Today we explore the idea of degrowth.
With me is Jason Hickel, an economic anthropologist, author, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts in the United Kingdom. He is a Visiting Senior Fellow at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics, and Senior Lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London. He recently published a book entitled Less is More: How Degrowth will Save the World. The book is a must read for anyone who wants to know how we can stop ecological break down and enable human flourishing.
Citation: Hickel, Jason, interview with Will Brehm, FreshEd, 214, podcast audio, September 14, 2020. https://freshedpodcast.com/jasonhickel/
Will Brehm 1:03
Jason Hickel, welcome to FreshEd.
Jason Hickel 1:05
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Will Brehm 1:06
So, congratulations on your new book. And before we jump into it, I actually want to say I’m very sorry about the loss of David Graeber to the LSE community where you work. And I am just wondering, you know, did David Graeber ever influence you in any way in the creation of this new book?
Jason Hickel 1:23
Yeah, I know. The news about David was a real blow to all of us. And it came as such a shock. He was so young -only 59- and really was at kind of the ascending period of his career in terms of his brilliance and his writing. And it was hard for all of us. And yes, what is extraordinary about David is that he influenced so many people. It’d be difficult to find an anthropologist, specifically an economic anthropologist, who was not in some way influenced by David’s work. And that is definitely true for me. I first encountered his work when I was a postgraduate student at the University of Virginia. And I remember, you know, sitting in my flat and reading ‘Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology’ and it was one of the most powerful pieces of text, I think, I’d read up until that point in my life. And it really shaped the way that I thought of myself as an anthropologist, and what I thought was important to be thinking about as an anthropologist, and his work, you know, after that also profoundly shaped my perspectives. Like, you know, his book ‘Debt’, and also his work on ‘Bullshit Jobs’, both of these … you know, you’ll find echoes of this work in ‘Less is More’ for sure. In fact, it is difficult, I think, for us to think about a post-growth or degrowth economy without some of the interventions he made when it comes to, you know, what money is, and what work is for and so on. And this is not just true of me. I mean, lots of people writing in the degrowth space have been influenced by David’s work. I mean, he was really a core intellectual for that movement even though he himself came to degrowth, only later on. Like, only in the past couple of years really has David actively spoken about degrowth even though he has been used in the degrowth literature for a long time, right.
Will Brehm 2:55
Oh, wow, how funny.
Jason Hickel 2:57
Yeah. I was really excited about this. I mean, when he passed away, we were working on an article together about degrowth. One that I am not sure I’ll ever be able to finish without him just because, you know, how can you write for David Graeber?
Will Brehm 3:08
Oh my gosh!
Jason Hickel 3:09
But I was so I was so excited about the possibilities of his contributions to the degrowth literature, I thought, you know, the movement has found its real intellectual.
Will Brehm 3:19
I am so sorry. It is just awful to see what has happened and sort of all the ideas that will never get written in the future. It is so tragic.
Jason Hickel 3:30
Will Brehm 3:31
I am really sorry. I mean, I only met him once and, you know, not only was he a great intellectual, but he was an unbelievably warm person, you know.
Jason Hickel 3:40
He was so warm and generous.
Will Brehm 3:42
Yeah, I was a complete stranger, and he just came up and chatted with me for quite some time. And just absolutely I was amazed because like you, I encountered him in graduate school and sort of then devoured everything he wrote because it was just so good and it was very rare to find anyone else like him thinking in sort of that way. Ah, well, it is interesting that he influenced you on this new book and that he was coming to the idea of degrowth, which is the sort of topic today. How would you even define, you know, degrowth? What is degrowth?
