry is not only detrimental to the environment but also serves as an example of modern slavery (Niinimäki et, al., 2020). The definition of degrowth might be complex to comprehend and abstract, but can be to exemplified with other tangible actions. Although academically debated, some concrete degrowth implications are abolitions of waste and consumption society, downscaling of globalized supply chains, localization of human activities, and state-led degrowth initiatives (Rilovic, 2024).  

“Degrowth is defined as a deliberate and planned downscaling of harmful environmental activities”

As introduced above, one of the fundamental reasons behind this radical structural theory lies in the impossibility of endless economic growth. The planetary boundaries cannot sustain the needy cadence of the raging capitalist demands famishing for forever more earthly resources (Hickel & Kallis, 2019). In direct opposition to degrowth, the current political opinions support green growth. The mainstream solution to ecological degradation is decoupling economic growth. The latter entails that we are capable of removing all ecological harms from our societies thanks to technological advancements, and governmental and economic reforms such as circular economy or carbon pricing  (Hickel & Kallis, 2019). Nevertheless, there is no empirical evidence supporting the success of absolute decoupling but only partial decoupling in the long term. Hence, current sustainable reforms guided by the Paris Agreement are not enough to guarantee the achievement of a sustainable world (Hickel & Kallis, 2019).  

          Some might be bamboozled by degrowth’s claims and assumptions of validity. Multiple arguments claim degrowth is not legitimate and unfeasible and counter-argue the possibility and success of alternative solutions such as green growth.  One counterargument would defend the service sector's growing presence and the industrial sector's decrease. However, research found that the service sector also intensively uses resources and energy (Hickel & Kallis, 2019).  A second counterargument states that technological and efficiency improvements will drastically reduce resource and energy demands (Hickel & Kallis, 2019). Nevertheless, numbers show that the statement is only true in the short term. After a while, the increase in efficiency reduces the cost and leads to more consumption, thus the resource use and energy eventually rise. Next to these defeated counterarguments, it is argued that life with less or no economic growth can be socially and ecologically prosperous and that the sole focus on GDP can tarnish the living conditions standards and social wellbeing (Stuart, Grunderson & Petersen, 2019).  

“There is no empirical evidence supporting the success of absolute decoupling but only partial decoupling in the long term”

Degrowth not only wields an ecological argumentation but is also defended by other social fields. Beyond planetary boundaries, many criticize the moral implications of GDP growth and the insufficient solutions to address climate change’s risks (Stuart, Grunderson & Petersen, 2019). Certain climate change effects are irreversible and threaten future generations. Hence, degrowth not only targets rebuilding an eco-friendly economic model but also aims to tackle social challenges such as poverty and inequalities (Stuart, Grunderson & Petersen, 2019). The division between the ‘Global North’ and the ‘Global South’ is a blunt illustration of tremendous socio-economic inequalities (Gräbner-Radkowitsch & Strunk, 2023). As stated in the Degrowth Declaration Barcelona 2010, degrowth is also based on an ideal of social justice, meaning the new model justly redistributes resources to increase social wellbeing while staying within planetary boundaries. As a result, some degrowth researchers claim that we ought to switch to basic needs societies where the regulation of resources is not monitored by monetary value. Instead, what should be aimed for is the fulfillment of basic human needs such as housing, alimentation, and hydration, with a particular stress on democratic values (Stuart, Grunderson & Petersen, 2019). 

Beyond the ecological critique of economic growth, other academic fields question the hegemony of capitalism. Karl Marx’s immanent critique of the capitalist machine found in The Capital embodies one of the most famous theories that has been deemed to be partly aligned with degrowth ecological ideology. While briefly mentioning the free use of resources, Marx demonstrates the labor’s alienation and rooted exploitation within the production cycle (Koch, 2019). However, Marx is not calling for a deliberate downscaling but for a proletariat revolution aiming to give the mode of production to the hands of workers. Marx’s critique of the economic systems relies on different arguments and implications but, similarly to ecological degrowth, points out the structural drawbacks of capitalism (Koch, 2019). 

