THE ECONOMY OF ENOUGH

Jonas Van der Slycken is an economist unlike any other. He doesn’t defend the traditional free market, but defends instead the ‘economy of enough’. The book ‘Genoeg voor iedereen’ (Enough for everyone), which he recently wrote and was published by Standaard Uitgeverij, continues the research he conducted as part of his PhD. In the book, he uses economic arguments to justify that the classic pursuit of growth is misplaced and dismisses GDP as a poor indicator of prosperity. These are interesting ideas we wanted to know more about.

What exactly do you mean by the ‘economy of enough’?

Van der Slycken: “The economy needs to ensure that everyone has enough and can live a comfortable life. This economic vision juxtaposes the economy of growth, which always strives for more. ‘Enough’ is based on the underlying idea that the economy should take care of people and the planet and should ensure welfare and justice. In order to achieve these goals, we need to let go of growth.”

So, you are implicitly stating that the current economy doesn’t pay enough attention to people and the planet.

Van der Slycken: “Absolutely. We really aren’t doing well for both people and the planet. We continuously cross planetary boundaries, but being human also deserves a broader interpretation. We need a flourishing economy that supports people in making decisions that are beneficial to their well-being. The economy needs to serve people and the planet and not the other way around. We are paying too high a price for the current growth economy. Just think of the environment and climate. And of welfare diseases such as depression and burnout. These are symptoms of an economy prioritising quantitative growth.”

In this context, you are advocating a general reduction of working hours.

Van der Slycken: “I think we should move towards a thirty-hour working week for everyone. Work is important in people’s lives, but people also need time to relax, to spend with family and friends, to take care of others, to engage in voluntary work or for many other things. A shorter working week can help to slow down a bit and focus on things that really matter.”

Should people retain their current wages in the reduction of working hours?

Van der Slycken: “The answer to that question needs a lot of a nuance. Some productivity gains could probably be realised by working more efficiently. This will, in turn, make wage retentions possible. But above all, I would like to focus on more and better public services and collective facilities that don’t necessarily require a lot of money. If we take material basic needs out of the monetary sphere, more people will have ‘enough’ with reduced wages. This is certainly true for people with high wages. For people with low wages, things are obviously different. For these groups, retaining wages, or even increasing them, is essential.”

Don’t you fear that more free time will lead to even more strain on the planet? Won’t fast air travel and other non-ecological entertainment be tempting?

Van der Slycken: “My book also includes proposals that address this green transition, such as phasing out fossil fuels and additional taxes for frequent flyers. We need to stimulate people to spend their free time sustainably and locally, such as working in allotments or planting more greenery in the neighbourhood. Through targeted measures, we ensure that human well-being and an ecological shift can coexist.”

‘Living well’ is not the same as ‘material growth’

You don’t favour gross domestic product or GDP as a measure of prosperity. What is wrong with that measure?

Van der Slycken: “The GDP measures the market transactions of goods and services. Every transaction raises the GDP. It offers an incredibly limited perspective because it only considers the market. In addition, every market activity is considered positive, whether or not it contributes to our welfare. Expenses for or due to pollution thus contribute to our growth. And the GDP assigns no value to a forest, except when it is cut down. It also doesn’t take into account the unequal distribution of income and consumption. And it doesn’t measure unpaid labour. The GDP provides a very distorted image of our prosperity.”

What would be a better indicator?

Van der Slycken: “Whilst working on my PhD, I studied the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare. This does take into account all the aspects the GDP doesn’t, such as the differences between poor and rich. A pay rise of one hundred euros results in less increased prosperity for someone earning four thousand euros than for someone earning less than the living wage. And the costs of pollution and the climate are also included, while the GDP doesn’t take these costs into account. While the average European prosperity is still increasing according to the GDP, this alternative indicator shows that prosperity has been stagnating since the start of the century. It’s important to know that. Because economic policy should be based on correct indicators.”

Advocates of growth argue that social policy isn’t possible without growth. What is your opinion in this regard?

Van der Slycken: “I think it’s a bit of an excuse. Of course growth has had its positive effects. But it doesn’t always ensure fair and inclusive distribution of wealth. Many people are still missing out and especially the poorest live in places with a lot of air pollution and are the first victims of extreme weather phenomena. Growth isn’t going to change that. Indeed, advocates of growth often remain blind to social measures such as a wealth tax, because it would hinder growth.”

Would people even be receptive to degrowth? Isn’t striving for growth innate in humans?

Van der Slycken: “Our existing idea about growth is a translation of the current social norm. But if you ask people what ‘living well’ means to them, the answer doesn’t always have a material meaning. When people tell you on their deathbed what they regret, it usually isn’t material things that are mentioned, but qualitative aspects they missed out on. But breaking through the existing growth mindset isn’t always easy. That’s why I try to make it more tangible in my book.”

Do you see an evolution in thinking about growth?

Van der Slycken: “Yes, I do. But I would like to see it happen more quickly. It is difficult to get the dominant mainstream to change direction, but the undercurrent is shifting. The environmental and trade union movements still have some work to do to turn the current completely around.”