Jason Hickel 4:17
Yeah, it is interesting. I mean, you will get lots of definitions in different parts of the scholarship. But I think one sort of consensus position is basically that it is a planned reduction of resource and energy use in an economy to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a way that also at the same time reduces inequality and facilitates the possibility for human flourishing, right. So, basically, I mean, if you know anything about Kate Raworth’s work about you know, “Doughnut Economics”, the strategy for getting into the doughnut, right? Making sure that we meet human needs and provide good lives for all. But at the same time, do so within planetary boundaries. Degrowth is sort of the strategy to accomplish this for high-income nations that have high levels of excess use of resources and energy. That is kind of what it is. I mean, there is also, you know, more philosophical definitions like degrowth actively rejects the ideology of growth in the sense of growth is basically the ideology of capitalism, right? Capitalism is a system that relies on continuous, perpetual expansion, and it does so by extracting surplus from humans and from the living world, which is quite often a destructive process that often has colonial characteristics, right? We can talk about that later. But then what it does is it sells this process back to us as growth, which just sounds so good, so natural, right, that we buy into it, even though otherwise we might not. So, it’s a very powerful framing that capitalism has at its disposal to convince us to sort of buy into a product which is really about commodification and elite accumulation, and not at all about human flourishing or thriving, but it gets framed that way with the language of growth, and we all buy into it on the left and right alike. I mean, you won’t find a political party … it is very difficult to find a political party on either side of the aisle, as it were, that has any kind of robust critique of growth.
Will Brehm 6:12
Yeah, in your book, you actually bring up a really great story of Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives in America. Can you tell that story where she just basically can’t even fathom the idea of degrowth?
Jason Hickel 6:28
Yeah, well, so, in this case, in the case of Nancy Pelosi, it was actually a question about capitalism. There was a young man in the audience who, you know, who asked her given the fact that the majorities of young people in America right now want an economic system other than capitalism, you know, people are actually yearning for a kind of post-capitalist possibility, can the Democratic Party see its way toward a critique of capitalism? And Nancy Pelosi just kind of outright rejected the idea and she said, I am sorry to say we’re capitalist and that’s just the way it is! And this is from the leftist party in America and look, the Democrats are pretty conservative compared to European progressive parties, but at the same time, something quite similar is true even across Western Europe, you won’t find a party on the left that has a critique of this dimension of capitalism, right -of the growthist dimension of capitalism. And to me, this is important because it is important to understand what capitalism actually is. Like we often talk about it as though it is just a matter of, you know, markets, and trade, and businesses. But this isn’t actually true, right? Markets and trade and businesses were obviously around long before capitalism emerged – capitalism is only about 500 years old. And what makes capitalism distinctive as an economic system in human history is that it is organized around perpetual expansion, right, which we call growth. And that is the dimension of capitalism, which becomes quite quickly destructive and exploitative, and which we need to start questioning.
Will Brehm 7:49
So how does that happen, though? How did that ideology of growth sort of emerge? And how did it become destructive? Like in what ways in that history do you see the destruction?
Jason Hickel 7:58
Yeah, we can see it in the very early years of capitalism, actually. So, in the 16th century, right, I mean capitalism emerges effectively from The Enclosure Movements. So, you have these elites in Western Europe, who begin to enclose off the commons and kick peasants off the land. And this is kind of you know what Marx theorizes as a process of primitive or original accumulation. And then you have this piling up of wealth that then has to be invested for a constant return, right? At first, maybe that is easy. But it moves very, very quickly. Virtually all of Western Europe becomes enclosed. There is a massive refugee crisis as peasants are kicked off the land. They become the cheap labor effectively for the factories of the Industrial Revolution. And so, you can see how growthist pressures begin to colonize, if you will, peasant lands in Europe. But it doesn’t stop there. Because you need more to feed this beast, right? So, what happens is you get the European expansion through colonialism, and whole sways of the planet are brought into these circuits of extraction and commodification and production and consumption in the capitalist world system. And you know I mean like the slave trade was crucial to the rise of capitalism in Europe, colonization of the Americas was crucial. I mean, look at the main commodities of the Industrial Revolution. Commodities like sugar and cotton, right? They don’t grow in Europe. They were grown by enslaved peoples on land appropriated from indigenous Americans. And that process was essential to the capitalist growth in Europe. And so over and over again, from the earliest years, what we see is that the pressures for constant capital accumulation had these, you know, very destructive effects when it came to the appropriation that was required for that. And this, to me, is really curious because we talk about capitalism as a system that creates value. But when you look at the history of capitalism, it is largely a system that appropriates value from humans and from nature elsewhere, which it considers to be external to the system somehow. And that is essential to the patterns that we see, and it continues to happen today.
Will Brehm 9:58
And so, in what ways is it happening Today?