Taking its roots from the Marxist perspective, feminists also raise their voices against the neoliberal system. In short, they argue that the economic system is gendered,  divided, and dominated by masculine ontologies and epistemologies (Gregoratti & Raphael, 2019). In other words, the world narrative and sciences are manipulated, structured, and controlled by patriarchal forces. Nancy Fraser declares that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have been living in a period in which a ‘care crisis’ has been a tendency - the men’s power took over the productive work while women were subsumed to the care work (Fraser & Vogel, 2017). Societies have been divided into two distinct spheres/ the private sphere (i.e. production of commodities) and the public sphere (i.e. social reproduction or care system). The capitalist system has subsumed the care system or social reproduction under the productive, money-making sphere. Tasks such as birthing, caring for friends and family, and maintaining the household are dedicated to producing labor power and ensuring the effective functioning of the economic system. As the reproductive processes are not part of the private sphere, the latter has no market value (Fraser & Vogel, 2017).  

As university students, how much time do you dedicate to household chores? How much time do you spend with your loved ones compared to the time spent at work or studying? And how high are these activities on your list of priorities?  Fraser and Vogel (2017) argue that vital activities keeping individuals healthy and alive to work are alienated by economic subsystems. This argument relies on market dependency and monopole as our material source, meaning that we can hardly survive without participating in capitalist exchanges. We depend on market materials input to survive, therefore individuals need to earn money to buy commodities such as food, water, clothes, health services, or electricity  (Fraser & Vogel, 2017). As a result, students tend to prioritize writing assignments, passing exams, and performing at work, which predominates above all the other activities to ensure secure future earnings.  

These social reproduction activities are dependent on the capitalist system and essential for guaranteeing its functioning. (Fraser & Vogel, 2017). Without social production, the economy would not survive a day. Workers must fulfill their human needs to participate actively in capital creation. For instance, babies, the future generation of money-makers, must be appropriately taken care of and reproduced in an economically adequate amount to ensure the correct perpetuation and development of capitalism. The ‘care crisis tendency’ can be found in countries with the lowest birth rate such as South Korea. Women consciously refuse to give birth owing to unwelcoming societal conditions or career prioritization (Cho, 2021). In South Korea, the high cost of raising a child, and the social pressure to succeed demotivate Korean couples to have offspring. The lack of babies poses a threat to their economic growth (Cho, 2021).  

Applying Fraser’s thinking, social reproduction is overthrown by economic mechanisms producing an imbalance. The private and public spheres foster a paradoxical relationship that has the potential to create instability (i.e. cum dependence cum) (Fraser & Vogel, 2017). The low birth example demonstrates the complex relationship between the two spheres where unlimited accumulation threatens to weaken the care system and financial capacities. The lack of birth weight in older generations will not be able to sustain their economy, and thus fail to maintain their own social reproduction.  There is no younger generation to take on the work of the productive sphere. Therefore, nobody will be able to fuel the capitalist gears.

So far, this article presents degrowth as a controversial perspective that comes in multiple colors; as we have seen Ecological, Marxism, or Ecofeminism. All paradigms point the finger at a capitalist systematic issue and demand profound structural change as a solution. Whether it is a proletariat revolution, the basic needs economic model, or the revaluation of social reproduction, all denounce our economic model's weaknesses and want to transform the system.  Degrowth certainly demands a tremendous amount of alterations requiring a radical shift in our ways of thinking and living.  Some might be perplexed by the sole possibility of realizing such a transformation by deeming it unrealistic. How can one radically reform the global economy and social behaviors? Unfortunately, degrowth researchers have not come up with specific transitory guidelines. However, whereas the problem of degrowth seems academically clear, green growth has been proven hardly attainable.  If we do not acknowledge the planetary boundaries, they may eventually be forced onto us …