What is Degrowth?: Ffrom an activist slogan to a social movement

Federico Demariaª*, François Schneiderª, Filka Sekulovaª, Joan Martinez-Alierª

* Corresponding author: [email protected] ª Research & Degrowth (R&D) and ICTA, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Federico Demariaª*, François Schneiderª, Filka Sekulovaª*, Joan Martinez-Alierª * Corresponding author: [email protected] ª Research & Degrowth (R&D) and ICTA, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). Abstract

Degrowth is a slogan, a missile word. The intention is to engage into a contentious diagnosis and a prognosis of our society. “Degrowth” launched in the political arena by activists in 2001 quickly became an interpretative frame for a new social movement where. different streams of critical ideas and political action converge. Furthermore degrowthit is an example of activist-led science, as it is now consolidating into a concept in academic literature. The article discusses the origins, evolution, practices and contested construction of degrowth in France,. First it describes how the movement developed in France, Italy and Spain. Second Iit presents the main intellectual sources and from which the movement draws inspiration. Degrowth is grounded in a variety of areas such as ecology, criticism of development, anti-utilitarianism, meaning of life, ecological economics, democracy and social justice. it showsThird it presents the variety of strategies and practices concerning theorisation, dissemination, oppositional activism, building of alternatives and political proposals. It discusses the actors of the movement’s actors:, paying attention to practitioners, activists and scientists. TheFinally it draws some conclusions on the movement’s diversity that does not detract from the existence of a common purpose..

Keywords: economic degrowth, social movements, activist-led science, political strategies

I. Introduction

As a project of voluntary societal shrinking of production and consumption for social justice and ecological sustainability, degrowth (“décroissance” in French) was launched into the political arena by activists and intellectuals at the beginning of the 21th century. It quickly became a slogan against economic growth (Bernard et al. 2003) and a diversified social movement. TStarting from this, the present article offers a short history of degrowth and offers a comprehensive description of its currents currents of thought and strategies of action, showing demostrating its transformation into a social movement. Finally this will enable us to improve the basic definition of degrowth. While the concept of sustainable development is based on a false consensus (Hornborg, 2009), degrowth does not aspire to be adopted as a common goal by the OECD or the European Commission. The idea of socially sustainable degrowth (Schneider, 2010a), or simply degrowth, was born as a proposal for a radical change. The contemporary context of neo-liberal capitalism appeared -at least until the economic crisis of 2008- as a post-political condition, meaning a political formation that forecloses the political and prevents the politicization of particular demands (Swyngedouw, 2007). Within this context, degrowth is an attempt to re-politicize the debate about the much needed socio- ecological transition or metamorphosis, trying in order to affirm an alternative representation of the world while as well as affirming its dissidence with the current representations. For instance, degrowth confronts development, the unquestioned consensus that economic growth represents progress. The universal goal of uniform development, in its Western sense, was not open to debate until the writings of Arturo Escobar, Wolfgang Sachs and others in the 1980s. Development was presented as the only possible path, an hegemonic concept and politics (Rist, 2008). We could say the same fromDegrowth also challanges other ideologies that degrowth challenges likesuch as “green growth”, and the belief that economic growth continuously improves well-being, resource availability, democracy, and justice. Degrowth confronts dominant paradigms in social sciences, such as neoclassical economics, but is not a paradigm in the Kuhn’s sense, as “universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of researchers" (Kuhn, 1962: x). However, building from on the steps of Herman Daly’s “steady state economy”, a new ecological macroeconomics without growth is being developed (Victor, 2008; Jackson, 2011). There is a confluence with degrowth, and it might be that a new paradigm in economics finally takes root. This has not happened yet. The degrowth movement in France and Italy finds support in Georgescu-Roegen (Herman Daly’s mentor) but also, as we shall see, with on many other authors who do not belong to ecological economics. Some refer to degrowth as an ideology, as a 'system of ideas and values'. However this position remains too simplistic, or at least premature, to explain the heterogeneity of sources and strategies of degrowth. We shallwill show that degrowth is a comprehensive vision and set of ideas constituted by concerns, goals, strategies and actions. Degrowth, with in its 21st century meaning, as introduced by activists who perceived it as a voluntary societal reduction of production and consumption, quickly became an interpretative frame for a new social movement. Social movement, here, is meant as a mechanism through which actors engage in collective action. In particular degrowth actors are involved in conflictive relations with clearly identified opponents, linked by dense informal networks and sharing a distinct collective identity (Della Porta and Diani, 2006). Enemies of cars and advertisements, or supporters of cyclist and pedestrian rights, partisans of organic agriculture, critics of urban sprawl, friends of solar energy, sponsors of local currencies, have started seeing degrowth as an appropriate common representative frame of their world view. After Since 2001, degrowth has become a drainage basin where different streams of critical ideas and political action have converged. Starting as an innovative activist slogan, degrowth became an interpretative frame that enabled a politicization through the two framing tasks of diagnosis and prognosis. The diagnosis mobilized multiple sources (or streams of thought) and the prognosis multiple strategies engageding a wide range of actors. These processes will be described in detail. The degrowth frame has been able to mobilize people concerned with the limits of the present growth paradigm. The possibility of degrowth becoming a concept that aidshelps the inceptionbirth of a new socio-economic paradigm will also be discussed. In what follows, Section II we first considers in Section II how social movement theory which can be considered relevant to the emergence of degrowth. Section III presents the history of degrowth as a notion and social movement, and Ssections IV and V propose a comprehensive description of its currents of thought and strategies of action, in order to reach a common definition of degrowth. Section VI draws the conclusions.

II. Theoretical framework: a new social movement

The present article traces the rise of degrowth as a social movement, which requires its contextualization in the emerging literature on new social movements. Goffman (1974) studies social movements using the concept of frames. These enable individuals to locate, perceive, identify and label events that they experience (Snow et al. 1986). Interpretative frames generalize a given problem or individual life experience and produce new definitions, demonstrating its link and relevance with wider processes, events and conditions of other social groups. The framing process is in fact one of politicization, composed by two main dimensions: diagnostic and prognostic (Della Porta and Diani, 2006). Below we extensively present the two processes and discuss their relevance for degrowth. The diagnosis aims to identify the causes of a social problem. When people argue in favour of degrowth and against economic growth and even against development, they defend their interpretation of specific issues while confronting dominant representations. Degrowth as an interpretative frame diagnoses that disparate social phenomena, such as the social and environmental crises, have a dominant cause: economic growth. In fact degrowth actors are signifying agents engaged in the production of alternative and contentious meanings different from the ones defended by more institutionalized establishment actors such as mass media, politicians, economics professors and bank CEOs. The first propose degrowth as a means to promote ecological sustainability and social equity, while the second set of actors (with very few exceptions) argue in favour of economic growth with, supposedly, the same aims. Pro-growth actors, for example, argue that we need economic growth to get out of the current crisis, while degrowth actors identify the economic system based on debt-fuelled growth as the main culprit. The sources onby which degrowth builds its diagnosis are presented in Section IV. The prognosis, usually characterized by a strong utopian dimension, seeks solutions and hypothesizes new social patterns. Beyond practical goals, this process opens new spaces and prospects for action, bringing sometimes aims and objectives which the dominant culture tends to discard. The strategies associated with the prognosis tend to be multiple, and within a certain range of approaches like rejectionist, alternatives and reformist (Anheir et al. 2001). The strategies which lead to degrowth are described in section V. Although emerging as a social movement, degrowth entered the political (Dupin, 2009) as well as the scientific (or academic) domains. It has been quoted and analysed by French and Italian politicians and many renowned newspapers like Le Monde and El Pais.1 Yves Cochet, a French Green politician, a former minister, openly defends economic degrowth against other members of the same party. President Sarkozy spoke publicly spoke “pour le nucléaire et contrea la décroissance” in April 2011 (Le Monde, 7/4/11). Even the Financial Times disparagingly mentioned degrowth in 20112 (Caldwell, 2011). Special issues or articles have been published in academic journals on the movement for economic degrowth and its contributions (Fournier, 2008; Kallis et al., 2010; Martinez-Alier et al., 2011). The topic has also been mentioned (favourably) in theone prestigious academic journal, Nature (Victor, 2010).

III. A short history of degrowth

This section focuses on the movement history of the movement in the countries where degrowth emerged was started and has established itself such as France, Italy and Spain. Primary information was collected via ‘participant observation’ and ‘observing participation’ (Cattaneo, 2006; D’Alisa et al., 2010)3. The authors have been involved with the degrowth movement since the early days, particularly François SchneiderAUTHOR XXX. In this sense, the article is a by-product of the authors’ involvement in the movement This ensures an insider point of view and access to a vast amount of documentation collected since 20004.

