Steady-state economy

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The steady-state economy is an idea that asks a question most economists spent two centuries trying to avoid: what happens when an economy simply stops growing? Not because it collapses, not because of war or plague, but because it chooses to. A constant stock of physical wealth, a constant population, a fixed flow of natural resources moving through the system and out as waste. That is the vision, and it has a history stretching back to Adam Smith in the 18th century, running through the classroom debates of John Stuart Mill, through the thermodynamic arguments of the 1970s, and arriving at the lifework of ecological economist Herman Daly, who turned this old idea into a political program. What makes a growing economy dangerous? Who has argued we cannot grow forever, and on what grounds? And what would it actually take to build a world that runs in place, not because it has failed, but because it has decided to?

• 2. From Smith to Mill

  ›

  Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, introduced the concept of the 'invisible hand' guiding an economy toward growth and prosperity. Smith was confident about the mechanism, less confident about its duration. He divided the world's economies into three states: progressive, stationary, and declining. North America was in the cheerful progressive state, its wages rising because its wealth was growing fast. China was in what Smith called the 'dull' stationary state, with low wages and a population kept in check by practices Smith described as 'horrid.' Bengal, he feared, might already be in the melancholic decline. Smith observed that as a nation grew wealthier, the rate of profit would fall and investment opportunities would shrink. Eventually, a nation would reach what he called 'the full complement of riches.' At that point, it would settle into stationarity with constant population and constant capital. Holland, he noted, seemed closest to this threshold, though he could not name a single country that had actually reached it. 'Perhaps no country has ever yet arrived at this degree of opulence,' he conceded.

  David Ricardo, the champion of British laissez-faire liberalism in the early 19th century, saw limits to growth as already pressing. The Napoleonic Wars had disrupted trade with Europe, and the landowning classes had tightened the Corn Laws when peace returned in 1815, protecting their monopoly on domestic food supply at the expense of real wages and real profits. Ricardo published On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation in 1817 into this political storm. His argument was stark: scarce agricultural land meant any growing economy would crowd profits with rising rents. The only escape was more international trade, importing cheap food from abroad. The Corn Laws, repealed only in 1846, blocked that escape. Ricardo died in 1823, before the Laws fell; and the continued growth of the British economy after his death damaged the credibility of his framework, even as it established him as the first stationary-state theorist in the history of economic thought.

  John Stuart Mill, the leading economist and philosopher of mid-19th century Britain, broke sharply with both Smith and Ricardo on one key point: he welcomed the stationary state. His Principles of Political Economy, published in 1848, became the standard textbook in economics across the English-speaking world until the turn of the century. Mill drew on his utilitarian philosophy, which measured all outcomes by what he called 'the Greatest Happiness Principle.' He argued the stationary state was simultaneously inevitable, necessary, and desirable. Inevitable, because falling profit rates would choke off investment. Necessary, because humanity needed to learn to live within limits. Desirable, because it would ease income redistribution, reduce the grinding struggle for survival, and liberate the human spirit for what he called 'the graces of life.' Where political economists of the old school viewed the stationary state with what Mill called 'unaffected aversion,' Mill could not share that feeling at all.

• 3. Nature Removed and Restored

  ›

  When Mill's influence faded at the end of the 19th century, two schools of thought moved in to fill the space, and both largely abandoned the question of natural resource limits. Karl Marx replaced the stationary state with his concept of historical materialism, in which human societies moved through successive modes of production toward communism. Marx's framework rested on technological optimism: the productive forces of society would overcome any resource scarcity. By 1991, German sociologist Reiner Grundmann observed that 'orthodox Marxism has vanished from the scene, leftism has turned green, and Marxists have become ecologists.' Neoclassical economics took a different path, narrowing its focus to the relationship between given ends and given scarce means within a static equilibrium framework. Natural resource scarcity disappeared from the analysis almost entirely. Critics have argued that neoclassical economics became what one writer called 'a pseudoscience of choice between anything in general and nothing in particular,' neglecting the preferences of future generations and treating the economy like a perpetual motion machine. One pointed formulation put it this way: 'If Judeo-Christian monotheism took nature out of religion, Anglo-American economists after about 1880 took nature out of economics.'

