Lorenz Keyßer<p>‼️My first PhD paper is now out in Ecological Economics (open access)‼️ "Economic growth dependencies and imperatives: A review of key theories and their conflicts" with Julia Steinberger & Matthias Schmelzer : <br><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925002289?via%3Dihub" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">sciencedirect.com/science/arti</span><span class="invisible">cle/pii/S0921800925002289?via%3Dihub</span></a><br><a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/degrowth" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>degrowth</span></a> <a href="https://kolektiva.social/tags/postgrowth" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>postgrowth</span></a></p><p>I spent way too much time on this, so I'm really happy that I can finally share it with you. Here is a short summary based on the abstract:</p><p>The starting point of the paper is that despite tons of evidence indicating that sustainability cannot be achieved without overcoming the economic growth paradigm, our societies continue to pursue destructive growth pathways. Why is that? </p><p>Theories on economic growth dependencies and imperatives (GDI) explain this behaviour via mechanisms that cause negative consequences for people and societies under conditions of zero economic growth (stagnation). This can include for instance increased unemployment and deprivation, but also political and economic crises, under stagnation. But there are many conflicting theories about what precisely causes GDI - there is no consensus on which mechanisms actually lead to these negative consequences. This situation makes it difficult to achieve concentrated and unified efforts to make societal wellbeing independent from economic growth, a core element of post-growth and degrowth societies.</p><p>Our paper addresses this impasse by providing a systematic review of 248 publications covering key theories of GDI. The review identifies 112 mechanisms, sorted into 21 clusters and six themes. We provide synthetic conceptual accounts of the diverse dimensions of GDI for each mechanism, such as how harm occurs without growth. </p><p>Our findings show that GDI mechanisms are more numerous and heterogeneous than previously thought. We also conduct a short analysis of conflicts between the theories. Disagreements emerge primarily from contradictory perceptions of the neutrality of fundamental social structures, i.e. whether or not they cause GDI. These structures include the monetary economy, market competition, private property and the state. On top of that, conflicts centre the specific roles of ideology, knowledge and culture. These differences can be linked to the varying currents within degrowth and post-growth movements, pointing to quite different political and strategic implications depending on the theoretical perspective. Our findings thus highlight the importance of further theoretical and empirical research that deepens our understanding of GDI.</p><p>There is lots more, with tons of detail, so if your interested, I invite you to have a look at the paper (link above and below - its open access).</p><p>A huge thanks to all who have contributed to this paper, including many friends and collleagues, three anonymous reviewers and my wonderful co-authors. 🙏 </p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925002289?via%3Dihub" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">sciencedirect.com/science/arti</span><span class="invisible">cle/pii/S0921800925002289?via%3Dihub</span></a></p>