Talk:Degrowth

I have edited the first sentence to be more accurate. The original sentence ("Degrowth is an academic and social movement critical of the concept of growth in gross domestic product as a measure of human and economic development") had 8 references, which seems unnecessarily much and in addition, these 8 do not seem like the most representative to describe degrowth and the sentence only mentions GDP growth, which could lead to the common misunderstanding that Global South countries also need to degrow or that it only refers to GDP and not energy or material use.

In order to find more appropriate citations on the definition of degrowth, I looked at the top cited sources on “degrowth” in both Google Scholar and Scopus that specifically tried to define it, and changed the sentence according to them. The new references are:

1) Degrowth: a vocabulary for a new era, G D'Alisa, F Demaria, G Kallis (1561 citations - Google, not in Scopus but included as it is the highest cited in Google)

“The first is the criticism of growth. Next is the criticism of capitalism, a social system that requires and perpetuates growth.”

2) Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue, F Schneider, G Kallis, J Martinez-Alier (1543 Google, 644 Scopus)

“This article reviews the burgeoning emerging literature on sustainable degrowth. This is defined as an equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term.“

3) What is degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement, F Demaria, F Schneider, F Sekulova, (1139 Google, 452 Scopus)

“Generally degrowth challenges the hegemony of growth and calls for a democratically led redistributive downscaling of production and consumption in industrialised countries as a means to achieve environmental sustainability, social justice and well-being.”

The revised sentence is as follows:

"Degrowth is an academic and social movement critical of the hegemony of economic growth perpetuated by capitalism, and calls for an equitable and democratically-led downscaling of production and consumption in industrialised countries as a means to achieve environmental sustainability, social justice and well-being." El-caragol (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The academic article Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis? was just published, and would likely be very useful for improving this article. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it can be integrated in the criticism section. --PJ Geest (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Crossroads why not add it yourself? PJ Geest why say "it can be added" but not do it ?--Wuerzele (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Although very worth including in the critique section, I don't think this Review paper should be included in the overall summary of Degrowth (I tried to remove it, but maybe a refined critique in the intro would be more appropriate than outright removal). The review paper is undergoing intense debate within the Degrowth community and broader ecological economics communities, due to its unfortunately rather crude methodology. The paper and its authors also do not seem to display much familiarity with the Degrowth literature, but that is a personal qualitative observation.

Also, there is an additional review paper on Degrowth published in 2024: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800923003646 Astro Reeves (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2025 and 14 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sintra9 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sintra9 (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The critics seciton in the lead was replaced by a much less reliable source. Ecological Economics is a much more reowned journal with a much higher impact factor then mor ideologically focused journal Capitalism Nature Socialism. The article of Van den Berg also has had a much greater scientific impact, with over 800 citations, compared to a bit more than 100 for Schwartzman. I think the van den Bergh citation in the lead should be restored. The van den bergh source(s) are the most reliable source about criticism about degrowth, so it should be given according weight. PJ Geest (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

And WP:NOTEVERYTHING is not intended to justify the removal of well-structured, well-sourced criticism from a reputable scholar (two studies of van den Bergh wher reduced to one), certainly not if they are very reliable sources. Instead I applied WP:NOTEVERYTHING correclty for the long list of conference dates and locations. PJ Geest (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring that to the lead. I would advocate that rather then have ONE person's perspective in the lead, we ought to summarize the many different criticisms from the Criticism section of the body into that part of the lead. I don't have time for that now, so I'm just lazily saying this. I didn't read Van den Berg, so I'm ASSUMING that he isn't summarizing the field of criticisms of Degrowth, that he is speaking only for himself. Thanks for your other additions! ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Previous version is closer to NPOV. Including one critic's opinion about "agrowth" in the lead is giving undue weight to it and is off-topic, so I have tagged that material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC) EDIT: I have removed the material that is clearly inappropriate for the lead.

