4.4 Article

Challenges for the degrowth transition: The debate about wellbeing

Journal

FUTURES
Volume 105, Issue -, Pages 155-165

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2018.09.002

Keywords

Degrowth; Deliberation; Future Generations; Happiness; Postgrowth; Universal Needs; Wellbeing

Funding

  1. FORMAS (Swedish Research Council FORMAS) project The New Urban Challenge? Models of Sustainable Welfare in Swedish Metropolitan Cities [2016-00340]
  2. EPSRC [EP/J017698/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Formas [2016-00340] Funding Source: Formas

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Degrowth scholars and activists have convincingly argued that degrowth in developed nations will need to be part of a global effort to tackle climate change, and to preserve the conditions for future generations' basic needs satisfaction. However, the barriers to building a broader de growth movement appear to be very entrenched at present. To improve the political feasibility of degrowth it is important to better understand these structural obstacles and develop arguments and strategies to address them. To contribute to the degrowth debate we focus in this paper on current generations in rich countries and their concerns about possible short- to medium term wellbeing outcomes of degrowth. In particular, we highlight the 'growth lock-in' of current societies and how a transition away from this model might therefore affect wellbeing. We also argue that taking the basic human needs framework as a new 'measuring rod' for wellbeing outcomes is suitable for a degrowth context, but likely to clash with people's current expectations of ever improving health and wellbeing outcomes. We propose that deliberative forums on future needs satisfaction can help establish a 'dialogue' between current and future generations which could support cultural shifts on wellbeing thinking which will be much needed for advancing the cause for degrowth.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available