Degrowth alone fails and gets thwarted by current capitalist politics – only perm solves :D

Several proponents of degrowth likewise admit that it is still a hypothesis and requires to be tested through empirical studies (Kallis, 2018, p. 155). Although voluntary simplicity has always existed among small subsets of the populace, ‘[i]t does not follow that others, such as those who never had the choice, or those who enjoy their power, will not mind either’ (Kallis et al., 2012, p. 174). The ways by which degrowth bears on remuneration, employment and work must be thoroughly discussed (Martínez-Alier et al., 2010, p. 1746). Moreover, Nicholas Ashford, who argues for ‘transforming the industrial state’ from a broader perspective (cited in Kallis, 2017, p. 142), states that degrowth fails to capture the full range of issues and may trigger a scarcity of goods and services (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 244). This is corroborated by another critic who similarly states that degrowth ‘faces difficulty confronting today’s reality of economic crisis/stagnation’ when it is vital to ensure an adequate supply of and access to essential goods and services for all and to redress the growing inequality trends worldwide (Foster, 2011, p. 30). To attain a full-fledged post-growth order, co-optimising economic development, environmental quality and employment concerns must be prioritised (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 459). Economic development represents the whole gamut of change required to widen the distribution of basic life-sustaining goods and services to raise standards of living and to expand the range of socio- economic choices available to individuals and nations (Todaro & Smith, 2015, p. 24). Economic development is distinguishable from economic growth although the former does not preclude the latter given that there is ‘good GDP’ and ‘bad GDP’ (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 164). Therefore, it is imperative to place constraints on economic growth and at the same time avoid placing unnecessary constraints on it. We need not contract every material throughput and output as long as stringent measures are in place to curtail undesirable externalities that flow from growth (Van den Bergh, 2011, p. 890). ‘It should be stressed that being against GDP or against unconditional GDP growth is not the same as being against growth’ (Van den Bergh, 2011, p. 885). Historically, economic growth has entailed various social and environmental costs (Borowy & Schmelzer, 2017, pp. 2–14). It has not only brought about severe climate change, resulting in damage and loss of property and livelihoods of vulnerable groups but also degraded ecosystem services such as fresh water, air purification and pest control. The quest for economic growth has also led to rising inequalities within and between countries, provoking hostility among the underclass towards the established classes as well as other vulnerable people such as foreign workers and immigrants. Moreover, the present growth-oriented economic order cannot uproot malnutrition, nor can it stave off land grabbing in lowincome countries. These states of affairs are not intrinsic to growth, according to Joseph Stiglitz, who calls for more investment in public goods and macroeconomic policies that maintain aggregate demand, alleviate inequality and promote employment (Stiglitz, 2019, p. x). While some inequality is unavoidable in a market economy, a sensible approach is to design ‘redistribution’ policies, so that the underprivileged can have better access to finance as well as means of reproduction and production; simultaneously, ‘predistribution’ policies are also called for, such as those making education and health accessible to all (Ostry et al., 2019, pp. 109–110). Moreover, it is plausible to explore measures that decouple profit from unsustainable production by altering the reward structure for profit and investment (Ashford & Hall, 2019, pp. 246–249). This does not imply that degrowth must be discarded. Some of its ideas can be drawn on to pursue ‘selective degrowth’ (Van den Bergh, 2011, p. 890). First, less developed countries should be accorded greater space to ‘find their own trajectories to what they define as the good life’ (Kallis et al., 2015, p. 5). Efforts should be made to contain laissez-faire expansion of cross-border economic exchanges. They are prone to turn less developed countries into commodity frontiers, where corporations engage in practices detrimental to the conservation of local communities and ecosystems (Schneider et al., 2010, p. 516).Masaki 91 Second, degrowth initiatives, such as those mentioned above, are usually valued in accordance with the time spent by those serving others. If individuals start spending more money on people serving people, they can help ‘bypass interests promoted by the entrenched corporations and established businesses that lock-in the present economic system’ (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 242). This also allows us to address a pertinent and yet oft-omitted question, namely, ‘who is standing in the way of sustainable transformations’ (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 242). Postgrowth transitions are hampered by elite appropriation and control of the means of reproduction and production at the expense of the majority, as pointed out in a paper recapitulating a symposium on degrowth (Saed, 2012, pp. 27–28). In bypassing entrenched businesses, it is imperative to change the nature of consumer demand by enabling a larger number of consumers to earn sufficient income and encouraging them to purchase products and services of labour-intensive degrowth enterprises (Ashford & Hall, 2019, p. 733). The financial rate of return on degrowth undertakings is lower than that of profit-seeking businesses (Jackson, 2017, p. 170). Thus, they are at risk of being driven out of the economy unless the nature of consumer spending is altered as above. Demands for their products and services are normally price elastic, and they are ‘less productive’ as costs tend to rise relative to other less labour-intensive businesses (Jackson, 2017, pp. 170–171). Therefore, it is imperative to explore complementarities between growth-oriented and degrowth initiatives in a way that promotes both ‘selective growth’ and ‘selective degrowth’. A similar stance can be found in a clause of the Declaration adopted at a seminal conference held in Paris in 2008: ‘In countries where severe poverty remains, right-sizing implies increasing consumption by those in poverty as quickly as possible, in a sustainable way, to a level adequate for a decent life, following locally determined poverty-reduction paths’ (Research and Degrowth, 2010, p. 523–524). However, this should not be confined to ‘countries where severe poverty remains’ because a fairer distribution of income has become a pressing concern among rich societies (Stiglitz, 2019, p. ix).