The dependence on growth begins with the economy. Capitalism is by nature expansionary. Businesses, seeking to maximize profits, relentlessly pursue new innovations to lower their costs. As these innovations come online they replace expensive labour. In order to prevent mass unemployment, which is both bad for the economy and a source of social unrest, new industries must be created to absorb displaced workers . If growth stops, or even slows, unemployment rises, and investment and profits decrease. All of which interrupt the circular flow of capital sending the economy spiraling downwards. The liberal democratic state (like Canada), which has developed juxtaposed to capitalism, is equally dependent on growth. Without it, the state could not fund its social welfare programs, such as healthcare, social security, or public universities. Moreover, if unemployment rises, the disgruntled public, who ultimately legitimize the government, will demand change through protest or election. In other words, the public rewards pro-growth policies, and punishes anti-growth policies at the ballot box. The symbiotic relationship that has formed between capitalism, the state and the populace reinforces the growth imperative allowing it to shape and dominate political discourse.
If I asked the question what is growth for? I'd suspect an answer along the line of "to increase prosperity" or "to increase happiness." It does do this to a degree, but just because some growth is good does not mean that more growth is better. Does growth actually make us happier? For someone in abject poverty it can be expected that economic growth will increase their happiness, but what about someone in Canada's middle class? Piles of research suggests that past a surprisingly low income, economic growth does not bring more happiness. What about prosperity, does economic growth actually make us more prosperous? I suppose that too is relative -- There is a solid argument to be made that owning more stuff actually make us less prosperous if it is achieved at the expense of rainforests, or polar bears, or clean air. Although important, the question of 'what is growth for' lays outside the scope of my research. I have included it to illustrate that equating growth to happiness or even prosperity is fallible. For my work, the more pertinent questions include: What happens when the short-term emphasis on growth threatens the long-term stability of society? What role does growth play in shaping and limiting environmental policy? And, do our institutions have the capacity to respond when growth is the problem? The next three entries will address these questions in turn.
If sustainability is truly the goal, and it should be, then we need to put the topic of economic growth on the table. At the moment, growth's false hegemony as the ultimate problem solver makes that seem politically impossible. But I leave you with this: Both capitalism and the state are human inventions, they weren't designed by a supreme being or an invisible hand, they were, and continue to be socially constructed. It is wrong to think that they can't be deconstructed.
With the growth primer out of the way, I will begin to really flesh out my research topic. If you have lasted this long, thank you, I think it will start to get more interesting. Tomorrow's topic: economic growth and ecological decline
Until next time.
