Global Journal of Human Social Science, E: Economics, Volume 21 Issue 5

inequalities, transform productivity gains into time reduction and for the application of eco-fees. Another approach that, similarly to the view on de-growth, derives from the discussion about the limits of economic growth as a fundamental engine of contemporary capitalist society, is the one that deals with the so-called steady state economy. Although it has already been addressed by classical economists such as Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, the discussion of steady-state economics is brought to the fore more recently by the ecological economist Herman E. Daly. The latter, as a disciple of one of the precursors of the de-growth vision (Georgescu-Roegen), believes that the indiscriminate expansion of the economic product has serious limits in terms of generating non-negligible ecosystem impacts. However, unlike Georgescu, Daly is less skeptical about the phenomenon of growth. (KERSCHNER, 2010; MARTINEZ-ALIER et al., 2010; CECHIN & VEIGA 2010). In this sense, instead of economic activity presenting itself as necessarily declining over time, in the steady state it would be defined as: constant stocks of physical wealth (arti-facts) and a constant population, each maintained at some chosen, desirable level by a low rate of throughput -i.e., by low birth rates equal to low death rates and by low physical production rates equal to low physical depreciation rates, so that longevity of people and durability of physical stocks are high. (DALY, 1974, pg. 15). Thus, according to Cechin and Veiga (2010), the steady state could be interpreted as one in which the use of natural resources would be just enough to reproduce a constant amount of capital and population. Therefore, the improvements would no longer occur in quantitative terms, but in qualitative terms. Qualitative changes would be represented by technological advances that would increase the incorporation of value into production, even though the amount of inputs used remains constant (TRAINER, 2016). Thus, “the value of total production may still increase without growth in physical throughput – as a result of qualitative development. Investment in quality improvement may yield a value increase out of which interest could be paid.” (Daly, 2008 apud Trainer, 2016). This technological improvement would mean an increase in efficiency in the use of physical and biological resources, so that the product growth (in qualitative terms) becomes compatible with ecological sustainability. This movement of separation of economic growth from the growth in the use of production inputs, made possible by the advance of the technique, is called decoupling . While absolute decoupling would be the scenario in which output grows and the incorporation of inputs remains constant or decreases, relative decoupling would be related to the less than proportional growth of the need for inputs in relation to the output growth rate. (TRAINER, 2016). Development would, therefore, be achieved in the steady state if there were effectively a movement of distancing output growth in relation to the use of inputs. Furthermore, as stated by Cechin and Veiga (2010), the steady state concept is strongly based on the idea that, from a given moment, the economic growth process starts to present high costs that compromise the well-being of future generations, which it would require a maintenance of the capital stock and the population in order to minimize the ecosystem impacts and the use of natural resources. Thus, it is possible to highlight the divergences and congruences of this view in relation to the concept of de-growth. First, it is noteworthy that the latter is more related to the French-speaking world, while the steady state perspective is more linked to North American thought. Furthermore, while the de-growth proposal advocates for decreasing levels of consumption, especially in developed countries, the steady state view proposes a stabilization of population and per capita consumption, which implies the maintenance of capital stocks, the supply of labor and the use of resources for economic production. (MARTINEZ-ALIER et al., 2010). This apparent incongruity, however, overshadows some points of compatibility between these two views. Authors such as Martínez-Alier (2010) and Kerschner (2010) indicate that these perspectives can be seen as compatible and complementary. Compatibility could be found, first, if the steady state situation is considered as the final stage of a degrowth process, which cannot be extended indefinitely. In this sense, de-growth should not be treated as the end of the process, but as a path by advanced countries to reach a situation of dynamic equilibrium similar to that of a steady state. Under these circumstances, with the decline of output and population in developed countries, a steady state situation could arise. Finally, as in de-growth, the steady state perspective believes that it can adjust to the way capitalism works, which, in other words, would indicate the non-existence of the need to overcome the fundamental structures of this mode of production. In summary, Daly talks about this supposed compatibility: “growth is seen to be entirely subjective, optional, not built in capitalist economies. So it can be dispensed with, exorcised, and capitalism can carry on in something like "stasis." (SMITH, 2010). However, even having stood out in the academic and political scenarios of the world, both the vision of de-growth and the steady-state economy are targets of various types of criticism, which question the theoretical consistency of these approaches and, mainly, their compatibility in relation to the functioning of the capitalist system. In the next topic the most relevant criticisms of these approaches are explained. Volume XXI Issue V Version I 51 ( E ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2021 © 2021 Global Journals Economic De-Growth: A Theoretical and Critical Review