尊敬的用戶您好，這是來自FT中文網的溫馨提示：如您對更多FT中文網的內容感興趣，請在蘋果應用商店或谷歌應用市場搜尋「FT中文網」，下載FT中文網的官方應用。
Supporters of so-called degrowth proclaim that without radical economic change — and falling GDP — ecological collapse is looming. Detractors, meanwhile, dismiss this as unwarranted techno-pessimism, infused with fuzzy language and untenable or vague policies. Some recent reviews assess this burgeoning area of research. What flaws do they find?
所謂「去成長」(degrowth)的支持者宣稱，如果沒有徹底的經濟變革和國內生產總值(GDP)下降，生態崩潰將會迫在眉睫。然而，反對者則將其視爲毫無根據的技術悲觀主義，充斥著模糊的語言和站不住腳或含糊不清的政策。最近的一些評論對這一新興研究領域進行了評估。他們發現了哪些缺陷？
One by Ivan Savin of the Paris Higher School of Commerce and Jeroen van den Bergh of the Autonomous University of Barcelona hands ammunition to the critics, analysing 561 studies containing “degrowth” or “post-growth” in the title. They complain about a plethora of degrowth definitions, and provocatively claim that researchers are “colonising” distinct areas by using the term to package work on, say, recycling.
巴黎高等商學院的伊萬•薩文和巴塞隆納自治大學(Autonomous University of Barcelona)的耶羅恩•範登貝爾赫的一項研究爲批評者提供了彈藥，他們分析了561項標題中包含「去成長」或「後成長」的研究。他們抱怨「去成長」的定義過多，並挑釁性地聲稱研究人員透過使用這個術語來包裝回收等工作，正在「殖民」不同的領域。
They also grumble about weak methods, calculating that just over 5 per cent of papers they study perform quantitative data analysis, which they say is often “superficial and incomplete”. Another 4 per cent do qualitative data analysis, some of which is shaky. They offer examples, including an analysis of 14 interviews with Canadian environmental activists that is meant to shed light on “limited uptake of degrowth discourse in the English-speaking world”.
他們還抱怨研究中使用的方法不夠嚴謹，計算出他們研究的論文中只有略多於5%進行了定量數據分析，他們稱這種分析常常是「膚淺和不完整的」。另外4%進行了定性數據分析，其中一些分析並不可靠。他們舉了一些例子，包括對14位加拿大環境社運人士的訪談進行的分析，旨在闡明「英語世界對去成長論的接受程度有限」。
The reaction among degrowthers resembled their likely response to a coal-fired power plant in a nature reserve. One retort was that by limiting the study to research with degrowth in the title, the authors painted an unrepresentative picture of the field, one that was more likely to contain discussion and review than original empirical work. Another was that all fields contain at least some shoddy research.
去成長論者的反應類似於他們對自然保護區內燃煤發電廠的反應。有人反駁說，作者們將研究限制在標題中帶有「去成長」的研究上，描繪了一個不具代表性的領域圖景，這些研究更可能包含討論和評論，而非原創的實證工作。還有人認爲，所有領域都至少包含一些粗劣的研究。
Still, some of the substantive critiques are echoed in other reviews, even those by researchers friendlier towards the project. Others have also noted the inconsistency of definition: while some use the terms “degrowth” and “postgrowth” interchangeably, others distinguish degrowth as a more radical approach to scaling back production, and postgrowth as allowing for more incremental reform.
儘管如此，一些實質性的批評在其他評論中也有所反映，即使是那些對該項目更友好的研究人員的評論。其他人也指出了定義的不一致性：雖然有些人將「去成長」和「後成長」這兩個術語互換使用，但也有人將去成長定義爲更激進的縮減生產的方法，而將後成長定義爲更漸進的改革。
A review of modelling studies by Arthur Lauer, Iñigo Capellán-Pérez and Nathalie Wergles of the University of Valladolid argues that this ambiguity contributes to more substantive fuzziness, including over the desired path of GDP, whether degrowth is consistent with capitalism, and who exactly is supposed to be driving any change. And while there has been a surge in modelling efforts over the past few years, there are still gaps.
