User:V95683/Degrowth

Article Draft

Easterlin Paradox

In 1973, Richard Easterlin published a paper entitled “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence” which finds that, after a certain income level or “satiation point,” income has no effect on happiness levels. While the Easterlin Paradox has been reassessed multiple times with varying conclusions, the original findings indicate that a redistribution of wealth need not result in decreasing happiness levels. Furthermore, Easterlin writes consumption levels directly correlate with income level, indicating that after reaching a certain satiation point increased consumption has no effect on happiness levels.

Dilemmas[edit]

Given that modernity has emerged with high levels of energy and material throughput, there is an apparent compromise between desirable aspects of modernity (e.g., social justice, gender equality, long life expectancy, low infant mortality) and unsustainable levels of energy and material use. Some researchers, however, argue that the decline in income inequality and rise in social mobility occurring under Capitalism from the late 1940s to the 1960s was a product of the heavy bargaining power of labor unions and increased wealth and income redistribution during that time; while also pointing to the rise in income inequality in the 1970s following the collapse of labor unions and weakening of state welfare measures. Others also argue that modern capitalism maintains gender inequalities by means of advertising, messaging in consumer goods, and social media. Furthermore, as of 2021, Cuba, a country with a state-run healthcare system, had an under-five mortality rate of 5.1 per 1,000 live births while the United States, a country with no form of universal healthcare coverage, had an under-five mortality rate of 6.5 per 1,000 live births. Data from UNICEF exhibits that higher ranking health metrics such as life expectancy are not synonymous with capitalist or privatized healthcare systems. Ultimately, the claim that Capitalism and certain desirable aspects of modernity are codependent is contentious.

Another way of looking at the argument that the development of desirable aspects of modernity require unsustainable energy and material use is through the lens of the Marxist tradition, which relates the superstructure (culture, ideology, institutions) and the base (material conditions of life, division of labor). A degrowth society, by its drastically different material conditions, could produce equally drastic changes of the cultural and ideological spheres of society. The political economy of global capitalism has generated a lot of bads, such as socioeconomic inequality and ecological devastation, which have engendered a lot of goods through individualization and increased spatial and social mobility. At the same time, some argue the widespread individualization promulgated by a capitalist political economy is a bad due to its undermining of solidarity, aligned with democracy as well as collective, secondary, and primary forms of caring, and simultaneous encouragement of mistrust of others, highly competitive interpersonal relationships, blame of failure on individual shortcomings, prioritization of one’s self-interest, and peripheralization of the conceptualization of human work required to create and sustain people. In this view, the widespread individuation resulting from capitalism may impede degrowth measures, requiring a change in actions to benefit society rather than the individual self.

Some argue the political economy of Capitalism has allowed social emancipation at the level of gender equality, disability, sexuality and anti-racism that has no historical precedent. However, others dispute the social emancipation as being a direct product of Capitalism or question the emancipation that has resulted. The feminist writer Nancy Holmstrom, for example, argues that Capitalism's negative impacts on women outweigh the positive impacts, and women tend to be hurt by the system. In her examination of China following the Chinese Communist Revolution, Holmstrom notes that women were granted freedom and state assistance for equal education, childcare, healthcare, abortion, marriage, and other social supports. Thus, the point of whether the social emancipation achieved in Western society under Capitalism may coexist with Degrowth is ambiguous.

Some argue the capitalist system is built on the exploitation of female reproductive labor as well as that of the Global South. Sexism and racism embedded in its structure. Therefore, some theories (such as Eco-Feminism or political ecology) argue that there cannot be equality regarding gender and the hierarchy between the Global North and South within capitalism.

The structural properties of growth present a barrier to Degrowth as growth shapes and is enforced by institutions, norms, culture, technology, identities, etc. The social ingraining of growth manifests in peoples’ aspirations, thinking, bodies, mindsets, and relationships. Together, growth’s role in social practices and in socio-economic institutions present unique challenges to the success of the Degrowth movement. Another potential barrier to Degrowth is the need for rapid transition to Degrowth society due to climate change and the potential negative impacts of this transition including disorientation, conflict, and decreased wellbeing.

