In Search of Answers about Economic Growth
by Rob Dietz
The latest issue of the journal Nature contains an article by Peter Victor with this quote (see “Questioning Economic Growth,” vol. 468, pp. 370-371): “The idea that governments of developed countries should no longer pursue economic growth as a primary policy objective is widely regarded as heresy.” It’s certainly not a heresy at the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), but we’re not exactly a mainstream organization. Still, you have to wonder why the pursuit of growth goes largely unquestioned in a world facing climate destabilization, mounting environmental damages from ill-conceived business decisions (e.g., BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico), and sometimes violent competition over limited energy and material resources. Why are nations so committed to increasing production and consumption? Why are they so taken with the idea of growing bigger economies?
The answer has to do with the dilemma of economic growth, which Tim Jackson has described superbly in his book, Prosperity without Growth. On one side of the dilemma, economic growth is undermining ecological systems – the very systems that support life on the planet (and in so doing, form the foundation of the economy). On the other side, failure to grow the economy leads to job losses and causes instability in social systems.
| Side A
Economic growth |
Side B
Failure to grow |
The Dilemma of Economic Growth
By definition, there is no simple route to escape from a dilemma. The main strategy for coping with a dilemma is to accept one side of it as fixed, and then work on changing the other side. Politicians, conventional economists, journalists, and just about everyone else tend to choose Side B in the economic growth dilemma, and then they go about trying to modify Side A. That’s why seemingly oxymoronic expressions like “green growth” and “sustainable growth” are relatively commonplace. Most people have accepted the idea that failure to grow destabilizes society, so they struggle to find ways to maintain environmental health despite increasing population and consumption. But maybe we’ve chosen the wrong side in this dilemma. To find out, we have to consider two basic questions:
- Which side of the dilemma is more likely to hold true moving forward?
- Do we have better prospects for achieving sustainable growth or building a non-growing economy that is socially stable?
In assessing this first question, there is widespread agreement that when growth ceases in today’s economy, serious problems arise. The most pressing problem is evaporation of jobs – a slowdown in production typically means that we need fewer producers. When large numbers of people become unemployed, social ills are usually not far behind. Furthermore, personal income and wealth are often tied to economic growth. Investors fear a cessation of growth, as strong returns on their assets depend on faith in future growth (e.g., a company’s stock price rises when people believe the company’s revenue will grow). With the way the economy is structured, failure to grow certainly puts people on edge. But suppose the economy were structured differently. Suppose we could change certain economic institutions and relationships and build a healthy and resilient steady state economy.
That is largely the premise of CASSE’s new report, Enough is Enough. The report summarizes research on the desirability of transitioning to a steady state economy and explores a collection of policy ideas for doing so in a healthy way. This cohesive report casts doubt on the notion that a non-growing economy must be socially unstable.
Turning to the plausibility of Side A, the CASSE Position on Economic Growth succinctly describes the fundamental conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment. This conflict is rooted in the laws of physics and ecology. Thermodynamic and ecological principles, such as entropy, competitive exclusion and trophic levels, confirm that the economy grows at the expense of natural ecosystems. The decision about whether to back Side A or Side B boils down to deciding which are more likely to hold: the laws of physics and ecology, or “economic laws.”
Turning to the second question, the main argument in favor of pursuing “sustainable growth” revolves around technological progress. The idea is to use technological means to decouple economic growth from the use of energy and materials – to increase production and consumption while decreasing physical inputs. Although this is an appealing idea, historical evidence is not encouraging. We have been able to increase the efficiency with which we can produce a dollar’s worth of economic output (i.e., we use less energy and material per dollar of output), but growth has swamped any savings that we might have been able to realize. Overall material and energy use have increased even as we’ve gotten more efficient (the so-called “rebound effect” or “Jevon’s paradox”).
Regarding the prospects for building a socially stable steady state economy, Peter Victor’s model of the Canadian economy shows that with the right policies, we can achieve a non-growing economy that maintains full employment, virtually eliminates poverty, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and maintains fiscal balance. The feasibility, then, rests on whether societies can generate the political will to adopt such policies (e.g., reducing the working week and year, changing the business structures, and shifting taxation to limit resource use).
