The Worldwatch Institute’s perception of degrowth

What if degrowth could be part of a broader sustainable model of development? Such an idea is taken very seriously by researchers of the Worldwatch Institute. They have indeed recently published their annual report about the State of the World and promote “selective degrowth” as a promising tool to be use by sustainable development policy in developed countries.

Directed by Robert Engelman, the Worldwatch Institute has been recognized as a scientific reference within its forty years of existence. It has indeed become a major analysis provider for development-related subject. Each year, Worldwatch release a report with the purpose of summing up the State of the World regarding the most urging global issues. Year 2012’s edition is subtitled Moving Toward a Sustainable Prosperity and introduces original thoughts on how sustainable development could be pursued in developed countries.

The report was co-directed by Erik Assadourian, one Worldwatch senior fellow. In one of the articles that composes the report, Assadourian makes an interesting point by describing the benefits economic degrowth could bring to the world and developed countries. The author here starts with a simple assessment: Humanity’s global footprint is estimated to 1,5 Earths. In order to reach a sustainable state, worldwide economy has to be reduced “by at least a third”. Considering that “one third of humanity still needs to considerably increase its consumption to achieve a decent quality of life”, Assadourian asserts that a selective degrowth – which would target “overconsumming societies” – would enhance global equity.

As for developed countries which are mainly concerned by such a policy, Assadourian claims degrowth could solve numbers of societal problem induced by the obsession of consumption. From debts to obesity, numbers of health and social issues could be solved through what Assadourian calls “the intentional contraction of overly inflated economies”. Worldwatch’s analysis about growth makes sense in many ways. It is a shame however that the Institute does not illustrate more about how degrowth could fit in developed societies.

What about work for instance in a society which is aiming to selective growth? In developed countries, work remains an essential part of societies’ foundation. It remains crucial as social cement. Assadourian mentions the reduction of the average working time as a corollary to degrowth. Such a goal could indeed be achieved through “job sharing”, “longer parental leaves and vacation times”. But are these options really sufficient to give every individual a function in a society which is aiming toward producing less? Through the scope of degrowth, sustainable development looks even more like a sociological matter.