Growth scepticism takes such an ambivalent view of economic growth because it is subject to contradictory forces. On the one hand, there are fundamental economic and political imperatives behind the support for economic growth in market-based economies. On the other hand, there are deep-seated reasons why growth is being called into question in contemporary society. The more fundamental reasons for today’s anxiety about growth are explored in the next chapter. This section confines itself to examining why, from a political perspective, it is difficult to launch a direct onslaught on growth.

From an economic perspective market economies are based on the need for economic growth. In capitalist societies such expansion primarily takes the form of a drive for profits. Companies stand or fall in a competitive battle with their peers. Countries become more prosperous and more influential depending on the dynamism of their economies in aggregate.

When economic growth stalls or even goes into reverse, as it did in 2008-09, it can cause enormous dislocation. Many firms can go out of business and the integrity of the whole economic system can be called into question. There is also the potential for social dislocation with unemployment rising and living standards stagnating.

The possibility of unrest points to the political imperative behind the need for economic growth. Democracies depend in large part for their legitimacy on their ability to provide rising living standards. Although politicians occasionally call for austerity at times of economic crisis they are usually reluctant to do so and cautious about framing their arguments. Sustained cuts in living standards are normally only accepted in times of war or enforced at the expense of curbing political freedoms.

So, even from a political perspective alone, it is difficult to launch direct attacks on economic growth and prosperity in democratic societies. Few individuals are likely to accept the argument put forward by hard core environmentalist thinkers such as Jared Diamond and John Gray that humans were literally better off in the Stone Age. Instead the call is made for society to re-evaluate its understanding of growth. This notion was promoted as far back as 1972 at the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm: “The concept of ‘no growth’ could not be a viable policy for any society, but it was necessary to rethink the traditional concepts of the basic purposes of growth” (UNEP 1972).