The document summarizes six different interpretations of the concept of "degrowth": 1) GDP degrowth, 2) consumption degrowth, 3) work-time degrowth, 4) radical degrowth, 5) physical degrowth, and 6) GDP fetishism degrowth. It analyzes each interpretation and argues that types 1, 2, and 4 are not very convincing, while type 5 is not new. It concludes that type 3 makes the most sense and that focusing on effective environmental policies and democratic support for such policies is more important than whether they lead to GDP growth or degrowth.

1. Help! Six types of degrowth
Jeroen van den Bergh
ICREA, Barcelona
&
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
&
VU University Amsterdam
Interpretations of degrowth
1. GDP degrowth
2. Consumption degrowth
3. Work-time degrowth
4. Radical degrowth
5. Physical degrowth
6. GDP fetishism degrowth (“GDP agrowth”)
1. GDP degrowth
• Most logical, immediate interpretation to outsiders.
Useful because consistent with use of term “(economic)
growth” by media, economists & politicans
• But blunt instrument of environmental policy
• Dirty degrowth? Smaller not necessarily more beautiful
• Emphasis on size, neglect of composition: shift
from dirty to clean inputs & outputs
• Moreover reversal of causality: effective environmental
regulation will change composition, and will affect GDP
growth – possibly degrowth.
1

2. 2. Consumption degrowth
• In quantity not value terms
• Hoped to cause sustainable resource use & pollution
• Ineffective and inefficient way to reach
environmental sustainability: underrates shift from
dirty to clean consumption (again composition neglected)
• Two approaches to realize consumption degrowth:
– (voluntary) frugality – likely to reach the masses?
– equal individual quota – politically feasible?
3. Work-time degrowth
• Increased labor productivity has been mainly used to
consume more rather than to work less
• Working less means less production & lower wages,
so less consumption, but also less work stress and
more happiness due to more leisure and time for
family and friends, certainly beyond a threshold
income (finding of happiness research)
• “Less work-time” is concrete, one-dimensional aim
unlike “less consumption” (multidimensional)
• Less working/income limits consumption rebound
4. Degrowth as radical change of
the economy
• Ethics, values, finance, markets, work/jobs, money,
or even profit-making & ownership
– “Escaping from the [capitalist] economy” (Fournier 2008)
• Grand ideas without thorough supporting analysis
– No systemic solutions/instrumentation, unclear how to
upscale from niche to society
– Humanistic left-wing ideology attractive: equality,
solidarity, citizenship, locality, “good life”
• Convergence to new system much time & unsure
to meet environmental aim (“no ecological imperative”)
• Notably climate change demands urgent, simpler
strategy: hard environmental constraints to which
economy will adapt
2

3. 5. Physical degrowth
• Isn’t this trivial? Don’t we all want this?
• But be careful:
– Environmentally/resource relevant physical dimensions
– Entropy argument (G-R) often simplistically used
• Old wine in new bottles: sustainable development,
environmental regulation, H. Daly’s “minimal throughput”.
• Does labelling these old ideas as degrowth deliver
any new insights about environmental policy?
• Some assume physical degrowth = GDP degrowth
But past (weak env. regulation) doesn’t reflect future
Intermediate conclusion
• Degrowth types 1, 2 and 4 not very convincing,
while 5 isn’t new. Type 3 makes most sense
• Better worry about effective environmental policies
and getting democratic-political support for these
• Whether such policies will then give rise to GDP
growth or degrowth should be irrelevant, as GDP
(per capita) is not a good proxy of social welfare
• I agree though with Hueting: effective
environmental regulation is likely to result in GDP
degrowth. But don’t reverse the causality (as in
degrowth type 1)
6. Degrowth as opposing growth fetishism
• GDP fundamental problem, not growth
– GDP growth good in some periods / countries
– but growth not generally necessary or sufficient for
progress
– degrowth not necessary or sufficient for sustainability
– also “dirty degrowth” possible
• Goal of unconditional GDP growth is a constraint
on our search for progress – frustrates good policies
(climate, labour, health, public utilities).
– “neoliberal ideology/tyranny of growth” (Fournier 2008), “GDP fetishism”
(Stiglitz 2009)
• But don’t fall in the trap of replacing this by GDP
degrowth fetishism (i.e. degrowth type 1)
3

4. The GDP paradox
• Not useful to spend more time on criticizing
growth or GDP: has proven to be an ineffective
strategy (Galbraith, Mishan, Hueting, Nordhaus/Tobin,
Hirsch, Scitovsky, Daly, etc.)
• Better try to understand the reasons for
persistent support of the GDP indicator:
Despite all theoretical and empirical criticism of
GDP (per capita) as a social welfare and progress
indicator, its role in economics, public policy,
politics and society remains influential
Explanation of the paradox
• Many academic economists accept the criticism of
the GDP indicator but im/explicitly deny its
relevance
• This denial comes in two forms.
1. a belief that the impact of GDP information on economic
reality is modest
2. a belief that despite its shortcomings, GDP still provides
useful information
My proposal
• Without GDP no measurement of growth =>
GDP growth irrelevant - not against & not in
favour but indifferent or neutral
• “Degrowth” (esp. type 1) gives too much credit
to GDP. “Agrowth” as in “atheism” more
precise (Latouche 2010)
• Combine degrowth of types 5 & 6: reduce
physical throughput (Daly) & ignore GDP
information => ”Relax about (de)growth”
4

5. More info
• J.C.J.M. van den Bergh (2009). The GDP
Paradox. Journal of Economic Psychology 30(2):
117–135.
• J.C.J.M. van den Bergh (2010). Relax about GDP
Growth: Implications for climate and crisis
policies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6):
540-543.
• J.C.J.M. van den Bergh (2010). Six types of
“degrowth” and a plea for “agrowth”. Mimeo.
5