Sufficiency dividends and voracious sobriety: exploring the paradox of “less for more” in transport and beyond

This paper explores the relationship between sufficiency policies and individuals' propensity to consume. It is based on the counterintuitive hypothesis that the reduction or elimination of a consumption — particularly when it is constrained (transport, housing, etc.) — can generate a monetary surplus (sufficiency dividends) within individuals' budgets, which will then be reallocated to existing and/or new consumptions (voracious sobriety). To test this hypothesis, a serious game was implemented. Individuals play independently and must make consumption choices within a fixed budget across two different scenarios. The game was proposed to 1000 participants representative of the French population. Results validate the hypothesis that monetary gains with low-consumption lifestyle can allow individuals to relax the income constraint and satisfy new needs. All population profiles appear likely to adopt this mechanism, with a higher probability for students and individuals who are sensitive to environmental issues. Finally, the most favored sufficiency solutions belong to categories of non-essential consumption. It suggests that a part of the sufficiency dividends could be used to support non-essential consumption. These results call for a broad reflection from an economic regulation perspective in order to effectively manage these reallocation effects.