From Degrowth to Directed Prosperity
A Journey in Reframing
Editors note: This article is part of our Thematic Focus “Degrowth, the word”.
For those of us dedicated to building a world of sufficiency and well-being, the language we use is critical. We advocate for a profound, necessary shift away from the destructive logic of endless economic growth. Yet, we are often burdened with a banner that seems to undermine our efforts before the conversation can even begin: the word 'degrowth'.
As a concept, it holds an essential truth. But as a word, it is a communications dead-end. Lakoff’s research on political framing demonstrates that terminology shapes what policies people can imagine and support. It invites images of austerity, regression, and universal sacrifice, forcing its proponents onto the defensive. It names a rich, aspirational, and complex project after its most easily misinterpreted component—reduction—while obscuring its true goals of justice, democracy, and flourishing. As I've explored in detail, this terminology actively prevents natural allies from finding common ground, creating unnecessary divisions between movements that share the same fundamental goals.
The challenge of language goes deeper than simple marketing. Words are cognitively embodied and embedded in social contexts, triggering entire networks of meaning and emotion. This is why terms like "welfare" became politically weaponised while "well-being" retained its positive associations, despite describing the same concept. The task isn't just finding words that resist co-optation, but actively constructing frameworks that make regressive interpretations more difficult and transparent when they occur.
Frustrated by this impasse, a rigorous project was undertaken: to deconstruct the concept, understand its core principles, and build a new, more powerful language from the ground up. This is the story of that journey.
Step 1: Deconstructing the Concept
The process began by analyzing 115 distinct definitions of 'degrowth' from decades of literature. Despite the varied wording, a clear and consistent set of five core principles emerged. The concept, stripped to its essence, is always a blend of:
The What (Physical Action): A reduction of the physical metabolism of the economy—the throughput of energy and materials.
The How (Social Process): A process that is democratic, equitable, planned, and just.
The Why (Ecological Motivation): The need to bring the economy into balance with planetary limits.
The For What (Human Goal): The ultimate aim of enhancing human well-being and social justice.
The Where (The Scope): A transition primarily for over-consuming, high-income nations.
The analysis confirmed the problem: the label 'degrowth' only reflects the first principle, ignoring the other four, which are arguably more important. This mirrors what economists like Joan Robinson warned about - how economic terminology can deceive rather than clarify.
Step 2: Rebuilding the Definition
With these core principles identified, the next step was to reconstruct them into a single, comprehensive definition. The key strategic choice was to reverse the traditional framing. Instead of leading with the difficult medicine of "reduction," the new definition would lead with the aspirational goal, grounding the entire project in a positive, human-centric vision.
After careful workshopping, the result is a definition that is both precise and politically astute:
The democratic re-organization of the economy to enhance human well-being and secure social justice, prioritizing these goals over abstract economic growth. This is achieved through a planned reduction of physical economic throughput in high-income nations, in order to secure a liveable planet for ourselves and our children while ensuring a high quality of life for all.
This definition is a call to action. It frames the project as one of empowerment, justice, and well-being. This approach aligns with Tim Jackson's vision of 'prosperity without growth' - genuine flourishing that doesn't depend on endless expansion. It is a statement of what we are fighting for, not just what we are fighting against.
Step 3: The Final Act – A New Name
A new definition this powerful cannot live under the old, limiting name. The final step is to rename the project itself. Inspired by the very name of this publication, it's clear we need terms that evoke positive and precise meanings. A single name is not enough; a coherent narrative requires a suite of terms.
The System: The most fitting name for the economic structure we aim to build is the Sustainable Sufficiency Economy. It perfectly describes a system designed for ecological balance and the principle of "enoughness" for a good life.
The Outcome: The goal or promise of this new system is true Sustainable Prosperity—a state of human flourishing that can be maintained indefinitely. Crucially, "prosperity" here is defined not in terms of capitalist profit or GDP growth, but as genuine well-being that encompasses social justice, ecological health, and human flourishing.
The Project: The most crucial choice is the name for the movement itself—the active, political work of getting there. The name for this is Directed Prosperity.
This term captures the essence of the project. "Directed" speaks to conscious, democratic planning and agency. It is a direct refutation of laissez-faire market logic, asserting that we can and must steer our economy. "Prosperity" reclaims the word, anchoring this action in the goal of genuine well-being for all.
Beyond the cognitive clarity, this framing activates fundamentally different emotions than "degrowth" - rather than triggering feelings of scarcity, loss, or sacrifice, "Directed Prosperity" evokes hope, agency, and abundance. This emotional shift is crucial for building the trustworthy communities and embodied politics necessary for transformative change. People organise more powerfully around what they want to create than what they want to destroy.
Furthermore, this vision is not an economic fantasy. The macroeconomic tools to make it a reality already exist, building on established frameworks for regenerative economic design. The entire project can be built on a foundation of policies that guarantee economic security and meaningful work for all, ensuring no one is left behind in the transition.
"Directed Prosperity" functions as an umbrella framework that creates space for feminist, decolonial, anti-racist, and ecological analyses to work together, recognising that these struggles are interconnected rather than competing. The framework operates at multiple analytical layers, allowing specific movements to maintain their focus while building broader coalitions around shared goals of justice and flourishing.
Our work is to build a new world, and that includes building a new vocabulary to describe it. We can now move forward with a clear and compelling story:
We are a movement for Directed Prosperity. Our mission is to build a Sustainable Sufficiency Economy that will deliver lasting Sustainable Prosperity for all.
 | A guest post by
|
One thing we might want to discuss is our audience. In the USA, it is possible that "degrowth" may be, in fact, the best term. (1) Fewer syllables; if we're talking communication, that's an issue. Two syllables versus seven. (2) Clarity: assuming you get their attention, people are going to figure out what this means for the USA eventually. They're going to wonder why just didn't say this up front. (3) Even after you've fully explained everything, most Americans are going to remark on the fact that you've made their economy smaller. We might as well take the term and own it. But this will obviously not work everywhere, perhaps in most places, as your article points out, so as an international movement your approach makes more sense.
Congrats for this interesting process that does precisely identify the marketing issues with the word degrowth and try to reconstruct it.
While I agree with the process, I disagree with the language of the conclusion :
« We are a movement for Directed Prosperity. Our mission is to build a Sustainable Sufficiency Economy that will deliver lasting Sustainable Prosperity for all. »
The reasons:
- In my opinion the word « Economy » does not work as people are tired of mainstream economy and the focus on money, trade, finance… We have to get rid of this term.
- « Directed » is really weird, it reminds me of the word « director » and for sure citizens don’t want to be directed by a class of directors, they want direct participatory democracy, so « Democratic prosperity » or something like that would be better.
- Then, while the word « sustainable » and « sufficiency » are important, I am not sure that they sound very interesting for citizens who don’t know the topic.
Overall, for people who don’t know degrowth, the language of your conclusion paragraph may sound like a movement where some directors will impose green measures and restrictions in comfort to ensure to optimize the Economy.