The Fear of Economic Growth Misses the Point

In the public debate, a new mantra is gaining ground, spread by such economist like Kallis, Hickel, Latouche, Martinez-Alier, or Saito: rich countries should move “beyond growth.” Economic growth, the argument goes, has become a dangerous obsession that fuels climate change, inequality and social breakdown. According to this view, treating economic growth as the answer to social problems is itself the problem.

That degrowth diagnosis sounds radical and refreshing, but it is also very incomplete to the point of being very naive. For countries with ageing populations, mature welfare states and high expectations around public services, a world without growth has hard, measurable consequences:

• Pensions become harder to finance.
• Public debt ratios rise faster.
• Real wages stagnate.
• Private and public investment slow down.
• Distrust and political polarization deepen.
• Fear over economic growth also hinders an effective climate policy.

This doesn’t mean economic growth solves everything. It means that switching off growth in advanced economies, under today’s institutions and demographics, creates real risks that “post-growth” advocates rarely confront in detail.

I’ll also look a bit deeper into the hindering effect this degrowth thinking has on an effective climate policy.

Degrowth economists and their stance against economic growth

When people claim that “economic growth is the problem,” they usually don’t refer to the average IMF economist. They are echoing a small but very vocal group of degrowth economists who argue that, in rich countries, chasing higher GDP does more harm than good. These thinkers see climate breakdown, biodiversity loss and rising inequality as the logical outcome of an economy that must expand forever on a finite planet.

They don’t just say “economic growth is bad” in a vague moral way. They claim that high-income economies need to deliberately reduce energy and resource use, stop treating GDP as a target, and reorganize work, taxes and ownership around wellbeing and ecological limits. The list below brings those voices together: who they are, and in one line what they actually call for when they use the word degrowth.

Note that on the surface these ideas may seem logical, ethical and rational. However, once you scratch that surface, the real issues with their claims quickly appear. To prove this I will each time add a critique to point out the weakness in their claim.

Giorgos Kallis

• Who: Ecological economist, one of the main theoreticians of degrowth.
• What he says: Rich countries must abandon GDP growth as a policy goal and “prosper without growth” by deliberately shrinking material and energy throughput while improving wellbeing through redistribution, public services and shorter working time.

Degrowth is too vague and politically unrealistic to guide real policy, while more focused “a-growth” (stopping the obsession with GDP but not shrinking the economy on purpose) plus strong carbon pricing and regulation could cut emissions more effectively.

Critics like Jeroen van den Bergh argue that “degrowth” bundles several different ideas (lower consumption, work-time reduction, localism, etc.), which makes it an ambiguous slogan rather than an operational strategy, and that there is no clear evidence it would reduce environmental pressure more efficiently than conventional tools like carbon taxes, standards and green innovation.

Jason Hickel

• Who: Economic anthropologist, author of “Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World.”
• What he says: The growth-driven model in the Global North is the main driver of ecological breakdown and global inequality, so rich countries need a “planned downscaling of energy and resource use” (degrowth) while expanding essential sectors like public health, renewables and care.

The scale of resource cuts he demands in rich countries looks technically incompatible with maintaining advanced healthcare, infrastructure and clean energy systems at current quality.

Critics point out that Hickel calls for very deep reductions in material use in the Global North (often illustrated with figures like 50–75%), yet high-tech medicine, digital infrastructure and large-scale renewables all depend on energy-intensive global supply chains and mining; a recent critique notes that even running MRI scanners and modern hospitals requires heavy industrial input, so “less” at that magnitude risks undercutting exactly the life-extending services he wants to protect.

Serge Latouche

• Who: French economist and early degrowth pioneer.
• What he says: We must “say farewell to growth” and build a “society of de-growth”, rejecting the “quasi-idolatrous cult of growth for growth’s sake” and shifting to “a-growth” (like atheism) where growth is no longer an objective at all.

His philosophical “farewell to growth” offers almost no concrete institutional design, so it’s unclear how his vision would manage pensions, public debt, trade and complex supply chains without causing chaos.

Reviews of “Farewell to Growth” describe it as rich in critique but thin on macroeconomic and governance detail, arguing that Latouche under-specifies how a degrowth society would handle hard constraints like fiscal systems, monetary policy and international trade in a highly interconnected global economy.

Joan Martinez-Alier

• Who: Spanish ecological economist, links degrowth with environmental justice.
• What he says: In rich countries it is “time for socially sustainable economic de-growth”, because continued growth drives ecological degradation and “ecological distribution conflicts”; degrowth should be allied with the “environmentalism of the poor” resisting extraction at the frontiers.

