Degrowth and Green Growth: A Thematically Organized and Annotated Bibliography for Researchers

Introduction

The escalating climate and ecological crises have propelled the debate over the future of economic systems to the forefront of global discourse. At the heart of this debate lie two fundamentally opposed paradigms for achieving a sustainable future: green growth and degrowth. This bibliography provides a curated and thematically organized collection of 100 high-quality academic sources designed to guide researchers, postgraduate students, and policy analysts through the complex intellectual landscape of this critical conversation.

Green growth represents the dominant, mainstream approach, championed by international institutions like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It posits that continued economic growth, as conventionally measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), can be made environmentally sustainable. This is to be achieved through a process of “absolute decoupling,” where technological innovation, resource efficiency, and a shift to green industries allow economic output to rise while environmental impacts and material throughput decline in absolute terms. Green growth is often presented as a “win-win” strategy that can deliver economic prosperity, create “green jobs,” and address environmental challenges without requiring fundamental changes to the market-based economic system.  

In stark opposition, degrowth argues that the pursuit of endless economic growth is the primary driver of ecological breakdown and social inequality. Emerging from a rich intellectual tradition rooted in thermodynamics, ecological economics, and critiques of development, degrowth proposes a planned, equitable, and democratic downscaling of production and consumption in high-income nations. Its goal is not to induce a recession but to reorient the economy toward human well-being, ecological regeneration, and social justice, bringing societal metabolism back within planetary boundaries. This requires a profound transformation of economic and social structures, moving beyond capitalism and its growth imperative.  

The central axis of the debate revolves around the feasibility and empirical evidence for absolute decoupling. While green growth proponents view it as an achievable goal, degrowth scholars dismiss it as a myth, unsupported by historical evidence and undermined by physical limits and systemic rebound effects. This bibliography is structured to illuminate this core conflict and its many dimensions. It begins by presenting a high-level map of the key thinkers and their foundational texts. It then delves into the core tenets of the degrowth and green growth schools of thought, followed by a section dedicated to comparative and critical analyses that bring the two paradigms into direct confrontation. Finally, it expands the scope to include crucial intersectional critiques from feminist and decolonial perspectives, as well as related paradigms like the steady-state and circular economies, which inform and enrich the central debate. By organizing the literature in this manner, this bibliography aims to serve as an indispensable tool for navigating one of the most urgent and consequential intellectual and political challenges of the twenty-first century.  

This table provides a high-level intellectual map for researchers, distinguishing between the foundational thinkers who laid the philosophical and scientific groundwork and the contemporary proponents who are currently shaping the public and academic discourse. It serves as an anchor for navigating the complex ecosystem of ideas and identifying the key protagonists and their seminal works.

---

 

Part I: The Degrowth School of Thought

This part collates sources that define, develop, and defend the degrowth paradigm. It traces its intellectual lineage from foundational biophysical and philosophical critiques of growth to its contemporary articulation as a political, social, and economic project aimed at a just and sustainable transformation. The sources here demonstrate the interdisciplinary nature of degrowth, which draws from thermodynamics, systems dynamics, anthropology, philosophy, and ecological economics to construct a holistic critique of the growth-based economy.

1.1 Foundational and Seminal Texts

The intellectual bedrock of the degrowth movement was laid by thinkers who challenged the core assumptions of neoclassical economics and the viability of perpetual growth. These foundational texts are not merely historical artifacts but are continuously referenced in contemporary debates, providing the scientific and philosophical grounding for the entire school of thought.

1. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674212770
2. Dammann, E. (1979). The future in our hands. Pergamon Press.
3. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674257818
4. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1975). Energy and economic myths. Southern Economic Journal, 41(3), 347–381. https://doi.org/10.2307/1056148
5. Gorz, A. (1980). Ecology as politics. South End Press.
6. Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. Harper & Row. https://archive.org/details/toolsforconvivia00illirich
7. Latouche, S. (2009). Farewell to growth. Polity Press. https://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9780745646173
8. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books. https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limits-to-growth/
9. Odum, H. T. (1971). Environment, power, and society. Wiley-Interscience.
10. Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. Blond & Briggs. https://archive.org/details/smallisbeautiful0000schu_p8w3

1.2 Contemporary Proponents and Theories

In the 21st century, a new generation of scholars has systematized and popularized degrowth, transforming it from a radical critique into a more developed political and economic program. These contemporary proponents have defined the key concepts, provided robust academic syntheses, and connected degrowth to pressing issues of social justice, inequality, and climate breakdown.

