Why am I saying this? Well, one of the consistent frustrations of my intellectual life is that I feel constantly caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to presenting and discussing the "next-step" economy. When I draw up demanding long-term horizons, like I've done in most of Part 4 of this blog, the realists and the moderates throw their arms up in the air and claim that no actual credible transition scenario has been offered. Where, they ask, will we find the social forces and the psychological resources that would make the six framework measures palatable and feasible to most citizens? (One brand of realist are conservatives, who believe such social forces and psychological resources not only are non-existent, but shouldn't exist because human beings are as they are and because greed, short-sightedness, and lack of reflexivity are simply a given.) And when I present a moderate next-step scenario in which the current actors who dominate the economic and political scenery are given the benefit of the doubt and in which a Green New Deal, sustainable investment and banking, and eco-preneurship could serve as realistic steps towards more profound changes, the radicals, deep ecologists and bottom-up democrats feel betrayed and get annoyed, asserting that "green capitalism" can only reinforce the problems, never contribute to their solution -- and that even the six framework conditions are much, much too consensual...
So it seems I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. It's an occupational hazard I'm quite willing to bear for a while, but not to adopt as my permanent professional ethic. Simply engineering a perpetual "democratic dialogue" between realists and utopians, between progressives and conservatives, has ceased to be an interesting and worthwhile goal for me. By that I mean that resolution and resolve have to follow upon dialogue at some point. This is what democracy is for. The issue -- to risk belaboring a point on which I have already insisted quite often here -- is not bottom-up versus top-down, or science versus politics, or long term versus short term, or left versus right, or green capitalism versus (truly) sustainable post-capitalism, or whatever else. I don't scorn people who deal with these oppositions; I've spent quite a lot of time and energy myself over the past decade trying to find an orientation among them. They are not totally irrelevant oppositions, but I feel they have started to become obstacles to dealing effectively with the single most important issue: How do we organize a free, open economy at the planetary level in which freedom and openness are compatible with the incontrovertible fact that any development trajectory must take place within a finite, non-growing biosphere among finite, fragile, and questioning human beings?
This is the very precise reason why I am convinced that (as I argued in my previous post of December 22, 2011) the paradigm of Existential Ecological Economics, or "EEEcon," is the only possible way forward. I have little patience for discussions about whether EEEcon is conservative or progressive, or about whether its inspiration ought to come from political ecology or from the Austrian school of economics. Such stale and, meanwhile, outdated oppositions need to be recomposed into new, productive, and fruitful tensions. For instance, it is important to know how to make EEEcon compatible with the science of climate change and of natural resources, and it is crucial to create massive dialogue between climate and natural-resource scientists and ecological economists. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen made this dialogue a cornerstone of his "thermodynamic" critique of neoclassical economics, and Herman Daly's call to replace the neoclassical "empty world" view by a scientifically rooted "full world" view obviously presupposes a constant revision of economic principles in the light of scientific knowledge. In an "empty world," natural resources are not scarce -- and, I would add, human beings are not pushed to their emotional and existential limits. In such a fictitious world growth, measured as increasing throughput, effectively has no significant negative effects, and whatever relative scarcity arises can be immediately reflected in continuously but minutely shifting relative prices on efficient markets. In a "full world," on the contrary, relative prices shift abruptly as scarcity becomes massive due to the economic subsystem's overshooting of the physical limits of the ecosystem -- and, I would add again, due to increasingly massive disruptions in human beings' lives and in the circulation of "resources of meaning." To keep growth going, costs skyrocket and can only be dampened by increasingly distorted, and hence ecologically false, prices thanks to subsidies or to geopolitical "resource wars." As ecological economists recognize, investigating the constraints of a "full world" is impossible without the input of scientists who exercise their criticism vis-à-vis absurd assumptions such as the infinite substitutability of natural and economic capital.
I believe that such interdisciplinary research stands to gain both from approaches that are traditionally labeled conservative -- such as the Austrian school of von Mises and Hayek, which has much of interest to say about currencies and markets -- and from ones that are usually called progressive -- such as political ecology in the tradition of Gorz and Illich. This doesn't mean we have to create a consensual, indistinct mush of ideas designed to satisfy everyone. It simply means that the dividing line between status quo realists and pie-in-the-sky utopians is no longer productive; we need to co-opt all relevant scientific knowledge and all interesting economic ideas in the ruthless search for a paradigm that will draw a new line: between those who effectively believe in an "empty world" view based on scientifically untenable assumptions; and those who endeavor to construct a scientifically correct and economically sound "full world" view that allows to replace prosperity as growth by prosperity as development without growth. The realist/ utopian divide has ceased to be useful because the purportedly realist arguments of those who believe that perpetual "decoupling" and technological progress can offset tendencially rising throughput seem outright utopian to those who have moved towards an approach of strong sustainability -- and whom the realists, in turn, continue to label utopian because of their claim that a stationary, non-growth economy can be prosperous.
