It's always struck me as rather obvious that it should be possible to maintain a high standard living without it having to get better every year ...or putting it in common economic terms...to maintain the standard of living whilst the GDP remained constant. However, Tim Jackson sets out to claim (or prove) that the current western economic models have built into them a requirement for constant growth....otherwise they face collapse. I'm not sure that he has convinced me. I've spent a fair bit of time in Japan over the last 25 years and in that time the population has started to decline, housing prices have declined, wages have hardly grown at all yet the standard of living seems to me to be remarkably high and has remained at a high level over the last 25 years. Probably hasn't grown that much but still they are driving better cars than they were 25 years ago. The sushi is just as good....the Shinkansen system has continued to expand...albeit slowly. So I think Tim needs to look a bit further than the UK and the USA. Given these qualifications, what is Tim actually saying...Well here are some extracts where I have tried to capture the essence of what he is saying:
There is a huge literature critiquing the value of GDP as a well-being measure. Obvious limitations include its failure to account for non-market services (like household or voluntary labour) or negative utilities (externalities) like pollution. Critics point to the fact that the GDP counts both "defensive and 'positional' expenditures even though these don't contribute additionally to well-being." And, perhaps most critically, the GDP fails to account properly for changes in the asset base which affect our future consumption possibilities.

So we need some better indicators of well being than GDP. and one is though there is a paradox with life-satisfaction indices which is largely a malaise of the advanced economies. It is only after an income level of about $15,000 per capita, that the life-satisfaction score barely responds at all even to quite large increases in GDP. In fact the assumed relationship between income and life-satisfaction can be turned on its head here. Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and New Zealand all have higher levels of life-satisfaction than the USA, but significantly lower income levels. By contrast, at very low incomes there is a huge spread in terms of life satisfaction, but the general trend is a quite steeply rising curve. A small increase in GDP leads to a big rise in life satisfaction. These data underline one of the key messages of this book.......There is no case to abandon growth universally. But there is a strong case for the developed nations to make room for growth in poorer countries. It is in these poorer countries that growth really does make a difference.
It becomes clear that a happiness-based measure of utility and an expenditure-based measure of utility behave in very different ways. And since they both claim to measure utility we can conclude that there is a problem somewhere. One or other - perhaps both - of these measures appears not to be doing its job properly.
At the end of the day the answer to the question of whether growth is functional for stability is this: in a growth-based economy, growth is functional for stability. The capitalist model has no easy route to a steady state position. Its natural dynamics push it towards one of two states: expansion or collapse. Put in its simplest form the dilemma of growth' can now be stated in terms of two propositions:
1. Growth is unsustainable - at least in its current form.
 Burgeoning resource consumption and rising environmental costs are compounding profound disparities in social well-being.
2. "De-growth" is unstable - at least under present conditions.
 ......Declining consumer demand leads to rising unemployment, falling competitiveness and a spiral of recession.

If were really serious about fairness and want the world's 9 billion people all to enjoy an income comparable with EU citizens today, the economy would need to grow 6 times between now and 2050, with incomes growing at an average rate of 3.6 per cent a year. Achieving the IPCC's emission target in this world means pushing down the carbon intensity of output by 9 per cent every single year for the next 40 or so years." By 2050, the average carbon intensity would need to be 55 times lower than it is today at only 14gCO,/$
And this scenario still hasn't factored in income growth in the developed nations.

The phenomenon of 'rebound' is this." Money saved through energy efficiency, for example, gets spent on other goods and services. These goods themselves have energy costs that offset the savings made through efficiency, and sometimes wipe them out entirely (a situation described as "backfire). Spending the savings from energy efficient lighting (say) on a cheap short-haul flight is one sure-fire recipe for achieving this.
Social comparison - keeping up with the Joneses - rapidly expands the demand for successful products and facilitates mass production, making once luxury goods accessible to the many. And the sheer wealth and enormous variety of material goods has a democratizing element to it. It allows more and more people to go about inventing and reinventing their social identities in the search for a credible place in society.