Returning to the article in Nature, Peter remarks on the changes that need to occur:
As long as economic growth remains so important to global policymakers, humanity is hopelessly constrained: the environmental policies we need face the unreasonable political hurdle that they must also be shown to promote economic growth. This must change. At grass-roots level, many people in the developed world are already directing their energies towards enhanced wellbeing, in part by turning to local producers for their food, clothing and other needs. Institutions of all kinds — financial, political, legal, educational, religious and social — that have evolved to thrive in a fast-growing economy will have to adapt.
The scope of change required is daunting, but the first step is to reconsider the dilemma of economic growth. In doing so, real answers about the desirability of economic growth will emerge. By refusing to consider the steady state economy as an alternative to continuously increasing production and consumption, nations of the world risk missing out on the best means of achieving sustainable and equitable well-being for all people.
Rob Dietz brings a fresh perspective to the discussion of economics and environmental sustainability. His diverse background in economics, environmental science and engineering, and conservation biology (plus his work in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors) has given him an unusual ability to connect the dots when it comes to the topic of sustainability. Rob is the author, with Dan O’Neill, of Enough Is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources.
Very good points, as usual, Rob. Your question, “Do we have better prospects for achieving sustainable growth or building a non-growing economy that is socially stable?” is a good one to ask in every conversation with those who are addicted to growth. One is clearly impossible. End of debate. Let’s get on with building a non-growing economy that is socially stable!
Dave Gardner
Producing the documentary
GrowthBusters
http://www.growthbusters.org
I think we can progress by focussing on your point of the restructuring of changing institutions and relationships to create the basis of the steady state economy. However, my background in biology and experience in social services and other industries leads me to directy my interest in policy models through the multiple sources of practical efforts that both exist and are possible.
One of my favorite examples is the community and renewable energy enterprise efforts around the world. Historically, Denmark´s Danish Wind Turbine Owner´s Association became a driving force for this socially and environmentally sustainable technology and residential/co-operative ownership strategy of power generation. Their efforts were later matched in other parts of Europe, and have inspired developments in all other continents.
Mendonca, Lacey, and Hvelplund have been advocating for renewable energy feed-in payments with a comprehensive policy approach that is highly consistent with the Enough is Enough report, and the practical assessment of sustainable institutions and relationships. Off Center Video has produced a video, Democracy in the Workplace, which shows several employee ownership enterprises, including one health food store. The Danish WTA has also put out a film of their country´s practices called Out of the Blue. While these require some extra effort to procure through the internet, Michael Moore´s film on capitalism portrays at least two co-op enterprises, and Leo DiCaprio´s production the 11th Hour portrays not only Herman Daly, but also Omar Freilla of the Green Worker Coops. Although a token mention, these are references we can sustain in our own process of envisioning beyond the dilemmas, which I think are false, semantic, and psychosocial in nature.
Ray Anderson´s book Mid-Course Correction did not accept any of the orthodox formulations based on current practices. He and his associates acted like the Danish citizens who pioneered the modern wind-power industry, and the French NGO which inspired the founding of the organic agriculture NGO, IFOAM.
Sides A and B are theoretical formulations, and our available practical demonstrations can allow us to supersede expectations based on conventional assumptions in the abstract.
Moreover, I think the point Rob Dietz makes about the series of thought processes which include the emergence of real solutions to be a fundamental one. I want to suggest that the real world solutions from multiple sources are existent and dynamic, and can in fact intrude in the discussion just as the problem of ecological limits has and will continue to.
Monetary manipulation creates economic instability. An unstable economic environment creates fear among economic agents and feeds the pattern of unsustainable growth, desperate run for material things. My theory launched through the Twitter account @NobelEconomics explains that economic instability is due to the use of monetary scales to express relative prices instead of using a numerical abstract independent price scale and variable conversion rates to relate currencies to the independent scale. The explanation can be read here: http://tinyurl.com/independentpricesystem I believe that only by correcting such a mess we can think of building a more stable economy and as a consequence a better world development. Reply your opinion there on my article too.
What Rob Dietz says is piddling compared to what he doesn’t say.
Deitz says “The feasibility, then, rests on whether societies can generate the political will to adopt such policies (e.g., reducing the working week and year, changing the business structures, and shifting taxation to limit resource use).”
Who, what, & where are these “societies” … generating “the political will” & “changing business structures?”
