The ‘Degrowth’ Movement’s Push for Climate Justice

It is widely accepted that human activities are the primary drivers of global warming and environmental crises, including the rapid loss of biodiversity. However, the debate over how best to address these issues is far from settled. In political circles, “green growth” – the concept of making economic activities more sustainable – has emerged as the most popular solution.

Is green growth enough?

The idea behind green growth is to continue expanding economies while minimising environmental harm. However, critics argue that this approach has failed to significantly curb climate change and biodiversity loss.




Despite international efforts since the 1970s, carbon emissions have continued to rise. As the World Inequality Report reveals, nearly half of historical emissions occurred after 1990. Incremental policy changes, technological innovations and shifts in consumer behaviour have not been enough to reverse this trend. This failure has led to the growing appeal of “degrowth” – a more radical alternative that challenges the current global economic system.

What is ‘degrowth’?

“Degrowth” emerged in Europe, particularly in France, in the late 2000s. Philosophers such as André Gorz and economists such as Serge Latouche were among its early proponents, with researchers such as Tim Jackson later popularising the concept in the English-speaking world. They argue that the root cause of environmental destruction lies not only in human activity but also in a global economic model that has prioritised growth and profit since the Industrial Revolution.

Initially, degrowth was a critique of Western lifestyles and notions of progress. Environmental concerns were just one part of the movement’s broader agenda. Over time, however, environmentalism has become central to the movement’s goals.

What about the global south?

Today, many degrowth advocates assert that the richer countries of the global north, being largely responsible for environmental degradation, should be the ones to scale back economic activity to avert ecological catastrophe. But what about the poorer countries of the global south? Should they adopt degrowth strategies? Some argue this would impose a neocolonial agenda, with wealthier countries once again dictating the terms of global development. Others note that many poorer countries need economic growth to combat poverty. And even if degrowth were limited to the north, it could still have significant effects on the south – both positive and negative.

A review of academic literature on degrowth and the global south reveals two main perspectives: those who see degrowth as incompatible with the south’s development needs, and those who believe it could offer synergies with sustainable development goals.




Supporters of degrowth often point out that many of its core ideas originate in the global south. Anthropologist Jason Hickel cites figures such as Sri Lankan philosopher Ananda Coomaraswamy, Indian economist J.C. Kumarappa and Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore as inspirations. While these thinkers may not use the term “degrowth”, they promote ideas aligned with it, such as the Latin American Sumak kawsay (or “Buen vivir”) or the South African Ubuntu. These non-Western perspectives have been instrumental in shaping the degrowth discourse in the global north.

Degrowth as decolonisation

Degrowth advocates argue that scaling back economic activity in the north could help dismantle the unequal global division of labour, in which raw materials are extracted from the south and processed into consumer goods in the north. This system disproportionately benefits wealthier nations while leaving poorer countries with the social and environmental costs. Federico Demaria, a researcher in political ecology, argues that northern countries must “pay for past and present colonial exploitation in the south” – a central theme in contemporary degrowth discourse.

Some researchers suggest that dependence on economic growth is problematic for both the north and south. They argue that growth alone does not guarantee poverty reduction – wealth distribution and institutional reforms are just as crucial. Degrowth could help both regions avoid unsustainable development models by focusing more on social well-being than perpetual economic expansion.

Challenges for degrowth in the global south

However, many scholars believe degrowth is unattractive for the global south. Critics argue that the concept is too Eurocentric and fails to resonate amid the specific challenges faced by poorer nations. Interviews with academics and activists in the south show that while they may agree with some of the ideas behind degrowth, they reject its language, which they see as rooted in Western thinking. Economist Beatriz Rodríguez Labajos and her co-authors suggest that researchers from the north and south should look at “strengthening potential synergies, through an assertive recognition of the barriers to doing so”.




There is also concern that promoting degrowth in the south could be perceived as a new form of colonialism. Imposing Western notions of degrowth could prevent poorer countries from following the same path to prosperity that the north took, which often involved exploiting the resources of the south. The degrowth movement’s failure to fully address the colonial roots of economic development poses a challenge to its decolonization-oriented ambitions.

The problem of global dependencies

Finally, global dependencies further complicate the degrowth debate. Many people in the south rely on export-driven economies that serve Western markets. A reduction in economic activity in the north could harm populations in the south who depend on those exports.

This interdependence presents a dilemma for the degrowth movement. Proponents argue that degrowth is not about abandoning economic activity but reforming the global trade, finance and governance systems to prevent negative impacts on the south. For degrowth to succeed, its advocates must formulate concrete proposals that address these global dependencies without exacerbating inequalities or harming the most vulnerable.

---

This article is part of a project involving The Conversation France and AFP audio. It has received financial support from the European Journalism Centre, as part of the Solutions Journalism Accelerator programme supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. AFP and The Conversation France have retained their editorial independence at every stage of the project.

---

We offer this article as part of the Normandy World Forum for Peace, organised by the Normandy region of France on September 26-27, 2024. The Conversation France is a partner of the forum. For more information, visit the Normandy World Forum for Peace’s website.