In summary, the idea of a green stimulus has many strengths......Investment in the transition to a sustainable economy is vital. .......Targeting stimulus spending towards that investment makes perfect sense.......Stimulus measures which support the least well-off are particularly to be welcomed. The poorest will inevitably be hardest hit through the recession and are already struggling with rising costs for food and fuel. Income inequality is higher in the OCED nations than it was in the mid-1980s."

There's something distinctly odd about our persistent refusal to countenance the possibility of anything other than growth-based economics. After all, John Stuart Mill, one of the founding fathers of economics, recognized both the necessity and the desirability of moving eventually towards a 'stationary state of capital and wealth', suggesting that it implies no stationary state of human improvement.

Economics - and macro-economics in particular - is ecologically illiterate.....Daly's pioneering work provides a solid foundation from which to rectify this. But what we still miss is the ability to establish economic stability under these conditions. We have no model for how common macro-economic 'aggregates' (production, consump-tion, investment, trade, capital stock, public spending, labour, money supply and so on) behave when capital doesn't accumulate. We have no models to account systematically for our economic dependency on ecological variables such as resource use and ecological services.

Taking a step back for a moment, there are only two ways out of this dilemma. One is to make growth sustainable; the other is to make de-growth stable........ This idea is still essentially an appeal to decoupling. Growth continues, while resource intensity (and hopefully throughput) declines....... Its founding concept is the production and sale of de-materialized services', rather than material 'products'. It's vital to note that this cannot simply be the service-based economies' that have characterized development in certain advanced economies. For the most part that's been achieved, as we've seen, by reducing manufacturing, continuing to import consumption goods from abroad and expanding financial services to pay for them." (I think he is quite wrong here ...mainly because he's looking at things through the prism of the UK. There are many other services (apart from financial services) that have expanded massively in all the developed countries over the past 50 or so years.). But, to be fair to him he does mention leisure services. Leisure is one of the fastest growing sectors in modern economies and ought to be a prime candidate for de-materializa-tion in principle. In practice, the way we spend our leisure time can be responsible for as much as 25 per cent of our carbon 'foot-print'....... So what exactly constitutes productive economic activity in this economy? It isn't immediately clear. Selling 'energy services', certainly, rather than energy supplies." Selling mobility rather than cars. Recycling, re-using, leasing, maybe." Yoga lessons, perhaps, hairdressing, gardening: so long as these aren't carried out using buildings, don't involve the latest fashion and you don't need a car to get to them. The humble broom would need to be preferred to the diabolical 'leaf-blower', for instance........ But it sounds at the moment suspiciously like something the Independent on Sunday would instantly dismiss as a yurt-based economy - with increasingly expensive yurts. (Maybe he is too concerned about how the Independent would label things...though this does show he has some political sensitivity).

Between 1995 and 2005, labour productivity in the personal and social services sector declined by 3 per cent across the EU 15 nations; the only sector (Pers' in Figure 8.1) to show negative productivity growth..... In short, this sector - the one where our hopes might lie for a 'different engine of growth' - just doesn't perform well by conventional standards. On the contrary, it's already dragging Europe down' in the productivity stakes. If we start shifting wholesale to patterns of de-materialized services, we wouldn't immediately bring the economy to a standstill, but we'd certainly slow down growth considerably. (I'm not sure whether this decline has continued)..... This finding is instructive in various ways. In the first place, it shows up the fetish with macro-economic labour productivity for what it is: a recipe for undermining work, community and environment. ... And it already suggests more room for re-configuring the conventional macro-economic model than is usually assumed by economists. Simply shifting the focus of economic activities from one sector to another has the potential to maintain or even increase employment, even without growth in economic output........Specifically, there is likely to be a substantially enhanced role for public sector investment and asset ownership. The public sector is often best placed to identify and protect long-term social assets. Public sector rates of return are typically lower than commercial ones, allowing longer investment horizons and less punishing requirements in terms of productivity.

