What do you think?
Rate this book
Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet
Prosperity without Growth challenges the embedded, unquestioned assumptions of the global policy of growth and shows that it is necessary—and possible—to have increased and widespread prosperity without economic growth.
The modern economy is reliant on economic growth for stability. When growth falters, politicians panic, businesses fail, people lose jobs, and recession looms. Tim Jackson argues, however, that continual growth is just not possible, not sustainable—to believe so is ignoring our knowledge of the finite resource base and fragile ecology in which we live.
The book starts with a compelling analysis of the consequences—for the planet and for people’s wellbeing—of the relentless pursuit of economic growth and material goods. It illustrates why a return to business as usual after the current financial crisis is not an option. Prosperity for a few founded on ecological destruction and persistent social injustice is no foundation for a civilized society.
The current economic crisis presents a unique opportunity to invest in change and a future that delivers lasting prosperity for the predicted 9 billion people who will inhabit the earth in 2050. The author—a leading expert and advisor to the UK government—concludes by outlining pathways towards a sustainable economy. It involves radically changing our “shop until you drop” mentality, as well as engaging other disruptive economic practices. Jackson doesn’t claim this will be easy, but points out that while action is urgent, it is possible.
The book opens up dialogue on the most urgent task of our times—the challenge of a new prosperity encompassing our ability to flourish as human beings—within the ecological limits of a finite planet.
The modern economy is reliant on economic growth for stability. When growth falters, politicians panic, businesses fail, people lose jobs, and recession looms. Tim Jackson argues, however, that continual growth is just not possible, not sustainable—to believe so is ignoring our knowledge of the finite resource base and fragile ecology in which we live.
The book starts with a compelling analysis of the consequences—for the planet and for people’s wellbeing—of the relentless pursuit of economic growth and material goods. It illustrates why a return to business as usual after the current financial crisis is not an option. Prosperity for a few founded on ecological destruction and persistent social injustice is no foundation for a civilized society.
The current economic crisis presents a unique opportunity to invest in change and a future that delivers lasting prosperity for the predicted 9 billion people who will inhabit the earth in 2050. The author—a leading expert and advisor to the UK government—concludes by outlining pathways towards a sustainable economy. It involves radically changing our “shop until you drop” mentality, as well as engaging other disruptive economic practices. Jackson doesn’t claim this will be easy, but points out that while action is urgent, it is possible.
The book opens up dialogue on the most urgent task of our times—the challenge of a new prosperity encompassing our ability to flourish as human beings—within the ecological limits of a finite planet.
286 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2009
298 people are currently reading
6866 people want to read
About the author
Tim Jackson
52 books90 followersTim Jackson is an ecological economist and writer. Since 2016 he has been Director of the Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity (CUSP). CUSP is a multidisciplinary research centre which aims to understand the economic, social and political dimensions of sustainable prosperity. Its guiding vision for prosperity is one in which people everywhere have the capability to flourish as human beings – within the ecological and resource constraints of a finite planet.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 228 reviews
June 16, 2012
Although, as a longtime environmentalist, I'm a member of the choir that this author is preaching to, I found myself resisting much of what he was saying, and I certainly could not imagine that a gung-ho, pro-growth, climate-change skeptic would be moved by the arguments presented in this book. My main takeaway was the realization of just how far apart people can be who are supposedly on the same team.
For one thing I had problems with the style and presentation of the book. The heavy use of sentence fragments made me feel I was reading an expanded PowerPoint presentation, and the pervasive presence of weasel-words like clearly is a sign of the weakness of the supporting arguments.
I was frustrated with the author's fence-sitting. I was expecting to find, at a minimum, a clear alternative definition of prosperity, but this I did not get--at least, not that I can recall. Instead there were repeated statements to the effect that "our future idea of prosperity will have to include such things as . . ." But the author felt that coming down too definitely on exactly what should be done, or how, was beyond the scope of what one book--his book, anyway--could do.
Much of the book is concerned with providing suggestive evidence that alternative ways of measuring our economic activity and success are feasible. But too often, for my taste, this evidence consisted of the tentative findings of various social scientists, based on mushy things like opinion surveys. To me this is not "science" in any useful sense, for I have little doubt that, like expert witnesses in court cases, other soft scientists could be found to offer "evidence" supporting different or even contradictory conclusions. Only hard science--physics and chemistry--carry conviction, and there's very little of that in this book.
What was most troubling to me was the author's faith in government as the solution to our global ecological-economic crisis. My alarm bells first started ringing early on when the author says that although the bailouts of financial firms in the crisis of 2008 were used to fund multimillion-dollar bonuses for those firms' executives, "politicians had no choice but to intervene in the protection of the banking sector." This reader, for one, believes that politicians did have a choice. Can we possibly believe that there was no choice but to borrow billions of dollars in my name, and use it to reward their cronies for losing such stupendous sums of money?
The bold, visionary change needed to bring a new world economy into being will never arise from such feckless and fatalistic acceptance of government as it is currently practiced. As far as I can tell, governments are more responsible than anyone for the ecological harm that has been wrought on planet Earth. It is governments, after all, who subsidize Big Oil and pay people to destroy fisheries and mow down rainforests. Private interests, of course, could still accomplish these things, but not so quickly or so completely as when they receive government handouts to do so. Canada would still have a cod fishery if its government had not paid people to extirpate it. The idea that the Stephen Harper government in Canada might lead us toward a more ecologically responsible economics would make me laugh if it didn't fill me with such bleak hopelessness. Our governments rule us; they don't lead us. Our leaders--that is, the people we spontaneously wish to follow--will have to come from the grass roots.
This book was at its best and most interesting when the author was at his most wonkish. He spends time discussing GDP and the equations with which it's calculated. But although I found this interesting and informative, I don't think that a bold new "prosperity"-based economics can emerge from such technical futzing. "Maybe if we can tweak these equations a bit . . ."
My overall impression is that, although the author talks about vision, he sees and treats the question of changing the economic basis of our society as a technical one, to be solved ultimately by academics and bureaucrats. Even the attitudes of us consumers, which, according to the author, must fundamentally change, are really the responsibility of those same bureaucrats, who must construct the institutions and incentives that will cause the livestock, oops, citizens, to behave in the right way. Mr. Jackson sees a more thoroughly socialist society--one in which the evils of "capitalism", with its promotion of "consumerism" via an unpleasant thing called "novelty", have been overcome--as the most likely means of getting to the sustainable Earth we need to live on. In this view, a benign dictator or a benign oligarchy will shepherd us to the Promised Land of a prosperous, sustainable, socially leveled Earth.
Of course the author does not say that--not in so many words. But to me it is the necessary implication of a world in which the state is even bigger than it is today. As though our real problem were a lack of right-thinking technocrats. And if people won't stop their neurotic pursuit of "novelty", they will have to be forced--won't they?
Our future and our prosperity are not technical questions. They are questions of principle, of ideas; they are philosophical questions, and they need to be discussed at this level. We do need a new idea of prosperity, but that idea needs to be clear and definite, and it needs to be communicated with passion and conviction by men of vision and integrity--our future leaders, whoever and wherever they are. That was never the mission of this book, but this book could have been and should have been a stone for the sling of one of those leaders, and I'm afraid it just isn't.
For one thing I had problems with the style and presentation of the book. The heavy use of sentence fragments made me feel I was reading an expanded PowerPoint presentation, and the pervasive presence of weasel-words like clearly is a sign of the weakness of the supporting arguments.
I was frustrated with the author's fence-sitting. I was expecting to find, at a minimum, a clear alternative definition of prosperity, but this I did not get--at least, not that I can recall. Instead there were repeated statements to the effect that "our future idea of prosperity will have to include such things as . . ." But the author felt that coming down too definitely on exactly what should be done, or how, was beyond the scope of what one book--his book, anyway--could do.
Much of the book is concerned with providing suggestive evidence that alternative ways of measuring our economic activity and success are feasible. But too often, for my taste, this evidence consisted of the tentative findings of various social scientists, based on mushy things like opinion surveys. To me this is not "science" in any useful sense, for I have little doubt that, like expert witnesses in court cases, other soft scientists could be found to offer "evidence" supporting different or even contradictory conclusions. Only hard science--physics and chemistry--carry conviction, and there's very little of that in this book.
What was most troubling to me was the author's faith in government as the solution to our global ecological-economic crisis. My alarm bells first started ringing early on when the author says that although the bailouts of financial firms in the crisis of 2008 were used to fund multimillion-dollar bonuses for those firms' executives, "politicians had no choice but to intervene in the protection of the banking sector." This reader, for one, believes that politicians did have a choice. Can we possibly believe that there was no choice but to borrow billions of dollars in my name, and use it to reward their cronies for losing such stupendous sums of money?
The bold, visionary change needed to bring a new world economy into being will never arise from such feckless and fatalistic acceptance of government as it is currently practiced. As far as I can tell, governments are more responsible than anyone for the ecological harm that has been wrought on planet Earth. It is governments, after all, who subsidize Big Oil and pay people to destroy fisheries and mow down rainforests. Private interests, of course, could still accomplish these things, but not so quickly or so completely as when they receive government handouts to do so. Canada would still have a cod fishery if its government had not paid people to extirpate it. The idea that the Stephen Harper government in Canada might lead us toward a more ecologically responsible economics would make me laugh if it didn't fill me with such bleak hopelessness. Our governments rule us; they don't lead us. Our leaders--that is, the people we spontaneously wish to follow--will have to come from the grass roots.
This book was at its best and most interesting when the author was at his most wonkish. He spends time discussing GDP and the equations with which it's calculated. But although I found this interesting and informative, I don't think that a bold new "prosperity"-based economics can emerge from such technical futzing. "Maybe if we can tweak these equations a bit . . ."
My overall impression is that, although the author talks about vision, he sees and treats the question of changing the economic basis of our society as a technical one, to be solved ultimately by academics and bureaucrats. Even the attitudes of us consumers, which, according to the author, must fundamentally change, are really the responsibility of those same bureaucrats, who must construct the institutions and incentives that will cause the livestock, oops, citizens, to behave in the right way. Mr. Jackson sees a more thoroughly socialist society--one in which the evils of "capitalism", with its promotion of "consumerism" via an unpleasant thing called "novelty", have been overcome--as the most likely means of getting to the sustainable Earth we need to live on. In this view, a benign dictator or a benign oligarchy will shepherd us to the Promised Land of a prosperous, sustainable, socially leveled Earth.
Of course the author does not say that--not in so many words. But to me it is the necessary implication of a world in which the state is even bigger than it is today. As though our real problem were a lack of right-thinking technocrats. And if people won't stop their neurotic pursuit of "novelty", they will have to be forced--won't they?
Our future and our prosperity are not technical questions. They are questions of principle, of ideas; they are philosophical questions, and they need to be discussed at this level. We do need a new idea of prosperity, but that idea needs to be clear and definite, and it needs to be communicated with passion and conviction by men of vision and integrity--our future leaders, whoever and wherever they are. That was never the mission of this book, but this book could have been and should have been a stone for the sling of one of those leaders, and I'm afraid it just isn't.
August 28, 2011
“And I am a weapon of massive consumption / And it’s not my fault it’s how I’m programmed to function,” “The Fear,” Lily Allen
NB: I have taken advantage of the “spoiler” tag to append notes and asides that don’t directly bear on this review. The reader may open them or not as he or she pleases.
Coming as it does on the heels of Derrick Jensen’s Endgame: Volume 1: The Problem of Civilization and Herman Daly’s Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development, reading Tim Jackson’s Prosperity Without Growth does little to encourage optimism about the future. The short-term future, at any rate. We have gone far beyond this planet’s carrying capacity, and the current economic model – capitalist and growth fixated – only exacerbates the problem. Even if tomorrow morning everyone were to wake up and wholeheartedly embrace the zero-growth, sustainable economy discussed in these works, many areas of the world would still face ecological collapse, and it will be centuries if not millennia before a full recovery. And even then.... Even then we would still be impoverished to the extent that many natural resources are exhausted and irrecoverable outside of the passing of a geological age. Jackson provides a sobering example of the magnitude and intractability of the problem early in the book. One measure of our impact on the environment is the Ehrlich equation: I (impact) = P (population) x A (affluence) x T (technological intensity). Affluence here is roughly measured as GDP/capita in $, and technological intensity is measured as carbon-use intensity per $. In 1990, T equaled 860gCO2/$ and the equation produced a figure of 21.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions generated that year. Since then efficiencies have brought T down to 760gCO2/$ but P and A have grown faster than technical progress and carbon emissions stood at 30.0 billion tons in 2007. The number of people using products and the amount of resources used in making them have overwhelmed whatever gains we’ve made in carbon-use efficiency.
