Prosperity without economic growth? The debate has started...

by Gudrun Freese 26. August 2009 04:58

I usually set up a quiver of Google Alerts for projects I am working on, to arm myself with  information about where similar conversations are taking place, and what people are saying.

I have been getting alerts for a few months now on the keywords ‘prosperity without growth’, to prepare for a new Earthscan book: Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet by Tim Jackson.  (It’s not yet published, but you can place a pre-publication order here to get it hot off the presses at the end of October.)

The debate in Google Land is already raging. ‘Prosperity’ is a highly contested concept, but everyone agrees it is a good thing – by their own definitions of the word. What is debated is how to define it and how to achieve it: if  the economic system that makes me ‘prosperous’ relies on degrading the natural resource base and causes unequal development – can that be called ‘prosperity’?  Most of the world’s leaders seem to think that the only mechanism we have for achieving prosperity for all is economic growth. This belief in rising incomes – and the ever-increasing consumption it relies on – has achieved the status of common- sense; it is rarely questioned in mainstream economics and politics (with some exceptions, e.g. David Cameron. See the Open Letter to the Queen, below).  Despite the mounting evidence that economic growth is causing more problems than it is solving, it is too politically risky to question the shibboleth of growth. Who wants to be the first to point out the elephant in the room?

 In this Washington Times article US President Obama is accused of wanting to reduce ‘our’ prosperity, because of this statement he made:

‘We can't drive our SUVs, and eat whatever we want, and keep our homes at 72 degrees all the time, whether we live in the desert or the tundra, and keep consuming 25 percent of the world's resources with just 4 percent of the world's population, and expect the rest of the world to say 'You just go ahead. We'll be fine.' That's not leadership. That's not going to happen.’

It’s 17 years since he said it, but George Bush Snr’s statement at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio that “the American life-style is not up for debate” still shocks me. He may as well have said – whatever the costs might be.

 With COP 15 – (United Nations Climate Change Conference Dec 7 – Dec 18th 2009)  drawing near, it looks like the lifestyles of the developed world are finally up for debate – not only is Obama making space for this debate, but in the UK, this utterly amazing Open Letter to the Queen popped up in last Friday’s ‘prosperity without growth’ Google Alert. Its aim is to start a debate about economic growth at the highest levels. Just look at the signatories (below)!

With so much hanging on COP2009, we need to be sure we will be asking the right questions there. If our macro- economic system is a root cause of our environmental and economic crises (as our author Tim Jackson, argues) then it has to feature on the COP 2009 agenda.

Stay tuned to the Earthscan blog for some preview extracts from Tim Jackson’s Prosperity Without Growth, and updates on media coverage and events around the book and the economic growth debate. 

List of people who signed the Open Letter to the Queen:

Phillip Blond, CEO, ResPublica

 Alain de Botton, Philosopher

 Tom Burke CBE, co-founder E3G

Professor Herman Daly, Maryland University

Geraint Talfan Davies, Chairman, Institute of Welsh Affairs

Professor Lord Anthony Giddens

Stephen Hale, CEO Green Alliance

Andy Hobsbawm, Chair Agency.com, Founder dothegreenthing.com

Rob Hopkins, Founder of Transition Towns

Prof Tim Jackson, Economics Commissioner, Sustainable Development Commission (SDC)

 Tony Juniper, Author and ex Executive Director, Friends of the Earth

Professor Melissa Lane, Princeton University

Neal Lawson, Chair, Compass

Jeremy Leggett, Chair, Solar Century

Peter Lipman, Chair, Transition Network

Jules Peck, Partner, Abundancy Partners

 Robert Phillips, Co-author, Citizen Renaissance

 Sir Jonathon Porritt OBE, ex Chair, SDC

Mike Robinson, CEO, Royal Scottish Geographical Society, Chair, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland

John Sauven, Executive Director, Greenpeace

 Anthony Seldon, Master, Wellington College

Matthew Taylor, CEO, the RSA

Professor Peter Victor; York University, Canada

Tags: , ,

Economics | Sustainable Development | Comment / Opinion

Comments

8/28/2009 3:39:36 PM #

I'm in the rare position of having to endlessly point out the consequential flaw in the proposals by this group of great authors, concerning exactly how to bring the economies to stable climax.  That's because 30 years ago I made a major breakthrough in understanding the functions and structures of nature's self-organizing (and often self-animating) distributed systems.  I learned how to point to exactly where they are and how they develop, and have become expert in watching how.  

The conceptual economic models of both the growth and no-growth communities simply don't correspond to the working parts of the physical systems we are dealing with.  They correspond to the culturally defined categories of things WE care about, not the persistent processes that nature cares about.   The problem is that the proposals of the non-growth community would simply achieve the punishing consequences ahead for the growth economy... a little sooner...   They're to put a cap on the growth system, like imposing a natural limit, but without unplugging the persistent growth driver.   The growth driver of continual compound investment will still drive all economic interests into conflict with each other, but just that much sooner.  

Natural system economies teach another method.   The "super short" version is at: http://www.synapse9.com/issues/NaturalEcons.pdf

If you want the longer version I need to know your questions.

Phil Henshaw United States

9/3/2009 3:36:07 PM #

I have been around long enough to recall the early work of Herman Daly in the early 70's which was saying much the same thing. It is more than time that this debate was restarted, using the new terms like "sustainable development" which in Australia actually refers to ecologically sustainable development. Too much discussion uses the term growth when in fact what is wanted is change. Economic thinking has highjacked the discussion to allow economic sustainabilty to previl no matter what the condition of the planet.Of course politicians welcome that becuae it allows them to put off the hard decisions, which if continually delayed or avioded, will be taken by nature or civil unrest anyway.

John Hunwick Australia

9/7/2009 9:54:10 PM #

Hi Phil

As a trained ecologist I am veryt much aware of the workings of the natural system. I am therefore intrigued to hear more about your breakthrough. I tried to google your "super short" version but was unable to get connected.I would be pleased to read anything along the lines you have indicated and would be preapred to repsond to your insights, and to pormote them if I understand and agree with them.  Sincerely John HUnwick

John Hunwick United Kingdom

Add comment




  Country flag

Click to change captcha
biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading