On the limits of economic activity: bridging degrowth and modern monetary theory for socio-ecological sustainability and justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper advances recent work exploring synergies and tensions between two schools of political-economic thought—degrowth and modern monetary theory (MMT)—and posits that this synergy warrants closer attention from International Political Economy and Environment (IPEE) scholars. Thus far, degrowth policies have largely been proposed upon the assumption that governments are limited in budgetary terms. MMT theorists have offered an alternative perspective on fiscal policy space but generally provide insufficient ecological considerations. This paper asks how each school’s underlying assumptions about the limits of economic activity might inform the other’s framework of action. We find that while there are tensions between the two schools’ economic philosophies, there are possibilities for cross-fertilization, which ought to interest IPEE scholars. MMT could engage degrowth’s perspective of ecological limits and global socio-ecological justice in its discussions about what economies can ‘afford’, whereas degrowth could use MMT insights to shift from a ‘pay for’ to a ‘resource’ frame, while centering abundance before limits. Meanwhile, IPEE can provide insights to an MMT-informed degrowth transition by grounding this debate in material analyses of class and power. Our findings suggest that degrowth and MMT could provide a normative direction for IPEE research centered around meeting material needs within planetary boundaries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".