No sustainable economy is “feasible” so long as the creditor/bankster MUST increase his return on his loan by a factor of three or more.
Henry Paulson told the debt slaves how to become willing slaves in the bankster compound interest scam.
Growth guru Paulson delivered the sacred message of growth.
There must be compound interest growth – debt slavery to banksters is good for you & really good for ME!
Henry kept his message simple; “We want people to be able to get the credit that they need.”
“the first step is to reconsider the dilemma of economic growth”
Sorry. but no. The first step is to have the courage to tackle the problem of power. As Gerald points out above.
“missing out on the best means of achieving sustainable and equitable well-being for all people”
C’mon. Have some spine. The world is run by elites who thrive on NOT having an equitable system. How are you going to change that? By wishful thinking?
“C’mon. Have some spine. The world is run by elites who thrive on NOT having an equitable system. How are you going to change that? By wishful thinking?”
By example?
Either they embrace the fact that economic growth as we know it, is already severely undermining the very support systems, upon which even they, the elites, must depend for their own survival, or they will lose their power and their power base.
The elites will need to embrace a completely new paradigm whether they want to or not.
“So how do you change paradigms? Thomas Kuhn, who wrote the seminal book about the great paradigm shifts of science, has a lot to say about that. In a nutshell, you keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm, you come yourself, loudly, with assurance, from the new one, you insert people with the new paradigm in places of public visibility and power. You don’t waste time with reactionaries; rather you work with active change agents and with the vast middle ground of people who are open-minded.
Donella Meadows: Leverage Points – Places To Intervene In A System”
Of course there is always the option of all out bloody revolution…
Best hopes for a peaceful transition to a new paradigm.
I think the last several comments raise important and basic issues. My own research of economics came after joining the activist non-profits and a food co-op, while often shopping at health food stores. These efforts represent alternative practices in the real world.
To the credit of Ecological Economics, at least in Daly and Farley’s text and the Enough is Enough report, they mention the necessary option to the Corporate Enterprise and its executives like Henry Paulson mentioned by gerald spezio above. Employee-owned enterprises or co-operative partnerships eliminate the problem of absentee ownership for profit-maximizing, or compounding interest for that matter.
The international co-operative organization ICA has a list of their largest 300 members that is very interesting. From Japan to Germany to France, their are a large number of successful enterprises. Even the US has large members, like ACE Hardware or Welch’s Juice. While most of these examples are not the most progressive examples, they are nevertheless alternatives to the stock market shareholding system.
For alternatives, William Greider describes a few in his book The Soul of Capitalism from 2003, like Blue Ridge Paper, the employee owners of which reformulated their effluents to make them non-toxic. Other examples include Organic Valley co-op products, and the solar energy co-op started in Maryland.
The question of power, economic and political, is a real one. JK Galbraith wrote about corporations in his 1960s The New Industrial State and the working of countervailing power, while Warren Gramm and William Dugger wrote more in the 1970s and 1980s.
I think we’ve got a bunch of resources to work with already, but we’ve got to get familiar with them so we can get into the real issues in a way that starts to get the word out and get people thinking. At least the Enough is Enough report is on the right track, and with the other perspectives, we get closer all the time to that new paradigm.
Fred, elites do not relinquish power on account of a declining environment. They’d rather risk a crash (and tell themselves that they can escape it). Point me to examples where it was not true? I am pointing to Sumer, Rome, Easter Island, lowland Mayans, and there are many many others.
Wasn’t it Kuhn who also said, “scientific paradigm changes one funeral at a time”? And that is science… where power is not the main issue.
Mark, that’s good. I was just shocked by the mealy-mouthed approach this article took.
Vera wrote:
“the first step is to reconsider the dilemma of economic growth”
Sorry. but no. The first step is to have the courage to tackle the problem of power. As Gerald points out above.
“missing out on the best means of achieving sustainable and equitable well-being for all people”
C’mon. Have some spine. The world is run by elites who thrive on NOT having an equitable system. How are you going to change that? By wishful thinking?
I don’t think you can tackle the problem of power without understanding the instrument that creates dependence and thus power. The concept of infinite economic growth is what has shaped our current system and sustains it. By showing people how this concept causes every single major ingredient of our crisis cocktail, and how it keeps wealth flowing in one direction, from poor to rich, you indirectly tackle the problem of power.