The numbers are staggering. Just to meet a carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm, the IPCC’s target for 2050 (which is probably too high considering what a current level of c.380 ppm is doing to the climate), the world has to reduce carbon use 130-fold, and that’s keeping population and affluence steady. Hardly a likely scenario.
Though Jackson spends the first few chapters of the book laying out the scope of the problem he shies away from the obvious conclusion – it’s unrealistic to expect 9 billion people to alter their lifestyles, expectations and assumptions to the extent necessary to maintain a reasonably affluent lifestyle for everyone. It’s unrealistic to even believe that’s possible. Jackson is a bureaucrat and his solutions – such as they are – are bureaucratic ones: We need to impose the policies that will resolve our dilemmas and keep and spread the lifestyle to which the developed world has become accustomed to everyone. But his own words belie that Panglossian conclusion: “By the end of the century, our children and grandchildren will face a hostile climate, depleted resources, the destruction of habitats, the decimation of species, food scarcities, mass migrations and almost inevitably war.” (p. 203) [emphasis mine]
What optimism I can generate looks to the long-term survival of humanity. Between 70,000 and 80,000 years ago, our species was reduced to a few thousand individuals struggling to outlast the catastrophic climate changes brought about by super-volcano eruptions that threw tremendous amounts of ash into the atmosphere. It was a close run thing but we came through it better able to cope with the world; though, ironically, those coping mechanisms now threaten to destroy us in turn. Perhaps, the humans who emerge into the post-industrial world will be better adapted.
Having read Daly, I was already familiar with the premises of the steady-state economy so much of Prosperity Without Growth covered old ground. There were, however, some interesting data that enlarged upon Daly’s argument. The first is simply Jackson’s ability to update the numbers; we have over 15 years of additional data to shore up Daly’s contention that the growth-oriented, mass-consumption economy is insupportable. As the example mentioned above illustrates, technical advances lag behind population and resource exploitation, worsening our environmental impact. The second is that Jackson devotes a good deal of ink trying to get a handle on what “prosperity” means. In a growth economy, prosperity is an ever accumulating amount of material goods. There is evidence that material abundance bears a relationship to life satisfaction, but only up to a point – satisfaction of basic needs with enough left over for a modest enjoyment of relative ones. This linkage weakens considerably beyond that point. Jackson draws the moral that growth makes a real difference in quality of life in poorer countries and shouldn’t be abandoned until everyone can meet basic needs plus a bit extra; the developed countries (really: the overdeveloped countries) need to pursue no-growth policies and restrict their consumption.
It’s easy enough to dismiss Jackson’s vision of a society that promotes “human flourishing” as a New Age, self-actualization utopian fantasy because he can’t concretize it: What would an average day-in-the-life of a post-industrial citizen look like? It’s impossible to say. The changes required to bring it about are so fundamental that 21st century observers would think they’re looking at an alien civilization. You’re better off reading SF from the pens of Ursula K. Le Guin or Edgar Pangborn to get an idea of the possibilities.
I’m getting to the point where I’d seriously devote myself to living a sustainable – at least, more sustainable – lifestyle but it’s scary and I have responsibilities at the moment to nine dependents and I feel overwhelmed, much as I did after finishing Endgame: Volume 1: The Problem of Civilization. I write this review comfortably ensconced in an air-conditioned apartment deep in the urbanized bowels of Los Angeles, using a criminal amount of resources to live better than many humans – living and dead – could possibly imagine and ask how we can, in good conscience, deny or severely restrict the material benefits of modern life to our children or to the billions in the developing world? We can’t. But we can find the wisdom and moral rectitude to live a sustainable life here and devote our collective energies to creating technologies that make the transition to a no-growth future easier.
NB: I have taken advantage of the “spoiler” tag to append notes and asides that don’t directly bear on this review. The reader may open them or not as he or she pleases.
Coming as it does on the heels of Derrick Jensen’s Endgame: Volume 1: The Problem of Civilization and Herman Daly’s Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development, reading Tim Jackson’s Prosperity Without Growth does little to encourage optimism about the future. The short-term future, at any rate. We have gone far beyond this planet’s carrying capacity, and the current economic model – capitalist and growth fixated – only exacerbates the problem. Even if tomorrow morning everyone were to wake up and wholeheartedly embrace the zero-growth, sustainable economy discussed in these works, many areas of the world would still face ecological collapse, and it will be centuries if not millennia before a full recovery. And even then.... Even then we would still be impoverished to the extent that many natural resources are exhausted and irrecoverable outside of the passing of a geological age. Jackson provides a sobering example of the magnitude and intractability of the problem early in the book. One measure of our impact on the environment is the Ehrlich equation: I (impact) = P (population) x A (affluence) x T (technological intensity). Affluence here is roughly measured as GDP/capita in $, and technological intensity is measured as carbon-use intensity per $. In 1990, T equaled 860gCO2/$ and the equation produced a figure of 21.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions generated that year. Since then efficiencies have brought T down to 760gCO2/$ but P and A have grown faster than technical progress and carbon emissions stood at 30.0 billion tons in 2007. The number of people using products and the amount of resources used in making them have overwhelmed whatever gains we’ve made in carbon-use efficiency.
The numbers are staggering. Just to meet a carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm, the IPCC’s target for 2050 (which is probably too high considering what a current level of c.380 ppm is doing to the climate), the world has to reduce carbon use 130-fold, and that’s keeping population and affluence steady. Hardly a likely scenario.
Though Jackson spends the first few chapters of the book laying out the scope of the problem he shies away from the obvious conclusion – it’s unrealistic to expect 9 billion people to alter their lifestyles, expectations and assumptions to the extent necessary to maintain a reasonably affluent lifestyle for everyone. It’s unrealistic to even believe that’s possible. Jackson is a bureaucrat and his solutions – such as they are – are bureaucratic ones: We need to impose the policies that will resolve our dilemmas and keep and spread the lifestyle to which the developed world has become accustomed to everyone. But his own words belie that Panglossian conclusion: “By the end of the century, our children and grandchildren will face a hostile climate, depleted resources, the destruction of habitats, the decimation of species, food scarcities, mass migrations and almost inevitably war.” (p. 203) [emphasis mine]
What optimism I can generate looks to the long-term survival of humanity. Between 70,000 and 80,000 years ago, our species was reduced to a few thousand individuals struggling to outlast the catastrophic climate changes brought about by super-volcano eruptions that threw tremendous amounts of ash into the atmosphere. It was a close run thing but we came through it better able to cope with the world; though, ironically, those coping mechanisms now threaten to destroy us in turn. Perhaps, the humans who emerge into the post-industrial world will be better adapted.
Having read Daly, I was already familiar with the premises of the steady-state economy so much of Prosperity Without Growth covered old ground. There were, however, some interesting data that enlarged upon Daly’s argument. The first is simply Jackson’s ability to update the numbers; we have over 15 years of additional data to shore up Daly’s contention that the growth-oriented, mass-consumption economy is insupportable. As the example mentioned above illustrates, technical advances lag behind population and resource exploitation, worsening our environmental impact. The second is that Jackson devotes a good deal of ink trying to get a handle on what “prosperity” means. In a growth economy, prosperity is an ever accumulating amount of material goods. There is evidence that material abundance bears a relationship to life satisfaction, but only up to a point – satisfaction of basic needs with enough left over for a modest enjoyment of relative ones. This linkage weakens considerably beyond that point. Jackson draws the moral that growth makes a real difference in quality of life in poorer countries and shouldn’t be abandoned until everyone can meet basic needs plus a bit extra; the developed countries (really: the overdeveloped countries) need to pursue no-growth policies and restrict their consumption.
It’s easy enough to dismiss Jackson’s vision of a society that promotes “human flourishing” as a New Age, self-actualization utopian fantasy because he can’t concretize it: What would an average day-in-the-life of a post-industrial citizen look like? It’s impossible to say. The changes required to bring it about are so fundamental that 21st century observers would think they’re looking at an alien civilization. You’re better off reading SF from the pens of Ursula K. Le Guin or Edgar Pangborn to get an idea of the possibilities.
I’m getting to the point where I’d seriously devote myself to living a sustainable – at least, more sustainable – lifestyle but it’s scary and I have responsibilities at the moment to nine dependents and I feel overwhelmed, much as I did after finishing Endgame: Volume 1: The Problem of Civilization. I write this review comfortably ensconced in an air-conditioned apartment deep in the urbanized bowels of Los Angeles, using a criminal amount of resources to live better than many humans – living and dead – could possibly imagine and ask how we can, in good conscience, deny or severely restrict the material benefits of modern life to our children or to the billions in the developing world? We can’t. But we can find the wisdom and moral rectitude to live a sustainable life here and devote our collective energies to creating technologies that make the transition to a no-growth future easier.
May 20, 2017
This is an important, serious but ultimately disappointing book. Important because it grapples with the vital task of how to redefine economics in a world of limited resources and an ever more damaged climate. Serious, because it approaches the task stage by stage, confronting some of the important issues which any change of this magnitude must face. But disappointing, because it still leaves us dangling, wondering exactly what a society which adopted this completely different set of objectives would look like and how it would work. As a result, its prescribed path for reaching the objective seems only thinly described.
There is almost nothing in the book with which I could disagree, but this isn't enough. We are daily confronted with greed and materialistic ambition that seems to get worse and worse - just look at the unbelievable arrogance of Goldman Sachs spending billions on salaries when it was was one of the agents of our recent crisis. At a more mundane level, we see the clamour for the latest Apple product or even the most recent fashionable shoes. How do we change this? How do we change ourselves, even those of us who would willingly sign up to a vision of the kind described by Jackson? I don't know, and for all that he has written a necessary book I don't think Tim Jackson really knows either.
There is almost nothing in the book with which I could disagree, but this isn't enough. We are daily confronted with greed and materialistic ambition that seems to get worse and worse - just look at the unbelievable arrogance of Goldman Sachs spending billions on salaries when it was was one of the agents of our recent crisis. At a more mundane level, we see the clamour for the latest Apple product or even the most recent fashionable shoes. How do we change this? How do we change ourselves, even those of us who would willingly sign up to a vision of the kind described by Jackson? I don't know, and for all that he has written a necessary book I don't think Tim Jackson really knows either.
August 30, 2018
Kep points I got out of the book:
Page 50 - disposable incomes are increasingly dedicated to different ends: leisure, social interaction, experience. Clearly though, this hasn't diminshed our appetite for material consumption. Have we been genetically programmed with an "instinct for acquisition"? What is it about consumer goods that continues to entrance us beyond the point of usefulness?
Graph on page 59 shows Russia't and South Africa's life expectancy has declined since 1990.
Page 104 - a 'green stimulus' has the potential to secure jobs and economic recovery in the short term, to provide energy security and technological innovation in the medium-term and to ensure a sustainable future for our children in the long-term.
Page 119 - A different kind of economic structure is needed for an ecologically constrained world.
Pages 144-145 - in British society incomes doubled on average over a thirty year period, but the loneliness index increased in every single region measured. Even the weakest communties in 1971 were stronger than any community now.
Page 149- some people even accepted a lower income so they could: garden, walk, enjoy music or read.
Page 153 - we need to dismantle the perverse incentives for unsustainable status competitionand must establish new structures that provide capabilities for people to flourish... in less materialistic ways.
Page 161 - Richard Dawkins has concluded, sustainability just doesn't come naturally to us.
There are a bunch of motherhood statements and pontificating about what must be done but not how to do it.
Page 50 - disposable incomes are increasingly dedicated to different ends: leisure, social interaction, experience. Clearly though, this hasn't diminshed our appetite for material consumption. Have we been genetically programmed with an "instinct for acquisition"? What is it about consumer goods that continues to entrance us beyond the point of usefulness?
Graph on page 59 shows Russia't and South Africa's life expectancy has declined since 1990.
