Konstantin M. Wacker

I wanted to hate this article. I consider the degrowth movement harmful for achieving social justice and improving the human condition. The movement is predicated on two inconsistent assumptions: 1. All the bad things associated with growth are so fundamental features of the economy that they cannot be tackled directly. Inequality. Pollution. They are caused by growth. Better to limit growth so as to limit harm. 2. All the good things associated with growth across countries and over decades are just coincidence. They are not caused by growth. We can reduce growth without taking away better health outcomes, increased longevity, better sanitation, improving gender norms, you name it. Your ideology may influence whether you put more weight on the good correlates of growth or the bad correlates of growth. But, intellectually, you should consider both. There are many faults of this opinion piece, but it is not advocating for degrowth. It is pushing the "beyond growth" agenda, which is urging policy makers to tackle societal problems directly, in addition to improving material outcomes. This is not a wrong position to hold. In fact, it is a position with which no reasonable policy maker would disagree. Tackling societal problems? It's their literal job description. But the op-ed is a teachable moment of reasoning fallacies. 1. Argument from authority. "We economists"? 350 signatories including some we name because they seem more important than the other 340? Surely you must be right then. 2. Strawman argument. "For decades, the recipe was simple: grow the economy, and poverty would gradually disappear." Are you saying that economists and policy makers have not been trying to tackle the challenges you describe? Have you not heard of the Sustainable Development Goals agreed on in 2012? There is nothing to hate here. Keep pushing for better policies. But use actual arguments for what works, what doesn't; costs and benefits. You know, the kind of things economists do. theguardian.com/commentisfre…