11. D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F., & Kallis, G. (Eds.). (2014). Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203796146
12. Dengler, C., & Seebacher, L. M. (2019). What about the global south? Towards a feminist decolonial degrowth approach. Ecological Economics, 157, 246-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.11.018
13. Heikkurinen, P. (Ed.). (2017). Sustainability and peaceful coexistence for the Anthropocene. Routledge.
14. Heikkurinen, P. (2022). Degrowth: An experience of being finite. MayFlyBooks. https://mayflybooks.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Degrowth_An_Experience_of_Being_Finite_ONLINE45-1.pdf
15. Hickel, J. (2020). Less is more: How degrowth will save the world. William Heinemann. https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/315978/less-is-more-by-hickel-jason/9781785152498
16. Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity without growth: Foundations for the economy of tomorrow (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315258958
17. Kallis, G. (2018). Degrowth. Agenda Publishing. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/degrowth/551643BB890451FC2646E7ED13CB1538
18. Kallis, G., Paulson, S., D’Alisa, G., & Demaria, F. (2020). The case for degrowth. Polity Press. https://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9781509535620
19. Kothari, A., Salleh, A., Escobar, A., Demaria, F., & Acosta, A. (Eds.). (2019). Pluriverse: A post-development dictionary. Tulika Books & AuthorsUpFront. https://www.radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/pluriverse/
20. Parrique, T. (2019). The political economy of degrowth (Doctoral dissertation, Clermont Auvergne University). https://theses.hal.science/tel-02499463/
21. Paulson, S. (2017). Degrowth: culture, power and change. Journal of Political Ecology, 24(1), 425-448. https://doi.org/10.2458/v24i1.20882
22. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing. https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/
23. Saitō, K. (2022). Marx in the Anthropocene: Towards the idea of degrowth communism. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108933527
24. Schmelzer, M., Vetter, A., & Vansintjan, A. (2022). The future is degrowth: A guide to a world beyond capitalism. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2936-the-future-is-degrowth
25. Soper, K. (2020). Post-growth living: For an alternative hedonism. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/products/439-post-growth-living
26. Victor, P. A. (2008). Managing without growth: Slower by design, not disaster. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/managing-without-growth-9781849809398.html

 

1.3 Policy Proposals and Practical Applications

Moving from theory to practice, this section presents sources that outline concrete degrowth policies and explore real-world examples. The practical application of degrowth reveals a fundamental tension between its prefigurative, bottom-up ethos (e.g., co-ops, eco-villages) and its transformative, top-down policy proposals (e.g., nationalizing industries, radical tax reform). This strategic dilemma—whether change comes from gradual cultural shifts or radical political transformation—is a central challenge for the movement. The sources below reflect this dual approach, covering both grassroots initiatives and systemic policy frameworks.

27. Alexander, S., & Gleeson, B. (2019). Degrowth in the suburbs: A radical urban imaginary. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3491-3
28. Buch-Hansen, H. (2018). The prerequisites for a degrowth paradigm shift: Insights from critical political economy. Ecological Economics, 146, 157-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.021
29. Burke, M. J. (2020). The a to z of degrowth. https://www.degrowth.info/en/a-to-z-of-degrowth/
30. Cosme, I., Santos, R., & O’Neill, D. W. (2017). Assessing the degrowth discourse: A review and analysis of key arguments. Ecological Economics, 134, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.027
31. D’Alisa, G., & Kallis, G. (2020). Degrowth and the state. Ecological Economics, 169, 106486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106486
32. Domènech, L., March, H., & Saurí, D. (2013). Degrowth initiatives in the urban water sector? A social multi-criteria evaluation of non-conventional water alternatives in Metropolitan Barcelona. Journal of Cleaner Production, 38, 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.020
33. Fitzpatrick, N., Parrique, T., & Cosme, I. (2022). Exploring degrowth policy proposals: A systematic mapping with thematic synthesis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 365, 132764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132764
34. Kallis, G., Kerschner, C., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2012). The economics of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 84, 172-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.017
35. Olk, C., Schneider, C., & Hickel, J. (2023). How to pay for saving the world: Modern Monetary Theory for a degrowth transition. Ecological Economics, 214, 107968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107968
36. Schneider, F., Kallis, G., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 511-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.014
37. Sekulova, F., Kallis, G., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., & Schneider, F. (2013). Degrowth: from theory to practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 38, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.022
38. Victor, P. A. (2012). Growth, degrowth and climate change: A scenario analysis. Ecological Economics, 84, 206-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.013