Page 104 - a 'green stimulus' has the potential to secure jobs and economic recovery in the short term, to provide energy security and technological innovation in the medium-term and to ensure a sustainable future for our children in the long-term.
Page 119 - A different kind of economic structure is needed for an ecologically constrained world.
Pages 144-145 - in British society incomes doubled on average over a thirty year period, but the loneliness index increased in every single region measured. Even the weakest communties in 1971 were stronger than any community now.
Page 149- some people even accepted a lower income so they could: garden, walk, enjoy music or read.
Page 153 - we need to dismantle the perverse incentives for unsustainable status competitionand must establish new structures that provide capabilities for people to flourish... in less materialistic ways.
Page 161 - Richard Dawkins has concluded, sustainability just doesn't come naturally to us.
There are a bunch of motherhood statements and pontificating about what must be done but not how to do it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 29, 2014
An important and much cited book on sustainability circles. However, it covers little new ground. Much is based on the Club of Rome's [i]Limits to Growth[/i], some of the modeling is based on Herman Daly's [i]Steady State Economy[/i], both 40 years old. Sure, he introduces new data and confirms that the same disturbing trends continue. There are a few relevant studies cited that show material wealth is not the same as happiness, and his summary of what really matters to people more than money drives his point home. The political critique has a lot of bark and not much bite. Clearly he rejects anarcho-primitivism and revolution and bringing about a 'New Barbarism.' However, he fails to make a compelling case about how to overcome the political gridlock he identifies.
As someone who has worked as an editor, I am more sensitive to editing errors. Parts of the book read like copypasta and there appear to be omitted words in places that make the meaning obscure. An important book should not distract the reader with what appear to be copy editing errors. In parts it reads like a committee wrote it, and he acknowledges many contributors from the Sustainable Development Commission and workshops as the source material. I am not saying he plagiarized, but it looks like he did not polish his notes or carry the analysis further in places.
The policy recommendations are fairly standard and predictable: reforms in national income accounting, cap & trade on carbon emissions that are ratcheted down over time, public and private debt reduction, a tax to curb foreign currency speculation, investment in education and 'dismantling of the culture of consumerism.' I'm not opposed to any of the proposed reforms, but I think he does not go far enough. I would like to see taxation used as a policy tool. . In addition to a Tobin tax, I would like to see a carbon tax and a tax on pollutants, such as pesticides. However, I have no better path to overcome the political opposition to taxes as a way to restore fiscal sanity and correct market failures.
He declares where he wants to go is not Utopia. However, he fails to provide a guide of how to overcome the political opposition to the reforms that he acknowledges to be the problem.
In short, the book has a limited vision and can't even provide a good way to get there. Still, no bookshelf on current sustainability topics is complete without this book. The challenge is to come up with something better.
As someone who has worked as an editor, I am more sensitive to editing errors. Parts of the book read like copypasta and there appear to be omitted words in places that make the meaning obscure. An important book should not distract the reader with what appear to be copy editing errors. In parts it reads like a committee wrote it, and he acknowledges many contributors from the Sustainable Development Commission and workshops as the source material. I am not saying he plagiarized, but it looks like he did not polish his notes or carry the analysis further in places.
The policy recommendations are fairly standard and predictable: reforms in national income accounting, cap & trade on carbon emissions that are ratcheted down over time, public and private debt reduction, a tax to curb foreign currency speculation, investment in education and 'dismantling of the culture of consumerism.' I'm not opposed to any of the proposed reforms, but I think he does not go far enough. I would like to see taxation used as a policy tool. . In addition to a Tobin tax, I would like to see a carbon tax and a tax on pollutants, such as pesticides. However, I have no better path to overcome the political opposition to taxes as a way to restore fiscal sanity and correct market failures.
He declares where he wants to go is not Utopia. However, he fails to provide a guide of how to overcome the political opposition to the reforms that he acknowledges to be the problem.
In short, the book has a limited vision and can't even provide a good way to get there. Still, no bookshelf on current sustainability topics is complete without this book. The challenge is to come up with something better.
January 1, 2015
When I made the move from engineering to acting, I was fortunate to find a teacher early in my training that translated what can be a very airy-fairy touchy-feely language that often pervade acting technique into a clear and structured approach to acting training.
I have found the same in my experience with environmental and community groups issues.
"You can't pursue infinite growth on a finite planet", "consumerism and materialism are undermining our community and humanity", these are all things we in these fields believe strongly, but a clear, well reasoned argument backing these beliefs is not often well articulated. Just as with acting, when you've been in the field for long enough, these things seem self evident, but explaining them to others can be challenging.
Tim Jackson deftly navigates some very dense and heavy topics yet manages to keep it engaging and bring together the evidence on subjects from ecology, to economics, to social issues to make a very clear and well reasoned argument. The book calls for a rethink on the association of economic growth with prosperity, and a refocus on what true happiness and prosperity for society would like, and how we go about achieving it.
If you've had that feeling that the system is fundamentally flawed in many areas, but are hard pressed to explain the interconnections between all those broken parts, this book is a must read.
Or, if you like a very scientific, mathematically sound explanation for the world, and sometimes wonder what all these hippies in the green movement are on about, then this book is for you.
I have found the same in my experience with environmental and community groups issues.
"You can't pursue infinite growth on a finite planet", "consumerism and materialism are undermining our community and humanity", these are all things we in these fields believe strongly, but a clear, well reasoned argument backing these beliefs is not often well articulated. Just as with acting, when you've been in the field for long enough, these things seem self evident, but explaining them to others can be challenging.
Tim Jackson deftly navigates some very dense and heavy topics yet manages to keep it engaging and bring together the evidence on subjects from ecology, to economics, to social issues to make a very clear and well reasoned argument. The book calls for a rethink on the association of economic growth with prosperity, and a refocus on what true happiness and prosperity for society would like, and how we go about achieving it.
If you've had that feeling that the system is fundamentally flawed in many areas, but are hard pressed to explain the interconnections between all those broken parts, this book is a must read.
Or, if you like a very scientific, mathematically sound explanation for the world, and sometimes wonder what all these hippies in the green movement are on about, then this book is for you.
January 10, 2022
Is the present economic growth sustainable? A very crucial question the nations should consider, without merely satisfying the greed of corporations. Environmentalists can clearly measure who did how much damage to this beautiful world – but who will accept and take the responsibility?
Achieving an inflated GDP with no climate analysis is a narrow focus as the author describes. He encourages industries to be responsible and take care of the eco-system they belong to. Financial investments should reduce the focus on increasing labor and cheaper goods. Instead, the investments should target sustainable means like eco-friendly technology and efficient energy consumption.
After touching upon the unsustainable development and its associated problems, the author confines his recommendation only to ecological balance. His suggestion to move beyond the present materialistic culture toward lasting prosperity, what he calls liberating people from the iron cage of consumerism, still looks like a catchy slogan without proper way to achieve it. The policy reforms and the means to tackle those policies are not well analyzed.
With its limited analysis on how to achieve sustainable development, the book throws light on our present economic growth and the whopping damage it has accrued to the future.
Achieving an inflated GDP with no climate analysis is a narrow focus as the author describes. He encourages industries to be responsible and take care of the eco-system they belong to. Financial investments should reduce the focus on increasing labor and cheaper goods. Instead, the investments should target sustainable means like eco-friendly technology and efficient energy consumption.
After touching upon the unsustainable development and its associated problems, the author confines his recommendation only to ecological balance. His suggestion to move beyond the present materialistic culture toward lasting prosperity, what he calls liberating people from the iron cage of consumerism, still looks like a catchy slogan without proper way to achieve it. The policy reforms and the means to tackle those policies are not well analyzed.
With its limited analysis on how to achieve sustainable development, the book throws light on our present economic growth and the whopping damage it has accrued to the future.
December 28, 2012
Als je kinderen hebt of wilt, geïnteresseerd bent in de toekomst, in politiek, of in economie, of als je gewoon verder denkt en kijkt dan de aankomende paar jaar, dan is dit boek een must-read.
Onze economie is gebaseerd op structurele groei, terwijl de aarde niet groeit. Dus tenzij we ineens op Mars gaan wonen, kan iedereen zien aankomen dat de grondstoffen op raken en het hele economische systeem in elkaar zal donderen (binnen enkele decennia zoals het nu lijkt). We zien dat met de huidige economische crisis al een beetje. Ze noemen het de 'schuldencrisis' omdat de economie de afgelopen decennia was gebaseerd op het steeds weer aangaan van schulden om steeds weer nieuwe consumptie aan te wakkeren.
De huidige politici en economen stellen welvaart gelijk aan BBP: Als het BBP maar groeit, worden mensen ook wel welvarender. Maar het BBP houdt geen rekening met sociale ongelijkheid, misdaad, vrijwilligerswerk, huishoudelijk werk enz. Daarnaast blijkt uit onderzoek dan mensen in rijke landen lang niet altijd gelukkiger zijn dan mensen in minder rijke landen (mits aan de basisbehoeften als eten en een dak wordt voldaan).
Dit boek verkent de mogelijkheden van een economie die niet gebaseerd is op groei, maar op ontplooiingsmogelijkheden, sociale cohesie en binnen ecologische grenzen.
Het is af en toe geschreven als een studieboek voor economie en soms maar lastig door te ploeteren, maar de inhoud is bijzonder interessant.
Onze economie is gebaseerd op structurele groei, terwijl de aarde niet groeit. Dus tenzij we ineens op Mars gaan wonen, kan iedereen zien aankomen dat de grondstoffen op raken en het hele economische systeem in elkaar zal donderen (binnen enkele decennia zoals het nu lijkt). We zien dat met de huidige economische crisis al een beetje. Ze noemen het de 'schuldencrisis' omdat de economie de afgelopen decennia was gebaseerd op het steeds weer aangaan van schulden om steeds weer nieuwe consumptie aan te wakkeren.
De huidige politici en economen stellen welvaart gelijk aan BBP: Als het BBP maar groeit, worden mensen ook wel welvarender. Maar het BBP houdt geen rekening met sociale ongelijkheid, misdaad, vrijwilligerswerk, huishoudelijk werk enz. Daarnaast blijkt uit onderzoek dan mensen in rijke landen lang niet altijd gelukkiger zijn dan mensen in minder rijke landen (mits aan de basisbehoeften als eten en een dak wordt voldaan).
Dit boek verkent de mogelijkheden van een economie die niet gebaseerd is op groei, maar op ontplooiingsmogelijkheden, sociale cohesie en binnen ecologische grenzen.
Het is af en toe geschreven als een studieboek voor economie en soms maar lastig door te ploeteren, maar de inhoud is bijzonder interessant.
August 9, 2013
Tim Jackson tackles the problem of persuading us to take the obvious conclusion that infinite growth on a finite planet is impossible seriously, by sending up the myth of decoupling - the decarbonisation of economic activity can't happen fast enough to prevent ecological disaster unless population and affluence stop increasing too. Inequality has to be addressed, both globally and within societies suffering from affluenza...
We need immense structural changes and a redefinition of prosperity; an escape from the social logic of consumerism and ecological macro-economics. Working hours regulation, and an end to design obsolescence are key suggestions. Rebalancing between self-enhancement/transcendence and between novelty and tradition are also prescribed. Jackson sees a large role for the state, and a less capitalistic system.
We need immense structural changes and a redefinition of prosperity; an escape from the social logic of consumerism and ecological macro-economics. Working hours regulation, and an end to design obsolescence are key suggestions. Rebalancing between self-enhancement/transcendence and between novelty and tradition are also prescribed. Jackson sees a large role for the state, and a less capitalistic system.
August 10, 2014
Underwhelming. Significant gaps.
Tim Jackson, with the UK Sustainable Development Commission, published 'Prosperity without Growth' to summarize the commission's findings for the general public. The intent of the work is to raise awareness for alternative economic models in the wake of the financial collapse. The book reads as a summary report with moderate depth and extensive references.
The book does a good job of describing why alternative economic models are necessary. The first reason are ecological limits (see Turner et al., "Perspectives on the ‘Environmental Limits’ Concept," 2007., and Robert Ayres, "Sustainability Economics: Where do We Stand?", Ecological Economics 2008.) The second reason is that growth is no longer meeting social goals. Tim's career research focuses on this point, where he deftly shows how consumption habits are unfulfilling and detrimental to prosperity.
