Nine years ago I attended the first high profile degrowth seminar in Finland. While I was new to the topic, the argumentation made sense and I became increasingly involved with the degrowth movement that debates and advocates for giving up on our cultural and political dependency on economic growth.
In September 2018, there was a historical conference held at the European Parliament focusing on post-growth. In relation to that, a group of academics put together an open letter to European institutions and its member states. The letter was signed by over 200 researchers in social and natural science, including myself. In the momentum, there is now a petition open to everyone to sign demanding Europe to stop its growth dependency. If you feel that this is a direction Europe should take, please sign the petition.
The open letter arguments for reconsidering economic growth as a primary policy goal and replacing it with maximising wellbeing for humans, nonhuman animals and the planet as a whole. The letter also includes four powerful policy recommendations for European Union, its institutions and its member states:
“Constitute a special commission on Post-Growth Futures in the EU Parliament. This commission should actively debate the future of growth, devise policy alternatives for post-growth futures, and reconsider the pursuit of growth as an overarching policy goal.
Incorporate alternative indicators into the macroeconomic framework of the EU and its member states. Economic policies should be evaluated in terms of their impact on human wellbeing, resource use, inequality, and the provision of decent work. These indicators should be given higher priority than GDP in decision-making.
Turn the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) into a Stability and Wellbeing Pact. The SGP is a set of rules aimed at limiting government deficits and national debt. It should be revised to ensure member states meet the basic needs of their citizens, while reducing resource use and waste emissions to a sustainable level.
Establish a Ministry for Economic Transition in each member state. A new economy that focuses directly on human and ecological wellbeing could offer a much better future than one that is structurally dependent on economic growth.”
I had come across Kate Raworths’ doughnut economics in a couple of instances, which for me is a sign to read a book in question. In addition, I had gathered that the book deals with the role and nature of economics, which in turn relate to my postdoc project on post-growth work. After all, the need for continuous economic growth stems from the institutions, such as economics departments, practicing economists, and political decision-makers.
What really kicked me into finally reading the book was the fact that Kate Raworth visited Helsinki in May. The organisers of the events encouraged people to familiarise with her thoughts, for example via a recent TED talk. I took the advice quite literally and browsed through her book, finally reading most of it.
The book is well written, flows beautifully, and has a compelling argument. It is organised around the idea that images have a lot of power. The simple supply-demand curve has influenced a countless number of people in universities’ economics basic courses. In fact, I have been influenced myself as a business school graduate in international business (for my undergraduate studies). So she knows what she is talking about. Moreover, that curve is not the only image that affects students, but many other uncontested “truths” are taught over and over again, although they were developed in the 19th or the 20th century and can be criticised heavily.
She points out that we live in the 21st century so we have 21st century issues, which I shortcut here in words ‘wicked socio-ecological problems.’ So why should we rely on old thinking that was not developed knowing contemporary issues and, moreover, has proven to be flawed in many ways? In the spirit of powerful images, Raworth introduces the doughnut: when keeping on the ring of a doughnut, we respect the social needs and the ecological ceiling.
Sadly, the ‘selfie of our time’, as she refers to it in her recent TED talk linked above, is not flattering.
Most of the book is devoted to providing evidence for her argument on why we need to shift our thinking to become more doughnut-like, instead of previously developed (neoclassical) economics. This is understandable, since the dominant thinking in many public institutions support economics that is not suitable for the 21st century. She backs up her arguments by examples that already try to respect the doughnut and bring on change. Some of the examples I know from before, and it was fascinating to see how she links them to the idea of 21st economics.
The book gets really interesting in the end, when she talks about regenerative economics and being agnostic about growth. As an avid reader of post-growth and degrowth literature, I was challenged by her idea to invite economic growth back to the negotiation table after we have cleared the hurdle of making socio-ecological well-being our top priority. She argues that growth could be possible and needed in some places, but it would need to respect the priority of keeping within the doughnut and not causing to fall to the empty centre nor to rise above its outer ring. This type of message seems wise, when engaging in dialogues with decision-makers in power at the moment. Any message is easier to communicate when not seeming too fundamental.
In Helsinki, she mentioned a couple if interesting things that I want to share. First, she said has no time to knock on shut doors. In short, she follows good energies. Not surprisingly economics departments have not been keen to invite her. Yet, critical (economics) students have been in touch with her. In addition, cities and urban planners have contacted her. Also designers have been interested in her ideas as well as some businesses and (progressive) business schools. Finally, political parties hungry for new economics have engaged in a dialogue with her, which is very promising.
Second, someone always comments to her that “this is nothing new”. She replies that yes, this is right. In fact, usually this is the case beyond this book or idea. But it is not enough to say things once, when we want change, here end the dominance of continuous economic growth. Indeed, her work is to serve as a communicator of ideas that resonate widely. For some this may seem like a celebrity cult, which is emphasised in our times by TED talks and alike. However, she (and many others) use the medium available to reach people so that she can reach open doors and follow good energies.
Third, Kate Raworth emphasised that the book may seem like an easy thing to write, but it was a struggle. She was about to give up before she came up with the leading idea of the power of images. I appreciate her honesty, since many books seem effortless, although they are a result of sweat and tears, sometimes even facing one’s deepest fears. But perhaps that is why they are so compelling.
The book is organised in three sections: (1) The territory of de-growth; (2) A concrete utopia; and (3) A political programme. The first section focuses on the critique of continuous economic growth, while the other two sections describe and map how growth and development could be challenged in practice.