 

Part II: The Green Growth School of Thought

This part gathers sources that articulate the green growth paradigm, which dominates mainstream policy circles. The paradigm is characterized by technological optimism and a belief in the compatibility of environmental sustainability with the existing economic framework of perpetual growth. The institutional reports from the OECD, World Bank, and UNEP are particularly significant, as they reveal green growth not merely as an economic model but as a political project. This project aims to manage the ecological crisis by co-opting the language of sustainability while proposing solutions—such as market instruments and technological investment—that operate within the existing market framework, thereby avoiding a fundamental challenge to the core tenets of global capitalism.

2.1 Key Institutional Reports

The foundational policy documents from major international organizations are crucial for understanding the official discourse on green growth. These reports define the paradigm, outline its policy frameworks, and institutionalize it as the dominant international approach to sustainable development.

39. Global Green Growth Institute. (2022). Green Growth Index 2022: Measuring performance in achieving SDG targets. GGGI. https://greengrowthindex.gggi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2022-Green-Growth-Index-1.pdf
40. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Towards green growth. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264111318-en
41. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Towards green growth: Monitoring progress: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264111356-en
42. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). OECD environmental outlook to 2050: The consequences of inaction. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264122161-en
43. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2012). A guidebook to the green economy. UN DESA. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/733Guidebook.pdf
44. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2012). Low carbon green growth roadmap for Asia and the Pacific. UNESCAP. https://www.unescap.org/resources/low-carbon-green-growth-roadmap-asia-and-pacific
45. United Nations Environment Programme. (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. UNEP. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=1218&menu=35
46. World Bank. (2012). Inclusive green growth: The pathway to sustainable development. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/6058

2.2 Core Principles: Technology, Efficiency, and Green Jobs

This section details the primary mechanisms through which green growth is intended to be achieved. The central pillar is the decoupling of GDP growth from environmental impacts, driven by technological innovation and efficiency gains. A key political and economic justification for this approach is the promise of “green jobs,” which proponents argue will be created through investments in renewable energy, sustainable infrastructure, and other eco-innovations.

47. Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., & Hémous, D. (2012). The environment and directed technical change. American Economic Review, 102(1), 131-166. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.1.131
48. Aghion, P., Dechezleprêtre, A., Hémous, D., Martin, R., & van Reenen, J. (2016). Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: Evidence from the auto industry. Journal of Political Economy, 124(1), 1-51. https://doi.org/10.1086/684627
49. Barbier, E. B. (2011). The policy challenges for green economy and sustainable economic development. Natural Resources Forum, 35(3), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2011.01397.x
50. Bowen, A., & Fankhauser, S. (2011). The green growth challenge: Does it help? In A. Bowen & S. Fankhauser (Eds.), The green growth challenge: does it help? (pp. 1-14). Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/the-green-growth-challenge-does-it-help/
51. Hallegatte, S., Heal, G., Fay, M., & Treguer, D. (2012). From growth to green growth: A framework. NBER Working Paper, No. 17841. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17841
52. Jacobs, M. (2013). Green growth. In The Oxford handbook of the political economy of the environment. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199765112.013.0017
53. Popp, D., Vona, F., Marin, G., & Chen, Z. (2021). The employment impact of green fiscal push: Evidence from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall 2021, 313-376. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/15985-BPEA-BPEA-FA21_WEB_Popp-et-al.pdf
54. Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817434

 

Part III: The Core of the Debate: Comparative and Critical Analyses

This part brings the two paradigms into direct confrontation, presenting literature that compares them, examines the central decoupling debate, and offers critical appraisals of each. The sources here are crucial for understanding the empirical and theoretical fault lines that define the entire discourse.

3.1 Systematic Reviews and Comparative Studies

Systematic reviews provide a meta-level analysis of the academic landscape, offering researchers a structured overview of the state of the debate. These studies confirm that green growth and degrowth represent two largely isolated fields of research with distinct methodological and theoretical approaches. Green growth research tends to be policy-oriented and empirical, while degrowth research is more theory-driven and philosophical, reflecting a fundamental disagreement on whether sustainability can be achieved within or only beyond the current economic paradigm.

55. Belmonte-Ureña, L. J., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., Vazquez-Brust, D., & Yakovleva, N. (2021). Circular economy, degrowth and green growth as pathways for research on sustainable development goals: A global analysis and future agenda. Ecological Economics, 185, 107050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107050
56. Brand, U. (2012). Green economy–the next oxymoron? No lessons learned from the crisis. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 21(1), 28-32. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.21.1.9
57. Engler, J. O., Kretschmer, M. F., Rathgens, J., Ament, J. A., Huth, T., & von Wehrden, H. (2024). 15 years of degrowth research: A systematic review. Ecological Economics, 218, 108112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108112
58. Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is green growth possible?. New Political Economy, 25(4), 469-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
59. Martinez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F. D., & Zaccai, E. (2010). Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics, 69(9), 1741-1747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.017
60. Polewsky, M., Lamb, W. F., & Minx, J. C. (2024). Degrowth vs. green growth: A computational review and interdisciplinary research agenda. Ecological Economics, 217, 108075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108075
61. Weiss, M., & Cattaneo, C. (2017). Degrowth–Taking stock and reviewing an emerging academic paradigm. Ecological Economics, 137, 220-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.018

 

3.2 The Decoupling Controversy: Evidence and Arguments

The empirical heart of the debate lies in the controversy over decoupling. This section lists sources that directly test the green growth hypothesis. A significant body of literature argues that while relative decoupling is common, there is no empirical evidence for the kind of rapid and permanent absolute decoupling of resource use from GDP growth at a global scale that would be necessary to meet climate targets and respect planetary boundaries.

62. Antal, M., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2016). Green growth and climate change: Conceptual and empirical considerations. Climate Policy, 16(2), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.992002
63. Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Virág, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Brockway, P.,… & Krausmann, F. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part I: bibliometric and conceptual mapping. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6), 063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8429
64. Jackson, T., & Victor, P. A. (2019). Unraveling the claims for (and against) green growth. Science, 366(6468), 950-951. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay0749
65. Parrique, T., Barth, J., Briens, F., Kerschner, C., Kraus-Polk, A., Kuokkanen, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2019). Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau. https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/
66. Vadén, T., Lähde, V., Majava, A., Järvensivu, P., Toivanen, T., & Eronen, J. T. (2020). Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 236-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.016
67. Vogel, J., & Hickel, J. (2023). Is green growth happening? An empirical analysis of achieved versus Paris-compliant CO2–GDP decoupling in high-income countries. The Lancet Planetary Health, 7(9), e759-e769. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00174-2
68. Ward, J. D., Sutton, P. C., Werner, A. D., Costanza, R., Mohr, S. H., & Simmons, C. T. (2016). Is decoupling GDP growth from environmental impact possible?. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0164733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164733
69. Wiedenhofer, D., Virág, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Streeck, J., Pichler, M.,… & Haberl, H. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6), 065003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a

3.3 Critical Appraisals of Degrowth

For a balanced understanding, it is essential to engage with the major criticisms leveled against the degrowth paradigm. These critiques often center on its political unfeasibility, potential for negative social outcomes like unemployment and poverty, adverse impacts on the Global South, and a perceived vagueness in its policy prescriptions.

70. Asara, V., Otero, I., Demaria, F., & Corbera, E. (2015). Socially sustainable degrowth as a social–ecological transformation: repoliticizing sustainability. Sustainability Science, 10(3), 375-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0321-9
71. Foster, J. B. (2011). Capitalism and degrowth: An impossibility theorem. Monthly Review, 62(8), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-062-08-2011-01_2
72. Huber, M. T. (2022). Climate change as class war: Building socialism on a warming planet. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2908-climate-change-as-class-war
73. Lange, S. (2018). Macroeconomics without growth: Sustainable economies in neoclassical, Keynesian and Marxian traditions. Metropolis-Verlag.
74. van den Bergh, J. C. (2011). Environment versus growth—A criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “agrowth”. Ecological Economics, 70(5), 881-890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.11.023

 

3.4 Critical Appraisals of Green Growth

This section balances the previous one with critiques of the dominant green growth paradigm. The central criticism remains the lack of empirical support for the required level of absolute decoupling. Further critiques focus on green growth’s over-reliance on technological optimism, its failure to address the systemic drivers of the ecological crisis (such as consumerism and the accumulation imperative of capitalism), and its vulnerability to rebound effects like the Jevons paradox.