The central conundrum is that economic growth is unsustainable and degrowth or steady-state is unstable. The rest of the book is spent trying to understand a way out of this trap.
Further growth with less resource intensity is not viable, as described in the chapter on the myth of decoupling. There are no current models for a stable degrowth or steady-state economy, and the complexity of the transition makes it harder. There needs to be enough alternatives investment to have them ready in time, but too much investment could crash the economy through over-spending and lack of financial return.
He makes a few policy recommendations for an alternative economic model, or to at least expand the time frame for solutions: Keynesian green spending plans, ecosystem services investment, emphasizing employment in human service sectors, and more equitable sharing of reduced working hours.
This is where the book is weakest, and many important points that jeopardize a less-intensive, steady-state economy, are left unexplored. The issues are many:
- In response to the Stern review, he mentions that the transition and mitigation costs for climate are underestimated, but doesn't go into how are why they are underestimated. (Stern recently has increased his estimate for mitigation costs since the book was published). The mitigation costs come from top-down economic models which assume substitutability between factors of production, which the book showed is an incorrect assumption. This was an obvious point that was missed.
- He suggests that limits on resource consumption be set, but leaves it to others to determine those limits. This is problematic, because setting limits is an inherently value-laden process with implications on transition possibilities, so he should have at least attempted an answer.
- He explains how decoupling isn't likely to work, even referring to attempts at shifting to a human service-sector based economy as a "Cinderella economy", yet goes on to suggest just that as a key policy option. This ignores his own evidence of the lack of financial importance of the 'Cinderella economy', how little room there is in the long-term to achieve de-coupling by reducing labor hours, and how commoditizing public or private social goods can work against the sense of shared prosperity that curbs consumerism.
- He advocates for the voluntary simplicity movement, and does acknowledge that many who do it are older and have the financial resources to stop working, but fails to see how that seriously weakens the case that it is a psychologically viable alternative to the novelty and status-seeking of consumerism.
- He repeats the popularized statement of ecological tax reform, 'tax bads like pollution, not goods like income', right after describing how inequality is a driver of consumption.
- He repeats the popularized "green-frogging" idea of having poor countries advance countries immediately to the best green technologies. This ignores the reality that tech industries are poor choices for economic development in the poorest countries, because the capital and educational requirements are so high, as explained in E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful".
- The book ignores the question of political economy and targeted manipulation by powerful industry interests, who have halted progress on climate action in both the U.S. and the U.K..
These oversights made the book underwhelming, and left several important questions unanswered:
- Is the voluntary simplicity movement a viable replacement to the consumerist mindset?
- What are minimum viable economic sectors and activities for prosperity in a contraction / collapse scenario?
- What are prior examples of differing substitutability of key material and energy resources?
- What is a coherent theory of change for encouraging action at the individual and social level? How significant can such a change be, and what are the key limitations?
- For the economies mentioned that prospered through recession because of good social institutions, what were the institutions, and how resilient could they be made to be in a longer recession?
Overall, 'Prosperity without Growth' is a decent summary of the economic problem of ecological limits and counter-productive growth. The writing could be more concise, so I suggest skimming the first 3 chapters and the last chapter. Much of the book is underwhelming, but the reference list is excellent, providing depth and rigor on the subject.
Tim Jackson, with the UK Sustainable Development Commission, published 'Prosperity without Growth' to summarize the commission's findings for the general public. The intent of the work is to raise awareness for alternative economic models in the wake of the financial collapse. The book reads as a summary report with moderate depth and extensive references.
The book does a good job of describing why alternative economic models are necessary. The first reason are ecological limits (see Turner et al., "Perspectives on the ‘Environmental Limits’ Concept," 2007., and Robert Ayres, "Sustainability Economics: Where do We Stand?", Ecological Economics 2008.) The second reason is that growth is no longer meeting social goals. Tim's career research focuses on this point, where he deftly shows how consumption habits are unfulfilling and detrimental to prosperity.
The central conundrum is that economic growth is unsustainable and degrowth or steady-state is unstable. The rest of the book is spent trying to understand a way out of this trap.
Further growth with less resource intensity is not viable, as described in the chapter on the myth of decoupling. There are no current models for a stable degrowth or steady-state economy, and the complexity of the transition makes it harder. There needs to be enough alternatives investment to have them ready in time, but too much investment could crash the economy through over-spending and lack of financial return.
He makes a few policy recommendations for an alternative economic model, or to at least expand the time frame for solutions: Keynesian green spending plans, ecosystem services investment, emphasizing employment in human service sectors, and more equitable sharing of reduced working hours.
This is where the book is weakest, and many important points that jeopardize a less-intensive, steady-state economy, are left unexplored. The issues are many:
- In response to the Stern review, he mentions that the transition and mitigation costs for climate are underestimated, but doesn't go into how are why they are underestimated. (Stern recently has increased his estimate for mitigation costs since the book was published). The mitigation costs come from top-down economic models which assume substitutability between factors of production, which the book showed is an incorrect assumption. This was an obvious point that was missed.
- He suggests that limits on resource consumption be set, but leaves it to others to determine those limits. This is problematic, because setting limits is an inherently value-laden process with implications on transition possibilities, so he should have at least attempted an answer.
- He explains how decoupling isn't likely to work, even referring to attempts at shifting to a human service-sector based economy as a "Cinderella economy", yet goes on to suggest just that as a key policy option. This ignores his own evidence of the lack of financial importance of the 'Cinderella economy', how little room there is in the long-term to achieve de-coupling by reducing labor hours, and how commoditizing public or private social goods can work against the sense of shared prosperity that curbs consumerism.
- He advocates for the voluntary simplicity movement, and does acknowledge that many who do it are older and have the financial resources to stop working, but fails to see how that seriously weakens the case that it is a psychologically viable alternative to the novelty and status-seeking of consumerism.
- He repeats the popularized statement of ecological tax reform, 'tax bads like pollution, not goods like income', right after describing how inequality is a driver of consumption.
- He repeats the popularized "green-frogging" idea of having poor countries advance countries immediately to the best green technologies. This ignores the reality that tech industries are poor choices for economic development in the poorest countries, because the capital and educational requirements are so high, as explained in E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful".
- The book ignores the question of political economy and targeted manipulation by powerful industry interests, who have halted progress on climate action in both the U.S. and the U.K..
These oversights made the book underwhelming, and left several important questions unanswered:
- Is the voluntary simplicity movement a viable replacement to the consumerist mindset?
- What are minimum viable economic sectors and activities for prosperity in a contraction / collapse scenario?
- What are prior examples of differing substitutability of key material and energy resources?
- What is a coherent theory of change for encouraging action at the individual and social level? How significant can such a change be, and what are the key limitations?
- For the economies mentioned that prospered through recession because of good social institutions, what were the institutions, and how resilient could they be made to be in a longer recession?
Overall, 'Prosperity without Growth' is a decent summary of the economic problem of ecological limits and counter-productive growth. The writing could be more concise, so I suggest skimming the first 3 chapters and the last chapter. Much of the book is underwhelming, but the reference list is excellent, providing depth and rigor on the subject.
January 25, 2010
Uninspiring.
The goal is worthy, of course. In a finite world nothing can grow larger for ever... neither lemming nor human population numbers, neither global oil production nor GDP. In our case the end of growth seems likely to come sooner rather than later, given that we are already in ecological overshoot, about to be confronted with peak fossil fuels, and with catastrophic climate change a few decades away if we continue with Business As Usual. So, we can either think about what growth is supposed to be good for, find ways to achieve the same ends by other means, and voluntarily and in a controlled manner stop growing, or we can charge blindly ahead until we drown, starve, or go over a cliff into steep decline.
I bought this book because I hoped it would provide some insight into what a world without growth would look like and how to manage the transition. And it sort of does, but not well. For a start, it reads like a report rather than a popular science book or a manifesto... it's a little dull. Secondly, although it does a reasonable job of identifying where the problems are today, it mostly fails to lay out clear and useful solutions to these problems, and those that it does provide tend, more often than not, to suffer from the same hybris as communism... to whit, that state bureaucracies can effectively micro-manage their economies and people. Indeed there is more than a whiff of Marxism here, with advocacy of state enterprises and dark hints of the necessity of "revisit the concepts of... asset ownership and control over the distribution of surpluses."
I'm not a radical free-marketeer, but neither do I think that communism has any useful answers. I'm basically a socialist, who believes that the role of government is to define the rules of the game and then to let market capitalism come up with optimal solutions. In order to transition to a sustainable future we need inspiring visions and pragmatic advice as to how to craft new green and sustainable rules to play by. Neither are easy to find in this book.
The goal is worthy, of course. In a finite world nothing can grow larger for ever... neither lemming nor human population numbers, neither global oil production nor GDP. In our case the end of growth seems likely to come sooner rather than later, given that we are already in ecological overshoot, about to be confronted with peak fossil fuels, and with catastrophic climate change a few decades away if we continue with Business As Usual. So, we can either think about what growth is supposed to be good for, find ways to achieve the same ends by other means, and voluntarily and in a controlled manner stop growing, or we can charge blindly ahead until we drown, starve, or go over a cliff into steep decline.
I bought this book because I hoped it would provide some insight into what a world without growth would look like and how to manage the transition. And it sort of does, but not well. For a start, it reads like a report rather than a popular science book or a manifesto... it's a little dull. Secondly, although it does a reasonable job of identifying where the problems are today, it mostly fails to lay out clear and useful solutions to these problems, and those that it does provide tend, more often than not, to suffer from the same hybris as communism... to whit, that state bureaucracies can effectively micro-manage their economies and people. Indeed there is more than a whiff of Marxism here, with advocacy of state enterprises and dark hints of the necessity of "revisit the concepts of... asset ownership and control over the distribution of surpluses."
I'm not a radical free-marketeer, but neither do I think that communism has any useful answers. I'm basically a socialist, who believes that the role of government is to define the rules of the game and then to let market capitalism come up with optimal solutions. In order to transition to a sustainable future we need inspiring visions and pragmatic advice as to how to craft new green and sustainable rules to play by. Neither are easy to find in this book.
July 27, 2012
Too many big words strung together to form too many over long sentences. But that said, the authors make a couple of really good points. First, growth-based capitalism is like running on an ever accelerating treadmill. It's an inherently chaotic system we can't keep up with. Second, growth-based capitalism requires significant resource consumption, which is becoming problematic given the world's population and desire to emulate Western-lifestyles. Third, growth-based economics forces us to sacrifice social commitments in pursuit of the economy (the last twenty-years is a testament to that). Fourth and finally, if we expect the innovation attendant growth-based economics (through the mechanism of designing systems and processes to reduce labor and resource costs) to save us from resource constraints (including carbon pollution), we are in for a big surprise. Current estimates from leading governmental agencies estimate that such innovation needs to provide a 21 fold increase in efficiency now (mainly in resource consumption) if we are to preserve the current ecological conditions on earth.
May 10, 2020
I don’t normally see the National Reading Movement SG account share economic books so when it talked about Prosperity Without Growth by Tim Jackson, I made a note to borrow it. It’s been some time since I read a serious economics book and I wanted to challenge my brain a little.
In Prosperity Without Growth, Tim Jackson makes the argument that the perpetual growth model that countries are following are not sustainable. What we need, he argues, is a redefinition of the term “prosperity”, divorcing it from the idea of continual growth, and commitment to this new idea of prosperity without growth on the part of developed nations, so that developing nations can continue to grow without overtaxing our planet.
From the book, I liked the chapter on the myth of decoupling (that we can continue to grow without harming the planet if we reduce the economic impact per output) by clarifying the difference between absolute and relative decoupling, and how relative decoupling will not be enough to save our planet.
I also liked the chapter that discussed Keynesianism and the ‘Green New Deal’. It was interesting to read the forces driving the green new deal, their thinking, and pitfalls of it. Combined with the chapter on the myth of decoupling, the book makes a persuasive case that we cannot afford to keep growing the economies without thinking of the environment.