The number of pages is a bit over 100, so it is a compact book. Latouche refers to many relevant debates but explains them only in passing. After 8 years of dwelling in the degrowth movement and thinking, my ability to interpret the book has definitely improved. Thus, re-reading it felt easier, but not at all less radical or inspiring.
Basically, Latouche suggests a complete change of paradigm(s), i.e. the way we think about living on planet Earth. The ultimate precondition is a better treatment of everyone and everything living on this planet. The destruction of life in the name of economic gains has stop because it makes no sense. Latouche wisely notes that actually many agree on this point, but few are able to imagine what paradigm changes mean or if they can manage to do that, how such paradigm changes could ever be obtained. However, the tone of the book seems hopeful. He puts trust in people’s movements beyond political parties and maps the role of the degrowth movement as a watchdog that encourages different institutions and actors to carry out the paradigm change.
Throughout the book he addresses questions asked from degrowth proponents, such as what the role of localism is, how do we feed everyone, and is degrowth humanist. Some of the answers are based on pragmatic solutions, while other answers tackle the actual questions and show how the question itself is coloured by the ideology of growth, development, and modernism.
Finally, Farewell to growth is truly “a pleasure to read”, as the book’s back cover text promises. That’s not only because I sympathise with the message, but because of the way Latouche has written the book. In short, this condensed manifesto is a must for anyone interested in degrowth debates.
As you might know, I’m working on a sensory ethnography during 2017-2020 funded by Nessling Foundation and Kone Foundation. The focus is on post-growth work and I use video among other things. And let me tell you, using video requires learning a whole new set of skills.
Despite some well meaning advice, I have insisted on doing video editing myself. And let me tell you another thing, it is hard. I chose Adobe Premiere Pro CC due to an access to the licence via my affiliation with Aalto University, Department of Design. It is an editing program developed for professionals. I’m a beginner, although I have taken a (short) course. As a result, I have done many imaginable and unimaginable mistakes. I’ve spent many moments just trying to figure out how to frame my problem in order to find some answers over the internet. Yes, thank you for the suggestion, I need to take another course. But I also need to to this basic work of familiarising with the program while working on an actual project. By the way, this project is my first short ethnopgraphic film for a virtual conference Displacaments 2018. Very cool and exciting!
Why I insist on doing video editing myself? For one, I don’t have a budget to hire anyone. But most improtantly, I think it is worthwhile for my postdoc project. After all, I have promised to generate public videos during my research under some of the Creative Commons licences. At this point, I feel lucky that I have time until 2020. But already by now, doing video editing has thought me already a number of important lessons.
First, considering the publicly available videos (in the future), I don’t know what kind of material I should generate unless I know what is doable to do with the chosen editing program. Mind due, that I’m also a beginner in generating video materials. What kinds of angles, framings, durations, actions etc. work? What about the sound, how is the quality of audio from a particular setting? I’ve been told that a good camera person edits while shooting. Apparently, they can produce interesting images for the editing phase so that editor’s work flows smoothly. That’s my goal, in some years. Naturally, the same goes for sound.
Second, I don’t want to gloss over my interpretations from the field. Someone with more video editing experience would most likely make choices that seem more professional. But then again would that respect what I have experienced while doing fieldwork? Perhaps another video editor would, for example, increase the tempo by cuts or the choice of music. But that might not be how I experienced and sensed the field. For example, my stay with one household was a very calm one, although I worked every day. The calmness came from staying put on the estate and focusing on tasks at hand related to gardening, animal care, and food. It was not like a movie or a music video with things happening all the time, yet there was good work being done. That’s the feeling I hope to communicate with my on-going editing project.
Third, being the only person in the production team, I do everything myself for generating video materials. I don’t have a camera person. I don’t have an audio technician. I don’t have anyone carrying my gear. And I don’t have a person who I do not even know I miss if I would be used to their expertise. So it’s me and the field. As a result, the process of generating video materials and editing is slow, but then again I feel it respects my research topic, which deals with questioning exponential ecnomic growth.
These issues dealing with shooting techniques, contenct, and process have made me realise that I’m learning a whole new set of skills. No wonder it seems slow and difficult at times! Then I remind myself that about eight years ago I started to learn how to write academic publications. I’m still learning the skills required for developing an interesting journal article or a book chapter – let alone a whole book, which I have not done yet (if a compilation doctoral dissertation is not counted).
So one step at a time, because that’s what DIY processes are about.
Eeva Houtbeckers has been granted postdoctoral funding from Nessling Foundation and Kone Foundation for a four-year study titled “Social entrepreneurship for post-growth societies in the global North: An ethnographic participatory study of self-employment practices for ecologically and socially just world”. Her aim is to use video ethnography to explore activities related to gaining a livelihood when aiming for an ecologically and socially just world in the global North, Finland in particluar.
Previous research has shown that we need alternatives to the dominant paradigm of continuous economic growth. Yet, we know little about work in post-growth societies. How the rethinking of
economic growth affects contemporary enterprises, which are currently expected to grow? How do people in post-growth organisations gain a living? What employment looks like in a world with social and ecological crisis?
Eeva’s multi-sited, participatory and institutional ethnographic study aims to understand the paradoxes related to self-employment for and in post-growth societies. The contributions of her study relate to rethinking the notion of entrepreneurship, advancing the multidisciplinary research project challenging economic growth as an imperative, and raising awareness of alternative forms of economic activities in the Global North.