There is evidence that people are both happier and live more sustainably when they favour intrinsic goals that embed them in family and community. Flourishing within limits is a real possibility, according to this evidence. ......Left to our own individual devices, it seems, there is not much hope that people will spontaneously behave sustainably. As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has concluded, sustainability just 'doesn't come naturally to us." Each society strikes the balance between altruism and selfishness (and also between novelty and tradition) in different places.!° And where this balance is struck depends crucially on social structure. When technologies, infrastructures, institutions and social norms reward self-enhancement and novelty, then selfish sensation-seeking behaviours prevail over more considered, altruistic ones. Where social structures favour altruism and tradition, self-transcending behaviours are rewarded and selfish behaviour may even be penalized."....... Increasingly, it seems, the institutions of consumer society are designed to favour a particularly materialistic individualism and to encourage the relentless pursuit of consumer novelty because this is exactly what's needed to keep the economy going.

Increasingly, it seems, the institutions of consumer society are designed to favour a particularly materialistic individualism and to encourage the relentless pursuit of consumer novelty because this is exactly what's needed to keep the economy going........ Overcoming this dilemma is absolutely vital because the lessons from this study make it clear that without strong leadership, change will be impossible. Individuals are too exposed to social signals and status competition....... The trouble is that the thrust of policy over the last half century - particularly in the liberal market economies - has been going in almost exactly the opposite direction. Governments have systematically promoted materialistic individualism and encouraged the pursuit of consumer novelty. This trend has been perpetuated, mostly deliberately, on the assumption that this form of consumerism serves economic growth, protects jobs and maintains stability......And as a result, the state has become caught up in a belief that growth should trump all other policy goals.

The economic crisis presents us with a unique opportunity to invest in change. To sweep away the short-term thinking that has plagued society for decades. To replace it with considered policy-making capable of addressing the enormous challenges of tackling climate change, delivering a lasting prosperity......Of course it's one thing to have such a vision, completely another to set about achieving it. But there are basically only two possibilities for change of this order. One is revolution. The other is to engage in the painstaking work of social transformation. I suspect that there may be other ways to change the order ....for example by taxation policies or a religious movement.
In the following paragraphs, some specific recommendations are made. They follow directly from the analysis in the preceding chap-ters. Broadly speaking, they fall under three main headings:
• Establishing the limits.
• Fixing the economic model.
• Changing the social logic.
A much closer attention to the ecological limits of economic activity is called for. Identifying clear resource and emission caps and establishing reduction targets under those caps is vital for a sustainable economy.
Suggestions to develop national well-being accounts also draw on this logic of "measuring what matters. A further step would be to integrate such accounts systematically into the existing national accounting framework (see Recommendation 7 above) and perhaps even adjust economic accounts for changes in the flourishing accounts." I note that in Australia last year the government introduced measures such as these though it will be some time before we have a semblance of a set of data.
A whole raft of policies is needed to build social capital and strengthen communities. These include: creating and protecting shared public spaces; encouraging community-based sustainability initiatives; reducing geographical labour mobility; providing training for green jobs; offering better access to lifelong learning and skills; placing more responsibility for planning in the hands of local communities, and protecting public service broadcasting, museum funding, public libraries, parks and green spaces.
The culture of consumerism is conveyed through institutions, the media, social norms and a host of subtle and not so subtle signals encouraging people to express themselves, seek identity and search for meaning through material goods.
Dismantling these complex incentive structures requires a systematic attention to the myriad ways in which they are constructed.....for example relating the media. (Though, I suspect, this would have unfortunate side effects in curtailing free speech)

