Post-growth economics
The Economy That Was Never Supposed to Stop Growing
Every government on earth is chasing the same number — GDP growth — and almost none of them have asked whether that chase has an ending.
The Idea
GDP growth has a strange place in modern life: it functions less like a policy choice and more like a law of nature. Governments rise and fall on it. Central banks are organised around it. The implicit promise of modern capitalism is that the economy will be larger next year than it was this year, indefinitely. But post-growth economists — a serious and growing movement, not a fringe — argue that this assumption contains a flaw so fundamental that we've mostly been too busy to notice it. Physical systems cannot grow forever inside a finite one. The economy is a physical system. Earth is a finite one. The conclusion follows. What's genuinely interesting is not the maths but the history: perpetual growth as a central policy goal is remarkably recent. GDP itself was only invented in the 1930s, and its creator, Simon Kuznets, immediately warned that it should not be used as a measure of welfare. We ignored him. The post-growth argument is not that prosperity is bad, or that living standards should fall. It's more precise than that: growth in throughput — the extraction, processing, and disposal of materials — must eventually plateau or contract, and the question is whether we design that transition deliberately or have it imposed on us. Degrowth, steady-state economics, and doughnut economics are three distinct responses to the same underlying problem, each with different prescriptions about what a good economy looks like when it stops getting bigger.
In the World
In 2019, New Zealand did something no wealthy nation had done before: it passed a Wellbeing Budget. Finance Minister Grant Robertson stood up in parliament and explicitly de-centred GDP, orienting government spending instead around mental health, child poverty, and ecological integrity. It wasn't anti-growth rhetoric — it was a quiet structural shift in what the government was actually trying to achieve. The experiment drew attention precisely because New Zealand is a stable, prosperous democracy, not a nation in crisis reaching for alternatives. It was a signal that the post-growth conversation had moved from academic journals into treasury buildings. Around the same time, the city of Amsterdam adopted Kate Raworth's 'doughnut model' as its official recovery framework after the economic disruption of the pandemic. The model imagines a safe zone for humanity: enough economic activity to meet social needs (the inner ring of the doughnut), but not so much that it overshoots ecological limits (the outer ring). Amsterdam's city planners used it to redesign everything from housing policy to food supply chains. Neither New Zealand nor Amsterdam has solved the problem. But both cases illustrate something important: the post-growth framework is no longer theoretical. It is being stress-tested in real institutions, by real policymakers, with real budgets — and the results are complicated enough to be genuinely worth watching.
Why It Matters
Most of us relate to the broader economy the way we relate to the weather — as something that happens to us, with moods we can't control. But the post-growth debate is really a debate about what we've decided to optimise for, and whether we've chosen wisely. If growth in material throughput is physically bounded, then the question becomes: which parts of a good life are genuinely dependent on that growth, and which ones aren't? It turns out that beyond a certain threshold of material sufficiency, the things that most reliably produce wellbeing — time, relationships, health, meaning — are not especially resource-intensive. That's not a call to austerity; it's almost the opposite. It's a reframing that separates 'more stuff moving through the economy' from 'life going well.' Engaging with this idea doesn't require you to become a policy advocate. But it does sharpen the way you think about your own financial decisions — what you're actually trying to accumulate, and why — and about the political promises made to you every election cycle in the language of growth.
A Question to Ponder
If the economy you live in stopped growing but became more evenly distributed and less ecologically destructive, would your life be better or worse — and what does your answer reveal about what you're actually depending on growth for?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable