Deepening the degrowth planning debate: division of labor, complexity, and the roles of markets and digital tools
(2024) In Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 20(1).- Abstract
- Many definitions of degrowth highlight that the corresponding great and deep transformations are going to be “designed,” “planned,” and “democratic.” However, critical issues of democratic planning have only recently begun to be discussed. Considering a range of aspects of the technical and social division of labor, the article first revisits some of the main issues of market vis-à-vis planned resource allocation in capitalist and socialist economic growth contexts. It then zooms in on goals, characteristics, and likely issues of division of labor and resource allocation in planned degrowth circumstances. I argue that degrowth societies could use three measures to reduce the complexity of the division of labor that undermined socialist... (More)
- Many definitions of degrowth highlight that the corresponding great and deep transformations are going to be “designed,” “planned,” and “democratic.” However, critical issues of democratic planning have only recently begun to be discussed. Considering a range of aspects of the technical and social division of labor, the article first revisits some of the main issues of market vis-à-vis planned resource allocation in capitalist and socialist economic growth contexts. It then zooms in on goals, characteristics, and likely issues of division of labor and resource allocation in planned degrowth circumstances. I argue that degrowth societies could use three measures to reduce the complexity of the division of labor that undermined socialist planning attempts. First, degrowth societies could immediately phase out the “excess sector” of production. Second, they could develop, under consideration of their institutional national traditions, pragmatic mixes of ex ante planning (assisted by digital solutions) of the “essential” economic sector and ex post or market regulation of the “in-between” sector. Finally, a parsimonious use of digital tools is likely to be helpful in connecting different scales of governance and associated planning activities (local, national, regional, global). To democratically legitimize planning goals and processes without overburdening people, pathways may be sought that emphasize value over formal rationality, or general planning principles and strategies over concrete targets and tasks. Democratic legitimacy could further increase through a complementation of representative democracy through deliberative instruments such as citizen forums or assemblies as well as applications of the subsidiarity principle. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/192b6277-25ff-492d-8125-c284fb0f64b3
- author
- Koch, Max LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2024-07-27
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- degrowth, democratic planning, division of labor, complexity, markets
- in
- Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy
- volume
- 20
- issue
- 1
- article number
- 2383335
- publisher
- Proquest
- ISSN
- 1548-7733
- DOI
- 10.1080/15487733.2024.2383335
- project
- Economic Elites in the Climate Change Transformation: Practices, justifications and regulations of unsustainable lifestyles in Sweden
- Postgrowth Welfare Systems
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 192b6277-25ff-492d-8125-c284fb0f64b3
- date added to LUP
- 2024-07-27 13:49:06
- date last changed
- 2024-07-29 13:15:00
@article{192b6277-25ff-492d-8125-c284fb0f64b3,
abstract = {{Many definitions of degrowth highlight that the corresponding great and deep transformations are going to be “designed,” “planned,” and “democratic.” However, critical issues of democratic planning have only recently begun to be discussed. Considering a range of aspects of the technical and social division of labor, the article first revisits some of the main issues of market vis-à-vis planned resource allocation in capitalist and socialist economic growth contexts. It then zooms in on goals, characteristics, and likely issues of division of labor and resource allocation in planned degrowth circumstances. I argue that degrowth societies could use three measures to reduce the complexity of the division of labor that undermined socialist planning attempts. First, degrowth societies could immediately phase out the “excess sector” of production. Second, they could develop, under consideration of their institutional national traditions, pragmatic mixes of ex ante planning (assisted by digital solutions) of the “essential” economic sector and ex post or market regulation of the “in-between” sector. Finally, a parsimonious use of digital tools is likely to be helpful in connecting different scales of governance and associated planning activities (local, national, regional, global). To democratically legitimize planning goals and processes without overburdening people, pathways may be sought that emphasize value over formal rationality, or general planning principles and strategies over concrete targets and tasks. Democratic legitimacy could further increase through a complementation of representative democracy through deliberative instruments such as citizen forums or assemblies as well as applications of the subsidiarity principle.}},
author = {{Koch, Max}},
issn = {{1548-7733}},
keywords = {{degrowth; democratic planning; division of labor; complexity; markets}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{07}},
number = {{1}},
publisher = {{Proquest}},
series = {{Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy}},
title = {{Deepening the degrowth planning debate: division of labor, complexity, and the roles of markets and digital tools}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2024.2383335}},
doi = {{10.1080/15487733.2024.2383335}},
volume = {{20}},
year = {{2024}},
}