'Crisis proves that the current growth model is not viable', says economist Tim Jackson

06/20/2012 - 10h43

For a world in economic crisis that is obsessively searching for a way to reestablish and accelerate growth, the economist Tim Jackson defends exactly the opposite: the drastic reduction of consumption and an end to what he calls the "productivity fetish."

His rationale: we live in an economic model whose stability depends on continuously increasing consumption, but on a planet that can't support more growth, at least not the way it's done these days.

"Consumption is unsustainable for the planet and causes economic instability," said Jackson, in an interview with Folha, after participating in a parallel event associated with Rio+20.

Folha - How has your proposal of "prosperity without consumption" been received in these times of crisis?
Tim Jackson - It's a hard issue for governments, since the current stability of the economic system depends on growth and continuous consumption. But what the crisis showed is that it's not possible to have stability with this model.

Indefinitely stimulating growth will generate unstable markets and bad situations, like we have now in Greece, Spain and Portugal and in my own country, which adopted austerity measures, punishing poor people for the crisis that was created by the rich.

Do you also propose these policies for developing countries?
I'm not in a position to say that the Indians, Chinese and Brazilians should not aspire to the same lifestyle as Californians. My message is for the rich countries that keep persuading their citizens to consume.

Developing countries need to reconfigure the economic system, because the material growth of consumption needs to come from poor countries where there is more of a need for housing, nutrition, education, health.

How do you view the decrease in consumption during times of crisis?
This demonstrates how this [consumer] behavior is not inherent in people, but rather something that has been created by the system. In times of crisis, people buy less, thinking more long-term. If you look at the statistics, you will see that the level of savings dropped dramatically in the 15 years prior to the crisis. After it hit, savings went back up.

This is a big change in the behavior that led to what Keynes called the paradox of savings: people tend to save more in times of recession, which slows economic recovery. This suggests that the system, which we thought had been constructed based on human behavior, in which the natural inclination would be to consume, is actually not aligned with human nature.

Are people who consume less more happy?
The current economy is based on the idea that consuming more will make us happier. But there are people who reject this logic and are happier. Why? Because they live in a way that is more consistent with their ideas. Prosperity was never just material, but also social and psychological. Yet this lifestyle causes an internal conflict in people because they are punished in this system. If you stop using a car, you become a second-class citizen, because the infrastructure is not created for those who want to live sustainably. Without structural changed, we cannot hope for people to change to more sustainable behavior.

What would be your vision for a post-consumption society?
It makes sense that the post-growth economy should be more focused on services instead of goods. We want companies to provide services that allow for a good life, nutrition, health, infrastructure, education and leisure. These activities have less of an environmental impact than the production of goods and they employ more people.

We should question the productivity fetish: it does not make sense if it means giving more classes to teachers or making doctors see more patients an hour. That's a fallacy.

Translated by ANNA EDGERTON