75. Brand, U. (2016). “Green growth” as a new hegemonic discourse of social-ecological transformation. In The Politics of Green Transformations (pp. 52-65). Routledge.
76. Dale, G., Mathai, M. V., & de Oliveira, J. A. P. (Eds.). (2016). Green growth: Ideology, political economy and the alternatives. Zed Books.
77. Jänicke, M. (2012). Green growth: from a growing eco-industry to economic sustainability. Energy Policy, 48, 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.045
78. Pollin, R. (2018). De-growth vs a green new deal. New Left Review, (112), 5-25. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii112/articles/robert-pollin-de-growth-vs-a-green-new-deal
79. Smulders, S., Toman, M., & Withagen, C. (2014). Growth and the environment. In Handbook of environmental and resource economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.
80. Zysman, J., & Huberty, M. (2012). Religion and reality in the search for green growth. Intereconomics, 47(3), 136-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-012-0418-5

---

 

Part IV: Intersectional and Global Perspectives

The debate is increasingly being shaped by crucial critiques that examine the degrowth and green growth paradigms through the lenses of justice, equity, and power. These intersectional perspectives reveal that economic models are never neutral; they have profound distributional and justice implications. Both degrowth and green growth risk reproducing existing power structures—patriarchy, colonialism, and global inequality—if they are not explicitly designed to dismantle them. This transforms the debate from a purely technical one into a fundamentally political one about what kind of transition is just and for whom.

 

4.1 Feminist and Care-Centered Perspectives

Feminist degrowth scholarship critiques the growth paradigm for its reliance on the exploitation of unpaid care and reproductive labor, which is disproportionately performed by women. These sources argue for re-centering the economy around care, social reproduction, and well-being, moving beyond a narrow focus on production and challenging patriarchal structures to ensure a just transition.

81. Akbulut, B. (2022). Feminist degrowth and ecosocial transition. Global Dialogue, 12(2), 24-26. https://globaldialogue.isa-sociology.org/articles/feminist-degrowth-and-ecosocial-transition
82. Dengler, C., & Strunk, B. (2018). The degrowth movement: a feminist degrowth approach. In Routledge handbook of gender and environment (pp. 348-361). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315756318-28
83. Federici, S. (2012). Revolution at point zero: Housework, reproduction, and feminist struggle. PM Press.
84. Barca, S. (2019). The labor of care: A missing dimension in the history of environmental justice. In Routledge handbook of environmental justice (pp. 115-126). Routledge.
85. Paulson, S., D’Alisa, G., & Demaria, F. (2023). Why are feminist perspectives, analyses, and actions vital to degrowth?. Degrowth, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.3389/dgrow.2023.11802

 

4.2 Decolonial Critiques and the Global South

This subsection addresses the argument that the growth paradigm is rooted in colonial histories of extraction and exploitation. Critiques of green growth frame it as a potential form of “green colonialism,” where the Global North’s technological transition relies on continued resource extraction from the South. The complex debate over whether degrowth is a prescription only for the North to create “ecological space” for the South is also central to this literature.

86. Ajl, M. (2021). A people’s green new deal. Pluto Press. https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745341776/a-peoples-green-new-deal/
87. Brand, U., & Wissen, M. (2021). The imperial mode of living: Everyday life and the ecological crisis of capitalism. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/products/2635-the-imperial-mode-of-living
88. Gräbner-Radkowitsch, C., & Strunk, B. (2023). Degrowth and the Global South: The twin problem of global dependencies. Ecological Economics, 213, 107641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107641
89. Hickel, J. (2021). The anti-colonial politics of degrowth. Political Quarterly, 92(3), 447-455. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13034
90. Kothari, A., Demaria, F., & Acosta, A. (2014). Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the Green Economy. Development, 57(3-4), 362-375. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2015.24
91. Tyberg, J. (2020). Unlearning: From degrowth to decolonization. Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, New York. https://rosalux.nyc/unlearning-from-degrowth-to-decolonization/

 

Part V: Related and Overlapping Paradigms

This final part situates the degrowth versus green growth debate within a broader landscape of alternative economic thinking. Concepts like the steady-state economy and the circular economy are not mutually exclusive from the main debate; rather, they inform and interact with both paradigms, offering distinct tools and frameworks that are sometimes adopted by, and sometimes critiqued by, proponents of both degrowth and green growth.