Where the book falls short, regretfully, is in its definitions and recommendations. Firstly, the redefinition for ‘prosperity’ is never concretely finalised. Appendix 1 does talk about the SDC Redefining Prosperity Project, but you don’t get a concrete definition. It seems like the book would like its readers to make their own definitions, but given the urgency of the task to recalibrate the world’s economies, a stronger and clearer definition would be more useful. Secondly, while the book does talk about transitioning to a sustainable economy (measures include increasing financial and fiscal prudence, investing in jobs, assets, and infrastructures, tackling system inequality, etc), these measures don’t actually address what the economy will look like without growth. Apart from the suggestion to dismantle the culture of consumerism, most of the measures look like things governments take for long term economic growth or restructuring.
And while I appreciated the discussion on the different models of capitalism, I don’t think the book went far enough in considering alternatives to capitalism. I’m definitely not a communist or a socialist when it comes to economics, but this is where Marxist and socialist economics viewpoints may provide illumination on the ways we could go. Given that the author talks about strengthening social capital and greater investment in public goods, should there be more government intervention? Limits on the sizes of companies? What are the wildest ideas and could we learn from any of them? I would think that a book asking us to redefine our idea of economic prosperity would be the one that shows us the full range of possibilities – after all, I’m not asking the book to recommend everything that it mentions.
Although Prosperity Without Growth was published in 2009, it feels relevant in 2020 as we prepare to enter what will probably a global economic slowdown. This would be the time for governments, especially governments of developed countries, around the world to reassess its economic priorities and plan their stimulus accordingly. I’m glad I read this because I’ll be keeping this in mind as I read the news.
This review was first posted at Eustea Reads
In Prosperity Without Growth, Tim Jackson makes the argument that the perpetual growth model that countries are following are not sustainable. What we need, he argues, is a redefinition of the term “prosperity”, divorcing it from the idea of continual growth, and commitment to this new idea of prosperity without growth on the part of developed nations, so that developing nations can continue to grow without overtaxing our planet.
From the book, I liked the chapter on the myth of decoupling (that we can continue to grow without harming the planet if we reduce the economic impact per output) by clarifying the difference between absolute and relative decoupling, and how relative decoupling will not be enough to save our planet.
I also liked the chapter that discussed Keynesianism and the ‘Green New Deal’. It was interesting to read the forces driving the green new deal, their thinking, and pitfalls of it. Combined with the chapter on the myth of decoupling, the book makes a persuasive case that we cannot afford to keep growing the economies without thinking of the environment.
Where the book falls short, regretfully, is in its definitions and recommendations. Firstly, the redefinition for ‘prosperity’ is never concretely finalised. Appendix 1 does talk about the SDC Redefining Prosperity Project, but you don’t get a concrete definition. It seems like the book would like its readers to make their own definitions, but given the urgency of the task to recalibrate the world’s economies, a stronger and clearer definition would be more useful. Secondly, while the book does talk about transitioning to a sustainable economy (measures include increasing financial and fiscal prudence, investing in jobs, assets, and infrastructures, tackling system inequality, etc), these measures don’t actually address what the economy will look like without growth. Apart from the suggestion to dismantle the culture of consumerism, most of the measures look like things governments take for long term economic growth or restructuring.
And while I appreciated the discussion on the different models of capitalism, I don’t think the book went far enough in considering alternatives to capitalism. I’m definitely not a communist or a socialist when it comes to economics, but this is where Marxist and socialist economics viewpoints may provide illumination on the ways we could go. Given that the author talks about strengthening social capital and greater investment in public goods, should there be more government intervention? Limits on the sizes of companies? What are the wildest ideas and could we learn from any of them? I would think that a book asking us to redefine our idea of economic prosperity would be the one that shows us the full range of possibilities – after all, I’m not asking the book to recommend everything that it mentions.
Although Prosperity Without Growth was published in 2009, it feels relevant in 2020 as we prepare to enter what will probably a global economic slowdown. This would be the time for governments, especially governments of developed countries, around the world to reassess its economic priorities and plan their stimulus accordingly. I’m glad I read this because I’ll be keeping this in mind as I read the news.
This review was first posted at Eustea Reads
September 8, 2022
Tim Jackson laat zien voor welke consequenties het dilemma van de groei ons stelt. Groei - de motor van het kapitalisme - valt niet te rijmen met een eindige aarde. De ecologische grenzen zijn er, en we kunnen die maar beter omarmen in onze noodzakelijke zoektocht naar een duurzamere, op echte welvaart - waarin welvaart veel meer is dan een economisch cijfer voor productiviteit - gebaseerde economie.
Bedankt aan de auteur! Die mij nog maar eens doet inzien dat de structuur van onze maatschappij, ons dagelijks handelen telkens weer terug te herleiden zijn naar het consumentisme. Een triestige vaststelling. Hoe kunnen we deze structuur, onze mindset veranderen? Ik zal er mee over nadenken!
Bedankt aan de auteur! Die mij nog maar eens doet inzien dat de structuur van onze maatschappij, ons dagelijks handelen telkens weer terug te herleiden zijn naar het consumentisme. Een triestige vaststelling. Hoe kunnen we deze structuur, onze mindset veranderen? Ik zal er mee over nadenken!
September 27, 2019
Jackson forwards an idea that is at the core of the challenges of our day and age: We live under an economic system that has come off track in the pursuit of human prosperity. Sure, the history of capitalism has been accompanied by a general rise in living standards: people are less poor, better nourished, better educated and so on. But at the same time, our societies are shockingly unequal and our ecosystems increasingly degraded. At the state of current rate of growth, the global economy doubles every 20 years. The planet and the resources that nourish the economy, on the other hand, stay fixed. The predicament is obvious.
Anyone that is paying attention should realise, then, that our economic order would benefit from certain adjustments. Jackson helps with this by exposing the myth of decoupling economic growth from material and resource input and pointing to alternative ideas. Regarding the latter, unfortunately, he remains a little bit vague. Although he proposes a general vision of a post-growth society, it is not really clear how it would look in detail and in practice. I am left convinced of the significance of his message and confused about the way to go forward.
Anyone that is paying attention should realise, then, that our economic order would benefit from certain adjustments. Jackson helps with this by exposing the myth of decoupling economic growth from material and resource input and pointing to alternative ideas. Regarding the latter, unfortunately, he remains a little bit vague. Although he proposes a general vision of a post-growth society, it is not really clear how it would look in detail and in practice. I am left convinced of the significance of his message and confused about the way to go forward.
September 17, 2022
Expone con claridad el dilema de la civilización actual: dejar de crecer con los riesgos económicos y sociales que conlleva, o seguir creciendo y morir de éxito a largo plazo, al superar los límites planetarios. Propone, desde la economía ecológica, parar de crecer, en especial en los países desarrollados, con un cambio consciente que desmotive el consumo, reduzca la deuda, invierta en bienes públicos y que construya una idea de prosperidad desde una simpleza voluntaria de la vida.
August 13, 2016
Here is the review of the book that made me want to read it:
Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet by Tim Jackson
Jeremy Leggett, The Guardian, Friday 22 January 2010
"Tim Jackson states the challenge starkly: "Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must." And that is the core mission of this perfectly timed book. Had he published it before the financial crisis, he would probably have been dismissed as another green idealist, at best. But in the wake of the crisis, more people are questioning the primacy of growth at all costs. President Sarkozy, the Nobel-prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz and elements of the Financial Times's commentariat are among those now arguing that prosperity is possible without GNP growth, and indeed that prosperity will soon become impossible because of GNP growth. A new movement seems to be emerging, and this superbly written book should be the first stop for anyone wanting a manifesto.
Jackson, who is economics commissioner on the UK government's Sustainable Development Commission, skillfully makes the relevant economic arguments understandable to the lay reader. He is not slow to simplify where that is warranted: "The idea of a non-growing economy may be an anathema to an economist. But the idea of a continually growing economy is an anathema to an ecologist."
Tim Jackson is Professor of Sustainable Development in the Centre for Environmental Strategy (CES) at the University of Surrey, UK. He is also the Economics Commissioner at the Sustainable Development Commission, the UK government's independent, official sustainability advisor.
His most telling thoughts for me were about the psychological reasons behind overconsumption by the wealthy. Chapter 6 is titled "The Iron Cage of Consumerism". Jackson points to the "empty self" in a way I hadn't considered before:
"The restless desire of the 'empty self' is the perfect complement for the restless innovation of the entrepreneur. The production of novelty through creative destruction drives (and is driven by) the appetite for novelty in consumers.
Taken together these two self- reinforcing processes are exactly what is needed to drive growth forwards. As the ecological economist Douglas Booth remarks: The novelty and status seeking consumer and the monopoly-seeking entrepreneur blend together to form the underpinning of long-run economic growth."
So his final plea--that we MUST find ways for people to define themselves WITHOUT this cycle of consuming--is a powerful one. Sadly, I'm not sure how that will be accomplished. But for the first time, he gave me a sense of the underlying human emptiness at the root of overconsumption.
Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet by Tim Jackson
Jeremy Leggett, The Guardian, Friday 22 January 2010
"Tim Jackson states the challenge starkly: "Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must." And that is the core mission of this perfectly timed book. Had he published it before the financial crisis, he would probably have been dismissed as another green idealist, at best. But in the wake of the crisis, more people are questioning the primacy of growth at all costs. President Sarkozy, the Nobel-prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz and elements of the Financial Times's commentariat are among those now arguing that prosperity is possible without GNP growth, and indeed that prosperity will soon become impossible because of GNP growth. A new movement seems to be emerging, and this superbly written book should be the first stop for anyone wanting a manifesto.
Jackson, who is economics commissioner on the UK government's Sustainable Development Commission, skillfully makes the relevant economic arguments understandable to the lay reader. He is not slow to simplify where that is warranted: "The idea of a non-growing economy may be an anathema to an economist. But the idea of a continually growing economy is an anathema to an ecologist."
Tim Jackson is Professor of Sustainable Development in the Centre for Environmental Strategy (CES) at the University of Surrey, UK. He is also the Economics Commissioner at the Sustainable Development Commission, the UK government's independent, official sustainability advisor.
His most telling thoughts for me were about the psychological reasons behind overconsumption by the wealthy. Chapter 6 is titled "The Iron Cage of Consumerism". Jackson points to the "empty self" in a way I hadn't considered before:
"The restless desire of the 'empty self' is the perfect complement for the restless innovation of the entrepreneur. The production of novelty through creative destruction drives (and is driven by) the appetite for novelty in consumers.
Taken together these two self- reinforcing processes are exactly what is needed to drive growth forwards. As the ecological economist Douglas Booth remarks: The novelty and status seeking consumer and the monopoly-seeking entrepreneur blend together to form the underpinning of long-run economic growth."
So his final plea--that we MUST find ways for people to define themselves WITHOUT this cycle of consuming--is a powerful one. Sadly, I'm not sure how that will be accomplished. But for the first time, he gave me a sense of the underlying human emptiness at the root of overconsumption.
November 6, 2017
Unfortunately, I was quite disappointed by this book. I was really looking forward to the economic equivalent of Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air. But the book is full of nebulous exhortations and very short on actual detail. For instance,
Yes, well... DUH. But how do you DO that? What does it LOOK like? What countries have already tried aspects of this, and how are they faring? If no one has tried these things deliberately, then have any of them happened accidentally? How do you even get started with a grassroots movement toward these ideas? Has that been done before or does one always require an exogenous shock? Or would that make things worse? To come back to Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air, it's as if that book were just a short explanation of the energy crisis and climate change, and then pages and pages of exhortations to "use renewables instead" and "reduce energy usage". Well... DUH.
Some parts were so repetitive I thought my bookmark had fallen out and I was rereading a chapter I'd already read. Therefore on the plus side, you could read any one chapter and it would probably stand alone. But it makes what is already quite a short book even shorter. Appendix 2 seems to have all of the meat of the book in it, but it's written in such arch economic mathematics that it's hard even for me (a physicist) to get my head around it. It also includes the depressing sentence "it isn't entirely clear how this is to be achieved." Hmm. Doesn't really sound like we've solved the problem then, does it?
I thoroughly agree with all the set-up: we're in a serious situation here, and we are apparently doing NOTHING to change course. Business as usual is indeed no longer an option. But this book unfortunately doesn't provide enough detail of what that potential sustainable world looks like, or any information at all on how to get there. If anything, it's made me even more pessimistic that we can get ourselves out of this mess.