Part of the aim of this book was to provide a coherent foundation for these policies and help strengthen the hand of government in taking them forward. At the moment, in spite of its best efforts, progress towards sustainability remains painfully slow. And it tends to stall endlessly on the overarching commitment to economic growth. A step change in political will is essential. But that too is possible - once the conflicts that haunt the state are resolved..... Above all, there is an urgent need to develop a resilient and sustainable macro-economy that is no longer predicated on relentless consumption growth. The clearest message from the financial crisis of 2008 is that our current model of economic success is fundamentally flawed. Affluence breeds - and indeed relies on - the continual production and reproduction of consumer novelty. But relentless novelty reinforces anxiety and weakens our ability to protect long-term social goals. In doing so it ends up undermining our own wellbeing and the well-being of those around us...... None of this is inevitable. We can't change ecological limits. We can't alter human nature. But we can and do create and recreate the social world. Its norms are our norms. Its visions are our visions. Its structures and institutions shape and are shaped by those norms and visions. This is where transformation is needed.

In short, an important component of prosperity is the ability to participate meaningfully in the life of society. These are primarily social and psychological tasks. The difficulty is that consumer society has appropriated a whole range of material goods and processes in their service. We're certainly not the first society to endow mere stuff with symbolic meaning. But we are the first to hand over so much of our social and psychological functioning to materialistic pursuits.

Chapter 8 identified a primitive blueprint for this kind of activity. Community-based 'ecological' enterprises engaged in delivering local services: food, health, public transport, community educa-tion, maintenance and repair, recreation; these activities contribute to flourishing, are embedded in community and have the potential to provide meaningful work with a low-carbon footprint...... Critically though, these sectors will look rather different from the way they do right now. Manufacturing will need to pay more attention to durability and repairability. Construction must prioritize refurbishment of existing buildings and the design of new sustainable and repairable infrastructures. Agriculture will have to pay more attention to the integrity of land and the welfare of live-stock. Financial intermediation will depend less on monetary expansion and more on prudent long-term stable investment. The point is not to reject novelty and embrace tradition. Rather it is to seek a proper balance between these vital dimensions of what it means to be human. A balance that has been lost in our lives, in our institutions and in our economy. The cultural drift that reinforces individualism at the expense of society, and supports innovation at the expense of tradition, is a distortion of what it means to be human. This drift serves and is served by the pursuit of growth. But those who hope that growth will lead to a materialistic Utopia are destined for disappointment. We simply don't have the ecological capacity to fulfil this dream...... So our only real choice is to work for change. To transform the structures and institutions that shape the social world. To articulate a more credible vision for a lasting prosperity.

I was left a bit disappointed. Not totally convinced that the capitalist model necessarily leads to economic collapse if GDP growth stalls. And not impressed with his so called solutions. I actually have some sympathy with "The Independent "if they were to refer to his suggestions as a Yurt based economy. His solutions seem really weak and unlikely to be picked up. Or unworkable. Or, like recommendations for a utopia but no real way to get there. Maybe he is right that the alternatives are revolution or painstaking hard work. Or perhaps it's element of both. Maybe we should be studying the Chinese model of government to see if there are lesson s there for the west. And, nowhere does he grasp the nettle of population growth. This is the big driver of climate change, or depletion of resources, of pollution. The world's population has more than doubled in my lifetime. If it was still the same then the whole economic situation would be very different. I'm really surprised that he doesn't mention it as an issue. Overall, Tim's weak recommendations seemed very much like a damp squib to me. And most unlikely to be picked up as a clarion call for change. though I think it's an important topic. I give it four stars. ( )

This book exposes a topic which should become increasingly prevalent in our everyday conversations. The way in which humankind should prosper is bound to change dramatically due to difficulties and natural boundaries which our forefathers did not take into account. However, an explosive increase in the human population, as well as increasing energy requirements are conforming a very uncomfortable overall picture of the environment we have come to deliver for ourselves and for the generations that will follow us.
The book is a fair exposition of the author's personal position in regard with this problematic, and he also shares several facts and figures concerning this issues.
In my view the book does not, however, strike the correct sensibilities required for it to become a classic in the subject. Well worth the reading. ( )

The REALLY sad thing about reading this book, is knowing how little has been done in the thirteen years since it was published.