If you try to take the problem of power head on, you will most certainly fail. First of all because it’s a weak narrative, it doesn’t really lead to true understanding that the enemy is mostly Us, and not Them (the elites). Second of all it is easily countered by the elites through divide and conquer tactics (“Who are the powerful who must be eliminated? Why, it’s the bureaucrats with their pesky rules and taxes limiting our freedom. It’s them commie treehuggers.”). Third of all, the masses have been brainwashed for generations into thinking that the sky is the limit. If you say “these billionaires should be deprived of 95% of their wealth”, people go nuts. Because the possibility that they too one day might be a famous billionaire is such a large part of their identity. Try introducing the idea of a maximum wage and property on a messageboard and see what happens. People start foaming at the mouth instantly.
So I think it’s better to stress all the current global problems, from peak resources to financial bubbles, from global warming to top soil erosion, and show how they all have the same root cause: the economic concept of infinite growth that violates natural laws.
Sure, once you’ve established this you can point to the fact that this system serves the elite, etc, but the solution is consciously choosing another, more sustainable system, not choosing another elite. The solution – a steady state economy – automatically leads to more decentralisation (of energy, food and political power), transparency and independence. Less dependence leads to less power. Less power leads to less potent elites.
The thing that in large part led me to these conclusions was the Problem of Growth series written by Jeff Vail. I can truly recommend it.
It’s a pleasure to hear from you, Neven. I did not quite expect such a well thought out response. Thank you.
While I scurry off and refresh my memory re Jeff Vail’s series, I have a question for you. What do you think triggered/caused/brought about this endless economic intensification? Any sort of stab at it would be much appreciated.
Vera, thanks to you too.
I think we can make the answer as complex as we’d like to. I’ll just shoot off a few thoughts.
It had to happen. It was a logical step in the evolution of human society and humankind in general. Ever since the start of the industrial revolution things were bound to keep progressing. And as there wasn’t any environmentalism to speak off and natural bounties were so vast, people just forged ahead. Go west, and all that.
At a certain point two things happened: the first ultrarich emerged forming small oligarchies and monopolies, and the first limits were bumped into. For instance, people didn’t consume more than they needed because of their thrifty conditioning they had undergone in a time of poverty, want and lack of fulfillment of basic needs. That’s when for instance marketing was born (in the 20’s and 30’s, watch the BBC documentary series The Century of the Self if this historical perspective interests you). Shortly after the first contours of Big Military-industrial Complex, Big Agribusiness, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Sugar started to appear. And of course Big Government. All of those are now one big happy family.
It’s also good to realize that economic growth is a beneficial thing when a country is underdeveloped. After WWII Europe was in ruins and things needed to get rebuilt fast. Economic growth was perhaps a good thing in those 30 years after WWII. But where children and trees stop growing, Western economies didn’t stop growing, just like cancer doesn’t. Growth became a goal in itself, limits were off-limits. A monster was born.
And so you got fractional reserve banking, laws that treated corporations as legal persons, excessive deregulation, environmental disasters, consumerism, culture and education in service of the economy, propaganda/marketing, extensive lobbying, political campaigns sponsored by corporations, corporate-owned media, etc, etc.
All of that so the economy can keep growing exponentially and infinitely (and the rich and powerful get even richer and more powerful). Because somehow we have convinced ourselves it’s a (Darwinist) law of nature. But it isn’t. ‘We’ choose it to be so, and that’s why it’s so grotesque.
I agree, Neven. It is a choice. The place where I differ from your estimation is with that “we”. While we all do some small amounts of choosing, there is a minority among us that does vast amounts of choosing that we are powerless to unchoose. Such an “us” denies the asymmetrical nature of choice among those who are powerful and those who are largely powerless. I reject it.
I have been attempting to take this questioning far back to the beginnings. Why is it that the profoundly egalitarian societies that were still extant in most places around the globe at the end of the last age began to change into what Jeff Vail calls hierarchical societies? I think he is right, once you have hierarchy, you got endless growth. But why hierarchy? To say they are brought about by dependencies just moves the problem. Why the dependencies? Etc. (I think he misses some key early bits, but his analysis is awesome overall. I had forgotten how many pieces he got right.)