...the three key macro-economic interventions needed to achieve ecological and economic stability in the new economy are quite specific:
- structural transition to service-based activities;
- investment in ecological assets ; and
- working time policy as a stabilizing mechanism
Yes, well... DUH. But how do you DO that? What does it LOOK like? What countries have already tried aspects of this, and how are they faring? If no one has tried these things deliberately, then have any of them happened accidentally? How do you even get started with a grassroots movement toward these ideas? Has that been done before or does one always require an exogenous shock? Or would that make things worse? To come back to Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air, it's as if that book were just a short explanation of the energy crisis and climate change, and then pages and pages of exhortations to "use renewables instead" and "reduce energy usage". Well... DUH.
Some parts were so repetitive I thought my bookmark had fallen out and I was rereading a chapter I'd already read. Therefore on the plus side, you could read any one chapter and it would probably stand alone. But it makes what is already quite a short book even shorter. Appendix 2 seems to have all of the meat of the book in it, but it's written in such arch economic mathematics that it's hard even for me (a physicist) to get my head around it. It also includes the depressing sentence "it isn't entirely clear how this is to be achieved." Hmm. Doesn't really sound like we've solved the problem then, does it?
I thoroughly agree with all the set-up: we're in a serious situation here, and we are apparently doing NOTHING to change course. Business as usual is indeed no longer an option. But this book unfortunately doesn't provide enough detail of what that potential sustainable world looks like, or any information at all on how to get there. If anything, it's made me even more pessimistic that we can get ourselves out of this mess.
July 30, 2011
This is a worthy addition to the roster of post-crisis "trade" economics books (see also Nouriel Roubini, Paul Mason, John Lanchester and others), concentrating as it does on the very concept that fostered economics as a discipline in the first place - that of resource scarcity.
There is now a considerable literature that argues for an alternative to Gross Domestic and Gross National Product as measures of wellbeing and this goes all the way back to Victor Anderson's Alternative Economics Indicators , published 20 years ago now. Informed by the thinking of Anderson, ecological economists such as Bob Costanza and Herman Daly, public intellectuals such as Jonathan Porritt, and the capability approach of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, Jackson makes a convincing argument for the hand break to be applied to the growth process, advocating decreased consumerism, job sharing and the incorporation of environmental factors into assessments of societal progress.
Jackson stops short of calling for capitalism itself to be dismantled and merely calls for a halt to growth rather than backing the "de-growth" literature that is now becoming something of a torrent on the academic left. His is a practical, achievable brief in the main and all couched in language that any intelligent human being could follow.
My one query would concern the endorsements - the combined incomes and annual expenditures of those called upon to pass comment, not least the Prince of Wales himself, would probably be equivalent to the GDP of a mid sized European Union country.
There is now a considerable literature that argues for an alternative to Gross Domestic and Gross National Product as measures of wellbeing and this goes all the way back to Victor Anderson's Alternative Economics Indicators , published 20 years ago now. Informed by the thinking of Anderson, ecological economists such as Bob Costanza and Herman Daly, public intellectuals such as Jonathan Porritt, and the capability approach of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, Jackson makes a convincing argument for the hand break to be applied to the growth process, advocating decreased consumerism, job sharing and the incorporation of environmental factors into assessments of societal progress.
Jackson stops short of calling for capitalism itself to be dismantled and merely calls for a halt to growth rather than backing the "de-growth" literature that is now becoming something of a torrent on the academic left. His is a practical, achievable brief in the main and all couched in language that any intelligent human being could follow.
My one query would concern the endorsements - the combined incomes and annual expenditures of those called upon to pass comment, not least the Prince of Wales himself, would probably be equivalent to the GDP of a mid sized European Union country.
July 30, 2011
This is a worthy addition to the roster of post-crisis "trade" economics books (see also Nouriel Roubini, Paul Mason, John Lanchester and others), concentrating as it does on the very concept that fostered economics as a discipline in the first place - that of resource scarcity.
There is now a considerable literature that argues for an alternative to Gross Domestic and Gross National Product as measures of wellbeing and this goes all the way back to Victor Anderson's Alternative Economics Indicators , published 20 years ago now. Informed by the thinking of Anderson, ecological economists such as Bob Costanza and Herman Daly, public intellectuals such as Jonathan Porritt, and the capability approach of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, Jackson makes a convincing argument for the hand break to be applied to the growth process, advocating decreased consumerism, job sharing and the incorporation of environmental factors into assessments of societal progress.
Jackson stops short of calling for capitalism itself to be dismantled and merely calls for a halt to growth rather than backing the "de-growth" literature that is now becoming something of a torrent on the academic left. His is a practical, achievable brief in the main and all couched in language that any intelligent human being could follow.
My one query would concern the endorsements - the combined incomes and annual expenditures of those called upon to pass comment, not least the Prince of Wales himself, would probably be equivalent to the GDP of a mid sized European Union country.
There is now a considerable literature that argues for an alternative to Gross Domestic and Gross National Product as measures of wellbeing and this goes all the way back to Victor Anderson's Alternative Economics Indicators , published 20 years ago now. Informed by the thinking of Anderson, ecological economists such as Bob Costanza and Herman Daly, public intellectuals such as Jonathan Porritt, and the capability approach of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, Jackson makes a convincing argument for the hand break to be applied to the growth process, advocating decreased consumerism, job sharing and the incorporation of environmental factors into assessments of societal progress.
Jackson stops short of calling for capitalism itself to be dismantled and merely calls for a halt to growth rather than backing the "de-growth" literature that is now becoming something of a torrent on the academic left. His is a practical, achievable brief in the main and all couched in language that any intelligent human being could follow.
My one query would concern the endorsements - the combined incomes and annual expenditures of those called upon to pass comment, not least the Prince of Wales himself, would probably be equivalent to the GDP of a mid sized European Union country.
July 7, 2017
This book sells snake-oil for the ailments of the world and proves its efficiency through a scholarly slight-of-hand called circular reasoning. Most of its ideas are vague (e.g. ecological limits, eco-investments) so that anyone can interpret them however they choose, with a promise to explain all in more detail in later chapters or annexes. Once you reach those pages, conveniently spaced several chapters over, you run into statements like "this is but an outline" and "as I demonstrated before in chapter X". Science is limited to textbook formulas from beginner economics, to paint the impression of having it all rested on hard fundamentals. Jackson's real concerns throughout the book are:
1. making himself citable by inventing the concepts of "cinderella economy" and "iron cage of consumerism" (and then citing himself to show us how it's done)
2. posing as a moral champion by berating everyone for being frivolous consumers, polluters and egotistical bastards.
3. promoting outright communism while constantly insisting that he is not. One time he slyly points out how the egalitarian soviet economy was actually growing...
His whole schtick is studied to create the illusion that he is a deep thinker and visionary, from his grand ideas to the way he dresses, by adopting the one-size-larger plain shirt of the modest scholar. Tim Jackson is a charlatan and he probably wrote this book because he's very lonely and wanted some attention.
1. making himself citable by inventing the concepts of "cinderella economy" and "iron cage of consumerism" (and then citing himself to show us how it's done)
2. posing as a moral champion by berating everyone for being frivolous consumers, polluters and egotistical bastards.
3. promoting outright communism while constantly insisting that he is not. One time he slyly points out how the egalitarian soviet economy was actually growing...
His whole schtick is studied to create the illusion that he is a deep thinker and visionary, from his grand ideas to the way he dresses, by adopting the one-size-larger plain shirt of the modest scholar. Tim Jackson is a charlatan and he probably wrote this book because he's very lonely and wanted some attention.
November 8, 2011
A challenging book and one not easily accessible as a casual read. The premise is stated early on:
"The possibility that humans can flourish, achieve greater social cohesion, find higher levels of well-being, and still reduce their material impact on the environment is an intriguing one." p.47
Yes indeed. However, it takes most of the book to get to that point. The author spends a great deal of time debunking the current model of capitalistic growth used in many Western developed countries as well as rather pie-in-the-sky alternatives that try to ignore the very real resource limitations of the planet.
And once arriving at the final chapters, the possibility of change seems daunting. Not only will business as usual have to change but also living as usual, culture as usual, socializing and community as usual, all have to change. It is hard to share the authors hope that achieving these changes is possible in the near term. We may have to accept that life on earth is going to be much worse for a long time before it starts to get better.
"The possibility that humans can flourish, achieve greater social cohesion, find higher levels of well-being, and still reduce their material impact on the environment is an intriguing one." p.47
Yes indeed. However, it takes most of the book to get to that point. The author spends a great deal of time debunking the current model of capitalistic growth used in many Western developed countries as well as rather pie-in-the-sky alternatives that try to ignore the very real resource limitations of the planet.
And once arriving at the final chapters, the possibility of change seems daunting. Not only will business as usual have to change but also living as usual, culture as usual, socializing and community as usual, all have to change. It is hard to share the authors hope that achieving these changes is possible in the near term. We may have to accept that life on earth is going to be much worse for a long time before it starts to get better.
December 24, 2016
I really, really, urge anybody with an interest in actuality and global developments to read this book. Being a book that paves the way for a 'new world' economy and society, it carefully avoids the pitfalls of being ideological and dogmatic by carefully examination of current affairs and affluent use of existing literature and data. In this way, Tim Jackson examines the current economic system and consumerist society, it's trends and limits. Without becoming fully academic, the writer manages to provide a holistic view by integrating economic, ecologic, social and psychological perspectives. For example, consumerist society is not dismissed with a wave of the hand (as more dogmatic books would), but investigated as the social communication channel that it is. Finally, this careful and multi-faceted investigation culminates towards truly implementable and pragmatic policy (and personal) interventions to re-adjust our society towards a more sustainable future.
For me personally, this book answers questions about economy & society that I've had for years.
For me personally, this book answers questions about economy & society that I've had for years.
October 10, 2018
I will definitely be re-reading parts of this book at some point in the future. Jackson does a terrific job of explaining why growth economies are inherently unstable and unsustainable. Once growth fails to bring prosperity (this is arguably already happening in the first world), many economic and political arguments no longer make sense.
The policy changes proposed by Jackson to assist with transitioning to a non-growth economy seem almost radically left-wing and therefore unlikely to ever get bipartisan support. For this reason I consider the second part of the book that proposes these changes a little weaker than the part that outlines the problem.
Growth cannot continue forever on a finite planet - that much is obvious. I would be interested in reading a right-wing solution to the problem of living in a growth economy, if there is one. Is sustainability inherently left-wing? It shouldn't have to be.
The policy changes proposed by Jackson to assist with transitioning to a non-growth economy seem almost radically left-wing and therefore unlikely to ever get bipartisan support. For this reason I consider the second part of the book that proposes these changes a little weaker than the part that outlines the problem.
Growth cannot continue forever on a finite planet - that much is obvious. I would be interested in reading a right-wing solution to the problem of living in a growth economy, if there is one. Is sustainability inherently left-wing? It shouldn't have to be.
Currently reading
October 25, 2014Reading this now. Exciting to find a book which addresses the single most important problem facing our civilization! Now, I want to recommend this to my (skeptical) friends, so I need to be prepared for their criticisms.
1. Foreword by Pavan Sukhdev. He throws a bunch of numbers around with no references. I'm a bit skeptical from the get-go (35% of Earth's surface is used for agriculture? Does he mean, Earth's surface excluding water, or what?), and then he drops the following number as the population of Ethiopia: 28 million. Oops. This book came out in 2009. The population of Ethiopia in 2010 was 83 million. Already in 1970 it was more than 28 million. They should be pickier about who they choose to write their forewords, methinks.
1. Foreword by Pavan Sukhdev. He throws a bunch of numbers around with no references. I'm a bit skeptical from the get-go (35% of Earth's surface is used for agriculture? Does he mean, Earth's surface excluding water, or what?), and then he drops the following number as the population of Ethiopia: 28 million. Oops. This book came out in 2009. The population of Ethiopia in 2010 was 83 million. Already in 1970 it was more than 28 million. They should be pickier about who they choose to write their forewords, methinks.
July 17, 2019
Bad: Long sentences. Not a captivating writer. Took me 4months to finish this, though the book is quite short.
(Imagine doing the driest paper for a university module)
Good:
- clear policy recommendations
- incisive commentary on why we seek growth despite the inability to keep up w it ecologically
Would recommend to ppl interested in left-wing, socialist “fluffy” ideas but trying to figure out the language to convince “rational”, “solution-oriented”, “non-political”, “pragmatic” ppl of the problems w the current state of capitalism.