Thanks for your input. I will respond later in detail. First, I will conduct a more extensive literature review of criticisms of degrowth. --PJ Geest (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The previous criticism section based on the Schwartzman source was not really based on this source. What was said was not in the source. Only including agrowth was indeed POV. I found a source which cites green growth and agrowth as the main alternatives for degrowth. So citing both alternatives is more neutral. I also tried to summarize the different critical perspectives on degrowth in the lead. --PJ Geest (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The POV tag is not justified. The article just became more neutral. 90% of economists is mainstream economist. Only a small minority is heterodox (of which a small minority publishes research about degrowth). So mainstream views should be included in the lead. The criticism section is based on the most reliable sources available. When the criticism section was based on a source of an obscure journal with a very low impact factor nobody complained. This is telling for the double standard used for sources in this article. You claim there are two paragraphs of criticism in the lead. This is not true. Only one is criticism. Citing alternatives is not criticism, it is just mentioning alternatives exist, without even giving arguments what is better. You say van den Bergh is being sourced multiple times in the lead. But the alternatives section is mainly based on Lehmann source, which is not written by van den Bergh. I can remove the van den Bergh source about agrowth from the lead if it bothers you. By the way you should not give equal weight to every person which ever published about degrowth, you should give more weight to the more reliable sources regardless of who authored them.--PJ Geest (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

By the way in a very small field, it is logical one author can take a large part of the most reliable sources. For example a large part of this article is based on Jason Hickel sources. I think self-published opinions or opinions in gray literature by Hickel should be removed, but text based on his reliable scientific articles can stay if it is in the right balance with the other most reliable sources. --PJ Geest (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The tag is absolutely justified per the reasons stated in my edit summary. The material in the body and especially the lead have become strongly slanted against the topic of the article, and your assertions that "90% of economists is mainstream economist. Only a small minority is heterodox (of which a small minority publishes research about degrowth)" smacks of WP:OR to me.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

It depends of the source and how you calculate it. There are also a lot of variations in how strong heterodox you are. I looked it up and here is what I found: "one in five professional economists belongs to a professional association that might be described as heterodox" & here a source which calculated it for Italy: "a 23 percent share of publications and 14 percent of scholars classified as "heterodox" appear as relatively high figures when compared to other countries.

You stated some arguments in your edit summary. I debunked your arguments and now you don't go into my arguments, you just state again what you earlier said. This is not a constructive discussion. I does not matter the lead has arguments against degrowth. The lead should represent scientific consensus. And a lot of reviews studies criticize the lack of empirical studies in degrowth literature for example. I can make a summary of all these in the lead. Also a lot of arguments which are used in the lead are not only in the sources which are used in the lead, but are repeated in the criticism section by other authors. Furthermore many mainstream economists in high quality media outlets criticize degrowth, I can include more of them in the criticism section if you really want me to. But for the lead I think it is better to summarize the most qualitative sources. --PJ Geest (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

First of all, economists, mainstream to otherwise, are not the only academic sources out there (historians, anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, etc.), so your argument for turning the article into on giant criticism of degrowth based on your assertion that it should only reflect what "mainstream" economists say would indeed be giving undue weight to the views of these economists while excluding everyone else (which is why you want to exclude the economic anthropologist Jason Hickel apparently.) Secondly, just because the topic of an article might fall outside the mainstream doesn't mean it becomes nothing more than a bloated criticism of it. The Antinatalism article is a good example. It's about as far from the mainstream as you can get, yet it has a relatively small criticism section and no mention of criticism in the lead.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that only economists should be cited. My point is that we should give proportionate weight to the most reliable and influential sources across all relevant disciplines, while placing more emphasis on data-driven analyses and systematic reviews where available.

Regarding Jason Hickel: I am not proposing to exclude him because of his discipline, but to distinguish between his peer-reviewed research in reputable journals (which should remain) and self-published or primary sources, per WP:RS. This standard applies equally to any author, regardless of whether they are critical or supportive of degrowth.

There is also a methodological difference relevant for WP:DUE. Van den Bergh’s most cited works on degrowth (or other sources in the lead) are often systematic reviews or model-based policy analyses, which synthesise a broad range of studies and provide quantitative scenarios. Hickel’s peer-reviewed publications tend to be more conceptual and normative, focusing on theoretical framing and interpretation of existing data. Hickel’s work is therefore particularly relevant for defining and describing the concept of degrowth, while review-based and model-based studies are more suitable for evaluating and assessing it.

