Author
Listed:
- van Hoften, Felix
- Pouw, Nicky
- Rammelt, Crelis
Abstract
This paper evaluates the incorporation of degrowth criteria into existing beyond GDP measurements and explores how this can guide coherent theorisation and framing from a degrowth perspective. While primarily descriptive in mapping the extent to which existing measurements reflect degrowth criteria, the paper also offers prescriptive insights for future indicator development. GDP, long a benchmark for economic progress, has been consistently criticized for neglecting ecological and social externalities. Due to the performative nature of the economics discipline, its theories and methods, such neglects can misguide policies and decision making around economic, environmental, and societal challenges. This article starts with a synthesis of the critiques on GDP, degrowth scholarship and disciplinary critiques on economic growth, identifies degrowth criteria and subsequently executes an extensive international literature review. We utilize the Search, Appraisal, Synthesis and Analysis framework to classify 58 beyond GDP measurements, stemming from 94 studies and map their contributions in a Venn diagram. We find that many measurements integrate some degrowth criteria (e.g. HDI, OECD's Better Life Initiative), or related components, however a comprehensive integration is lacking. Furthermore, the findings show substantial gaps in the measurement of strong sustainability and biophysical boundaries, social justice and democracy. Only two measurement frameworks—Just Transition Score, and variants of the Safe and Just Space measurement—systematically integrate degrowth criteria; however, they still exhibit theoretical and methodological gaps. We recommend the development of new clear and robust measurements based on broad agreement on coherent conceptual foundations; operational degrowth criteria, and methodological consistency.
Suggested Citation
van Hoften, Felix & Pouw, Nicky & Rammelt, Crelis, 2026.
"Bridging beyond GDP and degrowth: Identifying measurements that are fit for future,"
Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
Handle:
RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:244:y:2026:i:c:s0921800926000303
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2026.108945
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:244:y:2026:i:c:s0921800926000303. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.