A blanket call for “economic de-growth” in rich countries risks freezing global inequality if it is not paired with extremely rapid redistribution and continued economic growth in poorer countries that still lack basic infrastructure.

Critics note that while Martinez-Alier rightly stresses environmental justice, simply slowing or shrinking GDP in the North does nothing by itself for the billions still living in energy poverty; Branko Milanovic, for example, argues that fixing or shrinking global output without a radical change in distribution condemns a large share of humanity to permanent extreme poverty.

Federico Demaria (with D’Alisa & Kallis)

• Who: Ecological economist, co-editor of “Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era.”
• What they say: Degrowth is “a rejection of the illusion of growth” and a project for the democratically led shrinking of production and consumption to achieve social justice and ecological sustainability, plus a new political language beyond GDP.

Turning degrowth into a broad “vocabulary” makes it a floating label that different groups fill with their own meaning, which weakens it as a precise economic proposal and as a basis for hard policy.

Van den Bergh’s widely cited critique concludes that degrowth, as presented in the literature and activist texts, has so many interpretations that it becomes “ambiguous and rather confusing,” and that there is no clear proof it is a more effective route to lower environmental pressure than targeted measures like regulation, innovation policy and pricing.

Kohei Saito

• Who: Japanese Marxist scholar, author of “Capital in the Anthropocene” and “Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto.”
• What he says: Capitalism’s push for excessive production and consumption makes ecological crisis inevitable, so he argues for “degrowth communism” and a “slow down” of production in rich countries to replace artificial scarcity with collectively organised abundance within planetary limits.

“Degrowth communism” does not resolve the classic information and coordination problems of planned economies, so it is unclear how his model would run a complex, high-tech society under strict material limits without recreating old socialist failures.

Critical readings of Saito’s “Slow Down” and his broader “degrowth communism” project argue that he leans on an idealised reinterpretation of late Marx, but offers little detail on how to allocate resources, coordinate production or maintain innovation at scale; reviewers say the framework remains more provocative slogan than workable economic architecture.

An ageing population needs economic growth to pay for the pensions

Europe, Japan and many OECD countries are ageing at record speed. The share of people over 65 is rising, while the working-age population shrinks. The European Commission projects that the old-age dependency ratio in the EU will almost double between 2019 and 2070. That means far fewer workers for each pensioner.

In pay-as-you-go systems, pensions are paid from the contributions of current workers plus whatever return the system earns on investments. Economic growth plays a role in two ways:

• Productivity growth. When output per worker rises, each worker can support more dependants – children and pensioners – without becoming poorer.
• Wage growth. When the economy grows, average wages tend to rise. Higher wages mean higher pension contributions, which makes it easier to fund existing promises or improve minimum pensions.

Studies on pension sustainability from the OECD and European Commission consistently use growth scenarios for a reason: with low or zero growth, the same demographic shift leads to higher contribution rates, lower replacement rates, later retirement – or some combination of all three.

In theory, you can design pensions to be “growth-independent” by sharply lowering expectations and tightly linking benefits to current contributions. In practice, that implies:

• lower pensions for future retirees,
• more pressure on private savings,
• and likely a deeper gap between those with financial assets and those without.

So the blunt statement “economic growth is a dangerous fallacy” glosses over a hard trade-off: without growth, societies must accept either higher taxes, lower pensions, later retirement – or heavier inequality between asset-rich and asset-poor households.

The state, debt and the arithmetic of no economic growth

Public debt debates are often politicised, but one piece of arithmetic is non-controversial: the debt-to-GDP ratio is easier to stabilise when GDP grows.

In the euro area, public debt rose sharply after the 2008 crisis and again during the COVID-19 pandemic. The IMF and ECB both note that sustained economic growth, combined with moderate primary budget surpluses, helped stabilise or reduce debt ratios in several countries during the 2010s.

If nominal GDP growth falls close to zero, the dynamics change:

• Existing debt becomes heavier relative to national income.
• Governments must run larger primary surpluses (spend less than they collect in taxes before interest) just to keep the ratio stable.
• That often means spending cuts in areas that are politically sensitive: health care, education, infrastructure, social protection.

A 2023 IMF paper on “debt sustainability in a low-growth environment” concludes that very low growth forces either long periods of fiscal tightening or acceptance of higher debt levels, which in turn makes states more vulnerable to interest-rate shocks.

Again, this is not ideology. It is spreadsheet logic. When the denominator (GDP) stops growing, the same debt stock becomes more risky, especially in countries that do not control their own currency.

You can respond by changing fiscal rules, exploring new monetary arrangements or introducing new wealth and carbon taxes – all valid debates. But the claim that “we don’t need growth” pretends that politically explosive choices about taxation and spending are somehow optional. They are not.