The term Some of the ideas behind degrowth ideas have been part of philosophical debates for centuries. We can probably trace the sources of degrowth back towith the ancient Greeks and the critics of hubris. The

1 On a brief count, Le Monde published 186, El Pais 5 and La Repubblica 4 articles on the Degrowth movement (not all in favour) from January to October 2011. 2 Caldwell, Christopher. (15/10/2011). Décroissance: how the French counter capitalism. Financial Times. 3 This method stresses the participative role of the observer and the fact that the resulting observations emerge from the reflective ability of the participant. In this vein, the motivation of the participant is activism and the academic outcome is a by-product of this activism. 4 The authors are presently members of ‘Research & Degrowth’ which is an academic association dedicated to research, training, awareness raising and events organization. Most notably R&D promotes the International Conferences on Degrowth (Paris 2008, Barcelona 2010 and two scheduled in 2012, Montreal and Venice). word 'Décroissance' (French for degrowth) appeared for the first time in 1972the 1970s (Gorz, 19725 , and was mentioned several times (Gorz,1977; Amar, 1973; Georgescu-Roegen, 1979) in the follow-up of the Meadows report to the Club of Rome ('in ‘The limits to growth’'). In 1982 a conference was organized in Montreal with the title Les enjeux de la décroissance (the challenges of degrowth), but the word was used as a synonym of economic recession. However Décroissance only became an activist slogan in France from 2001, in Italy from 2004 (as 'Decrescita') and, in Catalonia and Spain from 2006 (as 'Decreixement' and 'Decrecimiento'). The English term 'degrowth' gotreceived academic acceptance at the first Degrowth conference in Paris in 2008, which also marks the initiation of degrowth as a research area and an international civil society debate.

France In France, the term Décroissance was in the air for quite some time without being central in the intellectual debates, nor in social movements. The social movement started in Lyon in the follow-up of actions for car-free cities, meals in the streets, food cooperatives and anti-advertising (in the journal Casseurs de pub, french “adbusters”) and the deeper debate was launched in the beginning of 2002 with a special issue of the ecologist magazine Silence: Ecology, Alternatives et Non-violence, edited by Vincent Cheynet and Bruno Clémentin. The same year the conference Défaire le développement, refaire le monde (Unmake development, remake the world) took place at UNESCO in Paris. Also in 2002The same year Pierre Rabhi and his supporters developed a political program for the French elections that included the idea of degrowth. In 2004 degrowth entered into the public debate. The monthly magazine La Décroissance, le journal de la joie de vivre wasis launched, selling today around 30.000 copies. The same year François SchneiderAUTHOR XXX, co-author of this article, activist, and researcher in industrial ecology, undertook a tour of France with a donkey for more than one year, popularising the idea through numerous public debates. The tour ended up in Nevers, Magny-Cours (a motor racing circuit) with over five-hundred marchers. Since then other marches have been organized and a number of local degrowth groups emerged . Some attempts have also been made to engage politically have a political engagement in a more traditional way, through a party or political

5 “The global equilibrium, for which no-growth – even degrowth-- of material production is a necessary condition, is it compatible with the survival of the (capitalist) system?” M. Bosquet ((aka Andrée Gorz), Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 397, 19th June 1972, p. IV. Proceedings from a public debatemeeting around ‘Ecology and Revolution’organized in Paris by the Club du Nouvel Observateur with Sicco Mansholt (president of the European Commission), Herbert Marcuse, Edmond Maire, Michel Bosquet (André Gorz), Edgar Morin, Edward Goldsmith and Philippe Saint-Marc. In this debate, where “décroissance” made its début begindébut, Edgar Morin rightly criticized the notion of “ecological equilibrium” that Mansholt and Gorz were using. T, but this is not the point here. movement, . This rebut remained very marginal. As perusual in th the French tradition, the intellectual debate has been very rich leading to numerous publications, withsuch as the review journal Entropia (two issues per year), founded in 2006, as a referentce, and giving rise to Serge Latouche as the best- known writer. Latouche is not onlyalso well known in France but also in Italy and Spain. Other intellectuals have joined the degrowth camp. Dominique Bourg andor Jacques Généreux for example were strong opponents of economic degrowth fromat the beginning and later became fervent defenders of it.. The debate on décroissance in France has now reached a large part of the population and social movements, and it often appears in the press. Mainstream politicians have felt they must react to the idea of degrowth, mainly to take distance from it, either in its dismissal or misinterpretation to dismiss it or to misinterpret it (for instance, as being a movement against improving the situation of poor people)6. In that way, however, they have very much helped to spreading of the debate.

Italy In Italy, a Rete per la decrescita (Network foron degrowth, www.decrescita.it) was founded in 2004 by a group of activists and intellectuals with a background in solidarity economy, criticism of development, anti-utilitarism and bio-economics. Leading characters are the bioeconomist Mauro Bonaiuti (a biographer of Georgescu-Roegen), the ex-advertiser and activist Dalma Domeneghini and the sociologist Marco Deriu. The group engages with theorisation and divulgationdivulging degrowth. Their main focus is the collective reflection on the complexity of the socio-cultural dynamics and the linkages with the current system of production and consumption. Seminars, conferences and a summer school are organized regularly, while several books and a review called 'La Decrescita' have been published. The 'Movement for happy degrowth', lead by Maurizio Pallante, is also very active especially in promoting good practices. The latter has gained more popularity due to an more accessible and simple discourse. A wide variety of groups have so far joined the debate, ranging from progressive Catholics to Marxists and Anarchists. .Many other collectives oriented towards degrowth have also emerged, including those interested in entering parliamentary politics (such as the recentss 'Costituente ecologista' and `Uniti, ma diversi`) or the more innovative proposal of `Rigenerazioni` for a non- electoral political formation.

6 President Sarkozy addressing his party, UMP, on 28th of November 2009, accused the Verts (Greens) to be in favour of degrowth. « Quand j'entends nos écologistes parfois dire qu'ils vont faire campagne sur le thème de la décroissance, est-ce qu'ils savent qu'il y a du chômage? Est-ce qu'ils savent qu'il y a de la misère dans le monde? Est-ce qu'ils savent qu'il y a près d'un milliard de gens qui ne mangent pas à leur faim et que la décroissance ça veut dire plus de misère pour tous ces gens-là ? ». “When sometimes I hear our environmentalists say they are going to campaign on the theme of degrowth, do they know that there is unemployment? Do they know that there is poverty in the world? Do they know that there are nearly a billion people who do not eat their fill and that degrowth means more poverty for all those people?” Spain In Spain, the movement started in Catalonia and its capital, Barcelona. Since 2005 activists had been debating online about the energy crisis and potential alternatives (via www.crisisenergetica.org). In 2006 the French book ('Objectif décroissance') was translated into Catalan and the environmental organization 'Una sola terra' organized a conference called “Degrowth to save the planet”. One year later, the group 'Entesa pel decreixement' was founded in Barcelona (www.decreixement.net) with many of its members active in the anti-globalization movement, as well as in environmentalist, pacifist and libertarian collectives. In 2008 a march and information tour was organized which eventually brought 300 three hundred people together and led to the creation of the Xarxa pel Decreixement (Network for degrowth) aiming to promote degrowth discourse and practices in Catalonia. Partly influenced by the left-libertarian movements with a focus on autonomy and self-management, the Catalan degrowth movement has strong ties with other social movements and practices based on anti- capitalism. Degrowth in Spain and Catalonia is also often endorsed as a baseline by groups working on water, energy, infrastructure, and climate change, agro-ecology, solidarity economy, education and awareness-raising7. Experienced activists and writers like Stefano Puddu, Oriol Lleira and Giorgio Monsagini helped to bring the debate in other domains, like international cooperation NGOs or political parties (i.e. Ciutadans pel Canvi, PSC; Fundació Nous Horitzons, ICV). Many other groups are now active throughout Spain (www.decrecimiento.info). Carlos Taibo is the best known academic and activist writer based in Madrid. The degrowthSome big civil society organizations have slogan is also officially supported by thethe slogan, such as the large Spanish network of environmental organizations Ecologistas en Acción (www.ecologistasenaccion.org), and the trade union CGT. The movement has also penetrated the academia, especially particularly with a group of researchers of the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, including Joan Martinez Alier and Giorgios Kallis (see their letter in defence of degrowth in the Financial Times, 22 Ooctober 2011), and also from other universities such as Joaquim Sempere. The movement has been spreading. with groups and activities emerging in Belgium, Switzerland, Greece, Germany, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Mexico, Brasil, Puerto Rico, Poland and Canada. For example, more than fifty groups from many countries the whole world organized a Pic-Nic for Degrowth in 20108. In Berlin, for example, a conference on “post-Wachstum”, or post-growth, was

7 Sseee the documentary ‘Homage to Catalonia II’ (available in English) by Joana Conill, Manuel Castells and Àlex Ruiz, www.homenatgeacatalunyaii.org.

