OPINION: The degrowth movement Is wrong and immoral

Michael J. Hicks, PhD, is the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and the George and Frances Ball distinguished professor of economics in the Miller College of Business at Ball State University. His column appears in Indiana newspapers.

There is a small number of policy entrepreneurs calling for “degrowth” in the economy. Most economists have dismissed them as irrelevant, which seems appropriate because every government on Earth has also laughed them away. But, faced with widespread dismissal, they are now turning to schools, colleges and universities.

Degrowthers believe our economy is stuck in what some have termed a “polycrisis.” Humans are overconsuming and depleting the environment of natural resources, and polluting it along the way. Our financial systems undervalue natural resources, like clear air and water, and overvalue short-term profitability and production.

This, they argue, means we must pursue degrowth, or producing and consuming less, using fewer natural resources and leaving a more modest footprint on Earth. Most argue governments should seek to shrink population, live in smaller homes and employ fewer technological advancements.

They are terribly mistaken in three big ways. First, this approach is immoral and inequitable. Second, it misapprehends what economic growth actually is, and finally what economic growth actually does. It is, as one economist called it, “the worst idea on the planet.” Here’s why.

Developed nations, and Americans in particular, enjoy a stunningly high standard of living. From 1900 to 2000, the standard of living of the average American grew sixfold, and has grown 40 percent since 2000. Viewed on a long historical scale, the physical manifestations are stunning.

The average American adult male is today almost four inches taller than in 1900 and lives an extra 25 years—a 50 percent increase. Infant mortality in 1900 was almost 40 times what it is today, and the share of American men who die at work is a tiny fraction of what it was in 1900. The standard of living in the U.S. grew more from 1900 to 2000 than it did anywhere in the world in all the recorded time before that.

Today, the developed world lives in ways similar to us. But, in China, the standard of living is stuck where the U.S. was in 1920s; in India, it is a decade earlier. In much of southern Africa, it is even lower. Close to 3 billion people live in a world that is close to a century behind our technical and economic progress.

The degrowth movement knows this and is terrified of what might happen if these people see economic growth that lifts them to even 1950s levels of American consumption. Indeed, the entirety of the degrowth movement wishes to see economic advancement in the developing world arrested. The immorality of this prescription is sufficient to reject it wholly—as elected governments everywhere will do.

But it has even deeper flaws.

The basic argument is that economic growth is caused by using more natural resources as inputs, so growth must be finite and unsustainable. But the natural resources that propel economic growth today have always been available. The ancient Phoenicians had plenty of silicon for semi-conductors, the Neanderthal’s had available coal and natural gas. Oil was available to 2nd-century traders living in what is now Saudi Arabia.

Natural resources do not cause economic growth. Human invention and ingenuity cause economic growth. Restraining human ingenuity in order to reduce dependence and use of natural resources is like bombing a city in order to save it. Yet, that is precisely what the degrowthers asked governments to do (and are now imploring universities to teach).

What is especially odd about this part of the degrowther agenda is that robust economic growth actually results in smaller demands on the natural environment. And that leads us to the third point the degrowthers get wrong.

Poverty has long been damaging to the environment. Affluent societies shift their consumption away from the purchase of goods to less environmentally damaging services. A century ago, Americans spent 70 cents out of every dollar on goods. Today, they spend about 10 percent of their income on durable goods and 15 percent on food and clothing, or non-durable goods.

This shift of consumption has caused a 75 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of GDP produced in our economy. It has also led to broad support for legislation restricting pollutants. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the amendments to both would have been impossible had Americans not become more prosperous.

Burning rivers and polluted air are today a sign of poverty, not prosperity.

The past half-century has seen Americans move to places with cleaner air and water and more access to natural amenities. We are voting with our feet, and with our pocketbooks in support of a cleaner environment. And, with the possible exception of greenhouse gases, pollution is far less than it was a half century ago. The same is true across the developed world.

Today’s degrowthers are content to consign nearly half the global population to their current state of affairs. They ask the rest of us who are fortunate enough to live in developed economies to reduce our consumption back to some earlier, better time.

But there was no earlier, better time. Lower levels of economic performance literally stunt the growth of humans, cause them to die earlier and limit human flourishing. We aren’t going to do that.

Instead, and much to the disappointment of the many grifters now selling degrowth, the world’s economy is going to continue to grow. In fact, the last 30 years has seen more humans exit pre-industrial poverty than all the centuries before it.

That miracle came from economic growth. We aren’t giving that up, and we should ignore those who ask us to do so.