In the United States, a large barrier to the support of the Degrowth movement is the modern education system, including both primary and higher learning institutions. Beginning in the second term of the Reagan administration, the education system in the US was restructured to enforce Neoliberal ideology by means of privatization schemes such as commercialization and performance contracting, implementation of standards and accountability measures incentivizing schools to adopt a uniform curriculum, and higher education accreditation and curricula designed to affirm market values and current power structures and avoid critical thought concerning the relations between those in power, ethics, authority, history, and knowledge. The Degrowth movement, based on the empirical assumption that resources are finite and growth is limited, clashes with the limitless growth ideology associated with Neoliberalism and the market values affirmed in schools, and therefore faces a major social barrier in gaining widespread support in the US.

Co-evolving aspects of global capitalism, liberal modernity, and the market society, are closely tied and will be difficult to separate to maintain liberal and cosmopolitan values in a degrowth society. At the same time, the goal of the Degrowth movement is progression rather than regression, and researchers point out that neoclassical economic models indicate neither negative or zero growth would harm economic stability or full employment. Several assert the main barriers to the movement are social and structural factors clashing with the implementation of Degrowth measures.

References

1. Nelson, Joel I. “Inequality in America: The Case for Post-Industrial Capitalism.” Research in social stratification and mobility 18 (2001): 39–62. Web.
2. Rosalind Gill, Akane Kanai, Mediating Neoliberal Capitalism: Affect, Subjectivity and Inequality, Journal of Communication, Volume 68, Issue 2, April 2018, Pages 318–326, Web.
3. Campion, Edward W., and Stephen Morrissey. “A Different Model — Medical Care in Cuba.” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 368, no. 4, Massachusetts Medical Society, 2013, pp. 297–99. Web.
4. Wagner, Stephen L. The United States Healthcare System : Overview, Driving Forces, and Outlook for the Future . Health Administration Press, 2021. Web.
5. UNICEF. Date accessed: November 2021. Web. https://data.unicef.org/country/cub/
6. UNICEF. Date accessed: November 2021. Web. https://data.unicef.org/country/usa/#/
7. Easterlin, Richard A. “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence.” Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz, Elsevier Inc, 1974, pp. 89–125. Web.
8. Stevenson, Betsey, and Justin Wolfers. “Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, vol. 2008, no. 1, Brookings Institution, 2008, pp. 1–87. Web.
9. Frank, Robert H. “The Easterlin Paradox Revisited.” Emotion (Washington, D.C.), vol. 12, no. 6, American Psychological Association, 2012, pp. 1188–91. Web.
10. Mentus, Vladimir, and Marko Vladisavljevic. “Easterlin Paradox Revisited: Do Increases in Income Bring Higher Levels of Income Satisfaction?” Sociologija, vol. 63, no. 2, 2021, pp. 220–35. Web.
11. Lynch, Kathleen, and Manolis Kalaitzake. “Affective and Calculative Solidarity: The Impact of Individualism and Neoliberal Capitalism.” European journal of social theory 23.2 (2020): 239. Web.
12. Lynch, Kathleen, and Manolis Kalaitzake. “Affective and Calculative Solidarity: The Impact of Individualism and Neoliberal Capitalism.” European journal of social theory 23.2 (2020): 245. Web.
13. Cudd, Ann E., and Nancy Holmstrom. Capitalism, For and Against : a Feminist Debate . Cambridge University Press, 2011. Web.
14. Kallis, Giorgos, Christian Kerschner, and Joan Martinez-Alier. “The Economics of Degrowth.” Ecological economics 84 (2012): 172–180. Web.
15. Büchs, Milena, and Max Koch. “Challenges for the Degrowth Transition: The Debate About Wellbeing.” Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies 105 (2019): 155–165. Web.
16. Akbulut, Bengi. “Degrowth.” Rethinking Marxism 33.1 (2021): 98–110. Web.
17. Kenneth J. Saltman, and David A. Gabbard. Education as Enforcement: The Militarization and Corporatization of Schools. Taylor and Francis, 2010. Web.