8 picnic4degrowth.net organized by ATTAC in May 2011, which included lively debates on degrowth with two thousand participants (including many from trade unions).

IV. Sources of Degrowth

While degrowth is particularly rich in its meaningssignifications, it does not embrace a single philosophical current. Its thematic backbone can be situated in some existing philosophical currents. Following Flipo (2007) we refer to these as degrowth sources. Degrowth can thus be placed at the junction of several sources or streams of thought which cross each other without being in competition and without diverging (Bayon et al. 2010). The sources bring methodologies and values together and constitute possible tracks forof interpreting degrowth. Below we identify six sources, which will be explaineded in turn. The attribution of authors to a specific source is somewhat artificial, as no author is related to only one source.

Ecology This source firstly implies perceiving ecosystems as having value in and of themselves, and not only as useful resources, but . It implies a different relation to nature. The ecological source of degrowth is not only based on an accounting approach. Degrowth entails a different relation to nature, where humans and industrial systems are not at the centre and dominating nature but rather living with it as many cultures before have done. Secondly, this source stresses the competition between ecosystems and the industrial production and consumption systems. There are a large number of reports on the rapidly deteriorating state of global ecosystems and world climate resulting from the expanding emission and waste flows, and expanding industrial system. As the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) shows, 60% of world ecosystems have been degraded, 33% of the soils desertified, and the speed of species extinction has increased hundreds of times. An absolute decoupling between industrial expansion and ecological destruction (an overall improvement of the ecological configurations while production and consumption increase) has not been observed yet and it is very unlikely to take place. . Degrowth, emerges as a possible, and but overlooked, path to preserve ecosystems which requires a reduction of human pressure over ecosystems and nature, and an alternative to the idea of decoupling of ecological impacts from economic growth. This transition however can be done in many ways: through, challenging resource-intensive institutions, by accepting nature's intrinsic value and right to exist, or adopting a “res communis” strategy. The res communis approach means that environmental goods are common, or shared, so that appropriation by a single individual is avoided, as opposed to a “res nullius” approach where resources belong to no one and can be freely destroyed and stolen. Strategy-wise, “res-communis” implies an integration of humans in nature, while “rights of nature” might come to mean a rearguard action to preserve what remains and create areas for ecosystems regeneration.

Critics to development and anti-utilitarianism This source of degrowth comes from anthropology. Authors within this stream perceive Degrowth as a “missile word”, which strikes and awakensdown the hegemonic imaginary of both development and utilitarism. Latouche has been an important author in this stream of thoughtlinking these two critics. Critics of development were are authors such like Francois Partant, Arturo Escobar, Gilbert Rist, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Majid Rahnema, Wolfgang Sachs, Ashish Nandy, Shiv Visvanathan, Debal Deb, Gustavo Esteva (Sachs 1992). Its antecedents can be found in the writings of Jacques Ellul, François Partant, Bernard Charbonneau, and Ivan Illich. The essence of this source of the degrowth movement is the critique to the uniformization of cultures due to the widespread adoption of particular technologies and of consumption and production models experienced in the global North. As Latouche (2009) puts it, the western development model is a mental construct adopted by the rest of the world. Critics of uniform development can be traced back to many movements opposing colonization, including those opposing the economic adjustment models of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. For some of the authors degrowth is a profound criticism of development and a call to disentangle ourselves from the societal imaginary that it entails. Others, in the line of the ecological economist Herman Daly (in the field of ecological economics), share the critique of the type of development that comes from mainstream economic organizations sincein the line of the which can be traced back is related to President Truman’s speech in 1949 preaching a global development towards western's lifestyles and,, everywhere and, later, Rostow’s uniform stages of economic growth.. The other face of this source of the degrowth movement is the critique of homo-economicus, againstand to the idea of utility-maximization as the ultimate driving force of human behavior, as inspired by Marcel Mauss in the 1920s, and Serge Latouche, Alain Caillé and other members of the MAUSS (Mouvement Aanti-uUtilitariste dans les Ssciences Ssociales) in the last thirty years (Mauss, 1924; Caillé, 1989). This movement has arguedbeen arguing against the dominating overwhelming influence of markets on human relations and society, known as the ”commodification of human relations”. OAnother relevant authors often quoted are is the social and economic historian Karl Polanyi (1944), and the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins (1972)in the 1970s, whose idea of an “original affluent society” where necessities could be covered with little work became very well known in France after it was published in Les Temps Modernes. The conception of human beings as economic agents driven by self interest and utility maximization is one representation of the world, or one historic social construct withhich which many generations of students of economics have been indoctrinated. .. Degrowth in that sense calls for more ample visions giving importance to the economic relations based on gifts and reciprocity, where social links relations and conviviality are centralat the centre. The fundamental idea lying behind this source of degrowth is the change in the structure of values and the change in value-articulating institutions. Degrowth is thus a way to bring forward a new imaginary which implies a change of culture and, a rediscovery of human identity which is disentangled from economic representations. On a side note, some followers of Marx have arguedbeen arguing that Degrowth does not explicitly or sufficiently position itself against capitalism. Some orthodox Marxists currents themselves embrace the idea that consumer goods (which are products of capitalism itself) should be widely and easily accessible. Therefore these streamscurrents of Marxism remain linked to productivism where the primary objective is maximizing production and growth (Altvater, 1993). Other interpretations of Marx, related to critiquecs of work like the school of Frankfurt (Postone, 2009; Jappe, 2003), neo- marxists like David Harvey or eco-socialists like Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy, are more in line with degrowth. At last, a few Marxists have recently started to write in favour of degrowth (Bontempelli and Badiale, 2010). . While the eco-marxist J B Foster in the US is strongly against degrowth (Foster, 2011), the journal Capitalism, Nature, Socialism has edited a special issue favourable to degrowth in 2012.

Meaning of life and well-being This source of degrowth flows from psychology and spirituality. Its essence is in the widespread loss of the meaning of life in the modern societies “”addicted” to growth. It is a critique of life-styles that entangled inare based on the mantras of working more, earning more and, selling more. This source stresses the need for an inner revolution to accompany which accompanies the transformations required in the outer world, by searching for harmony with nature and people rather than through accumulating material worth seeking more goods and higher position and status. The “meaning of life” source of degrowth comes from the search for coherence and unity between contradictorying social roles, such as between an employee, a consumer or a producer while maintaininghaving ethical beliefs in social and environmental justice; or between the need for conviviality/nature and the search for a well-paid job. Within this source of inspiration for Degrowth we can draw from also place some of the authors inof happiness economics, and specifically the ones finding a disassociation between income increase and satisfaction with life over time, a phenomenon known as the Easterlin Paradox (Easterlin 1974), or between the increasing importance of materialism in one’s life and lack of happiness (Kasser 2002). The movement for voluntary simplicity, seeing simple life as liberating and granting profoundness to human lives rather restraining and limiting, is partly inspired by this degrowth source (Mongeau, 1985). Schumacher with in his apology of “enoughness” is an important author for this source (Schumacher, 1973). Schumacher quoted from Gandhi’s economist, Kumarappa’s Economy of Permanence. In India, the notion of aparigraha, sufficiency, self-restraint in consumption, is still very much alive in some circles amidst the economic boom. Apart fromOther authors here are Mahatma Gandhi and Gandhians, other authors appreciated by this stream of thought arePierre Rabhi , Henry David Thoreau and, Pierre Rabhi.