  John Maynard Keynes, the most influential economist of the 20th century, did not put nature back in. But in his 1930 essay on The Economic Possibilities of Our Grandchildren, he predicted that by 2030 the grandchildren of his generation would live in a state of abundance, liberated from saving and capital accumulation, free to pursue what he called the 'true art of life,' to live 'wisely and agreeably and well.' Keynes believed capital accumulation would eventually reach saturation, bringing about what he called 'a quasi-stationary community' where progress would come only from changes in technique, taste, population, and institutions. He welcomed the disappearance of the rentier class that this would bring. Critics have since noted that Keynes was broadly right about future growth rates but badly underestimated the inequalities that growth would leave behind; and that the predicted shift toward leisure never materialized. In reality, greater wealth produced more work, not less.

  By the years around 1970, the gap between a world economy growing without limit and an economic discipline that had no theoretical place for nature finally attracted a sustained challenge. Between 1966 and 1972, four works appeared that would together form the intellectual foundation of ecological economics. Economist Kenneth E. Boulding argued in 1966 that mankind would have to adapt from the open 'cowboy economy' of exploitative behaviour to something more like a 'spaceship earth,' where the flow of natural resources through the economy was a cost to be minimized rather than a benefit to be maximized. In 1971, Romanian American economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen integrated thermodynamics with economic analysis, arguing that all natural resources are irreversibly degraded when put to use: matter and energy move from valuable states to valueless waste, increasing entropy. Ecologist Howard T. Odum the same year described human societies through the lens of ecology, formulating the maximum power principle. And in 1972, Donella Meadows and her team published The Limits to Growth for the Club of Rome, projecting that by the mid to latter part of the 21st century, industrial production per capita, food supply per capita, and world population would all peak and then collapse. Dismissed at the time, the study has since been confirmed by multiple independent researchers as matching actual world economic trends.

• 4. Herman Daly's Program

  ›

  Ecological economics was formally founded in 1988, the culmination of a decade of conferences. The key figures were Herman Daly and Robert Costanza from the United States, AnnMari Jansson from Sweden, and Juan Martinez-Alier from Spain. Since 1989, the field has been organised in the International Society for Ecological Economics, which publishes the journal Ecological Economics. But the intellectual anchor was Daly, who had already spent years developing the steady-state economy as a concrete political proposal, not merely a theoretical endpoint.

  Daly's core premise was that the economy is an open subsystem embedded in a finite and non-growing natural environment. It imports low-entropy matter and energy from nature, processes it into goods, and exports high-entropy waste and pollution at the other end. Recycling is possible, but only by consuming additional energy that cannot itself be recycled. Entropy, Daly argued, is 'the basic physical coordinate of scarcity.' Were it not for entropy, the same gallon of gasoline could be burned repeatedly. Technology cannot rise above the laws of physics. This position came to be called 'entropy pessimism.'

  Daly traced the source of the current predicament to the Industrial Revolution in Britain in the second half of the 18th century. Before that revolution, human societies had lived within what Daly called a 'solar-income budget,' drawing on renewable energy from the sun. The Industrial Revolution broke that budget by adding the terrestrial mineral stock as a second source of wealth, far scarcer and irreplaceable. Modern humanity still lives in the after-effect. Daly identified an 'asymmetry' between the two sources: mankind can choose how rapidly to extract the mineral stock, but the flow of solar energy arrives at a rate beyond human control. It is the mineral stock, not the sun, that constitutes the crucial scarcity factor for humanity's economic future.