Jason Hickel 10:00
Well, for example, let’s take emissions. We have exceeded the planetary boundary when it comes to global emissions of carbon dioxide. We can see the consequences happening all around us; the fires burning in California and Oregon right now are a testament to this. I mean, the vast majority of the excess emissions have been produced by small number of industrialized nations in the global North. What that process is effectively about is the appropriation of atmospheric commons, right. So, if we imagine the atmosphere is a shared and common resource to which all should have some kind of equal, safe access within the planetary boundary, I mean, industrial nations, through their process of industrial growth, have appropriated vastly disproportionate share of that. Stealing the atmosphere commons of everybody else and also exceeding planetary boundaries themselves. So, that is, you know, an example of how it happens today. But we see the same thing happening with resource extraction from the South, you know, which is rising at an exponential rate every year like this process is not slowing down. It keeps getting more expansive. The reason for that right is that capital has to grow, not just at a linear rate, it has to grow exponentially. And the pressures for exponential growth might be quite small originally, but it very quickly piles up, right? So, you know, the global economy is worth 83 trillion US dollars, or something like that right now. And it’s got to grow by 3% next year. 3% of that is roughly the size of the entire British economy. So, somehow, next year, the global economy has to add another economy the size of Britain -which is the fifth-biggest economy on the planet- just to maintain the existing rate of growth. I mean, it is extraordinarily violent process of expansion. And where is that going to be found, right? And so, this is why we see pressure on the forest of Indonesia, pressure on the Amazon, pressure on the atmosphere. I mean, just look at our own lives in everyday context, like bombarded by advertisements, social media companies desperate for perpetual growth how to find evermore intensive ways to effectively frack for our attention.
Will Brehm 12:04
And on people’s labor, right?
Jason Hickel 12:06
That is right. Yes. I mean, all of these are expressions of the growth imperative. It becomes quite disruptive after a while.
Will Brehm 12:14
And I mean, what’s so interesting in your book is that you don’t only think about this in terms of capitalism, which is obviously, as you were just mentioning a huge part here. But you actually go a bit further, and you actually go all the way back to Plato to talk a little bit more about sort of a particular ontology that many humans have today. I mean, so what happened back then that sort of still impacts us today?
Jason Hickel 12:37
Yeah. So, it is interesting. When you look at the history of capitalism in Europe, what you discover is that the early capitalists faced a real conundrum, right. They had to somehow convince people that it was okay to exploit the living world, right. And that was a difficult proposition at the time, even in the 1500s actually and the 1400s because at the time like most people subscribe to some idea that the world around them was alive, right. You know, animals and plants had agency and intention, and ecosystems, you know, were alive and maybe even mountains and rivers. I mean, it was almost like a kind of animistic spirit that people believed in, that inhabited the living world. And so, the idea that it is fine for us to plunder it didn’t go down well with people, especially the European peasantry, right. So, somehow you had to destroy this belief. And what we see is that you know, a certain faction of European intellectuals began to reach back to some of Plato’s ideas about transcendentalism and posited this idea you know that there was a strict division between the kind of transcendental spiritual realm and then that kind of earthly material realm, right. So, this is what we know as dualism. And this was theorized most fully and ossified by Francis Bacon and René Descartes. The idea being that it is fine to basically exploit bodies and matter because they’re not actually alive. They are basically this kind of mechanistic, you know, machine like -the sort of cogs. And the only thing that has any kind of spirit whatsoever is the human mind, right. So, all of nature is just matter, animals are just matter, plants are just matter, none of them are thinking or have any agency or intention. It is only the human mind that has some dimension of the spirit world of God, right. Which, of course, became central to the way that the church at the time, you know, thought about the world. And this was a real revolution in European philosophy at the time, and it went out with the backing of the church, and it went out with the backing of early capitalist at the time because it enables it to become thinkable for the living world to be exploited and plundered. So, there was this monumental shift from thinking about the living world as kin, you know, with which you have to have some kind of reciprocal relationship to thinking about the world as an object that you can dominate and subdue and exploit. And that was a monumental transformation. Of course, that transformation has not been affected everywhere. And the ethnographic record is full of examples of people around the world, specifically indigenous communities that refuse to see the world that way, that insist on seeing, you know, the world as kin, and maintaining a relationship of reciprocity with it, which is fundamentally, you know, anti-capitalist in a very profound sense. So, the argument I make in ‘Less is More’ is that ultimately like, if we want to survive the 21st century, you know, with civilization intact, then it’s going to have to entail not just a fundamentally different kind of economy, but also a fundamentally different way of imagining our relationship to the living world. One that is much more about balance, care, and reciprocity than it presently is. And that is interesting to me because some of these indigenous philosophies that I explore in ‘Less is More’ resonate, in interesting ways, with ecological economics. If you look at like the principle of “the steady-state” in ecological economics, the idea is that you should never extract more from ecosystems than they can replenish on an annual basis, and you should never waste more than ecosystems can safely absorb, right. And so, the idea is that you maintain this balance with the ecosystems that you live with. And this is like, you know, a formal principle articulated in ecological economics that you find the same thing in indigenous thoughts about economies and exchange. It is remarkable, actually. So, and of course, it is more elaborated, even in the way that some of these communities think about it.