Bioeconomics Ecological economics and industrial ecology are also sources of degrowth. The dissident economist Georgescu-Roegen preferred the word “bioeconomics” to ecological economics, but most ecological economists are followers of Georgescu-Roegen9. This school of thought stresses the importance of resources and sinks availability for future generations. Here we identify two main viewssions, which inspire and underlie degrowth. One is the vision of Georgescu- Roegen’s view on entropy andor the irreversible decrease of fossil fuels and other materialsresource availability (Bonaiuti, 2011). Alternatively Odum (2001) defends that the use of natural resources will always reach a peak and afterwards decline to allow their regeneration. For Georgescu human activity transforms energy and materials of low entropy or good quality into waste and pollution which are unusable and have high-entropy. Taking into account that the amount of stocks of fossil fuels and natural resources available in the earth crust is limited and their availability is decreasing, recycling it into high-quality material is not viable. Energy is dissipated and materials can be recycled only to a limited extent because the full recycling process it is too energy- intensive. Even the inflow of low-entropy solar energy is limited in the sense that it falls in a dispersed fashion on the earth. Degrowth is thus needed in order to slow down the process of material degradation.

9 In a fax to Paul Samuelson of 14 December 1992 where he complained about the silence about his work (a copy has been made available to us by Professor John Gowdy), Georgescu-Roegen wrote: "I welcomed the opportunity to reveal how much of a doomsayer I was in the small volume with an outrageous title, Démain la décroissance (Paris, Pierre-Marcel Fabvre, 1979)...". See also Levallois, 2010. The bioeconomic arguments for degrowth, including peak oil10, are more concrete and more easily understood than anthropological and cultural ones and thus more often put upfront in academic and political debate. Ecological economists have long appealed to the economic writings of Frederick Soddy in the 1920s (1926) (Soddy, 1926; Daly, 1980, Martinez-Alier, 1987). The financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent following years,and the power of “debtocracy”, has revived interest in Soddy who stressed that the financial system confuses expansion of credit for the creation of real wealth, while the real economy of energy and materials cannot grow at the interest rate necessary to pay off debts. As Georgescu and Odum explain, the available natural resources are actually decreasingreducing. The increase of private or public debts is thus the perfect recipe for economic crises. Jevons’s paradox or the rebound effect is one important principle in industrial ecology (Polimeli et al., 2008). Gains in eco-efficiency are sometimes translated into increased consumption because costs have decreased. Thus, we must discard the assumption that increases in monetary wealth can be endlessly maintained with the help of material and energy-efficient technologies. Savings in energy and materials may be reinvested in new material and energy acquisitions, offsetting the reduction of material and energy use associated with the more efficient technologies and services.

Democracy The next source for the degrowth movement springs from the calls for increased democratic measuresa deepermore democracy (Deriu, 2008; Asara and Kallis, this issue). Degrowth is thus a response to the lack of democratic debates on economic development, growth, technological innovation and advancement. Within this source we find conflicting positions between the ones who defend present democratic institutions considering the risks of losing what we have, and the ones who demand completely new institutions based on direct and participativedeepparticipatory democracy. The latter defend that more growth implies more work, more division of labour, stronger nation-states and less direct and participativeparticipatory democracy. Some of the key writers within this source for degrowth are Ivan Illich and Jacques Ellul. As Illich (1973) puts it, past a given threshold technology can no longer be controlled by people. Visually this means that we cannot go faster than a given speed limit without slowing down others. For Illich only when keeping the technological system below a given multidimensional threshold can we make democracy feasible. Following Illich concept of radical monopoly, although new techniques might seem to increase our range of choices and freedoms they end up reducing them by erasing the possibility of not using these new techniques. Ellul, on the other

10 In a nutshell Hubbert’sthe theory of peak oil implies that there is a maximum level of oil resource extraction after which production begins to fall, and both energy costs and prices increase. hand, did one of the most profound studies on technology. He describes technique as a system that grows without democratic feedback and follows a path of its own. Thus in order to challenge techniques, which Ellul perceiveds as autonomous and self-augmenting, we need to have feedback external to the technical system, by means of improving democracy (Ellul, 1977). Castoriadis is another key author for dDegrowth within this stream. He defended the idea of self-institutionalizing society, and that democracy can only exist by and with self-limitation (Castoriadis 1985).

Justice Justice in all its forms (economic, social and environmental) and time-lines (intra-generational and inter-generational) is the last, but not least, source of the degrowth movement. As Paul Aries assertsputs it, the first degrowth should be the degrowth of inequalities. The basic assertion is that if western society used less natural resources and wealth was equally distributed, misery could be overcome and equality would be feasible (Research & Degrowth, 2010). According to the Le Monde journalist Herve Kempf, influenced by Veblen (1899), social comparison, through the existence and promotion of the rich lifestyle, has been largely responsibility for social and environmental crises (Kempf, 2007). Justice is thus not understood as generalizing rich countries lifestyles. JDegrowth for justice means for the degrowth mocomvement not only dematerialisation on a world scale, but also a sizeable reduction of the scale of western economies in order to avoid a rebound effect and enable a prosperous subsistence model in the South. Resource and wealth redistribution are key for degrowth, both withinin and between North and South economies. the rich or south economies and between the North and the South. This point is often misunderstood by those who see population as the central issue. They seem to ignore the difference between the lifestyle of an artisan fisher in India and a banker in New York (or Mumbai).. Here we can mention the popular notion that only economic growth can improve the conditions of the poor people on the planet. This assumption, defended by Sala-i-Martin (Snowdon, 2006) is grounded in two hypotheses: the trickle-down effect, meaning that growth allows the transfer of a small fraction of wealth to the poor; and the impossibility of a voluntary reduction of wealth. For Sala-i- Martin there is a lock-in: when redistribution is excluded, the trickle-down is the only possibility. Facing these positions, Degrowth defends redistribution or sharing at the large scale, as well as the idea that excessive incomes can be reduced. We shall should we go back to other satisfactors for our needs in the sense of Max-Neef (2001) The degrowth popular literature, for example, has a large number of ‘downshifters’ stories, or people who decide to give up on their high incomes and opt for frugality. In terms of environmental justice, the increase of social metabolism led by economic growth expands the flows of energy and materials in the world economy causing more and more conflicts on resource extraction and waste disposal (Martinez-Alier, 2002; Demaria, 2010). Currently, Tthe main waste disposal conflict is arguably excessive production of carbon dioxide and climate change. Emissions of carbon dioxide per capita are extremely unequal in the world, historically and atnd present. The increased social metabolism has given rise to a movement calling for environmental justice around the world where spontaneous movements and environmental justice organizations (with their networks and coalitions across borders) resist extractive industries and complain against pollution and climate change. The struggles for environmental justice in the North are part of Degrowth while those in the South, together with the alternative proposals that emerge from them like post-extractivism or Buen Vivir (in Latin America), constitute important allies (Martinez-Alier, 2010). Another important idea behind the idea of justice is the challenge to the world of competition between humans, against social Darwinism. This brings us to feminism, anti-racism, no violence, even open borders, the idea of justice and solidarity between all individuals on the planet against the world of competition.

Discussion This overview of streams of thought that have flowed into the river of the degrowth movement is not exhaustive. Feminism, political ecology, and non violence (including the critique of militarism), radical neo-Malthusianism (Ronsin, 1980, Martinez-Alier and Masjuan, 2005), Masjuan, 1990) and open borders positions, must also be taken into account. The point which needs to be stressed however is the diversity of arguments which can be deployed to argue in favour of degrowth. Degrowth makes sense when all sources are taken into account and combined. Taken independently from each other, they can lead to incomplete projects if not the promotion of economic growth itself (i.e. green growth). The diversity within the concept of degrowth is not limited to the concerns and questions which it raises and tackles. It is actually a pre-condition for a diversity of strategies and actors involved in its deliberation and implementation. This will be demonstrated can be seen in the next section.

V. Degrowth strategies and actors

As discussed earlier, if it was not activists who coined the term ‘degrowth’, but they were however the ones who promoted it as a slogan for voluntary societal change. The degrowth sloganmotto has evolved into a frame combining a range of sources. Each of these, however, can inspire a different range of action strategies at the local, global and interin-between levels. The degrowth frame provided a diagnosis where the sources could relate to everyday life of degrowth actors but also to the abstract work of intellectuals, outside or inside academia. Their action strategies vary from opposition, alternatives building and reformism from the local to the global levels. Among the first promoters we find grass-root activists developing opposition, and practitioners developing alternatives outside or within existing institutions. Some of them call for a complete challenge of the existing institutions, others call for their transformation or partial conservation. This can also happen on local or higher level and involve political engagement and academic research. These combination of different actors under the degrowth umbrella has not gone without conflicts. Below we analyse why these conflicts occur and why they have been beneficial.