“By showing people how this concept causes every single major ingredient of our crisis cocktail, and how it keeps wealth flowing in one direction, from poor to rich, you indirectly tackle the problem of power.”
That is very true. However, it does not tell people what to do about it, unless you hope that eventually they will be motivated to pick up those pitchforks and torches! :-) Figuring out what to *do* is solving the problem of power. Educating people about it is good, but it does not amount to solving the problem.
I also agree that “divide and conquer” tactics and embedded cultural stories get in the way of a solution. So hitting the problem head-on, as you say, has led to repeated failure. So? The fascinating question to me is, at this point, so what then do we do?
“but the solution is consciously choosing another, more sustainable system, not choosing another elite”
Exactly.
“The solution – a steady state economy – automatically leads to more decentralisation (of energy, food and political power), transparency and independence. Less dependence leads to less power. Less power leads to less potent elites.”
Yes, but now we are full circle. The people who are in power do not wish to implement a solution that leads to decentralization and less potent elites. The people who do wish for such a solution, namely us, do not have the power to implement it. Where do we go from here?
oops… that should have said… “at the end of the last ice age”
Wow, thank you both Neven and Vera for continuing a great conversation, and I look forward to getting a look at Jeff Vail’s piece before too long. I have to repress my glee at reading Neven’s surveys, like Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharm, and Big Gov as one big happy family now. So true.
I guess I agree with Neven’s assessment of the need to hammer away by steadily and persistently elaborating and describing the nature of the problem/s. I have been impressed by Al Gore’s doc, and the IPCC reports, and movies like A Civil Action and Erin Brocavitch that relate true stories of chemical contaminations, for example, but most people are feeding on corporate news and hardly start to generalize.
Thus, while I like what I’ve seen of Century of the Self and Achbar and Abbotts’ The Corporation for that matter, I also like what I’ve read and heard of one of Greenpeace’s founders, Paul Watson I think it is. In the PBS special Endangered Planet from the People’s Century series, he’s quoted about how filming protest can enter the media and thus the mass mind. One of them has also written a great book, Thermageddon, by the way. Moreover, there’s a great article in a journal Risk Analysis by Loefstedt et al. from 1995 about Greenpeace’s Brent Spar campaign and the activity their messages generated, including a helicopter landing on the oil storage rig in question. Certainly, such campaigns are a good start.
Coming back to Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth for a moment, I found a great example in the case of The 11th Hour, produced by Leo DiCaprio, which goes well beyond In. Truth. As such, it does a really good job of combining the IPCC reports with the 2005 Ecosystem Assessment, and even to the level of the UNEP Annual reports.
One task to communicate about the co-existing problem/s is keeping details and references sufficiently clear. Climate deniers like to attack Gore, as if he is the source of his information, though they’ve actually gone further in collecting tens of thousands of scientists signatures to oppose to the “paltry” 2,000 on the IPCC. Those tens of thousands are usually like the Harvard astrophysicist who has impressive credentials but is simply unqualified in his discussion of the subject. The tactic is appalling in a way, and reflects well the PR and ad firms current and formerly of Madison Ave.
As a former social services guy, I like to recall the communications principles in all this, that the focus needs to be those who are more down to earth and in touch with reality. There really are plenty of those around. While we might stand our ground and keep our strength by raising the statistics of the UNEP scientists and point out the mistaken expertise of astrophysicists to the “far-gones,” we’ll get further if we keep our eyes out for the mid-fencers and point out that, say, organic foods in a small health food store are slightly better than Whole Foods or Trader Joes when possible, as is fair trade coffee at a local cafe like Ozzie’s in Park Slope, Brooklyn when possible to avoid Starbucks.
The Steady State Economy is a great conceptual tool for those of us on the avante garde, but the on-line food co-operative directory at coopdirectory.org and books like William Greider’s, Paul Hawken’s, Lester Brown’s, Gloria Steinem’s, and Van Jones’ are others among these examples that can return us to the practice of the theory, and simultaneously engage us in disempowering the privileged elites. While Coca-Cola may rule the world for now, I have bought plenty of Steaz, Santa Cruz organic, and Blue Sky at various health food stores in my time.