Will Brehm 16:34
Yeah. Right. So, these sort of ecological economics, they are sort of just catching up to a lot of this indigenous knowledge that has been around for thousands of years.
Jason Hickel 16:43
I think that is true. Yeah, yeah. And that is not, of course, to reify indigenous knowledge like it. You know, we encounter in all sorts of different manifestations. People who live close to the land have a variety of different ways of interacting meaningful ways with the living world they depend on. It is certainly not just one way, and of course, it changes. But it is a rich space to think with, and we do have a lot to learn.
Will Brehm 17:08
And so, what would some of these more practical approaches to degrowth actually look like in practice? I mean, there’s that ontological split trying to not see human and nature as distinct but more interconnected as you said, but you know, what about you know maybe a non-ontological level, on a more material level, what might it actually look like?
Jason Hickel 17:32
Yeah, so first thing to recognize is that high-income nations do not need more GDP growth to achieve their social goals, right. And this is like may be a strange one for some people to swallow because we have been told over and over again at every possible opportunity that GDP is effectively a proxy for human progress, and economic success, and human well-being, etc. And if we want to accomplish anything, I mean, be it a renewable energy transition or be it you know an end to poverty, or be it you know full employments, then the only way to do that is with more GDP growth, right? But what is interesting is that you know, the data tells a completely different story. And this is remarkable, right! Take the USA, for example. The US has GDP per capita of $60,000. Right? And compare that with Portugal, Portugal has a GDP per capita of 60%, less, so quite a lot less. And yet, Portugal has a much longer life expectancy and better social indicators virtually across the board. How is that possible that Portugal could outperform the USA in every way that matters, with vastly less GDP?
Will Brehm 18:40
How is it possible?
Jason Hickel 18:41
Well, it is because they distribute income more fairly, and they invest in robust universal public goods, right. And over and over again, this is basically, you know, demonstrated to be the keys to the good life. The keys to, you know, the possibility of flourishing lives for all. It shouldn’t be surprising, really. It is not that we don’t have enough GDP, right, it’s simply that the vast majority of it is captured at the top where it doesn’t actually contribute to human well-being whatsoever. So, I mean, think about this -this always blows my mind, right. So, the richest 5% of people in the world capture nearly one half of all new income from global GDP growth every year.
Will Brehm 19:21
Jason Hickel 19:21
Right. This is crazy! So, if you think about it, that means that half of all the labor that we render, and all the emissions that we emit, and all the resources that we extract and produce and ship around the world, like half of that is done to make rich people richer. That is extraordinary. So, one of the core tenants of degrowth is that high-income nations don’t need growth, they just need a fair distribution of income, and if you do that, then you can accomplish your social goals right now without needing a single iota of additional GDP to do it. I mean, the way that politicians have long seen GDP growth rather is as a way to avoid dealing with class conflicts, right. The idea is that you can keep the elite accumulating so long as some of it trickles down and improves the lives of the poor. Because that is easier to do than to distribute income more fairly in the first place, right. And so, growth becomes this way that our politicians basically opt-out of the difficult conflicts of class antagonism. And so, we have to confront that fact. In an era of ecological breakdown, this is not a feasible option anymore. So, that is the first thing is simply to recognize that we can flourish without growth. But the next thing is that we have to recognize that look, high-income nations are overwhelmingly responsible for excess resource use and emissions, which is driving climate breakdown and driving pressure on all sorts of other planetary boundaries, right. Soil depletion, deforestation, you know species extinction rates, I mean, you name it. So, what we have to do is we have to dramatically scale down resource and energy use in high-income nations to bring these economies back into balance with the living world. And what does that look like? The first thing to recognize is that a huge chunk of the resources and energy that we use has nothing at all to do with human needs. It is organized almost entirely around profit, right. So, think about planned obsolescence, for example, the fact that our devices break down after a couple of years and have to be replaced or even our appliances like the lifespan of appliances like washing machines and dishwashers and so on has been shrinking. And we know that it is physically, technologically possible to produce -for cheap- these products to last many times longer than they presently do. But of course, that would mean, you know, stagnation in the companies that produce them, right. So, there is an incentive, you know, under capitalism to enhance turnover by shortening product lifespan. But you can regulate against that. You can introduce rights to repair, you can ban the practice of planned obsolescence, you can introduce mandatory extended warrantees, you can have technology take-back initiatives, you can cut advertising expenditures. We know that advertising is a major driver of excess resource consumption. And we know that cutting it not only reduces resource consumption but also at the same time, improves people’s happiness. There are a few things in the world that are “win-win”, but that is definitely one of them. Although not for companies that rely on advertising.