  To stop further growth, Daly proposed three new institutions layered on top of the existing market economy. The first would correct inequality by setting minimum and maximum limits on income, maximum limits on wealth, and redistributing accordingly. The second would stabilize population by issuing transferable reproduction licenses to all fertile women at a level corresponding to general replacement fertility. The third would stabilize the level of capital by issuing and selling depletion quotas that impose quantitative restrictions on the flow of resources through the economy. Daly argued that quotas were superior to taxes in this role: taxes alter the price structure but do not stop growth, while quotas set hard limits on extraction rates and prevent rebound effects. He also helped found the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, known as CASSE, and received several prizes for his work.

  Daly himself acknowledged the limits of his proposal. His teachers Georgescu-Roegen and Boulding both argued that even a steady-state economy would eventually exhaust earth's mineral stock, just more slowly than a growing one. Daly conceded the point: 'A steady-state economy cannot last forever, but neither can a growing economy, nor a declining economy.' He argued, as a committed Protestant, that creation is finite in time as well as space, and that humanity's role as steward is to avoid wasting what limited capacity remains.

• 5. Rebound, Decoupling, Debate

  ›

  The most common objection to the steady-state economy is that technology and market mechanisms can decouple economic growth from resource consumption, making the whole concern unnecessary. This argument has a long history. William Stanley Jevons addressed it in 1865 in The Coal Question, arguing that improved energy efficiency would lead to more, not less, energy consumption: lower costs would make people better off, and they would spend their gains on more energy. The mechanism is now called the Jevons paradox, or the rebound effect. Jevons's broader worry was that Britain's industrial supremacy would eventually be ended by the exhaustion of its coal mines, tipping geopolitical power toward countries with more abundant reserves.

  In 2009, two researchers reached different conclusions on the empirical record. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsacker, a German scientist and politician, published Factor Five with a team from The Natural Edge Project, arguing that a new wave of innovation in resource productivity could achieve an 80 percent improvement in the gross input per output ratio of the economy, a development he called a 'Green Kondratiev' cycle after the Russian economist Nikolai Kondratiev. Von Weizsacker did acknowledge that past efficiency gains had been 'fraught with increasing overall levels of consumption.' British ecological economist Tim Jackson published Prosperity Without Growth the same year, drawing from an earlier report he had written for the UK Sustainable Development Commission. Jackson surveyed the data from 1970 to 2009: energy intensity in world GDP fell by 33 percent, but because the economy kept growing, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels rose by 80 percent in the same period. On key metals, the situation was worse: from 1990 to 2007, extraction of iron ore, bauxite, copper, and nickel all rose faster than world GDP. Resource efficiency, Jackson concluded, was moving 'in the wrong direction,' largely because emerging economies, notably China, were building infrastructure at scale. He warned that 'simplistic assumptions that capitalism's propensity for efficiency will stabilize the climate and solve the problem of resource scarcity are almost literally bankrupt.'

  Daly's preferred solution was a cap-and-trade system of depletion quotas managed by a government agency. He argued this system offered three distinct advantages over taxes or pollution standards: it set absolute and permanent limits on extraction and pollution rather than merely altering prices; it induced more efficiency and recycling by raising resource prices through quota scarcity; and it eliminated rebound effects entirely, since any surge in demand would produce inflation or shortages rather than increased supply. Daly called the idea of decoupling the economy completely from natural resources 'angelizing GDP,' a prospect achievable only if humanity became angels itself.

• 6. Degrowth and Deeper Cuts

  ›

  Georgescu-Roegen pushed further than Daly. In The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, he argued that earth's carrying capacity is bound to decrease as finite mineral stocks are drawn down, and that the world economy is heading toward inevitable future collapse. On Georgescu-Roegen's logic, zero growth is better than growth, but negative growth is better still. His own 'minimal bioeconomic program' called for restrictions even more severe than Daly's three institutions.