5.1 The Steady-State Economy and Post-Growth

The concepts of the steady-state economy (SSE) and post-growth are important precursors and contemporary relatives of degrowth. Herman Daly’s work on the SSE provides the foundational ecological economic argument for an economy that maintains a constant stock of physical capital and population, supported by a minimized flow of material throughput. Post-growth is a broader, often less politically charged term that advocates for moving beyond GDP as the primary measure of societal progress.

92. Daly, H. E. (1977). Steady-state economics: The economics of biophysical equilibrium and moral growth. W.H. Freeman.
93. Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Beacon Press.
94. Daly, H. E. (1999). Uneconomic growth: in theory, in fact, in history, and in relation to globalization. Clemens Lecture Series, Paper 10. https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/clemens_lectures/10
95. Jackson, T. (2021). Post growth: Life after capitalism. Polity Press. https://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9781509542529
96. O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F., & Steinberger, J. K. (2018). A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 1(2), 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4

5.2 The Circular Economy

The circular economy (CE) aims to eliminate waste by designing products and systems for reuse, repair, and recycling. While often framed as a key strategy for achieving green growth by enabling decoupling, the CE is viewed critically by many degrowth scholars. They argue that without a reduction in overall consumption, the CE can lead to rebound effects and will not be sufficient to achieve sustainability, highlighting the critical difference between a circular economy within a growth paradigm versus one within a degrowth framework.

97. Corvellec, H., Stowell, A. F., & Johansson, N. (2022). Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(2), 421-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13187
98. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy–A new sustainability paradigm?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
99. Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecological Economics, 143, 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041
100. Schröder, P., Bengtsson, M., Cohen, M., Dewick, P., Hofstetter, J., & Sarkis, J. (2020). Degrowth within: Aligning circular economy and strong sustainability narratives. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 155, 104576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104576

Conclusion

This curated bibliography demonstrates that the debate between degrowth and green growth is not merely a technical disagreement over economic policy but a profound conflict of worldviews. Green growth, the dominant paradigm in policy circles, seeks to resolve the environmental crisis through technological innovation and market-based solutions, aiming to reconcile perpetual economic expansion with ecological limits. It represents a project of continuity, one that seeks to manage the crisis without fundamentally altering the structures of the global market economy.

In contrast, degrowth presents a radical challenge to this continuity. Rooted in a deep critique of the biophysical and social unsustainability of the growth imperative, it calls for a systemic transformation towards a post-capitalist, post-growth society centered on equity, well-being, and ecological regeneration. The literature reveals that the core empirical disagreement hinges on the feasibility of absolute decoupling, with a growing body of evidence suggesting that green growth’s claims are not supported at the scale or speed required to avert catastrophic environmental breakdown.

Furthermore, the debate is evolving beyond a simple binary. Intersectional analyses from feminist and decolonial perspectives have exposed the ways in which both paradigms can perpetuate existing structures of power and injustice if not explicitly designed to dismantle them. These critiques are pushing the discourse towards more nuanced and politically sophisticated questions: What kind of transition is truly just? How can a reduction in material throughput in the Global North avoid harming the Global South? How can the essential work of care and social reproduction be centered in a new economic model?

For researchers, several key gaps and future directions emerge from this body of work. There is a pressing need for more empirical research on the real-world application of degrowth policies, particularly regarding their social and distributional impacts. The “twin problem of global dependencies” between the North and South requires more robust modeling and analysis to chart a just global transition. Finally, the strategic tension between bottom-up, prefigurative politics and top-down, state-led transformation remains a central theoretical and practical challenge for the degrowth movement. Navigating these questions will be essential for moving beyond critique and toward the construction of viable, just, and sustainable futures.