Purchasing power: why stagnation fuels anger

One common argument in post-growth circles is that people in rich countries don’t “need” more income. In the abstract, that may sound plausible. In practice, stagnating real wages and rising living costs are already straining households.

• Across the OECD, median real wages in many countries were roughly flat or declining for large parts of the 2010s, even before the inflation spike after 2021.
• Housing costs have outpaced income growth in many cities, pushing younger cohorts into higher debt and long-term renting.

If you layer no economic growth on top of high housing costs, ageing and climate-related price shocks, you get a politically unstable mix:

• Governments have less room to raise public sector wages, minimum wages or benefits without cutting elsewhere.
• Workers feel they are “running faster to stand still,” even when unemployment is low.
• Any redistribution debate quickly turns into a zero-sum fight between generations, sectors or regions.

Historical work on political instability and economic shocks suggests that long periods of stagnation or falling incomes are associated with rising support for radical parties and declining trust in institutions.

So when people say “without growth, there is no extra purchasing power,” they are not defending mindless consumption. They are pointing to a social reality: if the pie does not grow at all, every attempt to slice it differently becomes more confrontational.

Investment, innovation and the climate transition

Critiques of economic growth often start from environmental concerns, especially climate change and biodiversity loss. Here, the intuition is simple: more growth means more production, more energy, more emissions.

But the story is more complicated.

The transition needs capital

Decarbonising advanced economies requires huge upfront investment in renewable energy, grid upgrades, public transport, building renovations, industrial transformation and innovation. Estimates from the International Energy Agency and European Commission point to additional annual investment needs of several percentage points of GDP over multiple decades for the EU alone.

Those investments can themselves generate growth – particularly if they replace imported fossil fuels with domestic energy, reduce health costs from air pollution, and create new industries and jobs.

If you deliberately aim for no economic growth, you face an awkward question:

• Are you willing to shrink other parts of the economy fast enough – and politically smoothly enough – to free up the required investment space?

In theory, you can imagine a perfectly planned reallocation from “brown” to “green” sectors within a constant-size GDP. In practice, transitions are bumpy, interest groups resist, and people who lose jobs or see their industry shrink expect support. Growth eases those tensions by creating new activity and tax revenue that can cushion the losers.

Innovation and productivity

The relationship between economic growth and innovation runs in both directions: innovation drives growth, and expectations of growth drive innovation. Firms are more inclined to invest in risky technologies when they see expanding markets.

If the message becomes that demand will be structurally flat or shrinking in many sectors, some of that risk-taking collapses. That can slow down the very technological shifts post-growth advocates say they want: cleaner production, more efficient buildings, new materials, better storage, smarter grids.

Again, this is not an argument for blind “growthism.” It is a reminder that a sweeping anti-growth message can undermine investment and innovation precisely when they’re needed for the climate transition.

Polarisation in a low-growth world

The final concern in the original bullet list – more polarisation – is often downplayed by those arguing for a post-growth economy. Yet history suggests it deserves attention.

Periods of weak or uneven economic growth, combined with rising inequality, have coincided with:

• Declining trust in parliaments and parties
• Stronger support for anti-system movements
• Resentment between younger and older generations, cities and rural areas, insiders and outsiders

Empirical work on Europe’s post-2008 political landscape finds a clear link between economic hardship, austerity policies and the rise of radical parties.

In a no-growth scenario, any group that feels “left behind” faces a simple narrative: “They are taking our share.”

A growing economy is not a magic cure; distribution still matters. But growth provides some extra room to improve living standards at the bottom without explicitly taking from someone else. Once that room disappears, every policy discussion risks turning into a zero-sum conflict.

That doesn’t mean societies must chase ever-higher growth at any cost. It does mean that cheering the end of growth in abstract terms while ignoring its potential to sharpen social conflict is short-sighted.

Economic growth with quality and direction

Defending the importance of economic growth does not mean endorsing business-as-usual GDP worship. Several points can be true at once:

• GDP is a blunt and incomplete indicator.
• Current economic growth often comes with environmental damage and social stress.
• Many people in rich countries do not experience “more GDP” as “better life.”

But it does not follow that economic growth as such is a dangerous fallacy. The more precise lesson is: Unregulated, fossil-fuel-based, inequality-blind growth is dangerous. Directed, clean and inclusive growth is still a powerful tool.