On page 172, Tim Jackson says that there are "two possibilities for change of this order. One is revolution. The other is to engage in the painstaking work of social transformation."

I think that Mr Jackson was banking on the latter but, it is clear that it will need to be the former.

This represents such a wasted opportunity for civilisation. ( )

A fascinating book on how to turn the economy around for a welfaring, sustainable life, based on human social values in a non-growth based economy.
I can follow some of the premises and some not so good.
I do believe in a way of life that brings more prosperity with less consumption and with more time for reading, social participation, walking around in nature reserves and more attention for local markets, slow food and so on.
To the contrary, the half diabolic role given to inventions and new stuff, i'm not following. Agreed, new stuff just for the "new" of it, like clothes, can have perverted effects, not only ecologically but also socially.
But, in my humble opinion, it can also add dramatically to the quality of life. The author is very good in reminding us of our responsabilities in this "limited" planet but just in this lies for me the challenge. We can for instance create carbon neutral cars and fuels, i really believe in that. The author calls it "simplistic fairy tales".
So, i agree with Tim Jackson, a lot has to change. And fast! I have children and i care for their future. But i do believe technological evolution will help us a greater deal.
I'm not religious, otherwise i would say: let's pray i'm right, now i just say: let's keep up the debate on this.
Let's change! ( )

By now, everybody but the real tinfoil hats know that we have a serious problem with the climate, and that the time to stop a disastrous situation already this century is running out pretty fast. Still, with our individualistic society, it’s easy to fall into the trap of settling for just doing what you can by yourself and hope for the best (or hiding behind the fact that what you do or don’t do as an individual matters little). Tim Jackson’s book is absolutely essential to give an overview of just how grave the situation is (there are numerous finite resources that’ll run out way before oil for instance, and if 9 billion people by the middle of this century are to live by a western standard, carbon levels need to be a whopping hundred and thirty times lower than today), and the kind of political change that needs to happen. Our political systems still cling to the idea of eternal economic growth - as capitalism as we know it knows only expansion or collapse – where an economy in balance with finite natural resources is the only possible way forward.

It’s a bleak picture Jackson presents. But also one of hope, especially in presenting a clear idea of what needs to be done first: finding a way to include ecology and finite resources in macroeconomics, creating a financial language to replace GNP. And putting an absolute cap on allowed emissions globally – call it rationing or CPE or whatever. Jackson does a good job of breaking the overwhelming feeling of powerlessness one falls into so easily with these issues.

He also presents ideas of a future society built around the possibility to prosper rather than counsumerism. Here he becomes essentially vaguer – but also a tad preachy at times. Still, he makes a strong case for why it is in our best interest to fight our immediate urges, and how this is in line with what most of us already value on a deeper level.

It’s hard to rate a read that feels utterly necessary. This is the most important book I’ve read in a long time. But stylistically it isn’t great. I would have wished for more examples and less repetition at times, perhaps. And while it’s mostly accessible, at times it falls into a sort of middle road that isn’t really for me as a layman, but probably feels mostly dumbed down for someone who knows economiscs. As a general compass and a wake-up call though: go fetch. Now. ( )

A lot of preaching in this book but not much economics. The book is clearly intended for the general public and it includes all the usual environmentalist rhetoric, but a real critique of macroeconomics would have to go much deeper than this one. The author's approach of inventing a few new variables and dumping them into old models seems rather naive.

Unlimited growth...we can't live with it (it's unsustainable) and we can't live without it (economic and social collapse). Or can we? Tim Jackson's brilliant book shows us a path that can lead to prosperity that is sustainable. ( )

We are already at or near the ecological limits to growth of our magnificent planet. At the same time the economies of affluent nations, as presently conceived, require continuous growth to avoid collapse into recession and high unemployment. Tim Jackson’s book Prosperity without Growth, examines this paradox in detail and presents a path toward its resolution.

