This discussion seems remarkably peculiar, coming after it does the Climate March and the growing recognition of the problem of masive environmental changes threatening the very continuity of society.  I think that a serious flaw of he European versions of degrowth is their focus on individual behavior and technological changes.  The Latin American versions focus on a change of 'civilization' or cosmovision, involving a rethinking of he very goals and structure of society.Philipp's original provocation expressing his own doubts, but joined with his pratical knowledge of South American thought presents the dilemma clearly. In contrast our Mexican colleague from Cd. Juarez who claims expertise in growth (!) naively recommends thinking about individual answers based on good behaviour rather than institutional and collective approaches.  I would further this discussion with a recent arricle:

Barkin, David and Lemus R., Blanca Estela. Rethinking the Social and Solidarity Economy in Light of Community Practice; available free: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/9/6432

I am an expert in economic growth  in Mexico, and for me the next route is thinking in quality of life and not necesarily de-growth. I invite you to read the book: How much is enough? by Robert y Edward Skidelsky. 

I am struggling with exactly the same issue. Looking and global economic growth figures immediately highlights that economic growth is limited. At the same time, our whole economy is build upon grwoth (interest rates, unemployment numbers,...). The capitalist organisation of economy needs growth. And it is not any more as "available" as it has been over the last decades. Consequently, another way of thinking and practicing the economy is needed – from my point of view.

Latouche's concept of "decroissance" seems to be a promising starting point. E.g. in the following paper you can find a very good explanation of that concept:

Schulz, C. and Bailey, I. (in press 2014) The spatial dimensions of the green economy and post-growth regimes: opportunities and challenges for economic geography, Geografiska Annaler B, 96 (3)

Beyond conceptual thoughts, so far I only see very few practical examples of post-growth economies, mainly to be found (in the western context) in the transition movement. Even areas such as renewable energies that might have the potential to overcome resource extensive and economic/political power agglomerating economies the actual developments do not indicate that there is neither a real understanding nor a practical awareness of post-growth.

I was also to the Degrowth conference. I have always been interested in the Degrowth movement and I consider that is a real opportunity to have a real mix between activist, local initiatives, and scientifics.

I agree with you when you say that the Degrowth theory is quite limited. But if it is clear that Degrowth research is still oriented towards economical theory research, I was nevertheless really surprised to see that there is now macro-economical research, works about environmental impact of Degrowth, about post-growth companies, about design, etc.

And above all, I liked the fact that a lot of scientific - who are not really convinced by Degrowth - now recognized that it is a real research area and wrote a paper in that kind of conference (and that now, there is interesting paper on scientific journals such a as Journal of cleaner production, ecological economics, etc.)

If you can read french, the main thinkers of degrowth in Quebec are Yves-Marie Abraham who leads such a program at Les Hautes Études Commerciales (sic) and Louis Marion. See their recent participation in a collective book published by Écosociété

I went to the previous degrowth conference (Venice) and wrote a blog post about my impressions trying to make sense of the conference and the area.

I'm personally interested in what happens when 50 years of exponential growth in the field of computing meets "a world of limitation" and "peak everything". I append a link to a blog post about a recent talk of mine about "peak computing". If that's your cup of tea, do have a look at Tomlinson et. al. on "Collapse informatics" (2012) or mine and Barath Raghavan's paper on "Rethinking Sustainability in Computing: From Buzzword to Non-negotiable Limits" (NordiCHI conf, Oct 2014).

Sorry for the shameless self-promotion!

http://danielpargman.blogspot.se/2012/09/degrowth.html

http://danielpargman.blogspot.se/2014/06/peak-computing.html

I do not see economic growth as problem itself, but the side effects of economic growth. In my view, the problems related to economic growth seems to stem from the subordination of all other policy goals to it: 

http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/38m9n5kn#page-13

Economic growth as represented in GDP is essentially the aggregation of all the value added once counted in an economy during an accounting period. It is thus a measure of the extent of the returns to land, labour, capital and management. It can be increased absolutely by more people working in the economy (i.e. a gain in the size of the labour force, perhaps through a rise in the participation rate) or by technological or productivity gain among the existing workforce. The former route is growth by getting bigger, the latter route growth by getting smarter. Few would object to the latter route especially if it reduces environmental impact.

Perhaps few mainstream economists would object to the latter route, but degrowth theoreticians and practitioners for sure do belong to those who would object.