Policy debates are slowly moving in that direction. Under the umbrella of a “green industrial strategy,” governments are trying to:

• accelerate clean energy and infrastructure investment
• support reskilling and just transition policies for workers in declining sectors
• reform tax systems to reward low-carbon activity and penalise high-carbon use
• invest in health, education and care sectors that contribute to wellbeing and jobs with relatively modest environmental footprints

These strategies acknowledge ecological limits without pretending that zero growth in advanced economies is either politically stable or socially neutral.

Reframing the core question

The provocative statement “Economic growth is still seen as the answer to social problems. A dangerous fallacy” works as a slogan. It forces a conversation about planetary boundaries, about what GDP misses, about the costs of blind expansion.

But as a guide for policy in ageing, high-expectation societies, it is incomplete. Without economic growth:

• Pensions become more difficult to finance without cuts, higher contributions or later retirement.
• States face harder debt arithmetic and must choose between austerity and higher risk.
• Purchasing power for many households stagnates or erodes, especially with high housing costs.
• Investments in climate transition and innovation are harder to mobilise.
• Polarisation increases as every distributional question turns zero-sum.

The more honest question is not “growth or no growth?” but: What kind of growth, at what environmental cost, with which distribution, and under which institutions?

Rejecting growth outright dodges those harder choices. It risks presenting a comforting moral stance while underestimating the concrete consequences for pensions, public services, investment and social cohesion.

In that sense, the real dangerous fallacy is not that societies still see economic growth as part of the answer – it’s the belief that we can quietly step away from growth without redesigning our institutions and without facing heavy political and social trade-offs.

How fear over economic growth is hindering effective climate policy

The climate debate is no longer just about CO₂ budgets and temperature targets. It is increasingly about economic growth. On one side: “green growth” and climate-neutral industrial strategies. On the other: “degrowth” and calls to deliberately shrink high-income economies.

That ideological clash is not just academic. The fear of anything that looks like economic growth is quietly undermining some of the most practical climate tools we have.

Investment paralysis: when “no growth” meets trillion-euro needs

Most serious net-zero scenarios agree on one basic point: the transition needs more investment, not less.

• The IEA’s net-zero pathway projects global clean-energy investment rising to about $5 trillion per year by 2030, adding around 0.4 percentage points to annual global GDP growth.
• For the EU, ECB and Commission estimates put additional climate-related investment needs at roughly 3–4% of GDP per year on top of current levels, embedded in a broader package of about 8–9% of GDP in green and digital investment.

That scale of effort will show up as economic growth in traditional statistics: more output in construction, grid upgrades, public transport, renewables, building renovation, clean industry.

When public debate frames any increase in measured activity as automatically harmful “growth,” it has three concrete effects:

1. Political hesitation. Leaders hesitate to openly support large-scale green industrial strategies or climate investment packages, afraid of being painted as “old-school growth politicians,” even if measures phase out fossil capacity and shrink high-carbon sectors over time.
2. Mixed signals to investors. Companies hear that governments want both massive new green capacity and less overall economic activity. That ambiguity undermines long-term investment decisions in grids, storage, heat pumps, or low-carbon industrial processes.
3. Underuse of fiscal space. Countries with room to borrow cheaply for climate projects stay cautious, not only because of debt rules but also because growth-critical rhetoric makes expansionist climate budgets sound ideologically suspect.

The result is a paradox: climate science calls for rapid transformation; parts of the climate movement call for an end to growth; and policymakers get stuck between the two.

Instead of a clear message – we will grow green sectors, shrink fossil sectors, and support affected workers – the public hears a fuzzy one. That slows real-world decisions.

Blocking pragmatic tools because they “boost GDP”

The fear of economic growth also distorts how we judge climate instruments.

Many of the most effective climate policies increase recorded GDP in the short and medium term:

• Massive renovation programmes create construction jobs, raise energy efficiency and reduce import bills.
• Grid modernisation and electrified public transport involve large capital outlays and new services.
• Support for clean industrial clusters – for example in green steel, batteries or hydrogen – expands some branches of manufacturing while phasing out others.

From a narrow “no-growth” perspective, all of these can look suspect: they create activity, income, exports. That has led some activist and academic circles to dismiss green industrial policy as “just another growth strategy,” even when it explicitly aims to bring emissions down on a science-based trajectory.

Yet most empirical work on climate policy effectiveness shows that the problem is not “too much green investment,” but too little and too slow:

• Assessments of EU and member-state decarbonisation pathways highlight persistent investment gaps in buildings, grids and low-carbon industry relative to what would be needed to meet 2030 and 2050 targets.
• The IEA regularly warns that delays in scaling clean investment lock in additional fossil infrastructure, making later cuts steeper and more expensive.