And Vera, thanks for your probing questions. Again, I’ll have to look more at Jeff Vail, but I’m reminded of my own studies in human evolution. “Egalitarian societies” is a very optimistic, and I think wishful, interpretation of the past and probably reflects more the difference in materialistic accumulation with modern Western society. By those criteria, I think the Medieval European societies could be considered egalitarian. After all, how much would a serf farmer dominate a serf wife?
My own reflections especially since my recent master’s degree have focussed on the contrast between the appropriation of Greek logic by the scientists in advancing science, and the further appropriation of science and technology by the aristocrats and merchants in combining the modern corporate form. Thom Hartmann touches on some of these aspects in his book Unequal Protection, and I would think others are represented by such works as Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics. As for underlying tendencies, it seems to me the inherent power of manipulating physical tools got wrapped up with the combined physical powers of historical aristocracy, artisan smiths tinkering, and merchant market negotiating. Thus, the House of Lords, James Watts at the University of Glasgow, and the British East India Co.’s wheeling and dealing cousin of Robert Owen all combined, metaphorically and somewhat literally, to create a neoliberal corporate culture that then was appropriated by Alexander Hamilton, JP Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller, e.g.
The “non-existent” differences between men and women, or Jesus and Pontius Pilate, are in fact, reflections of our original animal natures, I suggest. To use our cognitive skills to wake people up to the building catastrophe, we need to tap into trends like Anita Roddick’s pioneering business in The Body Shop, William Ronco’s report on food co-ops in the 1970s, Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now! advancement along NPR’s lines, and resources like the international co-operative organization’s Global 300 list. Is an alternative model of business possible? Before we even start talking about all the health food store product companies, let’s look at the ICA.coop Global 300 list. Welch’s and Ace Hardware don’t look so radical, but they are different in some way. Then we can get to Organic Valley, Burt’s Bees, Equal Exchange, and Steaz Green Tea Sodas.
“The people who do wish for such a solution, namely us, do not have the power to implement it. Where do we go from here?” Well, the more any of us learns about tangible examples like health food store product companies, and widespread certifications like organic foods, fair trade, Forest Stewardship Council, whether by reading Jared Diamond’s Collapse or Michael Conroy’s Branded, or researching on-line, I suggest that’s where we get going.
Songs like one of Coldplays asks whether “I’m part of the problem or the solution.” The more we balance our problem consciousness and evaluations with examples of the solution, I think the answer is the latter.
As for on–line material, I suggest Philip McMichael’s article in the Journal of Peasant Studies, Genealogy of Food Regimes. I think his approach as an activist sociologist will be very appealing to those interested in the Steady-State economy. To my personal liking, he finally mentions the names of at least two approaches related to two of my favorite consumer cert strategies.
Moreover, I offer for your checking out pleasure the Rodale Institute regarding organics. For example, http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/20101123_did-john-stossels-show-perpetrate-lies-that-could-harm-americans
Rodale’s been around for decades, and the organic vs. pesticides debate makes a spicy sub-section of the SSE question.
Mark, as I eagerly await more word from Neven, I just want to dash off a comment. Do you feel that we can green-shop our way out of the predicament we are in? This seems to me a pernicious meme out there, and flying in the face of the Jevons paradox.
I looked into the Body Shop which used to also inspire me. There are nearly two and a half thousand shops all over the globe… doesn’t it just broadcast GROWTH in red neon letters?
But it gets worse. Anita died suddenly in 2007 and the Body Shop was purchased by the megacorporation L’Oreal. If this is a way to create an alternative economy, just shoot me now. It will be a mercy killing. ;-)
Well, it looks like nothing much is happening here. And after reading the piece about the horse and cart (Enough is Enough), I wonder if folks here are a bit like the clever pigs in Animal Farm, waiting for more more horses like Boxer to show up, while they do the fun conceptualizations.
Myself, I am looking for people who *do* the stuff they talk about, and are seeking equal partners to join them.
So long, and thanks for all the fish. :-)
It seems my previous comment ruffled some feathers, and so I want to make a clarification. I was not at all suggesting that the people who are involved with ‘steady state economics’ do not do anything, or do not do enough, etc.
I was trying to convey that I was hoping to find folks who are already growing a steady state economy (in the hands-on sense) and can show me how.
My apologies for lack of clarity.