Will Brehm 22:26
Right for boosting sales.
Jason Hickel 22:27
That is right, exactly. Now, of course, the first thing people will ask is like, look, okay, fine. So, maybe we even have a conversation about scaling down particularly destructive industries, like let’s, let’s stop assuming that all industries need to grow all the time, which is the present dominant assumption, and agree that let’s grow some of the industries that we know we need, say renewable energy, you know public health, and let’s degrow the ones that are clearly bad, right, so SUV production, private jet production, you know McMansion production, whatever it might be. But then, of course, you face a problem, which is that, as these industries begin to scale down, then you have an unemployment problem, right. So, what do you do about that? And this is, of course, one of the major reasons that economists and politicians insist on more growth is because you need growth to create jobs, right? But this is a lie, right. In fact, we can create jobs simply by shortening the working week. So, as you get rid of excess, you know, production in the economy that’s unnecessary, right, and just destructive, then you can liberate people from unnecessary labor by shortening the working with. Degrowth scholars also call for something like a public job guarantee, recognizing that there is lots of work that we do need to do that the private sector generally doesn’t want to do. Things like regenerate ecosystems, care work, etc., etc. like there’s quite a lot of labor that does need to be done that is important to human flourishing.
Will Brehm 23:58
I think Stephanie Kelton calls the guaranteed job offer some sort of an economic stabilizer.
Jason Hickel 24:03
That is right. Yes, it has all sorts of important impacts, including stabilizing inflation, right. And as Stephanie Kelton points out, it can be funded very, very easily with the application of modern monetary theory (MMT).
Will Brehm 24:16
Jason Hickel 24:16
So, yeah, so I mean, here you see that MMT actually fits in really nicely with degrowth. So, but another key point of the degrowth scholars make is this -and this also actually aligns with Kelton’s work- is that you decommodify public goods. So, you ensure that people have access to robust, high quality, universal public services. Not just healthcare and education but you know, affordable housing, public transportation etc., etc. And doing so has a magical effect, right. Basically, what it means is that suddenly people don’t need to keep pursuing ever-higher incomes just to live good lives. They can access the goods they need to flourish without needing to work and earn evermore each year. This takes extraordinary amount of pressure out of the growth imperative, right. There is a lot less pressure in the economy for competitive productivity and for competitive consumption when you have access to universal basic goods. And so, this is one of the things that degrowth calls for. Like if growthism is about commodification and enclosure, which it has been for the whole history of capitalism, then how do you build a degrowth economy? By de-enclosing the commons and decommodifying key parts of our system. And that is really -I think it’s quite powerful
Will Brehm 25:33
It is. It is really powerful. And so that would be in high-income countries. What about low- and middle-income countries where, you know, the standard of living, the quality of life might not be as good there. Economically they’re not as wealthy and rich as some of these high-income countries so, what would degrowth look like in low- and middle-income countries?