Due to Jevon's paradox, rebound effects etc., productivity gains seem to often (sometimes? always?) result in an increase in the total consumption of the material or the product in question, e.g. better, more efficient use of coal resulting in lower prices and a higher total consumption of coal etc.

While higher efficiency implies savings (e.g. lower environmental impact), the result is often the opposite. Lorenz Hilty as written eloquently about that, e.g. Hilty, L. M.: Why energy efficiency is not sufficient – some remarks on “Green by IT”. In: Arndt, H. K. (ed.): EnviroInfo 2012, Proceedings of the 26th Environmental Informatics Conference, Federal Environment Agency, Dessau, 2012

I am not really partisant of the theory of degrowth.  For me, we should look to sustainable development rather than degrowth because many regions in the world do not reach till the growth.

This discussion seems remarkably peculiar, coming after it does the Climate March and the growing recognition of the problem of masive environmental changes threatening the very continuity of society.  I think that a serious flaw of he European versions of degrowth is their focus on individual behavior and technological changes.  The Latin American versions focus on a change of 'civilization' or cosmovision, involving a rethinking of he very goals and structure of society.Philipp's original provocation expressing his own doubts, but joined with his pratical knowledge of South American thought presents the dilemma clearly. In contrast our Mexican colleague from Cd. Juarez who claims expertise in growth (!) naively recommends thinking about individual answers based on good behaviour rather than institutional and collective approaches.  I would further this discussion with a recent arricle:

Barkin, David and Lemus R., Blanca Estela. Rethinking the Social and Solidarity Economy in Light of Community Practice; available free: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/9/6432

Dear contributors and followers;  

To me this is the most fascinating discussion I found on RG. So, I am going to follow it, reading the references suggested.

At the moment, I am neither convinced with de-growth, nor with growth. I am a kind of inconclusive, with questions in mind: if an economy continues to grow, will there be an ever infinite growth? or will there be "limit", what is that limit? and some have pointed out that growth has already reached to its limits in some economies.  Thinking about de-growth, how about those poor economies? they have potential of growth, and they need to grow. Is growth for them a good thing, deliver quality of life ? 

@Issac, I think you made a point: "next route is thinking in quality of life and not necessarily de-growth" and let me add growth.  Which model can deliver this? Growth model? or De-growth model? Almost no one will disagree that we are looking for quality of life. How can we get it? 

@Jan, your point is also an interesting one: "I do not see economic growth as problem itself, but the side effects of economic growth..." , and you have pointed out those side effects as well.  

@Fabian, you also said so nicely, we may need "another way of thinking and practicing the economy" , and I am going to read references you provided for "other ways". 

Thanks, and looking for further ideas. 

This topic was broached in the early 1970s by William Nordhaus and James Tobin, in an NBER article entitled “Is Growth Obsolete?” The concept called for a movement from increasing GNP to increase Welfare.

At that time, Paul Samuelson thought it was concerned with “the calculus of quality of life and not merely that of material quantity.” (Samuelson, “Collected Scientific Paper,” 1977, V. 4, p. 726) Two points of adjustment to GNP were made. 1. To subtract non-material disamenities such as “effluents that pollute or rivers and lakes; the mercury from industry and the phosphates from how washers…hydrocarbons that darken our skies; carbon monoxide, sulfur, nitrogen compounds.” (Ibid p 725). It is not hard to include greenhouse gas effects and global warming to the list.

Samuelson’s other point is: 2. One needs to minimize errors of omission from GNP as well to make it a better estimate. This point is not as valid today as then, for the Human Development Index (HDI) has weakened its stance. According to Paul Streeten, “…the chief advantage of the HDI is political: it focuses attention on important social sectors, policies, and achievement, which are not caught by the income measure.” (Streeten, “Thinking about Development,” Cambridge Press, 1995, p. 25)

According to the Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen, one must be concerned with the under activities of government in areas of basic education, health care, inequality in gender, and reforms as well. The disadvantaged players should be made capable and functional. (Sen, various writings.)

Please look at writings by Gilbert Rist, talking about "decroissance" or something similar in French, which means de-growth. Also go to a book that got the Gunnar Myrdal award, by Eric Reinert, "How Rich Countries got Rich..... and Why Poor Countires Stay Poor", 2010. 

