The Growth Dilemma and Post-Growth Macroeconomics According to Jackson

🇵🇱 Polski
The Growth Dilemma and Post-Growth Macroeconomics According to Jackson

Economic Growth: The Ontological Foundation of Stability

Modern economics is built on the axiom that prosperity depends on perpetual growth. Tim Jackson exposes this belief as **civilization’s operating system**—an invisible assumption we accept before any debate even begins. Growth is no longer a choice; it has become a prerequisite for fiscal and political stability. This article analyzes how to escape this structural trap by redefining the roles of the state, labor, and money in the age of planetary boundaries.

The Growth Dilemma: An Aporia of Modern Rationality

Jackson defines the **growth dilemma as an aporia**—an unsolvable contradiction. On one hand, growth guarantees employment and debt servicing; on the other, it destroys the biosphere. Hope in *relative decoupling* (decreasing material intensity) is an illusion. Only **absolute decoupling** could save the climate, yet it is blocked by the **rebound effect**: efficiency gains are immediately swallowed by the increased scale of consumption.

This mechanism drives the **iron cage of consumerism**. It stems not from vanity, but from a systemic need to generate demand. **Positional goods** and inequality play a key role here—consumption becomes a defensive strategy in the struggle for status and belonging, making growth a tool for easing social tensions at the expense of the environment.

A New Architecture: Services, Labor, and Investment

Escaping the trap requires a shift toward a model of **entrepreneurship as a service**. Instead of owning a product, we satisfy a function (e.g., mobility instead of a car). Such *servitization* rewards durability and repairability, undermining the model of planned obsolescence. Simultaneously, we must redefine **labor as a form of participation**. In sectors like care or culture, low productivity growth is not a flaw but an advantage—it stabilizes employment without requiring material expansion.

The foundation of these changes lies in **investments understood as long-term commitments**. We must move away from the pursuit of short-term rates of return toward building system resilience and protecting natural capital. This is the most rational allocation of resources, allowing us to avoid the astronomical costs of future climate crises.

The Progressive State: Money and Mechanisms of Commitment

The financial system requires repair: **money must become a social good**, not a commodity used for speculation. While credit creation and interest do not mathematically mandate growth, the current institutional architecture does. Comparing the **Israeli model** (rapid scaling, high inequality) with the **French model** (the state as a long-term architect) shows that stability requires strong public structures capable of sustaining investments with low financial returns.

The **Progressive State** is not a neutral arbiter but a **mechanism of commitment** that protects us from our own short-sightedness. In the era of planetary boundaries, business strategy must evolve: success will not be measured by volume, but by the minimization of regulatory and carbon risk. The companies that survive will be those that trade mass throughput for lasting relationships and services.

Summary

In a world of finite resources, is the pursuit of growth not like trying to build a Tower of Babel that will eventually collapse under its own weight? The time has come to abandon the illusion of limitless development and seek stability in balance before our civilization dissolves into global disorder. We must find value in endurance and the quality of relationships rather than the constant multiplication of capital. This is not just an ethical plea, but a *macroeconomic necessity* for survival.

📄 Full analysis available in PDF

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the growth dilemma described by Tim Jackson?
This is a situation in which economic growth is necessary to maintain social and financial stability, while at the same time destroying the biosphere's resources essential for future survival.
Why is relative decoupling not sufficient for climate protection?
Because despite lower resource consumption per unit of product, the total scale of global production continues to grow, leading to an overall increase in environmental burden.
What role does the iron cage of consumerism play in the system?
It serves as a dynamic stabilization mechanism, artificially boosting demand to maintain employment and the solvency of a system based on credit and constant expansion.
What is the change in the perception of work in the post-growth model?
Work is no longer treated solely as a cost to be minimized, but becomes a form of social participation, building meaning and stabilizing the demand for labor.
Why does social inequality drive the need for growth?
High inequality intensifies competition for status through positional goods, which forces individuals to increase consumption to avoid symbolic exclusion.

Related Questions

Tags: growth dilemma post-growth macroeconomics structural aporia absolute decoupling rebound effect iron cage of consumerism positional goods Baumol's cost disease productivity trap servitization planetary boundaries economic entropy investment as a liability work as participation