A first step is to examine our definitions of prosperity. A shift away from prosperity pursued as opulence — constantly acquiring new material satisfactions — and toward prosperity enjoyed as flourishing — deep and enduring satisfaction and well-being — allows us to consume less while we enjoy life more. A graph of happiness as a function of average annual income reaches a plateau as essential material needs are met. A graph of life expectancy as a function of GDP per capita reaches a similar plateau. This insight helps us recognize that paths toward increased happiness do not require more material goods.

In the economies of affluent nations, competition stimulates technology improvements that increase labor productivity to reduce costs. As labor becomes more productive, fewer people are required to produce the same goods. This would lead to unemployment unless demand grows at the same rate as labor becomes more productive. If growth stops, unemployment increases, household income drops, demand drops and the system collapses toward recession.

This presents the dilemma of growth:
+ Growth in its present form is unsustainable — unbounded resource consumption is exceeding environmental capacity, and
+ De-growth under present conditions is unstable — reduced consumer demand leads to increased unemployment and the spiral of recession.

A solution to this dilemma is essential for future prosperity.

We can begin to see a solution in the “Green new deal”. People need jobs and the world needs to manage a transition to sustainable energy. These two goals can be met simultaneously by directing investments away from opulent consumer goods and toward low-carbon systems that reduce climate change and increase energy security. In addition investments in natural infrastructure including sustainable agriculture and ecosystem protection provide long-term benefits. The engine of growth becomes creation and operation of non-polluting energy sources and selling non-material services. In addition, delivering the benefits of labor productivity to the workers would allow them more leisure and less stress as they enjoy a shorter work week. The book describes quantitative models to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach.

The many elements of such a transformation are described, including:

Establishing limits:
+ Establishing resource extraction and emissions caps, including reduction targets,
+ Reforming financial systems to support sustainability, and
+ Supporting ecological transitions in developing countries.
Fixing the economic model:
+ Developing a new macro-economic model based on ecological constraints,
+ Investing in jobs, assets and infrastructures,
+ Increasing financial and fiscal prudence,
+ Revising the national accounts such as GDP to include the value of ecological services and the costs of pollution and destructive activities.
Changing the social logic:
+ Adjusting working time policy to allow shorter or longer work weeks to suit the preferences of the workers and share the work to be done,
+ Reducing systemic inequalities,
+ Measuring capabilities and well-being,
+ Strengthening social capital, and
+ Dismantling the culture of consumerism.

This is an immensely difficult transformation; however it is essential for a lasting prosperity. ( )

This book discusses the key economic issue of our time – how to ensure continued prosperity while reducing our use of the world’s resources to a sustainable level.

Jackson defines prosperity as the ability to take part fully in the society around you – not only enough to eat, but enough to eat with friends occasionally, to give them presents, to send your children to school, generally to feel you are “keeping up”. Below a certain level of prosperity – and much of the world is clearly still below it – it is obvious that the traditional approach of “growth” is still necessary. People simply need more things - food, clothing, books, bicycles – in order to thrive and prosper. In the more economically developed parts of the world, though, this is no longer true for most people. Yet we continue to increase our material output.

We all know the world cannot continue to support this level of material lifestyle, and certainly not to the extent that every single person in the world could share it. Jackson spends some time going through the evidence – how long it will be before various raw materials and natural resources are completely depleted. The problem is, arguing that we should just “stop having more stuff” isn’t as simple as it looks. If we all stop buying cars, who will employ all those car workers and feed their families?

Jackson argues that governments must invest in and support activities that use fewer materials, replenish resources, or shift wealth to poorer countries. Green technologies, habitat protection, personal service industries, educational charities and local farmers’ markets are all good examples. While individual initiatives already exist, and are growing, he makes the case that this is not enough, and much more public support is needed.

I imagine there are lots of books on this topic, and this might not be the best one for someone who wants to know what to do but doesn’t want to wade through the economic arguments, but I thought it was pretty good. His evidence is strong and his argument is clear. Reading this book left me both excited - this could happen - and depressed - this will never happen. ( )