尊敬的用户您好，这是来自FT中文网的温馨提示：如您对更多FT中文网的内容感兴趣，请在苹果应用商店或谷歌应用市场搜索“FT中文网”，下载FT中文网的官方应用。
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?
所谓“去增长”(degrowth)的支持者宣称，如果没有彻底的经济变革和国内生产总值(GDP)下降，生态崩溃将会迫在眉睫。然而，反对者则将其视为毫无根据的技术悲观主义，充斥着模糊的语言和站不住脚或含糊不清的政策。最近的一些评论对这一新兴研究领域进行了评估。他们发现了哪些缺陷？
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.
巴黎高等商学院的伊万•萨文和巴塞罗那自治大学(Autonomous University of Barcelona)的耶罗恩•范登贝尔赫的一项研究为批评者提供了弹药，他们分析了561项标题中包含“去增长”或“后增长”的研究。他们抱怨“去增长”的定义过多，并挑衅性地声称研究人员通过使用这个术语来包装回收等工作，正在“殖民”不同的领域。
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”.
他们还抱怨研究中使用的方法不够严谨，计算出他们研究的论文中只有略多于5%进行了定量数据分析，他们称这种分析常常是“肤浅和不完整的”。另外4%进行了定性数据分析，其中一些分析并不可靠。他们举了一些例子，包括对14位加拿大环境活动人士的访谈进行的分析，旨在阐明“英语世界对去增长论的接受程度有限”。
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.
去增长论者的反应类似于他们对自然保护区内燃煤发电厂的反应。有人反驳说，作者们将研究限制在标题中带有“去增长”的研究上，描绘了一个不具代表性的领域图景，这些研究更可能包含讨论和评论，而非原创的实证工作。还有人认为，所有领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.
尽管如此，一些实质性的批评在其他评论中也有所反映，即使是那些对该项目更友好的研究人员的评论。其他人也指出了定义的不一致性：虽然有些人将“去增长”和“后增长”这两个术语互换使用，但也有人将去增长定义为更激进的缩减生产的方法，而将后增长定义为更渐进的改革。
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.
巴利亚多利德大学的阿瑟•劳尔(Arthur Lauer)、伊尼戈•卡佩兰•佩雷斯(Iñigo Capellán-Pérez)和纳塔莉•韦尔格尔斯(Nathalie Wergles)对建模研究的回顾认为，这种模糊性导致了更多实质性的模糊，包括对国内生产总值的预期路径、去增长是否与资本主义相一致，以及究竟由谁来推动任何变革。尽管过去几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.
其他人还指责，对于一个倡导变革的运动来说，去增长研究在实际政策制定方面的参与不够。主要由吕讷贝格大学的研究人员对475项研究进行的评论得出了一个“令人困惑”的结论，即大约三分之二的研究既没有包含也没有讨论任何具体的政策建议。
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，往往缺乏细节。另一项综述发现了530个去增长政策建议，但指出“大多数”缺乏准确性（如“生态赔偿”或“将企业转型为非营利合作社”）。减少工作时间很受欢迎，但很少有研究具体说明如何做到。研究人员也很少探讨不同（重大）政策变化之间的相互作用。
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.
最后一个差距是研究如何让人们参与激进的经济变革，以及在他们开始感受到消费下降的压力时如何维持这种变革。考虑到即使不全面改变我们的经济制度，亲环境政策也会遇到政治障碍，这一点似乎非常紧迫。
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该项目的宏伟性质。另一篇评论将其描述为“退出经济主义，即对社会想象进行去殖民化，将公共辩论从以经济术语为主导、以增长为优先的普遍话语中解放出来”。（这听起来不像是一个特别热衷于经济学专栏作家的运动……）
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.
隆德大学(Lund University)的Timothée Parrique认为，在分析的115个定义中，有一个一致的观点，即去增长是“通过民主方式计划公平地减少生产和消费以减少生态足迹，同时确保福祉”。即使在这个定义中，也有很多需要解读的地方。
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.
“去增长”包含两大理念：增长与维持地球不相容，也可能不相容；因此，需要彻底的经济变革。由于人们可能不同意这两种观点中的任何一种或两种，因此对于什么是属于该领域的确切“计数”存在争议也就不足为奇了。考虑到人们想要的改变的规模，关于旅程或目的地的经验证据有点薄弱也就不足为奇了。
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
《索马亚•凯恩斯的经济学秀》是一个新的 英国《金融时报》的播客，通过易于理解的每周节目，让听众更深入地了解全球最复杂的经济问题。每周一收听新剧集苹果,Spotify,Pocket Casts或者在您收听播客的任何地方