Jason Hickel 25:53
Yeah, yeah, definitely. So, the key thing is that degrowth scholarship does not call for degrowth in lower- or middle-income countries. Degrowth is only for situations basically where countries are in excess of planetary boundaries, right. And in low-income countries, obviously, like in many cases, they need to use more resources and energy just to meet human needs. Now, the difference here is that we would still want to question growthism as in the goal here should not be to grow the GDP and hope that that solves, you know, social problems like poverty, etc., etc., right. The goal should be to target those objectives directly, and if that entails or requires some growth, then so be it, that is fine. But this brings me to a really important point, which is that degrowth is also about decolonizing the imaginary of developments. So, beginning in the 1980s, then growthism, as in the pursuit of growth for its own sake, was pushed across the global South by the World Bank and the IMF through structural adjustment programs, right. And the idea was like look, OK, so global South governments, you know in the wake of colonialism had been using progressive social policy to improve people’s lives and ensure people had access to the goods they needed to live well, and to reduce inequality and improve wages, etc., etc., right. And then suddenly they were made to stop doing all those things and instead reorganize their economies around the interests of capital growth. And this had devastating effects for the livelihoods of ordinary people during the structural adjustment period. So, in the South, the idea of degrowth aligns with calls for what activists and scholars in the South call post-development. Which is, you know, let’s stop organizing our economies around the imperatives of Western capital accumulation and instead, you know, reorganize them around human need and ecological stability. So, I mean, there’s kind of a different application of degrowth in the North versus the South, but they draw on a very similar principles.
Will Brehm 27:57
Right, and they both sort of have to happen together if this vision of degrowth can actually, you know, take hold. And I guess, you know, thinking about the coronavirus pandemic, so many economies and societies shut down for a few weeks, a few months, many are still sort of trying to, quote, unquote, get back to normal. And there was many people that were sort of excited that this was this opportunity to rethink economies, rethink societies. What about you? I mean, are you hopeful? Do you see what’s happening in the world today and say we now can sort of organize in a way that can actually embrace some of these ideas of degrowth? Do you see that happening? Or are you a bit maybe perhaps more pessimistic?
Jason Hickel 28:40
You know, it is interesting when the COVID crisis first hit, then I was very worried. I was like, look, this is going to be bad for degrowth because immediately everyone’s attention is going to turn to “Oh, we’re in a recession. And the only way to get out of a recession is to focus everything on growth, right. Just throw everything we have at stimulating growth”. You know, I thought there would be limited space for a conversation about challenging that perspective. But what I have actually encountered is quite the opposite. In the wake of the crisis, I feel that people are surprisingly open to imagining a different kind of economy. I think that during the crisis, it became clear to people that, particularly in the US and the UK, our economy is organized primarily around growth and elite accumulation. And things like human welfare are really quite secondary, right. Like it is an afterthought, if a thought at all. And I think that people really want quite the opposite. They want an economy that is organized around human well-being, public health, care, and importantly, ecological stability because we realized that the COVID crisis was triggered by human incursions into the living world because of growthist pressures. And I think that people are eager for something different. So, there is a space right now, I think, for this conversation to happen.
Will Brehm 29:52
I sure hope so.
Jason Hickel 29:53
Yeah. And I think that we can draw on degrowth principles to make an argument for a recovery without growth. And this is perhaps a bit counterintuitive because, you know, we think of recession as, you know recession is, by definition, too little GDP and to get out of it, you have to grow the GDP. But our problem right now really from the perspective of degrowth scholarship, our problem right now is not that there’s too little GDP, it’s that people don’t have access to good livelihoods. That’s the crisis. But we know we can solve that crisis directly right now without needing to throw everything at growing the economy and hope that somehow solves the problem for us, which it virtually never does. So, I think we can be smarter about the recovery this time, and I hope that becomes part of the conversation.
Will Brehm 30:36
Right, I hope so too. Jason Hickel. Thank you so much for joining FreshEd. Really a pleasure of talking, and congratulations again on your book.
Jason Hickel 30:43
Yeah, thanks very much.
Want to help translate this show? Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Related Author Publications
Less is more: How would degrowth save the world?
The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology
Is it possible to achieve a good life for all within planetary boundaries?
The divide: The guide to global inequality and its solutions
Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology
Kate Raworth – Doughnut Economics
What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification
Stephanie Kelton – Modern monetary theory is not a recipe for doom (MMT) The politics of economic restructuring: Class antagonism and the neo-liberal agenda
Exploring post-development: Theory and practice, problems and perspectives
Structural Adjustment, the environment and sustainable development
Need, entitlement and desert: A distributive justice framework for consumption degrowth
Post-development, Foucault and the colonisation metaphor
Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet
Economic de-growth vs. steady-state economy
Kincentric ecology: Indigenous perceptions of the human-nature relationship
Have any useful resources related to this show? Please send them to email@example.com