Opposition strategy Degrowth actors are often engaged in oppositional activism, such as the campaigners working to stop the expansion of developmental infrastructures of transport (i.e. highways, airports, high speed trains), waste management (i.e. incinerators), water management (i.e. big dams and interlinking of rivers) and, energy production (i.e. nuclear plants, agrofuels). Opposition takes different forms: demonstrations, boycotts, civil disobedience, direct action and even protest songs. Creativity and innovation are often employed in this strategy. A good illustration of opposition in the financial sector are the actions of the Catalan activist Enric Duran, who in September 2008, publicly announced that he had 'robbed' nearly half-million Euro by legally receivingasking for relatively small loanscredits from several Spanish banks which he hasd no intention to returning, as a political action to denounce what he termed the ‘predatory capitalist system’. One The purpose was to denounce the unsustainability of the collapsing credit system. Duran, referring to the creation of money as debt, declared that “if the banks can create money from nothing, “I'll make them disappear in nothingness”. From 2006 to 2008, Duran financed various anti-capitalist movements, including magazines printed in several hundred thousand copies focusing on the energy crisis (i.e. peak oil), critics of money as debt, and presenting concrete alternatives for an solidary economy of solidarity..

Alternatives building Practitioners on the other hand promote local, decentralized, small scale and participatory alternatives such as cycling, car-sharing, reuse, co-housing, agro-ecology, consumer cooperatives, alternativealternatinve(so called ethic) banks or credit cooperatives, solar panels or wind mills installations. This is the “nowtopia” of Chris Carlsson (2008), developing now alternatives outside present institutions. Some actors developing alternatives argue that the focus of attention should be the individual, the change of her or his values and behaviours. This has to do with the lifestyle and people that, led by the idea of living better with less, practice voluntary simplicity, downshifting and slowing down life's pace. For example, much attention is given to how conscious critical consumption can promote transformation, at both individual and social level. They fight against ‘consumer blindness’ trying to know the origins of the commodities they buy. Moreover, Iif less time is spent to working and consuminge, more can be dedicated to other activities which are fundamental for one’s well- being (social relations, political participation, physical exercise, spirituality and contemplation,) and potentially less environmentally harmful. We find 'extremes' of people living without most of modern comforts (such as electricity) mainly relying on self-production. Magazines such Opcions (Options) in Catalonia and Altraeconomia (Other-economy) in Italy aim at facilitating the alternatives to present consumption for the general public, both raising awareness and presenting alternativesother options. In Italy the Centro per un Nuovo Modello di Sviluppo (Center for a New Development Model) publishes a book titled Guida al consumo critico (Guide to Critical Consumption) which reviews well known most common enterprises firms and products under different criteria such as environmental, health and labour conditions. Enric Duran and associates have developed the project of a Catalan Integral Cooperative (CIC). The CIC11 is based on economic and political self-management with egalitarian participation of its members and ' attemptstries to include ways of satisfying all basic human needs, also creating a local currency (the 'ECOS').

Reformism: Preserving some existing institutions Reformism is the belief that changes will come with actions within existing institutions. It is certainly the most controversial strategy. Degrowth implies an important transformation of society because we are, in the words of Latouche, not only based oin a growth economy but oin a growth society. However it is interesting to note that many actors oppose or challenge some institutions but only propose reforms for others. For example many radical organic farmers or activists still organise their lives around cars and computers. Furthermore some institutions actually need to be defended like social security and public health. One very strong debate, as we have seen, is the one on the type of democratic system. On one hand we might have to defend the democratic institutions put at risks with the crisis and at the same time support the development of deeper, more participative and direct ones.

financial Research Finally, for Martinez-Alier et al., (20110) degrowth is actually an example of activist-led science. As they Martinez-Alier puts it: “Degrowth is not based on iconic writings. It is a social movement born from experiences of co-housing, squatting, neo-ruralism, reclaiming the streets, alternative energies, waste prevention and recycling.” Activist knowledge refers to all kinds of experience-based notions

11 cooperativa.ecoxarxes.cat originating from community groups, civil society, women‘s groups, trade unions, grassroots associations and so on (CECEEC, 2010). In sustainability studies, as in other disciplines, the knowledge gained from grassroots experience and activism has led to the creation of new concepts, like the ecological debt, climate debt or corporate accountability (Martinez Alier, 2002, Simms, 2005). Thus, Via Campesina, for instance, introduced the concept of “food sovereignty”. These concepts are sometimes taken up, refined and redefined by academics. The reverse also happens, where academic concepts are taken up by civil society activism. Close mutual relationships between science and activism can thus be found which sometimes reach the policy arena with concrete proposals (Martinez- Alier et al, 2011). The authors of this paper are an example of combination of activism and research actually involved to different degrees as participants in the degrowth movement and at the same time reflecting on it. This could be called “observing participation”.(Catanneo, 2006). Degrowth, launched by activists, has entered a few years ago into the research agenda of official academia. As explained above, the international conferences on economic degrowth for ecological sustainability and social equity in Paris 200812 and Barcelona 201013, have been attracteding hundreds of researchers scientists from more than forty thirty different countries. The Barcelona conference aimed at creating cooperative research by bringing together scientists, practitioners (workers from trade unions, local council politicians, ecological farmers) and activists together. The event deviated from the standard model of academic conference organization and used some of the practical direct democracy techniques, used in more practical settings. The conference spread out in thirty working groups to elaborate, discuss and develop concrete policy proposals and research priorities in different areas such as money, work, infrastructure, advertising, natural resources and, housing.

Acting on different scales: local, national, global The degrowth movement is also concerned with the appropriate scale of action and there is consciousness awareness that action must be taken at all levels. CThe controversy has risen regardings what should be thetake priority. Most activities take place at the local scale, often articulated through informal and formal networks. Transition towns14 (UK), Rete del Nuovo Municipio15 (Italy) and Comuni Virtuosi16 (Italy) are a good example for urban focused approachescities, even though degrowth networks exist also nationally and

12 http://events.it-sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/en/ 13 www.degrowth.eu 14 www.transitionnetwork.org 15 www.nuovomunicipio.org 16 www.comunivirtuosi.org regionally17. An informal network is also consolidating at the international level around events like the International Degrowth Conferences. The most consolidated networks are issue specific (agroecology or solidarity economy networks), but degrowth -being a frame- offers the potential of creating a network of networks (i.e. Redes en Red18) including activists, practitioners, politicians and scientists. The groups within the Catalan “Xarxca pel Decreixement”, for example,do not have a common discourse or long-term common strategy, thus groups have a high level of autonomy and apply a diversity of strategies. Yet the network has been a laboratory of projects such as complementary currencies, groups of action on inclusive democracy and the integral cooperative which was discussed earlier. Even though networking is at the center of degrowth, the movement is still far from being able to coordinate necessary actions at the national or globalworld scale in order to reduce absolute consumption of energy and materials. What would happen to a nation that might independentlyseparately undertake degrowth policies? Can degrowth alternatives be built in a social context that focuses in general focusing on economic growth and ‘debt-fuelled’ capitalism? Here the open questions have also to do with the appropriate political institutions that might support back the implementation of certain policies. It remains unclear how the socio-ecological transformation might actually take place at higher scales and what institutions should be involved. For example, those proposing direct democracy based on assemblies or the project of Inclusive Democracy (Fotopoulos, 1997) never convincingly clarify how to go beyond the municipal level of organization. Perhaps, following Murray Bookchin, a confederation of municipal entities could take up the administrative roles of a state no longer focusing on economic growth. This is a view congenial to many in the degrowth movement. The issue of scale becomes unavoidable especially as it leads for what concerns institutions which leads to one of the most arduous debates among dDegrowth supporters; among those who propose to preserve, oppose or transform existing institutions ones, or to create new ones. The debate also considersregards whether this should be done in the current state governance system or not. Some defend a traditional anarchist perspective in favour of completely erasing the state while others believe the state should be kept and improved. However in some cases revolutionary positions can live together with reformist ones. For example, proposals to set-up new institutions in a context of direct democracy which replace the current ones are

17 Some examples are: in Italy Rete per la Decrescita; in France Réseau des Objecteurs de Croissance pour l’Après- Développement; in Switzerland Réseau Objection de Croissance.

