Postgrowth and Degrowth

tl;dr: Degrowth is just one postgrowth approach, not the postgrowth approach.

Since Serge Latouche in 2004 threw in »décroissance« as a missile word into the sustainability debates, growth criticism regained its 1970s strength while connecting strongly to issues of social justice and equality, emancipation and democratic renewal, as well as a critique of capitalism. Degrowth, the English translation of the term, has then occupied the center stage in this newly emerging discourse. In Germany, the term »Postwachstumsökonomie« (postgrowth economy) has been introduced by Niko Paech in 2006. Before 2009, the terms »postgrowth« or »post-growth« have not been used in English for describing something related to the economy. It was in an HBR article by James Spaeth in which postgrowth became an economic issue:

Soon, developed countries will begin the move to a postgrowth world where working life, the natural environment, communities, and the public sector will no longer be sacrificed for the sake of mere GDP growth, and where the illusory promise of ever more expansion will no longer provide an excuse for ignoring compelling social needs. A postgrowth society will involve less consumerism and higher prices; quality of life will improve in ways too long neglected.

In the same year, the Postgrowth Institute came online giving a broad definition of postgrowth actually constituting it as an umbrella term:

Post growth [sic] is an umbrella term for this emerging perspective: for a way of seeing and being in the world that comes after the growth story. Just as there are many ways of living now in a growth-oriented society, a multitude of post growth futures are possible and many ways of living post growth already exist today. What these futures hold in common is a desire to separate good growth from bad, and to develop human potential and happiness within, and in relation to, a physically finite earth. A post growth economy puts life and everything needed to maintain it at the center of economic and social activity as opposed to the never-ending accumulation of money, and the pursuit of growth of all kinds without regard for its consequences.

This has to be contrasted with the understanding of degrowth in the Latouchian sense

[D]egrowth is a downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the planet. It calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means, with open, localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. Such societies will no longer have to “grow or die.” Material accumulation will no longer hold a prime position in the population’s cultural imaginary. The primacy of efficiency will be substituted by a focus on sufficiency, and innovation will no longer focus on technology for technology’s sake but will concentrate on new social and technical arrangements that will enable us to live convivially and frugally. Degrowth does not only challenge the centrality of GDP as an overarching policy objective but proposes a framework for transformation to a lower and sustainable level of production and consumption, a shrinking of the economic system to leave more space for human cooperation and ecosystems. 

As it is visible, degrowth is a narrower term and concept, much more strict in many ways than postgrowth. The »multitude of post growth futures« is broader than degrowth, making degrowth one possible and probably the most well-formulated of these futures. Of course, there is a significant overlap and most likely this overlap will be similar to other concepts that might be placed under the postgrowth umbrella. Most notably all postgrowth ideas will abandon the focus on GDP growth and the GDP accounting system as the predominant narratives and interpretations of what constitutes a healthy economy and thus a good life. Also, the understanding of Earth’s ecosystems constituting a hard boundary for human activities is a »stylized fact« of any postgrowth concept. But notice how the postgrowth definition above leaves room for the distinction between good and bad growth, being reminiscent of Herman E. Daly’s notion of economic and uneconomic growth. Degrowth is also explicitly focusing on cooperation instead of competition as an economic mechanism, while postgrowth remains open on this. Instead it brings the human dimension and human happiness into the foreground – actually life itself, however it is unclear if life means exclusively human life or all life.

It is important to keep these differences in mind and distinguish more strongly between postgrowth as an umbrella term allowing for many different postgrowth approaches on the one side; and degrowth as a very specific form of such an approach on the other side. This might work best in the English language as these words already exist. In German, the term »Postwachstum« (postgrowth) has already been used for translating »décroissance«, so it would probably be best to speak of Postwachstum in the wider sense, meaning postgrowth, and Postwachstum in the narrower sense, meaning degrowth. Why do I think this distinction is necessary? Because the narrower, more detailed understanding of postgrowth as degrowth is in danger of shutting off other perspectives and assuming that we already know the best way moving forward into a postgrowth society. I am not saying that degrowth got it wrong; it is just premature to e.g. completely oppose some aspects of the green growth paradigm – not that I think that green growth could ever work but because it is unwise to kill off discussion rather than leaving the door open for inclusion of new ideas for the transition towards a postgrowth sociey. Plus it enables us to use postgrowth, in its widest sense, as an empirical description for an economic situation in which economic growth is not an option anymore.

Does this mean that anything goes under the postgrowth umbrella? Certainly not. As stated above, abandoning the fixation on GDP growth and its accounting method as well as accepting absolute and hard ecological limits to economic activity are constituting the conditio sine qua non of every postgrowth approach. And I would also include the focus on life itself, placing the economy as a servant of life and not the other way round, thus including issues of human dignity and social justice. Everything else must remain up in the air until we have the postgrowth economy running safely and sustainably for all humankind.