In my more radical days I used to be wary of Tim Jackson when, towards the end of his Prosperity Without Growth, he asks about the reforms he proposes: "Is it still capitalism? Does it really matter?" (p. 202) I saw this as a troubling sign of ideological compromise. Now, even though I still have qualms about certain aspects of Jackson's approach, I think I understand this particular position of his a bit better. It's not so much a matter of standing on one side or the other of predetermined political and ideological lines, as it is a matter of simply investigating, on the basis of the existing scientific evidence coming from geo-, bio- and climate science, to what extent a capitalistically driven economic system can cohere with a "full world" view. I am still skeptical about the possibility for capitalistic incentives to generate endogenous growth-dampening mechanisms and, even more so, of making a non-growth economy viable and just. Indeed, from within the current capitalistic incentive mechanisms, arguing against growth is -- to quote a colleague of mine -- like "being a pacifist on the eve of a major war." And that's why I now believe that the main task of democratic political governance today is to engineer a gradual transition whereby green capitalism is harnessed by new institutions and new mentalities, in such a way that its own "green" component will gradually make the emergence of sustainable ways of producing, working, consuming, and investing -- that is, ways of producing, working, consuming, and investing that replace growth by development without growth -- an endogenous necessity.
Can this be done while retaining a capitalistic incentive structure? I'm not sure at all, and I have indicated it in various previous posts, but it simply has to be left open at this "immediate next step" stage. Status quo realists will scold me for wanting to make "green" capitalism into what it cannot be -- namely, a stepping stone towards a post-growth development model, which to them is heretic given that growth is (they claim) the only tool we have ever had to promote development. Green utopians -- who quite rightly, in fact, see themselves as green realists given the mounting evidence of ecological catastrophe, but who have to be labeled utopians in reference to how far they believe we need to move away from the status quo -- will resent me for seeking to make green capitalism into an avenue towards a post-growth development model, when we know (they claim) that it is in fact intrinsically unsustainable and can only impress and mislead gullible consumers and investors through greenwashing. For the status quo realists, "green growth" is what we need -- although they fall virtually silent when pressed for an answer as to how we're going to avoid the finitude of the biosphere. Ever-deepening "decoupling" thanks to perpetual technological progress is their standard, increasingly desperate reply. Almost no physicist, chemist, or resource scientist believes in this reply anymore. For the green utopians, "green development without growth" is what we need -- although they need to (and increasingly do) face up to the insufficiency of the usual answers they offer, be it in terms of voluntary simplicity, self-sufficiency, transition towns, bottom-up local governance, and so on. Virtually no institutional economist will accept that such ideas can help solve the massive problems we are facing, if they aren't supplemented by (a) structural measures to harness today's capitalism into a new global compact and (b) a co-opting of today's entrepreneurial and financial classes into a new view of sustainable finance, banking, investment, and international trade.
So what, in the end, do we want? A more or less perpetual angry face-off between status quo realists (often denounced as utopians) and green utopians (often claiming to be realists), throwing around the usual couples of opposing concepts? Or a low-key but earnest attempt to combine whatever can be gotten from both realist and utopian approaches into a next-step economy that harnesses the existing power relations towards development without growth? In the former case, we're sure that while the opposing factions are bickering and throwing invectives at each other, the status quo will perdure -- and the "transition" model will look increasingly unlikely as the "collapse" model becomes more and more probable (see the April 16, 2011 post). In the latter case, we'll at least have a chance to engineer a new brand of economics -- EEEcon, as I have labeled it, which combines ecological and existential economics with institutional knowledge from political science and law, and with knowledge from geoscience, bioscience, and natural-resource science: a new brand of economics that can offer hope and direction in an intellectual landscape where brilliant but irrelevant models and theories abound.
Those of us who embrace this new brand of economics are bound to remain caught between a rock and a hard place for a while yet -- but we are not without the resources to create dialectic dialogue, a way of asserting the absolute necessity of development without growth while inviting all areas of knowledge and practice to participate in the endeavor. Something which, I have no doubt, both the realists and the radicals will see as yet another sign of the "weakness" of the approach. But that, as I said, is an occupational hazard I'm willing to bear. It's a difficult job, but somebody's got to do it...
This post from the "Eco-Transitions" blog by Christian Arnsperger is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.