  From Georgescu-Roegen's work, a cluster of thinkers developed what became the degrowth movement, which emerged primarily in France and Italy in the early 2000s. Jeremy Rifkin, in his book Entropy: A New World View, argued that the exhaustion of mineral resources would end the industrial age and open a new solar age based on renewable power. Because solar radiation is diffuse and low-intensity, it cannot sustain industrialism in any form; Rifkin therefore advocated an anarcho-primitivist future he called an 'entropic society,' built on anti-consumerism, deindustrialisation, counterurbanisation, and organic farming. Serge Latouche, the French political scientist who became the public champion of degrowth, laid out a strategy in Farewell to Growth of what he called 'ecomunicipalism,' pursuing a 'virtuous cycle of quiet contraction' at the local level: reducing consumption and addiction to work, taxing fairly, designing products for recycling, opposing overconsumption in rich countries and resisting its spread to poorer ones. Latouche warned that 'the very survival of humanity means that ecological concerns must be a central part of our social, political, cultural and spiritual preoccupation with human life.'

  Christian Kerschner reconciled degrowth and the steady state by arguing that degrowth should be understood as the path rich industrialised countries take toward a globally equitable steady-state economy. Rich countries reduce their throughput, making ecological room for poorer countries to develop, until all converge at some internationally agreed intermediate level. Kerschner admitted this goal might remain unattainable in the foreseeable future but argued that seemingly unattainable goals can still usefully orient collective action.

  Daly himself accepted the broad logic. He agreed that the optimal level of population and capital might be lower than current levels, and that once a steady state was established, the next question would be whether to move to an even lower level. But he insisted on sequence: 'We cannot go into reverse without first coming to a stop.' Two independent comparative studies later found no analytical differences of substance between Daly's steady-state economics and the degrowth school; the gap was political style, with Daly's top-down institutional approach contrasting with the grassroots radicalism of Latouche and his followers.

• 7. Capitalism, Space, Criticism

  ›

  Radical critics of capitalism have questioned whether a steady state or degrowth system could ever function on top of capitalist institutions. They point to a cluster of interlocking growth pressures: the profit motive and drive to accumulate; employment dependent on sales revenues, which creates pressure to expand consumption; fractional-reserve banking, which multiplies credit beyond the monetary base; labour-saving technology that displaces workers and requires new employment elsewhere; corporate resistance to government restrictions that reduce profits; government dependence on tax revenues that rise with economic activity; and global competition that compels nations to grow to attract investment. In 1980, Daly posed the question of whether his steady-state economy was essentially capitalistic or socialistic and offered this answer: the debate over growth versus steady state cuts across the old left-right division, and a 'third way' might eventually synthesise elements of both socialism and capitalism into a fully just and sustainable society.

  A different escape from earthly limits has been proposed by space advocates since the modern Space Age began in the 1950s. Physicist and space activist Gerard K. O'Neill developed in the 1970s a large plan for human settlements in outer space to solve overpopulation and limits to growth without political repression. O'Neill's vision held that mankind could expand to many times the current world population and generate large new wealth in space. Daly responded that a space colony would face limits to growth even harsher than those on earth, requiring tighter management, not looser, and concluded: 'The alleged impossibility of a steady-state on earth provides a poor intellectual launching pad for space colonies.' By the 2010s, a different version of the space argument had emerged: rather than sending colonists out, asteroid mining could bring resources back to earth. Sceptics, including Daly, pointed to high launch costs, difficulty identifying suitable asteroids, and the challenge of remote extraction as barriers; and noted that the astronomically long distances and time scales involved in space make any steady large-scale flow of materials back to earth deeply uncertain.

  Economist Wim Naude has offered a pointed criticism from a different angle: Western economies may already resemble degrowth, not by design but by stagnation. Naude characterises this period as a Great Stagnation marked by declining entrepreneurship, innovation, scientific output, and research productivity. In a stagnant economy, he argues, gains for one group tend to come at the expense of another, increasing conflict. Drawing on Thomas Piketty's 2014 analysis, Naude adds that low growth compounds wealth inequality over the long run. And stagnation, Naude contends, makes societies less capable of the innovation that might actually solve ecological overshoot and climate change. A 2022 research project described a transition toward a steady-state economy with low throughput and low emissions as 'possible and probably positive,' while calling for more serious attention and international cooperation, particularly among high-income economies, to make it happen.