18 redesenred.net compatible with the defence and reform of some of the existing institutions. Establishing a basic citizens’ income, the elimination of virtual money (or money not 100% backed 100 per cent by deposits or real materials), and the protection and strengthening of the commons, can all be thought of as reform of the current institutions which go beyond reforms that consolidate the system. Again, the nature of the institutions generate complex questions arise such as: How to preserve social security in a dDegrowth context? How should health and education be reformed? How would a basic income be implemented? Here the debate has to go further not only to find agreements within the movement on what it advocates for, but especially on how it would actually implement the proposals Another debate is : how much degrowth? Which is the final objective, in economic and biophysical terms? Some argue in favour of a steady state economy, as proposed by Herman Daly but with some declining sectors and some growing sectors. It remains unclear whether this would this still be a capitalist economy and society, as both André Gorz (1972) and Tim Jackson (2011) asked. Tim Jackson advises his readers not to fight over words. Capitalist or not, we need and we cannot afford (ecologically and socially) more economic growth in rich countries. Degrowth partisans, however, are not going to be reconciled easily with this pragmatic recommendation not to fight over the word ‘capitalism’..

Discussion The debates and controversies over the strategies within the Degrowth movement are alivehighly charged. The strategies of opposition and the radical proposals from activists are often in conflict with the practitioners promoting alternatives, and with the researchers bringing only a diagnostic. In the world of politics the strategy of opposition is the revolutionary stance which opposes which opposes to the reformist position. What we try to illustrate above, however, is the high potentials for compatibility among the strategies used by the movement. The challenges faced by our societies are so wide that diversity is an indispensable source of richness, as long as participants they are conscious of the limitations of their activities and humble enough to remain open to constructive criticism and improvements. Actually this same tension, and probably tensions among multiple strategies, can be one of the forces by which to keep creativity and diversity alive as long as a communication channels remains open. In general, within the movement, there are two different approaches: 'learn by doing' and 'think before you do'. The first privileges practical action centered in the learning by doing and scaling up from the local to the global, from the individual to the society. The second focuses more on the theoretical reflection analyzing past experiences and discussing pros and cons beforehand. The two approaches can co-exist, and some efforts have been made to establish spaces of exchange, like the international conferences, to profit from each other experience and knowledge. Following this line, the reciprocal mistrust can be left on a side. Anyone could hardly prove to be doing it right or better. The compatibility between some of the strategies can best be analysed and understood if a short-term versus long-term timescale is considered horizon is taken. The movement has an urgent pending task: to elaborate a transition path in rich societies from the actual crisis of economic growth to degrowth. Under this perspective strategies can be combined along a defined timescale time horizon to shape scenarios. People employing the opposition strategy challenge 'development' on the ground, stopping harmful projects and generating fundamental public debates. Scientists and intellectuals dedicate most of their efforts to the struggle of ideas, opening up new imaginaries. Practitioners experiment in everyday life new possibilities at both individual and collective level. Degrowth activists and policy makers, engaged at larger scale, contribute to the societal adjustment to the actions of practitioners and local activists (Schneider, 2010b). All together challenge the hegemony, with barricades or words, while imaging and building alternatives. All make an effort to involve more and more people. The aActual success story of degrowth success story in reality, in the media, and in academia and in society would must mean that so far there has been there is a good coalition of strategies. Finally, one might ask why we can observe so many conflicts between the different strategies. One possible answer is that people often associate with a single strategy which they identify as 'correct', believing that success will be manifested only if it manages to impose itself to the other ones., This isas perhaps the inheritance in the left of a Leninist past. Another answer could be that the justice source has not been understood well by all the actors and that we remain, in a pointless competition for a scarse resource. It might also be due to lack of support between those that have a foot in the state or private enterprise institutions and those that are involved in opposition or alternatives strategies. Understanding that all actors are important might help to change the situation.

THE CONCLUSION HAS BEEN EDITED! NO TOUCH... VI. Conclusions

The article has presented, discussed and analyzed the history of the Ddegrowth movement. We argue that the term degrowth, tentatively launched by scholar-activists and picked up by activists and practitioners from 2000 onwards, has now became an interpretative frame of a social movement. The originality of dDegrowth emerges from its power to articulate different sources, streams of thought and strategies, bringing together a vast heterogeneous group of actors. The sources, strategies or political proposals it puts forward are often not new, but their juxtaposition and combination is innovative and coherent. The classification of sources presented in this article is functional for analytical purposes but should not be seen as implying hermetic compartments. Instead it highlights the different foci of attention embraced by different writers authors or actors, depending on their social, cultural or political background. Further elaboration is needed on the gender dimensions of dDegrowth. Thus, the first and strongest critiques of GDP accounting came from feminist economics, allied to ecological economics (Waring, 1988). Feminist environmentalism (Agarwal, 1992) emphasized the gendered practical and cultural values of nature,outside the market. The variety of sources facilitates a variety of strategies associated with dDegrowth. This has led to many debates. Yet, we argue in favour of their compatibility and complementarity for two reasons. First, they do not necessarily dismiss each other and can rather be combined if we take a longer time horizon. Second, the diversity maintains a sort of tension which stimulates constructive debates and exchanges, thus offering an incentive for continuous improvements both at the theoretical and practical levels. Therefore the differences and conflicts, differences and struggles within should be recognized and valued as forces that keep the movement open and alive in its continuous evolution. There is no ‘Central Committee’ or Politbureau which will decide in favour of one strategy, against all the others. Instead the movement engages into a trial and error process combining the approaches like theof ‘think before you do’ and ‘learning by doing’. Therefore the complementarity persist as the focus is cast as much and perhaps more on the process is emphasized as much or pethaps more than on the final results. Efforts should be devoted for understanding the complementarities, rather that falling into endless destructive conflicts. Focusing on one aspect only brings failure as each approach and solution alone is incomplete. Focusing only on voluntary simplicity, or alternatives energies, or organic agriculture, or only on challenging economic structures and monetary reform, is the recipe for failure. Similarly if we only focus on reducing consumption this would just lead to excess production and crisis, while focusing only on reducing production would bring ill tempered shortages. Neglecting redistribution would leave out one of the important reason for dDegrowth in the first place. On the other hand when different isolated proposals are combined, as perhaps we managed to do in the Barcelona declaration, coherence begins to appear while the debate always remains alive. We notice also emphasize that dDegrowth is also an example of an activist-led science, where an activist slogan is slowly consolidating into a concept that can be analyzed in an academic mode. This is useful because dDegrowth as a concept articulates a large number of sources and debates on the proposed strategies. There is much to be analysed. The heterogeneity within degrowth is not only complementary but actually a sign ource of richness without undermining the robustness of the concept. In sum, on the one side, Degrowthdegrowth can be a concept of bioeconomics or an ecological macroeconomics without growth (Jackson, 2011) but it can also be a completely non-economic concept. It can be a call to question the omnipresence of market-based relations in society (Polanyi’s generalized market system), as well as the imposition and multiplication of western/northern lifestyles, consumerism and life-visions on the rest of the world. It is a critical revision of the concept of development used without much thought by the United Nations agencies and mainstream economic organizations since the late 1940s. Degrowth also comes from the need for lighter lifestyles and voluntary simplicity, for gaining back the opportunity to perform the activities which give more meaning to one's life. Degrowth in the richer countries is also reasoned on the need for more equality in society and worldwide,among the present generation and towards future generations. It can be born from respect for other forms of life, apart from humans, perhaps accepting the “biophilia” hypothesis. On the other hand, taking a social metabolic perspective, Degrowthdegrowth (as a decrease in energy and materials used) must happen due to the existence of physical constraints, like shortage of natural resources and extraction peaks for a series of raw materials (such as oil, phosphates or metals) and limits of the ecosystem’s assimilative capacity. Certainly, so-called natural capital cannot be substituted by human-made capital (Georgescu-Roegen’s fallacy of endless substitution, 1975). Degrowth is also a call for deeper democracy, also on issues which are outside the present mainstream democratic domain, such as technology.

To conclude, ssocially sustainable degrowth is a voluntary societal downscaling of production and consumption to enhance ecological conditions, to allow simple life and improve human well-being, for relations that are not market-based, for more democracy, to reduce the pressure on resources and sinks, and for social justice and cooperation. Degrowth is a social movement that combines strategies of opposition, alternatives and reformism at the individual, local, and global levels.

Acknowledgements: We are grateful to all the ‘Research & Degrowth’ group in Barcelona for the long and convivial discussions. We also owe much to activists, and practitioners and writers devoted to Degrowth without much recognition as it often happens to pioneers. We thank Sheryle Carlson for the language editing. Federico Demaria This paper contributes to received financial support from the project CSO2010- 21979 (Social Metabolism and Environmental Conflicts) and the European FP7 project RESPONDER..