巴利亞多利德大學的阿瑟•勞爾(Arthur Lauer)、伊尼戈•卡佩蘭•佩雷斯(Iñigo Capellán-Pérez)和納塔莉•韋爾格爾斯(Nathalie Wergles)對建模研究的回顧認爲，這種模糊性導致了更多實質性的模糊，包括對國內生產總值的預期路徑、去成長是否與資本主義相一致，以及究竟由誰來推動任何變革。儘管過去幾年中建模工作有所增加，但仍然存在一些空白。
Others have also levelled the charge that for a movement advocating for change, degrowth research is not engaged enough with practical policymaking. A review by researchers mostly at the University of Lüneberg of 475 studies made the “baffling” calculation that around two-thirds neither contained nor discussed any concrete policy proposals.
其他人還指責，對於一個倡導變革的運動來說，去成長研究在實際政策制定方面的參與不夠。主要由呂訥貝格大學的研究人員對475項研究進行的評論得出了一個「令人困惑」的結論，即大約三分之二的研究既沒有包含也沒有討論任何具體的政策建議。
Where there are ideas, details are often lacking. Another review identified 530 degrowth policy proposals but noted that “most” lack precision (“ecological reparations” or “transitioning businesses to not-for-profit co-operatives”). Reducing work-time is popular, but few studies specify how to do it. And researchers only rarely explore the interactions between different (major) policy changes.
有想法的地方，往往缺乏細節。另一項綜述發現了530個去成長政策建議，但指出「大多數」缺乏準確性（如「生態賠償」或「將企業轉型爲非營利合作社」）。減少工作時間很受歡迎，但很少有研究具體說明如何做到。研究人員也很少探討不同（重大）政策變化之間的相互作用。
A final gap is research looking into ways of getting people on board with radical economic change — and of sustaining it once they start to feel the pinch of falling consumption. This seems pretty urgent given the political obstacles to pro-environmental policies even without a wholesale change to our economic institutions.
最後一個差距是研究如何讓人們參與激進的經濟變革，以及在他們開始感受到消費下降的壓力時如何維持這種變革。考慮到即使不全面改變我們的經濟制度，親環境政策也會遇到政治障礙，這一點似乎非常緊迫。
Some of these gaps reflect the grand nature of the project. Another review describes it as “exiting economism, that is, decolonising the social imaginary and liberating public debate from prevalent discourses couched in economic terms, privileging growth”. (This doesn’t sound like a movement particularly fond of economics columnists . . . )
其中一些差距反映了該項目的宏偉性質。另一篇評論將其描述爲「退出經濟主義，即對社會想像進行去殖民化，將公共辯論從以經濟術語爲主導、以成長爲優先的普遍話語中解放出來」。（這聽起來不像是一個特別熱衷於經濟學專欄作家的運動……）
Timothée Parrique of Lund University argues that among 115 definitions analysed there is a consistent idea, which is that degrowth is “a downscaling of production and consumption to reduce ecological footprints planned democratically in a way that is equitable while securing wellbeing”. Even within that, there is a lot to unpack.
隆德大學(Lund University)的Timothée Parrique認爲，在分析的115個定義中，有一個一致的觀點，即去成長是「透過民主方式計劃公平地減少生產和消費以減少生態足跡，同時確保福祉」。即使在這個定義中，也有很多需要解讀的地方。
Degrowth contains two big ideas: that growth is or may be incompatible with sustaining the planet; and that radical economic change is required as a result. Since one can disagree with either or both of these, it is hardly surprising that there is controversy over what exactly “counts” as falling within the field. And given the scale of the change degrowthers want, it isn’t surprising that empirical evidence on the journey or the destination is a little thin.
「去成長」包含兩大理念：成長與維持地球不相容，也可能不相容；因此，需要徹底的經濟變革。由於人們可能不同意這兩種觀點中的任何一種或兩種，因此對於什麼是屬於該領域的確切「計數」存在爭議也就不足爲奇了。考慮到人們想要的改變的規模，關於旅程或目的地的經驗證據有點薄弱也就不足爲奇了。
The Economics Show with Soumaya Keynes is a new podcast from the FT bringing listeners a deeper understanding of the most complex global economic issues in easy-to-digest weekly episodes. Listen to new episodes every Monday on Apple, Spotify, Pocket Casts or wherever you get your podcasts
《索馬亞•凱恩斯的經濟學秀》是一個新的 英國《金融時報》的播客，透過易於理解的每週節目，讓聽衆更深入地瞭解全球最複雜的經濟問題。每週一收聽新影集蘋果,Spotify,Pocket Casts或者在您收聽播客的任何地方