IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v240y2026ics0921800925003131.html

Degrowth and postgrowth: A systematic literature review of growth-critical science

Author

Listed:
  • Toikka, Arho
  • Ruuska, Toni
  • Wiman, Laua
  • Heikkurinen, Pasi

Abstract

This article is a systematic review of the bourgeoning field of studies employing growth-critical concepts, namely degrowth and postgrowth. First, it demonstrates how these concepts are used across disciplines, and how they consequently have varying approaches to theory, subject matter, and policy. Secondly, it maps the topography of growth-critical science to demonstrate the topical differences and similarities in these studies. By topic modelling, a natural-language processing machine-learning method, the study finds 20 focal topics from 943 articles. The critiques of growth appear in various combinations, allowing the article to compile the main topics and to demonstrate how they span across studies. The article challenges the assumption that growth-critical science forms a united political or scholarly agenda beyond being critical towards perpetual economic growth.

Suggested Citation

  • Toikka, Arho & Ruuska, Toni & Wiman, Laua & Heikkurinen, Pasi, 2026. "Degrowth and postgrowth: A systematic literature review of growth-critical science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:240:y:2026:i:c:s0921800925003131
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925003131
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108830?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Savin, Ivan & van den Bergh, Jeroen, 2024. "Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    2. Daly, Herman E., 1987. "The economic growth debate: What some economists have learned but many have not," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 323-336, December.
    3. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    4. Mayumi, Kozo & Giampietro, Mario & Gowdy, John M., 1998. "Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz Revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 115-117, November.
    5. Margaret Roberts & Brandon Stewart & Tingley, Dustin & Edoardo Airoldi, 2013. "The structural topic model and applied social science," Working Paper 132666, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    6. repec:sae:envval:v:22:y:2013:i:2:p:191-215 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2011. "Environment versus growth -- A criticism of "degrowth" and a plea for "a-growth"," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 881-890, March.
    8. Lewis C. King & Ivan Savin & Stefan Drews, 2023. "Shades of green growth scepticism among climate policy researchers," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 6(11), pages 1316-1320, November.
    9. Levallois, Clément, 2010. "Can de-growth be considered a policy option? A historical note on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and the Club of Rome," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2271-2278, September.
    10. Spash, Clive L., 2012. "New foundations for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 36-47.
    11. Weiss, Martin & Cattaneo, Claudio, 2017. "Degrowth – Taking Stock and Reviewing an Emerging Academic Paradigm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 220-230.
    12. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Dustin Tingley & Christopher Lucas & Jetson Leder‐Luis & Shana Kushner Gadarian & Bethany Albertson & David G. Rand, 2014. "Structural Topic Models for Open‐Ended Survey Responses," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 1064-1082, October.
    13. Savin, Ivan & Drews, Stefan & van den Bergh, Jeroen, 2021. "Free associations of citizens and scientists with economic and green growth: A computational-linguistics analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    14. Engler, John-Oliver & Kretschmer, Max-Friedemann & Rathgens, Julius & Ament, Joe A. & Huth, Thomas & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2024. "15 years of degrowth research: A systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    15. Mair, Simon & Druckman, Angela & Jackson, Tim, 2020. "A tale of two utopias: Work in a post-growth world," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    16. Sascha Kraus & Matthias Breier & Weng Marc Lim & Marina Dabić & Satish Kumar & Dominik Kanbach & Debmalya Mukherjee & Vincenzo Corvello & Juan Piñeiro-Chousa & Eric Liguori & Daniel Palacios-Marqués &, 2022. "Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(8), pages 2577-2595, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. François Allisson & Antoine Missemer, 2020. "Some Historiographical Tools for the Study of Intellectual Legacies," Post-Print halshs-02931492, HAL.
    2. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2023. "A one-hundred-year structural topic modeling analysis of the knowledge structure of international management research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3905-3935, August.
    3. David Ardia & Keven Bluteau & Mohammad‐Abbas Meghani, 2024. "Thirty years of academic finance," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 1008-1042, July.
    4. Keith Carlson & Michael A. Livermore & Daniel N. Rockmore, 2020. "The Problem of Data Bias in the Pool of Published U.S. Appellate Court Opinions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 224-261, June.
    5. Savin, Ivan & van den Bergh, Jeroen, 2024. "Reviewing studies of degrowth: Are claims matched by data, methods and policy analysis?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    6. Lange, Steffen & Pohl, Johanna & Santarius, Tilman, 2020. "Digitalization and energy consumption. Does ICT reduce energy demand?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    7. Dehler-Holland, Joris & Schumacher, Kira & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "Topic Modeling Uncovers Shifts in Media Framing of the German Renewable Energy Act," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 2(1).
    8. Javier Andrés & José Emilio Boscá & Rafael Doménech & Javier Ferri, 2024. "España | Efectos para el bienestar del decrecimiento como estrategia de descarbonización [Spain | The welfare effects of degrowth as a decarbonization strategy]," Working Papers 24/06, BBVA Bank, Economic Research Department.
    9. Parijat Chakrabarti & Margaret Frye, 2017. "A mixed-methods framework for analyzing text data: Integrating computational techniques with qualitative methods in demography," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(42), pages 1351-1382.
    10. Nhu Tuyên Lê & Marjolijn Bloemmen & Roxana Bobulescu & Claudio Vitari, 2015. "Microeconomic degrowth: The case of Community Supported Agriculture," Post-Print halshs-01923276, HAL.
    11. O'Dell, Dallas & Contu, Davide & Shreedhar, Ganga, 2025. "Public support for degrowth policies and sufficiency behaviours in the United States: a discrete choice experiment," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 126084, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Zhang, Han, 2021. "How Using Machine Learning Classification as a Variable in Regression Leads to Attenuation Bias and What to Do About It," SocArXiv 453jk, Center for Open Science.
    13. Damani K. White-Lewis & KerryAnn O’Meara & Kiernan Mathews & Nicholas Havey, 2023. "Leaving the Institution or Leaving the Academy? Analyzing the Factors that Faculty Weigh in Actual Departure Decisions," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(3), pages 473-494, May.
    14. Lundgren, Jakob, 2022. "Unity through disunity: Strengths, values, and tensions in the disciplinary discourse of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. Ferrara, Federico M. & Masciandaro, Donato & Moschella, Manuela & Romelli, Davide, 2022. "Political voice on monetary policy: Evidence from the parliamentary hearings of the European Central Bank," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    16. Buch-Hansen, Hubert & Nesterova, Iana, 2021. "Towards a science of deep transformations: Initiating a dialogue between degrowth and critical realism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    17. Camilla Salvatore & Silvia Biffignandi & Annamaria Bianchi, 2022. "Corporate Social Responsibility Activities Through Twitter: From Topic Model Analysis to Indexes Measuring Communication Characteristics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1217-1248, December.
    18. Celso Brunetti & Marc Joëts & Valérie Mignon, 2023. "Reasons Behind Words: OPEC Narratives and the Oil Market," Working Papers hal-04196053, HAL.
    19. Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
    20. repec:osf:socarx:yfzsh_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Quentin Couix, 2019. "Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 1341-1378, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:240:y:2026:i:c:s0921800925003131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.