REFERENCES

REFERENCES Agarwal, B., 1992. The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies, 18(1): 119-158. Altvater, E., 1993. The Future of the Market. London: Verso. Amar, A., 1973 (Sep-Nov). La croissance et le problème moral. Cahiers de la Nef, « Les objecteurs de croissance », n° 52, p.133. Anheier, H., M. Glasius, M. Kaldor. 2001. Introducing Global Civil Society, in H. Anheier, M. Glasius, M. Kaldor (ed.), Global Civil Society 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–22. Badiale, M., M., Bontempelli, 2010. Marx e la decrescita, Perché la decrescita ha bisogno del pensiero di Marx. Trieste: Asterios Editore. Bayon, D., F. Flipo, F. Schneider, 2010. La décroissance, 10 questions pour comprendre et en débattre. Paris: La Découverte Bernard, M., V. Cheynet, B. Clémentin (ed.) 2003. Objectif decroissance. Lyon, France: Parangon/Vs. Bonaiuti, M. 2011. From Bioeconomics to Degrowth. London: Routledge. Caillé, A., 1989. Critique de la raison utilitaire – Manifeste du Mauss. Paris: La Découverte. Carlsson, C., 2008. Nowtopia: How Pirate Programmers, Outlaw Bicyclists and Vacant-lot Gardeners Are Inventing the Future Today. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Castoriadis, C., 1998. The Imaginary Institution of Society. Cambridge: MIT Press. Cattaneo, C., 2006. Investigating neorurals and squatters' lifestyles: personal and epistemological insights on participant observation and on the logic of ethnographic investigation. Athenea Digital 10: 16–40. CEECEC (Civil Society Engagement with Ecological Economics). 2010. Handbook, Ecological Economics from the Bottom-Up. www.ceecec.net/handbook D´Alisa, G., D. Burgalassi, H. Healy, M. Walter. 2010. Conflict in Campania: Waste emergency or crisis of democracy. Journal of Ecological Economics 70: 239-249. Daly, H., 1980. The economic thought of Frederick Soddy. History of Political Economy 12 (4): 469– 488. Della Porta, D., M., Diani. 2006. Social Movements: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Demaria, F. 2010. Shipbreaking at Alang-Sosiya (India): an ecological distribution conflict. Journal of Ecological Economics 70: 250-260. Deriu, M. 2008. Degrowth and democracy. Towards a post-developmentalist politics, in F. Flipo, F. Schneider (ed). Proceedings of the First Conference for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity. Paris: Research & Degrowth and Telecom Sud-Paris. Dupin, E., 2009. La décroissance, une idée qui chemine sous la récession. Le Monde Diplomatique, August 2009, pp 20-21. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? In P.A. David and W. Readers, (ed.), Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honous of Moses Abramovitz. New York: Academic Press Inc. Ellul J., 1977. Le Système technicien. Paris: Calmann-Lévy. Flipo, F, 2007. Voyage dans la galaxie décroissante. Mouvements, 50 (2): 143-151. Flipo F, Schneider F, (ed.). Proceedings of the First Conference for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity. Paris: Research & Degrowth, Telecom Sud-Paris; 2008. http://events.it- sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/en/ Foster, J.B. 2011. Capitalism and Degrowth: An Impossibility Theorem. Monthly Review 62 (8). Fotopoulos, T., 1997. Towards an Inclusive Democracy – The Crisis of the Growth Economy and the Need for a New Liberatory Project. London: Cassell. Fournier, V. 2008. Escaping from the economy: the politics of degrowth. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 28 (11/12): 528 – 545. Georgescu-Roegen N. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Georgescu-Roegen N., 1975. Energy and Economic myths. Southern Economic Journal, 41(3). Georgescu-Roegen N., 1979. Demain la décroissance : entropie-écologie-économie, preface and translation by Ivo Rens and Jacques Grinevald. Lausanne : Pierre-Marcel Favre. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gorz, A., 1977. Écologie et liberté. Paris : Galilée. Hornborg, A., 2009. Zero-Sum World. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3-4): 237- 262. Illich, I., 1973. Tools for Conviviality. London: Calder and Boyars. Jackson, T. 2011. Prosperity without growth. Economics for a finite planet. London: Earthscan. Jappe, A., 2003. Les aventures de la marchandise. Pour une nouvelle critique de la valeur. Paris: Denoël. Kallis, G., F. Schneider, J. Martinez-Alier (ed.). 2010. Growth, Recession or Degrowth for Sustainability and Equity? Special Issue, Journal of Cleaner Production 6(18): 511-606. Kasser, T., 2002. The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge MIT Press. Kempf, H., 2007. Comment les riches détruisent la planète. Paris: Seuil. Krueger, R., D. Gibbs. Sustainable Capitalism or Capitalist Sustainabilities? New York: Guilford Press. Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Third Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Latouche, S. 2009. Farewell to Growth. Cambridge. Polity. Levallois, C. 2010. Can de-growth be considered a policy option? A historical note on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and the Club of Rome. Ecological Economics 69 (11): 2271-2278. Martinez-Alier, J. 1987. Ecological Economics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Martinez-Alier, J. 2002. The environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Martinez-Alier, J., E. Masjuan, 2005. Neomalthusianism in the early 20th Century. http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/Neo-malthusianism.pdf Martinez-Alier, J., Healy, H., Temper, L., Walter, M., Rodriguez-Labajos, B., Gerber, J-F., Conde, M. 2011. Between Science and activism. Local Environment 16 (1): 17-36. Mauss M. 2007 (1924). Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés archaïques. Paris: PUF. Max-Neef, M., S. Kumar. 1991. How much is enough? London: Phil Shepherd Production. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Living Beyond Our Means : Natural Assets and Human Well- Being. Mongeau, S., 1985 La simplicité volontaire. Montréal: Editions Québec/Amérique. Norberg-Hodge H., 1999. The March of the Monoculture. The Ecologist 29(3): 194-197. Odum, H.T., E.C. Odum, 2001. The Prosperous Way Down. Boulder, US: University Press of Colorado. Partant, F., 1997. La fin du développement – la naissance d’une alternative ? Paris: Actes Sud. Polanyi, K., 1944. The great transformation. New York: Rinehart. Polimeni, JM, K. Mayumi, M. Giampietro, B. Alcott. 2008. The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements. London: Earthscan. Postone, M., 2009. Temps, travail et domination sociale. Paris: Editions de Minuit. Rabhi P. 1983. Du Sahara aux Cevennes. Paris: Albin Michel. Rahnema, M. 2003. Quand la misère chasse la pauvreté. Paris: Fayard/Actes Sud. Research & Degrowth, 2010. Degrowth Declaration of the Paris 2008 conference, Journal of Cleaner Production 6(18): 523–524. Rist, G. 2003. The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith. Expanded Edition, London: Zed Books. Ronsin, F., 1980. La grève des ventres. Propagande neo-malthusienne et baisse de la natalite en France 19-20 siècles. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne. Sachs, W. (ed.), 1992. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Books. Sahlins, M., 1972. Stone Age Economics. Aldine.

Schneider, F., J. Martinez-Alier, G. Kallis, 2011. Sustainable Degrowth, Journal of Industrial Ecology 15: 654–656. Schumacher, E.F., 1973. Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered. London: Blond & Briggs. Simms, A. 2005. Ecological debt. The health of the planet and the wealth of nations. London: Pluto Press. Snow, D., B. Rochford, S. Worden, R. Benford. 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51 (4): 464–481. Snowdon, B. 2006. The Enduring Elixir of Economic Growth: Xavier Sala-i-Martin on the wealth and poverty of nations. World economics 1(7): 106. Soddy, F., 1926. Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt. The solution of the economic paradox. London: George Allen & Unwin. Swyngedouw, E. 2007. Impossible/Undesirable Sustainability and the Post-Political Condition, in: J.G. Krueger and D. Gibbs (ed.), The Sustainable Development Paradox (New York: Guilford Press), pp . 13-40. Veblen, T.B., 1899. The theory of the leisure class. Republished in 2008 by Forgotten Books, www.forgottenbooks.org. Victor, P., 2008. Managing Without Growth: Slower by Design, Not Disaster. Chelthenam: Edward Elgar. Victor, P., 2010. Questioning economic growth. Nature 468: 370–371. Waring, M., 1988. If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. San Francisco: Harper & Row.REFERENCES Agarwal, B., 1992. The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies, 18(1): 119-158.