In that context, rejecting policies because they might “raise GDP” is counterproductive. The relevant questions are:

• Does this policy lower emissions fast enough?
• Does it respect ecological limits on land, materials and biodiversity?
• Does it protect vulnerable groups and avoid regressive impacts?

Whether it also adds a fraction of a percentage point to GDP during the build-out phase is a secondary accounting issue, not a core ethical problem.

Missed alliances with workers and regions that need a future

Effective climate policy depends on political coalitions, not just carbon budgets. People whose jobs, communities or regions depend on carbon-intensive activities need credible future prospects to support or at least accept rapid change.

That is where fear of economic growth creates another blockage.

A strict “end of growth” message can sound, in coal regions, port cities or industrial belts, like: “We will close what you have – but we cannot promise anything dynamic to replace it, because that would be growth.”

That stance weakens crucial alliances:

• Trade unions and works councils push back when they do not see concrete, growing sectors to absorb workers from fossil industries.
• Regional authorities resist phase-out plans if there is no visible trajectory for new investment, new infrastructure and new employment.
• Populist parties exploit the vacuum by promising to defend “traditional” industries against both climate policy and degrowth rhetoric.

By contrast, climate strategies that openly embrace directed economic growth in clean sectors – while spelling out how emissions and material footprints decline overall – offer a more compelling bargain:

• We will grow the sectors that keep your region economically alive in a low-carbon world.
• We will shrink and phase out the sectors that cannot be reconciled with the climate budget.
• We will use part of the new value created to fund just transition measures, retraining, local public services and social protection.

Fear of talking about that kind of economic growth leaves the field to those who deny climate science outright.

Turning economic growth from a taboo into a design problem

The core issue is not whether economic activity, measured in euros or dollars, is morally good or bad. It is what we grow, what we shrink, and how fast.

A climate-serious economic growth strategy is not the same as traditional growth-at-all-costs:

• It expands activities that cut emissions, restore ecosystems and support wellbeing with low material footprints.
• It contracts fossil-fuel extraction, high-carbon consumption patterns and wasteful production.
• It redirects investment away from subsidised fossil infrastructure towards clean systems, using carbon prices, regulations and targeted public spending.
• It measures success with climate, health and distribution indicators alongside GDP.

Fear of “growth” as such blurs that distinction. It encourages symbolic debates about GDP as a number, while the real fight – over the structure, direction and distribution of the economy – moves more slowly than the climate clock allows.

In that sense, it is not economic growth itself that is blocking effective climate policy, but our refusal to discuss it in concrete terms. As long as economic growth is treated either as a miracle cure or as a moral taboo, it will be impossible to build the kind of clear, investment-heavy, socially negotiated transition that science says we need.

Economic growth is not the dangerous illusion its critics suggest

Economic growth is not the magic key that its loudest defenders claim, but it is not the dangerous illusion its critics suggest either. In ageing welfare states, growth still underpins pensions, public finances and basic political stability. Without some combination of productivity gains and expanding economic activity, the arithmetic of pay-as-you-go pensions hardens, debt ratios become tougher to manage, and purchasing power for large parts of the population flatlines. Those are not abstract macroeconomic curves; they translate into lower benefits, higher contributions, later retirement and sharper conflicts over who pays.

At the same time, economic growth in its current form cannot continue unchecked. A system that rewards fossil fuel consumption, undervalues care work and ignores ecological limits generates climate risk and social fatigue. The right conclusion is not to abandon growth as a goal, but to treat it as a design problem. Policy has to set clear boundaries – on emissions, land use, pollution – and steer investment, taxation and regulation so that what expands is clean infrastructure, efficient buildings and resilient public services, while high-carbon and wasteful activities contract.

Climate policy exposes this tension most clearly. The transition to net zero demands huge upfront investment in grids, public transport, renovation and clean industry, which will show up as economic growth in the statistics. Fear of economic growth, and the reflex to brand any expansion as suspect, slows that investment and weakens alliances with workers and regions that need visible futures. The real choice is not between growth and climate action, but between chaotic decline managed by market shocks and a deliberate, investment-led shift that grows the low-carbon economy while shrinking the fossil one.

A realistic politics starts from that dual truth: advanced economies cannot rely on endless, unstructured economic growth, and they cannot switch economic growth off without reshaping core institutions. That means honest debate about pensions, taxation, debt rules, industrial policy and labour markets, instead of slogans about “green growth” on one side and “post-growth” on the other. The central question for the coming decades is no longer whether growth is good or bad. It is how to engineer a form of economic growth that keeps pensions payable, states solvent and societies cohesive, while pulling emissions and resource use down fast enough to stay within planetary limits.

---

---