Marina's answers are interesting BECAUSE: 1) Gilbert Rist rejects he possibility of a capitalist road to confront humanity's and the earth's problems and 2) Although Reinert works within the paradigmatic straight jacket of the market his critical anaysis is quite revealing.  The fundamental question remaining is whether among human societIES (emphasize plural) ther cooperative and non-market approaches can overcome the avarice and egotistic disregard for society and the earth that characterizes the global market today -- the degrowth discussion focuses on the strong scepticism of changing conditions without a new institutional structure.  I insist that the article cited in my earlier response helps us focus on this issue

De-growth must be seen as part of a more general approach to the current predicament. I have been calling this approach "radical reformism". It aims to maintain key aspects of the capitalist economy (wage labour, a lot of private ownership of the means of production, the market) while adapting this drastically to the requirements of a zero growth economy. The aim is to arrive at a transition without provoking a violent response from the capitalist class and without the necessity of a revolution. For an extended discussion of some of the problems of this approach see: The New Environmentalism and its Critics at www.gifteconomy.org.au

A good lead from sociology comes from Zygmunt Bauman (2007) Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity Press. This book lifts debate from the tactical issues of growth/degrowth to the strategic matter of human redundancy in the age of modernity or postmodernity. It is written at a very high level of systemic resolution. Recommended.

This post brings to my mind a book by most respected author Tibor Scitovsky: The Joyless Economy. An Inquiry into Human Satisfaction and Consumer Dissatisfaction; published in 1976 and yet very modern and inspiring: growth by producing more food, clothes, and similar goods is not sufficient, however, merit goods are not sufficiently produced like music, clean environment, high taste peers to share experiences, well educated masses, and the labor week, and pay, crucial subjects all of them. 

Growth and Development term has been manipulated and distorted often only to keep on the principle  of unlimited growth.  Degrowth is a  movement which reminds us that infinite growth on a finite planet is neither sustainable nor desirable. Degrowth deconstructs the myth that growth is the central solution  for the impasse our  societies have led us to.  In fact different societies around the world have similar  views of this shared  basic aim of a good life as e.g. beumran meaning thriving or flourishing, as used by the early Arab  historian and philosopher Ibn Kaldûn and Gandhi’s swadeshi-sarvodaya. Degrowth also acknowledges and encompasses related ideas, concepts and movements such as the end of growth. There is then a much larger group consisting of people and collectives which both contributed  to the rise  and conceptualization of the movement and which adopt degrowth as the horizon of their action.

To me degrowth ist a contradiction to actual economy and therefore any discussion with traditional representatives like managers or bankers ends up in a grave battle very soon - ideologically settled withouth coming closer. 

There are three problems I see:

) Very few compromise between these two poles. Very few academic approaches of how transition economy should work. We have to find ways to go this step by step. See my aarticle on good and bad growth. 

) At a discussion last month a banker said: "how shall I motivate my people to shrink?" and he is right - there are no / few company level models to this economic approach. Some theories relay on government to swith tax policy and subsides  in order to make changing goals at demand level and produkction level happen. Other theories relay on consumers to change the world - both irrealistic. we all ought to change at the same time - including companies. Bit there are no managers educated and no theories formulated. Managerial science is ways to much post orientied to explain why things happened. Here we need theories going upfront

Here's a good overview and analysis of the 91 academic articles with the term "degrowth" in the title that have been published between 2006 and 2015:

Weiss, M., & Cattaneo, C. (2017). Degrowth–Taking Stock and Reviewing an Emerging Academic Paradigm. Ecological Economics, 137, 220-230.

Abstract: Degrowth has evolved within a decade from an activist movement into a multi-disciplinary academic paradigm. However, an overview taking stock of the peer-refereed degrowth literature is yet missing. Here, we review 91 articles that were published between 2006 and 2015. We find that the academic degrowth discourse occupies a small but expanding niche at the intersection of social and applied environmental sciences. The discourse is shaped by authors from high-income, mainly Mediterranean, countries. Until 2012, articles largely constitute conceptual essays endorsed by normative claims. More recently, degrowth has branched out into modelling, empirical assessments, and the study of concrete implementations. Authors tend to agree in that economic growth cannot be sustained ad infinitum on a resource constraint planet and that degrowth requires far reaching societal change. Whether degrowth should be considered as a collectively consented choice or an environmentally-imposed inevitability constitutes a major debate among degrowth thinkers. We argue that the academic discourse could benefit from rigid hypotheses testing through input-output modelling, material flow analysis, life-cycle assessments, or social surveys. By analyzing the potentials for non-market value creation and identifying concrete well-being benefits, the degrowth discourse could receive wider public support and contribute to a paradigmatic change in the social sciences.