Pôr as ideias em ordem. Manter a racionalidade. Procurar entender o mundo em que vivemos através da "leitura" das "novas" tendências ideológicas. Evitar cair em simplismos redutores. Evitar cair em armadilhas. Entender porque motivo, a partir de certo momento, a dívida pública deixou de ser considerada um indicador chave de desenvolvimento sustentável, nomeadamente em Portugal. Tudo razões suficientes para estudar e escrever o artigo com o título acima que irei, se tudo correr bem, apresentar brevemente numa conferência internacional a ter lugar na cidade do Porto.
A Referência deste artigo, enviado na sua forma completa e aceite pelor referees internacionais designados pela Organização da Conferência, é a seguinte:
Rodrigues, V.J. (2012) - A critique of degrowthism. International Congress LIC'12, Porto, 8-10 Nov. Prog. available at: http://195.23.253.240/LIC2012/media/lic2012_agenda_dia9.pdf
A
critique of degrowthism
Valdemar
J. Rodrigues
CIDESTEC,
Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Portugal
Extended
Abstract
Degrowthism
– the ideology of
sustainable economic degrowth, as I argue hereafter – has received
unusual attention in recent years, in particular after the financial
earthquake initiated in 2008 in the USA. But it was just a few months
before the political recognition of the financial crisis, in April
2008, that about 140 researchers in economics, environmental and
social sciences from 30 countries met in Paris for the first
international conference on “Economic Degrowth for Ecological
Sustainability and Social Equity" [1].
The event would be reissued later in Barcelona (in 2010), Montreal
and Venice (both in 2012), always organized by a meanwhile
constituted association of academics and scholars, the Research &
Degrowth [2],
a group led by the economists Joan Martinez-Alier and Serge Latouche,
two of the most widely known contemporary degrowthists.
With
important roots on ecological economics, one could easily date the
origins of degrowthism to the late sixties when the Club of Rome
decided to commission the research that culminated in the famous book
The Limits of Growth, of Donella Meadows and colleagues. But that is
just a plausible possibility. As such, the very first interrogation
relates the nature and the historical grounds of degrowthist ideas.
After this done, I believe we are properly equipped to understand the
step back verified in 1992 with the UN Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED), when the concept of sustainable development was
included in the agenda of the major world governments and economic
leaders.
An
interesting aspect of degrowthism is its unbalanced reliance on GDP,
a macroeconomic indicator which is not accepted as a valid measure of
human well-being and of wealth of a society. The existence of a
positive relation between real GDP (or GNP) and the use of materials,
energy and land is clearly assumed by degrwthists when economic
growth is at stake. But when addressing economic degrowth, they are
much less affirmative about the necessity, or desirability, of a real
GDP degrowth. This probably explains the apparent indifference of
degrowthists to the economic recession that hit several national
economies of the EU in recent years. And the absence of exaltation
with, and celebration of the positive environmental effects of
recession. In Portugal, for instance, such effects have been since
2008 quite significant, namely in terms of waste generation reduction
and lowering of greenhouse gas emissions.
The
second part of this research consisted in a critical examination of
the ideas of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, one of the major references
of sustainable degrowth theorists. As timely noticed by Andrew
Dobson, ecologism
differs substantially from environmentalism
since the former is an ideology – providing us a world view
(weltanschauung)
through which we can interpret, spontaneously, our lifeworld and
daily experiences – while the latter is not. Being ecologism, or at
least some of its core values, a key element of the thought of
degrowthists, then its worth looking critically at such crucial
issues as the intrinsic value of nature and the value of human life.
This part highlights sustainable degrowth as an ideology, based on
the idea that conventional theories of economic growth (theories that
seek the growth of production and consumption and therefore GDP
growth), are hopelessly unsustainable. And explains why degrowthism
is fundamentally incompatible with the hitherto dominant conceptions
of sustainable development, since those conceptions assume GDP growth
as a good, and thus a desirable thing.
The
third and last part of this research points out some of its
preliminary conclusions. Degrowthist ideology is not so uniform, or
homogeneous, as one might have expected at a first glance. When a
deeper analysis is undertaken, one can identify different categories
of green thinkers for whom sustainable degrowth is, at least, a
political option that is worth considering. Proponents of natural
capitalism, deep ecologists, social ecologists and traditional
pantheists are in the list, alongside with shallower
environmentalists disillusioned with the prospects of sustainable
development. Degrowthism is becoming increasingly attractive for a
growing number of green thinkers, and this may not be a good thing, I
finally argue. The ideology advocates that we must live with less
consumption of material resources and energy, without this
representing a downgrade in our quality of life. It means however a
deep change in our culture, habits and lifestyles, agreed to be the
only effective way to reduce human ecological footprint on the planet
in an acceptable term. This may be true, but the point is how can we
achieve such an ambitious goal peacefully, and in time to prevent the
exhaustion of the planet's limited resources? Any reasonable answer
to this can hardly avoid the reference to a set of constrictive
policies (e.g.
demographic control policies, deindustrialization policies, policies
aimed at phasing out of industrial agriculture), that is, policies
that for present societies imply a real GDP degrowth.
