This is basically a literature review of Tim Jackson's Prosperity without growth, a book which, despite being written over a decade ago, is (tragically) still relevant to today's context. I strongly recommend reading this book if you can access it! It's written in a straightforward and friendly way, so you don't have to be an economist to be able to understand it. Otherwise, you can check out the related TED Talk linked in the references below.

Prosperity without growth is Tim Jackson’s view for an alternative economic future – an alternative which is hopeful, inspirational, and vital. Reading Jackson’s book on the topic was both a difficult and reassuring experience for me. Difficult because of how all of our economic, social and environmental problems were laid bare, horrifyingly systemic and seemingly chronic; yet reassuring because at least someone was trying to change things (and over a decade ago at that), at least not all academics concerned with economics were obsessed with chasing infinite growth and GDP increases.

After all, as Jackson explains in his TED Talk, “hope is at the heart of the word prosperity”, not money, as the current economic model would have us believe (2010, 00:26). We could give it the benefit of the doubt and suppose that at the start, people genuinely thought that economic growth would make all of us (or at least the majority of us) more prosperous in the proper sense. But now that the economy has grown, now that it is helplessly addicted to growth, how many of us can really say that we feel happier, healthier, more secure, more hopeful? Why is it that we choose to repeatedly patch up a system which causes so much stress and inequality?

In order to explain the core implications of prosperity without growth for environmental decision-making, I will begin by setting the scene with a description of our current economic system. I will then take a closer look at the key factor of investment. Finally, I will explain how investment through the lens of prosperity without growth could change how we go about environmental decision-making.

As it stands, we are stuck within a circular economic system which demands our participation: we must produce so that we may consume (Jackson, 2010). This on its own seems fair, but the problem we are facing is that constant economic growth is demanding us to participate more and more - imagine it as a hamster wheel which spins faster and faster. Planned and perceived obsolescence means that more goods must be produced and purchased to replace those which are discarded; the 9-to-5 workday has warped into a 24/7-drive-thru, same-day-delivery nightmare. Capitalism never sleeps.

One invisible factor which keeps the wheel of economic growth turning is investment. Us humans love new things, so investment is directed towards the creation of “not just cheaper products but newer and more exciting ones”, because positive returns on the investment are basically guaranteed (Jackson, 2009, p. 96). We buy these products and the cycle repeats – our money goes towards creating the next must-have item that we’ll eventually be lining up for.

However, investment doesn’t have to be the villain of the story. Jackson envisages investment as a key mechanism in achieving prosperity without growth, particularly investment in sustainable technology which helps us to preserve “the ecological assets on which our future depends” (2010, 14:33). He often mentions the hypothetical situation where “the economy in 2100 is 40 times the size of today’s economy. And to all intents and purposes, nothing less than a complete decarbonization of every single dollar will do to achieve carbon targets” (Jackson, 2009, p. 81). In such a situation, green investment is clearly vital if we are to have any chance of saving the environment. Just allocating some tokenistic money towards green initiatives and spending the rest on more typical investments such as roads isn’t enough, argues Jackson, because the latter has the ability to negate the impact of any green initiatives (2009). This is similar to the difference between relative and absolute decoupling, because relative decoupling attempts often just free up money to be spent on other things which do have a negative environmental impact (Jackson, 2009).

“Prosperity today means nothing if it undermines the conditions on which prosperity tomorrow depends” (Jackson, 2009, p. 33). At times this can feel blindingly, frustratingly, hopelessly obvious. What is the point of buying the latest iPhone if the world is going up in flames tomorrow? Why are we so bent on producing and consuming more and more when we know the planet’s ability to cope is finite? Such questions are keeping so many of us up at night. It’s almost impossible not to just helplessly resign ourselves to the system – after all, it’s systemic change, not individual change, which is sorely needed. This is why Tim Jackson’s vision of prosperity without growth is so important. Not only does he make the case for why it is necessary for us, our economy, and our planet; he offers suggestions on how to implement the necessary systemic changes.

Such changes include rethinking investment so that it becomes a force of environmental decision-making. Just think of the positive environmental impact we could achieve if all the investment money that goes towards pointless consumer items went towards sustainable technology instead! Making the decision to invest in the environment should not be considered a radical move, yet in our current economic system it is. The concept of prosperity without growth aims to deradicalise that position and prove that such investments will offer positive returns not only for the investor, but for the rest of humanity and the ecosystem.

References