The state and the growth hegemony: prospects for a post-growth society

© 2014 Dr. Peter James FergusonSince the early-1970s, many scientists, economists and activists have warned that there are ecological and social limits to economic growth. This thesis examines why governments remain committed to growth in spite of these concerns and whether and how this commitment might be overcome. It begins by undertaking an immanent critique of the currently dominant concept of economic growth. This reveals that although growth is widely believed to be in the best interests of society, it now generates environmental and social problems that increasingly outweigh its benefits. Second, the historical evolution of the concept of economic growth is examined. It is found that growth only became an overarching goal of governments in the mid-twentieth century, indicating that the commitment to growth is historically contingent and thus significantly less socially embedded than is commonly assumed. Following this, theoretical explanations for the commitment to growth are explored by way of a meta-theoretical critique. Drawing upon dominant state, international relations and international political economy theories, two general sociological explanations of the commitment to growth are developed. Some explanatory shortcomings of these theories and theoretical possibilities for transcending the commitment to growth and also identified. The first explanation, which is derived from liberal theory, finds that the commitment to growth is an expression of actors’ preferences. For liberals, growth is assumed to be the most efficacious means to maximise societal utility, ensure fundamental rights, and thus promote human autonomy. However, given that the costs of growth now often outweigh its benefits, it is argued that continued growth threatens to undermine these core liberal values. The second set of theoretical explanations highlight the functional role performed by growth in avoiding systemic crisis and ensuring state survival. Domestically, this explanation is derived from neo-Marxist systems analysis, which implies that growth is the primary means to manage class conflict. Internationally, neoliberal institutionalism and neorealism are the most applicable theories. The former understands growth to be mandated by a competitive, integrated global economy, whilst the latter sees growth as necessary for maintaining state security in an anarchical international system. However, as growth now threatens to exacerbate class conflict and undermine security by intensifying environmental and social problems, it has become a threat to systemic stability. The thesis then examines dominant ideologies and discourses of growth. This highlights how a hegemonic constellation of neoliberal, sustainable development and neoclassical economics discourses have obfuscated the costs of and limits to growth, and empowered forms of knowledge and being that normalise the commitment to growth. All of these explanations for the commitment to growth indicate that despite being deeply ingrained in existing social understandings and practices, the growth hegemony is not necessarily immutable. However, as overtly challenging the growth hegemony is unlikely to be politically feasible, the final part of the thesis develops a subversive rearticulatory strategy. This enlists theoretical possibilities for transcending the growth hegemony and the emerging discourses of ‘green economy’ and ‘economic security’ to progressively transform dominant understandings of social, environmental and economic progress in a post-growth direction