Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis?

In the last decade many publications have appeared on degrowth as a strategy to confront environmental and social problems. We undertake a systematic review of their content, data and methods. This involves the use of computational linguistics to identify main topics investigated. Based on a sample of 561 studies we conclude that: (1) content covers 11 main topics; (2) the large majority (almost 90%) of studies are opinions rather than analysis; (3) few studies use quantitative or qualitative data, and even fewer ones use formal modelling; (4) the first and second type tend to include small samples or focus on non-representative cases; (5) most studies offer ad hoc and subjective policy advice, lacking policy evaluation and integration with insights from the literature on environmental/climate policies; (6) of the few studies on public support, a majority concludes that degrowth strategies and policies are socially-politically infeasible; (7) various studies represent a “reverse causality” confusion, i.e. use the term degrowth not for a deliberate strategy but to denote economic decline (in GDP terms) resulting from exogenous factors or public policies; (8) few studies adopt a system-wide perspective – instead most focus on small, local cases without a clear implication for the economy as a whole. We illustrate each of these findings for concrete studies. • We undertake a systematic review of degrowth studies. • This assesses the quality of content, data and methods. • The sample comprises 561 studies. • Computation linguistics identifies 11 main topics. • We draw eight main conclusions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecological Economics
Published
2024-09-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108324
Citations
41
Primary Topic
Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
11.59

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis?

Ivan Savin, Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh
41 citations
Ecological Economics
Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
11.59
article

Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis?

Ivan Savin, Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh
article en
41 citations

Abstract

In the last decade many publications have appeared on degrowth as a strategy to confront environmental and social problems. We undertake a systematic review of their content, data and methods. This involves the use of computational linguistics to identify main topics investigated. Based on a sample of 561 studies we conclude that: (1) content covers 11 main topics; (2) the large majority (almost 90%) of studies are opinions rather than analysis; (3) few studies use quantitative or qualitative data, and even fewer ones use formal modelling; (4) the first and second type tend to include small samples or focus on non-representative cases; (5) most studies offer ad hoc and subjective policy advice, lacking policy evaluation and integration with insights from the literature on environmental/climate policies; (6) of the few studies on public support, a majority concludes that degrowth strategies and policies are socially-politically infeasible; (7) various studies represent a “reverse causality” confusion, i.e. use the term degrowth not for a deliberate strategy but to denote economic decline (in GDP terms) resulting from exogenous factors or public policies; (8) few studies adopt a system-wide perspective – instead most focus on small, local cases without a clear implication for the economy as a whole. We illustrate each of these findings for concrete studies. • We undertake a systematic review of degrowth studies. • This assesses the quality of content, data and methods. • The sample comprises 561 studies. • Computation linguistics identifies 11 main topics. • We draw eight main conclusions.

Ecological EconomicsVol. 226
Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES), Ural Federal University (RU), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
11.59
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.