Lost rights are features, not bugs, of the pro-growth ideology

 

Kate Raworth (What does progress look like on a planet at its limit?, Guardian, 13 May 2024) is right to recognise the need to achieve progress without economic growth. Growth is inconsistent with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that is essential if we are to preserve a liveable world.

But she is wrong to see the other bad effects of ‘pro-growth’ policies as accidents; unfortunate results that could have been avoided by better governance. For instance, she suggests that “cutting red tape” need not result in reducing workers’ rights and environmental protections. But that’s wrong because reducing workers’ rights and environmental protections is what ‘growth’ advocates like the Tufton Street think-tanks mean by cutting red tape. It’s also why they want it done.

And they want this to boost the profits of companies they own or invest in or that fund them or because, having lives of privilege, they cannot imagine needing the law’s protection at work.  

So just as ending growth is essential for planetary survival so ending the influence of growth advocates in media and government is essential for creating a sustainable economy.

How can we do this whilst retaining free speech?  I suggest two changes:

1. Require all think-tanks and pressure groups to reveal their funding. Let's know who their paymasters are!

2. Extend 'balance' requirements in public broadcasting to include pro and con views on economic growth.