The comparison with Antinatalism is not equivalent. Antinatalism is primarily a philosophical or ideological position, so most criticism is normative rather than methodological. By contrast, degrowth is presented as a research-based socio-economic approach, and much of the criticism in the literature is empirical and methodological. Summarising these widely supported points in the lead is therefore consistent with WP:DUE. --PJ Geest (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Madmad9 says agrowth is not a serious alternative, like how? According to a source I added in the popularity section it is supported by double the amount of scientist compared to scientists which favour degrowth: 42% supported the view that growth can be made compatible with environmental sustainability (“green growth”), 31% preferred to ignore economic growth as a policy objective (“agrowth”), and 17% favoured halting economic growth altogether (“degrowth”). --PJ Geest (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think eco-socialism and eco-anarchism should be in the lead. These are related concepts, not alternatives. Degrowth can be a form of eco-socialism for example or it cannot be a form of it. See for example this source: . There are many possible related concepts which can fall under degrowth bt also under agrowth for example. Related concepts are already in the ecological economics template. Alternatives as green growth and agrowth are 3 clear distinct categories, so usefull in the lead, because it is the main way how to classify degrowth. --PJ Geest (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@User:C.J. Griffin, you have repeatedly reinserted the POV-tag without engaging with the points raised here. This is not in line with Template:POV#When_to_remove. Please either specify here on the talk page the neutrality issues point by point in detail (and go into my arguments raised here above), or remove the tag. If the tagging continues without discussion, I will open a case at WP:DRN (and, if necessary, WP:AN3 for edit warring). --PJ Geest (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The issues remain unchanged from our last discussion. Undue weight is given to critics, especially van den Bergh. For example, the first three paragraphs of the criticism section are all sourced to this individual.C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The POV tag was originally added with concerns about undue weight in the lead. In the lead only one sentence is based only on Van den Bergh and not on other sources. The lead reflects well the criticism discussed further in the article. In the lead both arguments pro-degrowth an critical about degrowth are mentioned in more or less the same amount. But the criticism paragraph in the lead is based on much more reliable sources like systematic reviews. So the issues in the lead have been addressed, and no further objections on the lead have been raised here on the talk page. Your more recent comments instead focus on the criticism section, which is a separate matter.

Van den Bergh is cited in three subsections of the criticism section: one summarizing his general critique, and two focusing on rebound effects and the concept of agrowth. His prominence reflects his position as one of the most cited and influential economists to have published on degrowth (with over 800 citations). Van den Bergh’s 2011 article in Ecological Economics has been cited over 800 times, making it the single most cited paper in the main journal where degrowth research is published. The h-index of Van den Bergh is 98 , more than double that of the main degrowth proponent Jason Hickel . However, the section as a whole is not limited to van den bergh views. It also includes other major critical perspectives, such as a Scientific Reports modelling study (2021), Schwartzman (2012), Naudé (2023), Milanović (2022), Stoknes (2021), and Klein (2020). Per WP:DUE, proportionate weight should be given to the most reliable and influential sources, which explains why Van den Bergh is cited multiple times. That said, if there are additional high-quality reviews or critiques that have not yet been included, I would welcome suggestions.--PJ Geest (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, systematic reviews are generally considered one of the strongest forms of evidence in science. According to a systematic review, almost 90% of the degrowth literature consists of conceptual or opinion papers rather than empirical analysis. This raises questions about the weight given to these sources in the article, as well as about the reliability of citation counts of degrowth proponents in this field, since much of the literature cites within its own network. Commentators such as Noah Smith () have also argued that the degrowth literature tends to cite mainly within its own circle of journals and authors, with relatively little engagement with established research in mainstream economics, ecology, or sociology. By contrast, critics of degrowth often base their arguments on empirical data from these established fields. For these reasons, it may not be justified to argue that the article is “too critical” of degrowth; instead, the current balance could be seen as reflecting the state of the literature, and you could even argue that the article is not critical enough of degrowth. --PJ Geest (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with PJ Geest's comments in the above paragraphs. We describe things as explained in the Best Reliable Sources available that cover the subject. As an unrelated subject example, see Facilitated communication in which nothing in the lead represents it positively. That is a different subject, but if Degrowth is nothing more than simple and positive sounding ideas that few researchers/proponents do the required thought experiments to calculate or approximate how to implement this idea or what the ramifications of implementation are, than it should be described as that. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)