Altvater, E., 1993. The Future of the Market. London: Verso. Amar, A., 1973 (Sep-Nov). La croissance et le problème moral. Cahiers de la Nef, « Les objecteurs de croissance », n° 52, p.133. Anheier, H., M. Glasius, M. Kaldor. 2001. Introducing Global Civil Society, in H. Anheier, M. Glasius, M. Kaldor (ed.), Global Civil Society 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–22.

Badiale, M., M., Bontempelli, 2010. Marx e la decrescita, Perché la decrescita ha bisogno del pensiero di Marx. Trieste: Asterios Editore.

Bayon, D., F. Flipo, F. Schneider, 2010. La décroissance, 10 questions pour comprendre et en débattre. Paris: La Découverte

Bernard, M., V. Cheynet, B. Clémentin (ed.) 2003. Objectif decroissance. Lyon, France: Parangon/Vs.

Bonaiuti, M. 2011. From Bioeconomics to Degrowth. London: Routledge.

Caillé, A., 1989. Critique de la raison utilitaire – Manifeste du Mauss. Paris: La Découverte. Carlsson, C., 2008. Nowtopia: How Pirate Programmers, Outlaw Bicyclists and Vacant-lot Gardeners Are Inventing the Future Today. Oakland, CA: AK Press.

Castoriadis, C., 1998. The Imaginary Institution of Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Cattaneo, C., 2006. Investigating neorurals and squatters' lifestyles: personal and epistemological insights on participant observation and on the logic of ethnographic investigation. Athenea Digital 10: 16–40.

CEECEC (Civil Society Engagement with Ecological Economics). 2010. Handbook, Ecological Economics from the Bottom-Up. www.ceecec.net/handbook

D´Alisa, G., D. Burgalassi, H. Healy, M. Walter. 2010. Conflict in Campania: Waste emergency or crisis of democracy. Journal of Ecological Economics 70: 239-249.

Daly, H., 1980. The economic thought of Frederick Soddy. History of Political Economy 12 (4): 469– 488.

Della Porta, D., M., Diani. 2006. Social Movements: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Demaria, F. 2010. Shipbreaking at Alang-Sosiya (India): an ecological distribution conflict. Journal of Ecological Economics 70: 250-260.

Deriu, M. 2008. Degrowth and democracy. Towards a post-developmentalist politics, in F. Flipo, F. Schneider (ed). Proceedings of the First Conference for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity. Paris: Research & Degrowth and Telecom Sud-Paris.

Dupin, E., 2009. La décroissance, une idée qui chemine sous la récession. Le Monde Diplomatique, August 2009, pp 20-21.

Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? In P.A. David and W. Readers, (ed.), Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honous of Moses Abramovitz. New York: Academic Press Inc.

Ellul J., 1977. Le Système technicien. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.

Flipo, F, 2007. Voyage dans la galaxie décroissante. Mouvements, 50 (2): 143-151.

Flipo F, Schneider F, (ed.). Proceedings of the First Conference for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity. Paris: Research & Degrowth, Telecom Sud-Paris; 2008. http://events.it- sudparis.eu/degrowthconference/en/

Foster, J.B. 2011. Capitalism and Degrowth: An Impossibility Theorem. Monthly Review 62 (8).

Fotopoulos, T., 1997. Towards an Inclusive Democracy – The Crisis of the Growth Economy and the Need for a New Liberatory Project. London: Cassell.

Fournier, V. 2008. Escaping from the economy: the politics of degrowth. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 28 (11/12): 528 – 545.

Georgescu-Roegen N. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Georgescu-Roegen N., 1975. Energy and Economic myths. Southern Economic Journal, 41(3).

Georgescu-Roegen N., 1979. Demain la décroissance : entropie-écologie-économie, preface and translation by Ivo Rens and Jacques Grinevald. Lausanne : Pierre-Marcel Favre.

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gorz, A., 1977. Écologie et liberté. Paris : Galilée.

Hornborg, A., 2009. Zero-Sum World. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3-4): 237- 262.

Illich, I., 1973. Tools for Conviviality. London: Calder and Boyars.

Jackson, T. 2011. Prosperity without growth. Economics for a finite planet. London: Earthscan.

Jappe, A., 2003. Les aventures de la marchandise. Pour une nouvelle critique de la valeur. Paris: Denoël.

Kallis, G., F. Schneider, J. Martinez-Alier (ed.). 2010. Growth, Recession or Degrowth for Sustainability and Equity? Special Issue, Journal of Cleaner Production 6(18): 511-606.

Kasser, T., 2002. The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge MIT Press.

Kempf, H., 2007. Comment les riches détruisent la planète. Paris: Seuil.

Krueger, R., D. Gibbs. Sustainable Capitalism or Capitalist Sustainabilities? New York: Guilford Press.

Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Third Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Latouche, S. 2009. Farewell to Growth. Cambridge. Polity.

Martinez-Alier, J. 1987. Ecological Economics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Martinez-Alier, J. 2002. The environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Martinez-Alier, J., E. Masjuan, 2005. Neomalthusianism in the early 20th Century. http://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/Neo-malthusianism.pdf Martinez-Alier, J., H. Healy, L. Temper, M. Walter, B. Rodriguez-Labajos, J-F. Gerber, M. Conde, 2011. Between Science and activism. Local Environment 16 (1): 17-36.

Mauss, M. 2007 (1924). Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l'échange dans les sociétés archaïques. Paris: PUF.

Max-Neef, M., S. Kumar. 1991. How much is enough? London: Phil Shepherd Production.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Living Beyond Our Means : Natural Assets and Human Well-Being. Mongeau, S., 1985. La simplicité volontaire. Montréal: Editions Québec/Amérique.

Norberg-Hodge, H., 1999. The March of the Monoculture. The Ecologist 29(3): 194-197.

Odum, H.T., E.C. Odum, 2001. The Prosperous Way Down. Boulder, US: University Press of Colorado.

Partant, F., 1997. La fin du développement – la naissance d’une alternative ? Paris: Actes Sud.

Polanyi, K., 1944. The great transformation. New York: Rinehart.

Polimeni, JM, K. Mayumi, M. Giampietro, B. Alcott. 2008. The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements. London: Earthscan.

Postone, M., 2009. Temps, travail et domination sociale. Paris: Editions de Minuit. Rabhi P. 1983. Du Sahara aux Cevennes. Paris: Albin Michel.

Rahnema, M. 2003. Quand la misère chasse la pauvreté. Paris: Fayard/Actes Sud.

Research & Degrowth, 2010. Degrowth Declaration of the Paris 2008 conference, Journal of Cleaner Production. 6(18): 523–524.

Rist, G. 2003. The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith. Expanded Edition, London: Zed Books.

Ronsin, F., 1980. La grève des ventres. Propagande neo-malthusienne et baisse de la natalite en France 19-20 siècles. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne.

Sachs, W. (ed.), 1992. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Books.

Sahlins, M., 1972. Stone Age Economics. Aldine. Schneider, F. G. Kallis, J. Martinez-Alier, 2010a. Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue,. J. of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 511-518.

Schneider, F. 2010b. Degrowth of Production and Consumption Capacities for social justice, wellbeing and ecological sustainability, Proceedings of the Second conference on Economic Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity, University of Barcelona, 26-29 March 2010, http://www.degrowth.org/fileadmin/content/documents/Proceedings/Schneider.pdf

Schneider, F., J. Martinez-Alier, G. Kallis, 2011. Sustainable Degrowth, Journal of Industrial Ecology 15: 654–656.

Schumacher, E.F., 1973. Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered. London: Blond & Briggs.

Simms, A. 2005. Ecological debt. The health of the planet and the wealth of nations. London: Pluto Press.

Snow, D., B. Rochford, S. Worden, R. Benford. 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51 (4): 464–481.

Snowdon, B. 2006. The Enduring Elixir of Economic Growth: Xavier Sala-i-Martin on the wealth and poverty of nations. World economics 1(7): 106.

Soddy, F., 1926. Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt. The solution of the economic paradox. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Swyngedouw, E. 2007. Impossible/Undesirable Sustainability and the Post-Political Condition, in: J.G. Krueger and D. Gibbs (ed.), The Sustainable Development Paradox (New York: Guilford Press), pp . 13-40.

Veblen, T.B., 1899. The theory of the leisure class. Republished in 2008 by Forgotten Books, www.forgottenbooks.org.

Victor, P., 2008. Managing Without Growth: Slower by Design, Not Disaster. Chelthenam: Edward Elgar.

Victor, P., 2010. Questioning economic growth. Nature 468: 370–371.

Waring, M., 1988. If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. San Francisco: Harper & Row.