Larry Elliott from the @Guardian has written a critique of growth. It’s worth reading, and I agree with much of what he has written, but there's one thing that I disagree with, namely that “Recessions are a form of degrowth”. Here's why...🧵 #COP27

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/17/growth-addiction-climate-crisis-economic-policies

Recessions are not a form of degrowth. Recessions are the failure of a growth-based economy to grow. Degrowth is a strategy for wealthy nations to avoid a failed growth economy – to avoid recessions and the pain and suffering they cause as resource use is reduced.

A degrowing economy would be structured very differently, with different goals (reducing resource use & improving human wellbeing), and different institutions/policies to achieve these (caps on resource use, limits on inequality, universal basic services, a shorter working week).

It is not correct to say “people – especially the most vulnerable – have found that degrowth has not been good for them” as we have not had degrowth yet. All we’ve had is recessions in growth-based economies.

I agree with Elliott that an “immediate priority should be to make developing country growth as clean as possible”. Growth is still needed in developing countries to alleviate poverty, but we also need degrowth in wealthy countries to free up ecological space so this can happen.

Of course, perpetual degrowth is no more sustainable that perpetual growth. Once within planetary boundaries, the goal for wealthy countries should be to establish a steady-state economy (SSE).

Herman Daly once said the difference between growth and a SSE is “like the difference between an airplane and a helicopter. An airplane is designed for forward motion. If an airplane has to stand still, it’ll crash. A helicopter is designed to stand still, like a hummingbird.”