But if
GDP degrowth is neither explicitly required nor celebrated by
degrowthists, then we are left with an alternative which would be
rather time consuming and hardly effective: the promotion of
self-discipline through proper education. Furthermore, such
alternative will interfere with individual beliefs and reasonable
preferences, which is always somehow an illegitimate interference, no
matter how contingent those beliefs and preferences might be [3].
This way we come to a seemingly dead end. On the one side, the very
idea of forcing someone to live according to their supposed needs
(and not according to their legitimate expectations) is something
that has already been tested by many governments of marxist
inspiration, and that had the results that we all know; and, on the
other, try to persuade people to live according to such principle is
something that pressuposes a slow process of social readjustment, for
example, based on the fair valuation of individual merits and of
genuine altruism, something that for many people is nothing but a
mirage. It follows that degrowthism basically desires the
disacceleration of economic activity through GDP degrowth, although
it avoids to publicly assume so. The reason for this attitude seems
obvious: it would be quite unwise to publicly celebrate things like
the reduction of productive investment, rising unemployment or the
disappearance of the most vulnerable strata of the population.
Degrowthers are very unclear about the strategies they foresee to a
sustainable and peaceful process of GDP degrowth.
Despite
the possible anomalies, and dangers, of degrowthist ideology, the
question is that since 1992 only one of the many possible
interpretations of sustainable development was in fact put into
practice by governments and international organizations, namely in
the developed world. The concept of sustainable development is still
far from being exhausted. One alternative conception of sustainable
development that for some time I've been advocating proposes
sustainability as a comprehensive moral ideal politically achievable
through the simultaneous and cooperative development in societies of
environmental care and protection; of democracy as authonomy and
subsidiarity, and of justice as fairness and dignity for present and
future generations. Rather than a scientific or technical demand
imposed by some sort of aliens, sustainable development is regarded
as a socially constructed process and, to that extent, sustainability
emerges as a matter of excellence for social contract [4].
Degrowthism is not necessarily incompatible with such a
contractualist sustainability approach. However, it seems reasonable
to assume that social contractants – the people – can agree on
the necessity of living with less but not with the necessity of
living worse or living less. So this very fundamental constraint
should always be kept in mind in any voluntary process of economic
downturn.
The
post-Rio dominant conception of sustainable development, in this
regard, gave little or no attention to some crucial aspects
of sustainability. As strange as it may now seem, the fact is that
many EU countries, as was the case of Portugal, ignored public debt
as a key indicator of sustainable development [5].
On the other
hand, democracy or its quality; the social and economic dimensions of
subsidiarity, or justice as fairness and human dignity in the light
of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights; hardly ever such
determinants of sustainable development deserved any kind of
attention and systematic appraisal, as one can see in the myriad of
sustainability reports produced by national states and supranational
organizations in the last two decades. After the UNCED in 1992, the
concept of sustainable development underwent a growing process of
depoliticization and selective reductionism, a still ongoing process
promoted by many Western countries and organizations, up to a point
where it stands now, completely reduced to a techno-environmental
dimension. I think therein lies the main problem of the concept of
sustainable development, a concept that could well be rehabilitated
for the benefit of people and their environment. Degrowthism may well
represent, in this sense, a civilizational throwback whose
consequences are still largely uncleared. The theory that fewer
people means more peace, more justice in the distribution of
opportunities and resources, and less likelihood of wars and
conflicts, is a theory that has not been demonstrated and that can be
completely wrong. It is up to social sciences more than to Physics
the clarification of this urgent and paramount issue.
Key
Words: Economic degrowth, sustainalbility, degrowthism,
degrowthist ideology.
Notes:
[1] Conference
proceedings available at
http://events.it-sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/en/appel/Degrowth%20Conference%20-%20Proceedings.pdf
[2] http://degrowth.org/
[3] Rawls, J. (1997: 70 et seq.) – O liberalismo político. Lisboa: Editorial Presença.
[4] This alternative conception of sustainable development is exposed in Rodrigues, V. (2009) – Desenvolvimento sustentável: uma introdução crítica. Lisboa: Principia.
[5] A detailed analysis of this anomaly will be available soon in Rodrigues, V. (2012) – Sustainability, security and national defense (forthcoming book).
[2] http://degrowth.org/
[3] Rawls, J. (1997: 70 et seq.) – O liberalismo político. Lisboa: Editorial Presença.
[4] This alternative conception of sustainable development is exposed in Rodrigues, V. (2009) – Desenvolvimento sustentável: uma introdução crítica. Lisboa: Principia.
[5] A detailed analysis of this anomaly will be available soon in Rodrigues, V. (2012) – Sustainability, security and national defense (forthcoming book).
