The Spectre of Growth in Doughnut Economics

Doughnut Economics presents a straightforward vision: shifting the goal of economic practice towards achieving a good life for all within planetary boundaries. Upon hearing or seeing the Doughnut model (see figure 1), many find this basic premise intuitive. This includes decision-makers, administrative staff, and members of civil society in various cities worldwide who have begun integrating Doughnut Economics into their work. What makes this resonance remarkable is that the traditional objective of economic growth becomes irrelevant for Doughnut Economics: The approach is agnostic to growth while it aims to recalibrate economic practice to avoid both ecological overshoot and social shortfall.

Urban scholars have long critiqued growth-based development, a critique gaining urgency amid multiple planetary crises (see recent special issues on degrowth and (radical) municipalism in this journal). Situating itself within these debates, this paper explores if and how the real-work application of Doughnut Economics’ principles and tools reduces the emphasis on growth in local development.

Over more than two years, I engaged in regular discussions with individuals from Tomelilla and Bad Nauheim—two small cities pioneering the use of Doughnut Economics in local governance. Together with the staff members leading this work in both cities, we traced the ups and downs, successes and failures, strategies, and tactics of implementing Doughnut Economics. Their accomplishments within a short period were remarkable: Tomelilla’s largest investment in decades—a new school—is on track to be developed based on Doughnut principles. Bad Nauheim conducted a public participation process that incorporated Doughnut Economics at various stages to design specific sustainability measures. And these are just the most prominent examples.

However, conversations with decision-makers and senior staff revealed that there isn’t one singular Doughnut model but many, most of which still incorporate an element of growth. The Doughnut visions in Tomelilla and Bad Nauheim were thus varied and not as straightforward in shifting economic goals as the framework conceptualized by Kate Raworth would suggest.

Three key aspects emerged that made working with the Doughnut both versatile (to frame it positively) and challenging (from a growth-critical perspective). First, the concept of growth itself is ambiguous and unclear to many. With multiple meanings and connotations coexisting, the objective of GDP growth often reemerges in discussions and visions. Second, as a result, growth reinserts itself into the Doughnut framework—sometimes as a socio-economic foundation—thereby remaining a legitimate goal. Third, and perhaps most significantly, existing dependencies on economic growth continue to challenge municipal leaders and employees. Concerns about recession are well-founded but often accepted as a given rather than questioned.

As evident, growth remains too entrenched to be simply ignored. Recognizing the strategic importance of delicate communication around the Doughnut, the paper suggests a series of steps towards a deeper commitment to overcoming growth-based development. It proposes framing this around a ‘secularization’ of growth: subjecting it to empirical scrutiny to help dispel the ‘almost religious’ reverence surrounding growth (Raworth, 2017: 245) rather than contenting with now knowing (i.e. growth agnosticism). To steer practical engagements with Doughnut Economics toward post-growth, it is crucial to create pathways for making growth a subject of everyday urban politics, challenging its deep entrenchment as a naturalized necessity.

Read the full article on Urban Studies OnlineFirst here.