P/s I am a capitalist. I love globalisation. But again, like the book suggests, balance is needed. All in all, agreed w most points brought up by the author.
(Imagine doing the driest paper for a university module)
Good:
- clear policy recommendations
- incisive commentary on why we seek growth despite the inability to keep up w it ecologically
Would recommend to ppl interested in left-wing, socialist “fluffy” ideas but trying to figure out the language to convince “rational”, “solution-oriented”, “non-political”, “pragmatic” ppl of the problems w the current state of capitalism.
P/s I am a capitalist. I love globalisation. But again, like the book suggests, balance is needed. All in all, agreed w most points brought up by the author.
January 22, 2013
If you've ever heard that the planet has more people on it than it can support, we are running out of global resources, or that the problems of poverty and climate change cannot both be solved at once, this is an excellent book to read. It quantitatively shows how we cannot rely on some factors some economists use to dismiss the issues, such as productivity and efficiency improvements, or carbon decoupling.
August 11, 2013
Kunnen we economisch blijven groeien op een planeet met een eindige voorraad grondstoffen? Volgens Tim Jackson, hoogleraar duurzame ontwikkeling en hoofdadviseur duurzame economie van de Britse regering, staan we op het punt ons in een crisis te storten die we misschien niet meer te boven komen. De reden? We blijven ons richten op economische groei, tegen alle ecologische logica in. We zijn onherroepelijk op weg naar een klimaatverandering die zijn weerga niet kent. Kan het anders? In zijn boek ‘Welvaart zonder groei’ betoogt hij van wel. Hieronder volgt mijn recensie.
Het dilemma van groei
In de eerste hoofdstukken van het boek introduceert Tim Jackson het ‘dilemma van de groei’. In het kort komt dit dilemma op twee stellingen neer (pag. 72):
Groei is onhoudbaar – op zijn minst in zijn huidige vorm. Het grondstoffenverbruik blijft maar toenemen en ook de milieukosten blijven stijgen. Daarnaast leidt onze huidige focus op economische groei tot grote ongelijkheden in sociaal welzijn.
'Krimp’ (degrowth) is onstabiel – op zijn minst onder de huidige omstandigheden. Dalende consumentenvraag leidt tot toenemende werkloosheid, dalend concurrentievermogen en een spiraal van recessie.
‘Het dilemma van de groei zet ons gevangen tussen het verlangen om de economische stabiliteit te handhaven en de noodzaak om binnen ecologische grenzen te blijven’, aldus Jackson.
Laten we beide stellingen eens nader bekijken. De Engelstalige versie van dit boek kwam uit in 2009, net na het hoogtepunt van de financiële crisis. De timing had niet beter kunnen zijn. Jackson gebruikt de crisis om aan te tonen dat ons financiële systeem niet duurzaam is. Maar het systeem zorgt niet alleen voor financiële crises; ook een ecologische ramp voltrekt zich. Olie, gas en mineralen worden steeds schaarser – en dus duurder. De uitstoot van CO2 heeft geen enkel historisch precedent, en we stevenen af op een temperatuurstijging van minstens 3 graden. Kortom, ons huidige systeem heeft ons in een financiële en ecologische crisis gestort. En het einde is nog niet in zicht.
De tweede stelling, – geen groei is geen optie - is een uitvloeisel van het huidige economische model. Doordat de productiviteit steeds toeneemt, moeten we economisch blijven groeien om iedereen aan het werk te houden. Samen zorgen beide stellingen voor het dilemma van de groei. Dit dilemma lijkt uit te draaien op een patstelling: de huidige groei kan niet blijven doorgaan, maar stoppen met groeien leidt tot recessie. Wat nu?
Ontkoppeling
Om uit deze patstelling te komen gaat Jackson eerst de mogelijkheden langs die een groeiende én duurzame economie beloven: zogenaamde ‘groene groei’.
Als eerste bespreekt hij het concept van ontkoppeling. Ontkoppeling is het proces waarbij economische groei blijft plaatsvinden, maar met steeds minder grondstoffen. Eerder schreef ik hier zelf al over, dus ik zal dat niet herhalen. In ieder geval laat Jackson overtuigend zien dat absolute ontkoppeling tot op heden een mythe is.
Ook bespreekt Jackson het idee van een groene stimulering: een ‘Green Deal’. ‘Investeren in een transitie naar een duurzame economie is van vitaal belang,’ zo schrijft Jackson. Tegelijkertijd betekent het een terugkeer naar de ‘gebruikelijke manier van zakendoen’. Terug naar de economische groei dus, dat op termijn onhoudbaar is.
Ecologische macro-economie
Ontkoppeling en een Green Deal leiden dus niet uit het dilemma van de groei. Volgens Jackson moeten we een nieuwe macro-economie bedenken met respect voor ecologische grenzen. In het boek geeft hij geeft hij hier aanwijzingen voor.
Naast de economische aspecten vraagt Jackson ook nadrukkelijk aandacht voor de ‘sociale logica van het consumentisme’. Materiële zaken geven namelijk uitdrukking geven aan immateriële waarden. Ik streef een mooie auto na om mijn status ten opzichte van mijn buurman te verhogen. Jackson pleit voor een alternatief hedonisme: eenvoudig leven met nadruk op immateriële waarden. Hij suggereert structurele veranderingen waarbij de overheid een belangrijke rol speelt. Jackson ziet als belangrijkste taak van de overheid het verminderen van de sociale ongelijkheid. Sociale ongelijkheid leidt tot statuswedijver, en dus tot een alsmaar stijgend consumentisme. Dat moet voorkomen worden.
De rol van de overheid
Jackson ziet dus een grote rol voor de overheid. Hij benadrukt dat het laisser faire-individualisme geen goed bestuursmechanisme is om tot duurzame welvaart te komen. De belangrijkste functie van de overheid is te zorgen dat het algemene belang op lange termijn niet wordt ondermijnd door de particuliere belangen van dit moment, en dus ziet Jackson geen probleem in een grote rol van de overheid. Tegenstanders van deze visie wijst hij er op dat recentelijk ontzaglijk veel belastinggeld in de financiële sector is gepompt. Dat hebben we ook toegestaan. Zouden we dan de overheid geen grote rol laten spelen in duurzaamheid op de lange termijn?
Hoe ziet een duurzame transitie eruit?
Jackson schrijft dat de transitie naar een duurzaam economisch model ten minste drie onderdelen moet bevatten (pag. 172):
Het vastleggen van grenzen
Het aanpassen van het economisch model
Het wijzigen van de sociale logica
Het is van het grootste belang dat we duidelijke grondstoffen- en emissieplafonds en reductiedoelstellingen bepalen. Ook moeten we fiscale hervormingen doorvoeren: arbeid minder belasten en grondstoffengebruik meer belasten. Als laatste moeten we een ecologische transitie in ontwikkelingslanden steunen.
Het economisch model moet aangepast worden door te investeren in duurzame zaken (werkgelegenheid, infrastructuur, et cetera). Ook moet het BBP omgevormd worden tot een betere indicator voor welvaart. De sociale logica moet veranderd worden door minder te gaan werken. Ook moeten we de sociale ongelijkheid verminderen en het sociale kapitaal versterken. Kortom: we moeten het consumentisme ontmantelen. Pas als we niet meer focussen op groei en ons richten op sociale en immateriële zaken, kunnen we een welvaart zonder groei bereiken.
Een vernieuwend boek
Tim Jackson laat overduidelijk zien dat oneindige groei op een eindige planeet eigenlijk een absurd idee is. De kracht van het boek is dat hij dit idee duidelijk benoemd. Daarnaast bespreekt Jackson mogelijke tegenwerpingen. Hij negeert niet dat een technologische oplossing (vaak genoemd door economen) mogelijk is, maar laat zien dat deze oplossing bijzonder groot moet zijn, en dus zeer onwaarschijnlijk is. Een voorbeeld is dat de koolstofintensiteit tien keer sneller moet dalen dan nu het geval is. In de toekomst wellicht mogelijk, maar vooralsnog vooral onhaalbaar.
Invoering
Wat opvalt is dat Jackson zeer veel nadruk legt op de rol van de overheid en op het voorkomen van sociale ongelijkheid. Vanuit een politiek perspectief zou de invoering daarom wel eens erg moeilijk kunnen worden. Veel mensen vinden dat de rol van de overheid zo klein mogelijk moet zijn en dat mensen individueel moeten kiezen voor een duurzame levensstijl. Jackson onderkent dit, maar geeft geen oplossing voor dit punt. Ik moet hierbij ook denken aan psychologisch onderzoek over klimaatverandering, waaruit blijkt dat meer kennis over het klimaatprobleem niet leidt tot veranderend gedrag. Pas als de boodschap overeenkomt met je eigen waarden, ben je geneigd het aan te nemen en er naar te handelen.
Ook is het boek duidelijk geen precieze blauwdruk van hoe de samenleving eruit moet komen te zien. Door drie randvoorwaarden te stellen, geeft Jackson wel een strategisch overzicht. De praktische uitwerking moet dus volgen, en zal ongetwijfeld erg moeizaam zijn.
Pluspunt is dat een potentieel ecologisch macro-economisch model in een bijlage iets meer uitgewerkt wordt. Hierdoor blijft de hoofdtekst goed leesbaar, maar is verdieping mogelijk. Het is goed dat er nu een Nederlandse vertaling van dit boek beschikbaar is. Wel vond ik de vertaling hier en daar wat stroperig lezen. Waar Jackson in het boek vaak korte zinnen gebruikt, nemen de vertalers geregeld een paar zinnen samen. Dit komt de stijl niet altijd ten goede. Maar dit valt gaandeweg het boek steeds minder op en is dan ook zeker geen onoverkomelijk probleem.
Conclusie
Welvaart zonder groei is een buitengewoon boek, dat de fundamentele vraag stelt: kunnen we oneindig blijven doorgroeien? Doordat het boek inzichten uit verschillende disciplines overneemt, is het een breed opgezet boek en komt dit de kracht van het verhaal ten goede. Het is niet slechts een pamflet, maar een gedegen studie. Voor iedereen die de fundamentele vragen niet uit de weg wil gaan, is dit boek dan ook een must-Read.
Het dilemma van groei
In de eerste hoofdstukken van het boek introduceert Tim Jackson het ‘dilemma van de groei’. In het kort komt dit dilemma op twee stellingen neer (pag. 72):
Groei is onhoudbaar – op zijn minst in zijn huidige vorm. Het grondstoffenverbruik blijft maar toenemen en ook de milieukosten blijven stijgen. Daarnaast leidt onze huidige focus op economische groei tot grote ongelijkheden in sociaal welzijn.
'Krimp’ (degrowth) is onstabiel – op zijn minst onder de huidige omstandigheden. Dalende consumentenvraag leidt tot toenemende werkloosheid, dalend concurrentievermogen en een spiraal van recessie.
‘Het dilemma van de groei zet ons gevangen tussen het verlangen om de economische stabiliteit te handhaven en de noodzaak om binnen ecologische grenzen te blijven’, aldus Jackson.
Laten we beide stellingen eens nader bekijken. De Engelstalige versie van dit boek kwam uit in 2009, net na het hoogtepunt van de financiële crisis. De timing had niet beter kunnen zijn. Jackson gebruikt de crisis om aan te tonen dat ons financiële systeem niet duurzaam is. Maar het systeem zorgt niet alleen voor financiële crises; ook een ecologische ramp voltrekt zich. Olie, gas en mineralen worden steeds schaarser – en dus duurder. De uitstoot van CO2 heeft geen enkel historisch precedent, en we stevenen af op een temperatuurstijging van minstens 3 graden. Kortom, ons huidige systeem heeft ons in een financiële en ecologische crisis gestort. En het einde is nog niet in zicht.
De tweede stelling, – geen groei is geen optie - is een uitvloeisel van het huidige economische model. Doordat de productiviteit steeds toeneemt, moeten we economisch blijven groeien om iedereen aan het werk te houden. Samen zorgen beide stellingen voor het dilemma van de groei. Dit dilemma lijkt uit te draaien op een patstelling: de huidige groei kan niet blijven doorgaan, maar stoppen met groeien leidt tot recessie. Wat nu?
