Ivan Savin, Jeroen van den Bergh, Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis?
Ecological Economics, Volume 226.
“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.”
‘Giorgos Kallis, one of the leading researchers on the topic of degrowth, called it “a bad-faith hit piece” with a “weird method,” seconded by some of his colleagues who described it as an “unfair” review (Julia Steinberger) with an “extremely flawed methodology” (Jason Hickel).’
^I’m inclined to agree. Javin and van den Bergh seem to equivalate ethnographic research (a legitimate form of qualitative data) as “opinion”, because it does not use ‘formal modelling’ (a different type of research) or involve large, national-scale examples of post-growth societies (which don’t currently exist).
Is that a rebuttal to the article? Because precisely the article shows that most degrowth studies are opinions because:
“Few studies use quantitative or qualitative data”.
“Some have small samples or focus on non-representative cases”.
“Most offer ad hoc and subjective policy advice, lacking policy evaluation and integration with insights from the literature on environmental/climate policies”.
And “various studies represent a “reverse causality” confusion, i.e. use the term degrowth not for a deliberate strategy but to denote economic decline”.
Your reply is literally the opinion of two degrworth researchers name calling it “a bad-faith hit piece, using a weird method and unfair”. Let me tell you that none of these adjectives are valid scientific arguments.