Degrowth – Paradox or Reality?

Modern economics has developed countless new theories, but not all of them can be translated into practical applications.

The processes shaping today’s economy take place within such complex social and technological systems that economics, based on its traditional foundations, can no longer necessarily provide adequate answers to the problems that arise.

There are countless examples that could be examined, but I have chosen one of the theories I find particularly interesting: degrowth.

From a traditional economic perspective, degrowth is a rather startling idea. We were taught that economic organizations should continually develop because growth strengthens competitive advantages, promotes technological progress, and maintains a desirable cycle of development, production and sales that can, at least in theory, create a win-win situation for as many participants as possible.

Yes, but there is a warning sign. Our development relies on finite resources. Certain areas cannot be developed indefinitely, some industries disappear or transform, while the emerging industrial structure is not always capable of immediately filling the gap that is left behind.

From this perspective, degrowth argues that not every economic indicator necessarily has to grow continuously. In some areas, the emphasis could shift from quantitative growth towards more economical use of resources, sustainability and quality of life.

This is particularly interesting from the perspective of climate change. If increasing economic output does not necessarily have to mean increasing material and energy consumption in every case, then environmental pressure could theoretically be reduced.

But this is where another question enters the picture, one that is no longer purely economic.

Could employees or entrepreneurs caught in the treadmill of growth return to a genuinely human environment, where they have more time for themselves, their families, their communities, creative work, or simply for living their lives?

Is it possible to create a form of social existence in which the value of every activity is not determined by profit and the pressure to increase performance?

It is clear that the theory has already moved into the field of the social sciences. From this point onward, it is no longer only economic effects that matter, but the human factor.

Because there are countless questions that need answers.

If we produce the same amount as last year, who has to give up their previous increase in consumption?

Who will accept having to give up part of the social status manifested through consumption?

Who will develop more comfortable, resource-efficient products and services if the emphasis is placed on distributing what already exists?

And there is an even more important question:

What might people gain if the pressure for continuous growth were reduced?

Obviously, the answer would not be the same for everyone.

Some might gain more time. Others might devote more time to their families. Still others might learn, create, build communities, or simply regain some of the time that is currently consumed by earning a living and meeting the demands of continuous performance.

This may be one of the most interesting human possibilities offered by degrowth.

It would not necessarily mean less life, but life used differently.

The question, therefore, is not simply how many fewer products we produce, but also what we do with the human time and energy that could be freed if they were not constantly directed towards economic growth.

Society is not merely a system of production and consumption. It consists of people who need time, relationships, security, creativity, community, and the feeling that they have at least some control over their own lives.

We can all sense that our desire for material progress, and our pursuit of it, has deprived us of many things at the social level.

We are less loyal.

We have less control over our own time.

We serve the goals of others because almost everyone has a boss. Even a billionaire does: the stock market, investors or market expectations can dictate their choices.

Degrowth, therefore, is not simply about consuming less. It also raises the question of whether we can change a social system in which consumption, growth and social status have become so closely interconnected.

And once again, we have crossed into another field of study: complexity theory.

Complexity theory attempts to portray the economy not as a simple, linear process, but as a network made up of many interacting components. This may be closer to the way economic processes actually work. At the same time, precisely because of the complexity of the system, there are no simple, universally applicable rules, and it is therefore difficult to derive a clear regulatory model from it.

So, from the countless economic theories, we can select a line of reasoning that appeals to us, but unfortunately, we have not found the philosopher’s stone.

We cannot simply turn it into practice.

Not only because countless parties with conflicting interests may formally or informally obstruct change, but also because such a model cannot simply be fitted into established economic practice. On its own, it cannot provide comprehensive reforms either.

Perhaps, therefore, the most important question is not simply growth or degrowth.

Perhaps we should first find answers to these questions:

What do we really need?
What are we willing to give up?
And what will we do with the time we could regain if we stopped trying to have more at all costs?

Finally, we can recall an old saying about a wealthy man who was said to own only one pair of trousers.

His answer was simple:

“I have one backside. What do I need more trousers for?”

By: Viktor Szentkiralyi