State of Degrowth Research

* Kallis, G. The state of degrowth research and how to assess it. Sustain Sci (2026). doi

URL = https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-026-01901-0

Abstract

"This article addresses two inter-related questions.

First, are degrowth claims supported by empirical evidence?

And second, how do we go about reviewing the literature to answer this question?

We analyze five recent reviews on the state of degrowth research focusing on the more critical, outlier of the five studies, and compare it with the four others in terms of their findings and in terms of their approach to reviewing the literature. In terms of evidence, our main finding is that the core claim of degrowth research, that green growth is unlikely if not impossible, is well supported by now; tentative findings also support the feasibility of degrowth-oriented pathways. In terms of review practice, we find that a good review of an interdisciplinary sustainability field like degrowth should avoid disciplinary biases, be transparent about its own assumptions, and use methods that are fit for the purposes it sets for itself."

Contents

"This paper is structured as follows. "What is degrowth research?" defines the domain of degrowth research, and explains the challenges involved in assessing it. Based on the existing methodological scholarship on literature reviews, five criteria are proposed to guide good practice in evaluating this, and other, interdisciplinary fields within and beyond sustainability science. "The outlier: Savin and van den Bergh’s negative evaluation of degrowth research" shows how the methodological choices of Savin and van den Bergh’s study shape its conclusions, and their negative evaluation of degrowth research. “Four more systematic reviews of degrowth” compares Savin and van Bergh to the four other reviews and explains why the latter come to different conclusions. “Conclusions: nine core findings” concludes comparing the five reviews according to the five criteria and it reflects, first, on the state of degrowth research given the findings of the reviews, and second, on good practices when evaluating an interdisciplinary sustainability research field like degrowth."

Typology

G. Kallis:

"Degrowth research has so far developed four main lines of investigation.

The first research line (RL1) includes studies—theoretical and empirical—that reject the prevalent hypothesis that high-income countries can achieve “green growth”. This research does not prove as such the feasibility of degrowth but shows the infeasibility and undesirability of continuing to pursue growth while also trying to achieve ecological objectives (Slameršak et al. 2023; Vogel and Hickel 2023). Given that there are only two possible outcomes, either GDP growth is sustainable, or it is not, and if it is not, then it cannot and should not continue, which is the degrowth claim, then a disproof of the green growth hypothesis is an indirect support in favour of degrowth.Footnote3

The second line of research (RL2) focuses on so-called growth dependencies and imperatives (Corlet Walker et al. 2021; Driouich and Kallis 2025; Keyßer et al. 2025), or the ways GDP growth has become hegemonic within state and interstate institutions (Schmelzer 2016). This research attempts to explain how specific institutions or sectors have come to be dependent upon growth for their stability, with an eye towards developing interventions that may break such dependencies and enable institutions—and economies more broadly—to function and meet human needs without continuous growth. An important stream of research here concerns welfare states and institutions, and the possibility of building eco-welfare states sustained without growth (Koch 2022; Büchs and Koch 2017).

The third research line (RL3) explores the feasibility or desirability of degrowth itself: by modelling degrowth pathways and policies (D’Alessandro et al. 2020; Kemp-Benedict 2025); by showing that good living standards can be provisioned with low levels of energy and resource use (Millward-Hopkins et al. 2020; Vogel et al. 2021); or by looking, ethnographically and sociologically, at specific, localized experiences that can provide insights for arrangements that might secure human wellbeing with limited resource use [see various contributions in Paulson (2017) and Demaria et al. (2019)].

Finally, there is an emerging, fourth, literature on alternative forms of degrowth organizing (RL4). This includes for example studies on organizational forms suitable for degrowth transitions (Banerjee et al 2021; Nesterova 2024), studies of degrowth-oriented technologies or innovation systems (Kerschner et al 2018; Pansera and Lloveras 2025; Kostakis et al 2018), and studies of degrowth-akin territories that voluntary or involuntary have come to experience forms of degrowth (Kallis et al 2022; Gilbert et al 2026).

Degrowth has strong normative claims about the desirability of downscaling economic activity and moving beyond capitalist organization, but the veracity of these claims rests on empirically-testable propositions about the feasibility and desirability of, first, alternative pathways such as green growth, and second of degrowth pathways themselves. Degrowth contains also ethical claims about the a priori desirability of simpler forms of organizing, and of living within limits (see Kallis 2019), a sort of limitarianism that like notions of say liberty or equality, cannot be settled empirically alone."

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-026-01901-0)

Excerpt

G. Kallis:

From the conclusion:

1.

"The founding claim of degrowth studies, i.e. that green growth is unlikely if not impossible, has been corroborated by credible evidence.

2.

There are a small number of specialized degrowth models that show that degrowth-oriented policy packages can fare well in terms of climate and social outcomes but are raising questions of financing that call for further study. A new generation of integrated assessment and ecological macro-economic models are under development that purport to simulate more complex post-growth socio-economic interactions and policies and their effects on a variety of environmental and wellbeing outcomes. These remain however focused on Global North contexts, and they need to extend to the Global South and to North–South interactions.

3.

Degrowth is a flourishing field that includes empirical as well as conceptual or review contributions. Whereas early emphasis was on conceptual contributions that tried to define the field and build bridges to other fields of study, recently there is a development of degrowth research proper, including both quantitative studies and models, and qualitative case studies. The reviews of the literature agree that there are glaring gaps in current degrowth scholarship, and these include, among others, questions of distribution in a degrowth transition, North–South relations and alternative development models for the South, the politics of transformation and popular support—or lack of—for it and resistance from vested interests, the function and role of the state, and finally, geopolitical questions.

Regarding, methodological practice on evaluating degrowth studies, but also applying to sustainability science more generally:

4.

One needs to be very clear about the purposes and boundaries of a review. If the goal is to assess the evolution of a scholar (sub)community and identify the themes it is engaging with, then a narrower definition of the field is justified. If one instead wants to evaluate the validity of claims of this community, such as degrowth community claims in this case, then it is necessary to extend to a broader field of studies that are not always framed in terms of the community itsel but have much to offer regarding the validity of its claims.

5.

If one wants to evaluate the degrowth literature as a whole and not a specialized subfield of it like say models, then one needs to be attuned to the different disciplinary approaches represented in it and assess different types of study in their own terms, free from any disciplinary biases.

6.

Systematic search criteria and quantification should be used with caution and only when fit to purpose. If the intent is bibliometric, then a systematic quantification might be merited. If the intent is evaluative, then a quantification is likely to be misleading, and a systematization carries the risk of being restrictive.

7.

Narrow disciplinary yardsticks should be avoided: interdisciplinary literatures cannot be evaluated from the vantage point of the discipline where the reviewer happened to be trained. The fact that sustainability science, especially social and policy studies within sustainability studies, have had a strong economics focus, may make economists feel entitled to review the field as a subset of economics, and apply upon it the restricted quality criteria of what counts as good science in mainstream economics. Sustainability studies, however, are not reducible to economics, nor do economists have a privileged position in evaluating sustainability science.

8.

Assessments should be transparent about their own assumptions and criteria.

9.

Interdisciplinary fields are heterogenous and in flux. The analytical contribution of a literature review is not to pronounce a field as good or bad, but to contribute to its maturation by sorting out good from not so good studies, and focusing on the good ones, identifying the debates, controversies and research questions they open."

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-026-01901-0)