Ontkoppeling
Om uit deze patstelling te komen gaat Jackson eerst de mogelijkheden langs die een groeiende én duurzame economie beloven: zogenaamde ‘groene groei’.
Als eerste bespreekt hij het concept van ontkoppeling. Ontkoppeling is het proces waarbij economische groei blijft plaatsvinden, maar met steeds minder grondstoffen. Eerder schreef ik hier zelf al over, dus ik zal dat niet herhalen. In ieder geval laat Jackson overtuigend zien dat absolute ontkoppeling tot op heden een mythe is.
Ook bespreekt Jackson het idee van een groene stimulering: een ‘Green Deal’. ‘Investeren in een transitie naar een duurzame economie is van vitaal belang,’ zo schrijft Jackson. Tegelijkertijd betekent het een terugkeer naar de ‘gebruikelijke manier van zakendoen’. Terug naar de economische groei dus, dat op termijn onhoudbaar is.
Ecologische macro-economie
Ontkoppeling en een Green Deal leiden dus niet uit het dilemma van de groei. Volgens Jackson moeten we een nieuwe macro-economie bedenken met respect voor ecologische grenzen. In het boek geeft hij geeft hij hier aanwijzingen voor.
Naast de economische aspecten vraagt Jackson ook nadrukkelijk aandacht voor de ‘sociale logica van het consumentisme’. Materiële zaken geven namelijk uitdrukking geven aan immateriële waarden. Ik streef een mooie auto na om mijn status ten opzichte van mijn buurman te verhogen. Jackson pleit voor een alternatief hedonisme: eenvoudig leven met nadruk op immateriële waarden. Hij suggereert structurele veranderingen waarbij de overheid een belangrijke rol speelt. Jackson ziet als belangrijkste taak van de overheid het verminderen van de sociale ongelijkheid. Sociale ongelijkheid leidt tot statuswedijver, en dus tot een alsmaar stijgend consumentisme. Dat moet voorkomen worden.
De rol van de overheid
Jackson ziet dus een grote rol voor de overheid. Hij benadrukt dat het laisser faire-individualisme geen goed bestuursmechanisme is om tot duurzame welvaart te komen. De belangrijkste functie van de overheid is te zorgen dat het algemene belang op lange termijn niet wordt ondermijnd door de particuliere belangen van dit moment, en dus ziet Jackson geen probleem in een grote rol van de overheid. Tegenstanders van deze visie wijst hij er op dat recentelijk ontzaglijk veel belastinggeld in de financiële sector is gepompt. Dat hebben we ook toegestaan. Zouden we dan de overheid geen grote rol laten spelen in duurzaamheid op de lange termijn?
Hoe ziet een duurzame transitie eruit?
Jackson schrijft dat de transitie naar een duurzaam economisch model ten minste drie onderdelen moet bevatten (pag. 172):
Het vastleggen van grenzen
Het aanpassen van het economisch model
Het wijzigen van de sociale logica
Het is van het grootste belang dat we duidelijke grondstoffen- en emissieplafonds en reductiedoelstellingen bepalen. Ook moeten we fiscale hervormingen doorvoeren: arbeid minder belasten en grondstoffengebruik meer belasten. Als laatste moeten we een ecologische transitie in ontwikkelingslanden steunen.
Het economisch model moet aangepast worden door te investeren in duurzame zaken (werkgelegenheid, infrastructuur, et cetera). Ook moet het BBP omgevormd worden tot een betere indicator voor welvaart. De sociale logica moet veranderd worden door minder te gaan werken. Ook moeten we de sociale ongelijkheid verminderen en het sociale kapitaal versterken. Kortom: we moeten het consumentisme ontmantelen. Pas als we niet meer focussen op groei en ons richten op sociale en immateriële zaken, kunnen we een welvaart zonder groei bereiken.
Een vernieuwend boek
Tim Jackson laat overduidelijk zien dat oneindige groei op een eindige planeet eigenlijk een absurd idee is. De kracht van het boek is dat hij dit idee duidelijk benoemd. Daarnaast bespreekt Jackson mogelijke tegenwerpingen. Hij negeert niet dat een technologische oplossing (vaak genoemd door economen) mogelijk is, maar laat zien dat deze oplossing bijzonder groot moet zijn, en dus zeer onwaarschijnlijk is. Een voorbeeld is dat de koolstofintensiteit tien keer sneller moet dalen dan nu het geval is. In de toekomst wellicht mogelijk, maar vooralsnog vooral onhaalbaar.
Invoering
Wat opvalt is dat Jackson zeer veel nadruk legt op de rol van de overheid en op het voorkomen van sociale ongelijkheid. Vanuit een politiek perspectief zou de invoering daarom wel eens erg moeilijk kunnen worden. Veel mensen vinden dat de rol van de overheid zo klein mogelijk moet zijn en dat mensen individueel moeten kiezen voor een duurzame levensstijl. Jackson onderkent dit, maar geeft geen oplossing voor dit punt. Ik moet hierbij ook denken aan psychologisch onderzoek over klimaatverandering, waaruit blijkt dat meer kennis over het klimaatprobleem niet leidt tot veranderend gedrag. Pas als de boodschap overeenkomt met je eigen waarden, ben je geneigd het aan te nemen en er naar te handelen.
Ook is het boek duidelijk geen precieze blauwdruk van hoe de samenleving eruit moet komen te zien. Door drie randvoorwaarden te stellen, geeft Jackson wel een strategisch overzicht. De praktische uitwerking moet dus volgen, en zal ongetwijfeld erg moeizaam zijn.
Pluspunt is dat een potentieel ecologisch macro-economisch model in een bijlage iets meer uitgewerkt wordt. Hierdoor blijft de hoofdtekst goed leesbaar, maar is verdieping mogelijk. Het is goed dat er nu een Nederlandse vertaling van dit boek beschikbaar is. Wel vond ik de vertaling hier en daar wat stroperig lezen. Waar Jackson in het boek vaak korte zinnen gebruikt, nemen de vertalers geregeld een paar zinnen samen. Dit komt de stijl niet altijd ten goede. Maar dit valt gaandeweg het boek steeds minder op en is dan ook zeker geen onoverkomelijk probleem.
Conclusie
Welvaart zonder groei is een buitengewoon boek, dat de fundamentele vraag stelt: kunnen we oneindig blijven doorgroeien? Doordat het boek inzichten uit verschillende disciplines overneemt, is het een breed opgezet boek en komt dit de kracht van het verhaal ten goede. Het is niet slechts een pamflet, maar een gedegen studie. Voor iedereen die de fundamentele vragen niet uit de weg wil gaan, is dit boek dan ook een must-Read.
September 17, 2022
Jackson argues against the centrality of growth in the way we think about the world in this important book. Like many books I pick up it was on the recommendation of a friend. While Jackson's prognosis on economics is bleak his suggestions for a better economics are interesting and his influence can be seen in many later works that deal with critiques of economic orthodoxy, for example those of Kate Raworth and Jason Hickel. It further develops on previous economic thought of Schumacher E F and Amartya Sen.
I was interested to see Jackson talking a lot about consumption. I have often written and discussed the need to view the various crises we face in the 21st century as 'crises of consumption'. While I have never thought this to be a particularly original point I was pleased to see Jackson sketch a more eloquent and erudite, but similar, diagnosis as my conceptualisation of this 'crisis of consumption'. He draws it through consumerism and relates it back to how consumerism is a key part of growth economies.
He also discusses the difficulties of the state in capitalist societies. Having recently read Wolfgang Streeck Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism where he describes the consolidation state, where the state supports capital over people. Jackson makes a similar point about how often the state looks out for that which will cause growth, rather than will improve the welfare of people.
His analysis of relative and absolute decoupling is incredibly interesting and very important. The lack of success and scale of the task related to absolute decoupling are important considerations in relation to eco-modernism. The basic fact of the matter is we are a long way off technology that allows some version of business as normal being maintained. Political, economic and social reform is necessary as technology so far, and for the foreseeable future doesn't plug the problems we face.
This book comes out of the raft of books that attempted to make sense of the economic wreckage that came about after the financial crisis of 2008, it's engagement with ecology and the environment mean it is incredibly relevant today. I have no doubt that if the world begins to see sense over the crisis of consumption and the related ecological and climatic crises Tim Jackson's thinking will be at the forefront of solutions.
I was interested to see Jackson talking a lot about consumption. I have often written and discussed the need to view the various crises we face in the 21st century as 'crises of consumption'. While I have never thought this to be a particularly original point I was pleased to see Jackson sketch a more eloquent and erudite, but similar, diagnosis as my conceptualisation of this 'crisis of consumption'. He draws it through consumerism and relates it back to how consumerism is a key part of growth economies.
He also discusses the difficulties of the state in capitalist societies. Having recently read Wolfgang Streeck Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism where he describes the consolidation state, where the state supports capital over people. Jackson makes a similar point about how often the state looks out for that which will cause growth, rather than will improve the welfare of people.
His analysis of relative and absolute decoupling is incredibly interesting and very important. The lack of success and scale of the task related to absolute decoupling are important considerations in relation to eco-modernism. The basic fact of the matter is we are a long way off technology that allows some version of business as normal being maintained. Political, economic and social reform is necessary as technology so far, and for the foreseeable future doesn't plug the problems we face.
This book comes out of the raft of books that attempted to make sense of the economic wreckage that came about after the financial crisis of 2008, it's engagement with ecology and the environment mean it is incredibly relevant today. I have no doubt that if the world begins to see sense over the crisis of consumption and the related ecological and climatic crises Tim Jackson's thinking will be at the forefront of solutions.
May 11, 2020
An updated version of the original 2009 report commissioned by the UK government, this book argues that in order to avert the climate crisis, we must move to a system where growth is no longer the key driver of progress. The improvements in green technologies and energy efficiency will never be enough to attain absolute decoupling from our resource consumption, especially if the latter is not kept in check. Case in point: even the estimated 5.5% emissions reduction from the lockdowns due to the current pandemic are still insufficient to meet the 7.6% yearly reductions needed to achieve the IPCC’s recommended targets for keeping global warming to 1.5ºC. The real problem is an economy that relies on ever-growing consumption for stability, even though many examples have shown that beyond a certain level of material wealth, there are marginal or no improvements to human wellbeing.
The second half of the book tries to sketch out the framework for what a world beyond growth would look like: shifting to an economy centred on low-carbon, human service jobs with a focus on care and maintenance; higher investment in civic and natural infrastructure; and reducing inequality through progressive policies to ensure that no one is left behind even with a lowered GDP. Jackson argues that all this will allow us to “flourish: physically, psychologically and socially”, and that “beyond sheer subsistence or survival, prosperity hangs on our ability to participate meaningfully in the life of society.” He also quotes Zia Sardar in saying that “prosperity can only be conceived as a condition that includes obligations and responsibilities to others.”
These suggestions all make sense, and Jackson admits that more work and research is needed to sort out the details. However, the question left unspoken is how all this will be achieved. Given the interconnectedness of the global economy, such a revolutionary change would likely have to be achieved simultaneously by many countries for a fighting chance of success. A few countries are already moving towards more ambitious climate action, but few are likely to want to be the first to take their foot off the pedal of growth. Without coordinated government action, how else can prosperity without growth be achieved?
The second half of the book tries to sketch out the framework for what a world beyond growth would look like: shifting to an economy centred on low-carbon, human service jobs with a focus on care and maintenance; higher investment in civic and natural infrastructure; and reducing inequality through progressive policies to ensure that no one is left behind even with a lowered GDP. Jackson argues that all this will allow us to “flourish: physically, psychologically and socially”, and that “beyond sheer subsistence or survival, prosperity hangs on our ability to participate meaningfully in the life of society.” He also quotes Zia Sardar in saying that “prosperity can only be conceived as a condition that includes obligations and responsibilities to others.”
These suggestions all make sense, and Jackson admits that more work and research is needed to sort out the details. However, the question left unspoken is how all this will be achieved. Given the interconnectedness of the global economy, such a revolutionary change would likely have to be achieved simultaneously by many countries for a fighting chance of success. A few countries are already moving towards more ambitious climate action, but few are likely to want to be the first to take their foot off the pedal of growth. Without coordinated government action, how else can prosperity without growth be achieved?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 228 reviews