Here is a brief introduction to a new idea of an economy without growth, being put forward by Jeremy Williams' Beyond Growth Campaign. Much of the information below has come from Jeremy's blogs and websites. I am not writing as an expert, but I do think the idea merits thinking and discussion.
The basic premise is that our earth cannot provide the resources needed for the whole world to continue to grow indefinitely, and that this principle should be applied to financial economies as well as physical resources that we use. There are a wide number of areas that could be included within this eg fuel, space to grow food, materials for building, job availability, social structure limits, and the big picture is very broad, but the principle of pursuing something other than growth seems to be new and counter cultural and that is why it's interesting.
Some key differences between an economy seeking to grow and a post-growth economy seeking stability are as follows:
- A stable economy seeks to stabilise resource use to a sustainable value. A growing economy sees cycles of boom and bust (this recession is just one example of such a cycle).
- Growing economies borrow money in order to achieve growth, and the debt accrued can only be paid off by the dividends of the growth. A stable economy would no longer be able to borrow as it would have no growth to pay the debt off - we would be stuck with our national debt indefinitely.
- A growing economy is measured by financial properties such as GDP. Success of a post-growth economy would need to be measured in non-financial terms such as health, efficiency, environmental impact or happiness.
- Our growing economy has not been able to reduce the poverty gap in this country over the last 20 years. A stable economy would aim to prioritise reduction of the poverty gap to fit in with the measurements that are now given value above.
- Our current economy trades globally, whereas a stable economy would be locally focussed on a much smaller scale and would be characterised by simple living, having less and working fewer hours.
- Growing economies are still important in LEDCs where infrastructure, life expectancy, education levels and other quality of life measures have much to benefit from it, but should developed countries now be seeking a sustainable future?
- Is this realistic? It sounds great, but will it offer the equality of wealth and resources that is suggested?
- What will the picture look like for banks, new businesses, manufacturing?
- What does 'living simply' mean? How simple is simple enough?
- How do we measure successful simplicity?
- How do we motivate a country to change it's behaviour and living conditions? Financial incentives? Ecological concern? Legislation? How 'communist' do you want to be?
- Will our country even be able to sacrifice its money, stuff and conveniences? Can we change what a country considers to be valuable in time?
- How do we encourage LEDCs to embrace a post-growth future when growth is still working so well to improve quality of life?
- Jeremy Williams' Beyond Growth Campaign and Make Wealth History blog
- Happy Planet Index - a brilliant website from the NEF charting measurements other than GDP
The post-growth theory is not without opposition and challenges, and without serious government interest is still far off being in a position to provide details and specifics of how it might practically come to be. A short but good discussion digging into some of these issues between 'post-growth Jeremy' and Sam Bowman from the Adam Smith institute was on the Radio 2 Jeremy Vine show on January 25th and can be found here.
Some questions the [Ordinary Experts] and I have been asking in response to the post-growth idea include:
So all very interesting, but possibly still in the 'idealistic' stages, and it's worth remembering I've only presented one side to the discussion here. What are your thoughts?
Related links:
