Game Theory and Degrowth’s Dilemma: Why Embrace Degrowth if Other States and Societies Do Not?
I’ve just had a new article published in the Real-World Economics Review. It’s called ‘Game Theory and the Dilemma of Degrowth: Why Embrace Degrowth if Other States and Societies Do Not?’ – freely available here (a couple of paragraphs posted below).
The full edition of the journal issue is available here.
I’ve also been given another 50 free downloads of my other new essay, ‘Sacred Revolt: Why Reverence before Restraint Transforms the Limits-to-Growth Predicament’. Official download here, author manuscript available here.
best wishes
Director of the Simplicity Institute
Sample paragraphs below from ‘Game Theory and the Dilemma of Degrowth’
Yet even if the degrowth paradigm is accepted intellectually and ethically, a profound strategic problem remains. No person, firm, community, or state acts alone. Each entity acts in a world structured and incentivised by the actions of others. If one household consumes less while neighbours consume more, does the sacrifice matter (Alcott, 2008)? If one business pursues sufficiency while competitors pursue profit maximisation, can it survive (Blauwhof, 2012)? If one state embraces degrowth while geopolitical rivals pursue growth, militarisation, and technological acceleration, is it merely surrendering relative power (Alexander, 2016)? Why would any rational actor do that?
This is the strategic problem which I describe in this article as “degrowth’s dilemma”. It resembles familiar collective-action problems, but it is not reducible to a simple prisoner’s dilemma (see Carrozzo Magli & Manfredi, 2022). In many contexts, growth appears ‘rational’ from the standpoint of the individual actor, firm, or state, even when the aggregate result is ecological overshoot and eventual destabilisation. The tragedy is not that people fail to understand the danger – although that can be a contributing factor. The tragedy is that the perverse incentive landscape rewards conduct that worsens the danger and ultimately promises to lead to ruin for all (see Hardin, 1968; see also, Alexander, 2014).
I argue that even where coordinated global degrowth remains politically implausible, degrowth-like practices become a form of ‘second order’ rationality – that is, justifiable resilience strategies in a world where the growth game itself is becoming ecologically unstable. The conclusion is neither naïve optimism nor resignation. Unilateral degrowth does not guarantee success. Coordinated degrowth will prove worryingly difficult. But growth maximisation is itself a dangerous strategy in a finite biosphere. Indeed, one can argue that the real ‘fantasy’ isn’t degrowth but the irrational belief that limitless growth is possible on a finite planet. The rational path is therefore dual: work for coordinated degrowth where possible, while also building resilience for uncoordinated breakdown or collapse as a security measure (Homer-Dixon, 2015). Fortunately, there is considerable overlap in these strategies, such that we can aim for sustainability, while building resilience – or vice versa.
