
Degrowth is a systemic design and economic framework that challenges the dominant paradigm of perpetual economic expansion. It advocates for a shift toward societies and infrastructures that prioritize ecological regeneration, social equity and collective well-being over market-driven growth. Unlike mainstream sustainability approaches that aim to decouple growth from resource depletion, degrowth explicitly calls for a transformation of economic technological and social systems to operate within planetary boundaries. For designers, this means moving beyond surface-level “green” solutions and rethinking design’s role in shaping economic and material flows, governance structures and cultural narratives. Degrowth does not simply call for consuming less but for reconfiguring the deep structures that drive production, innovation and economic activity.
Origins and branches of degrowth
The degrowth movement emerged in the early 1970s as a response to the environmental and social critiques of economic growth. Influenced by ecological economics, political ecology and critiques of consumer society, degrowth developed as an alternative to dominant economic narratives that equate progress with GDP expansion. The term décroissance (French for “degrowth”) was first introduced by philosopher André Gorz and gained traction through the work of scholars such as Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Serge Latouche and Tim Jackson. The Limits to Growth report published by the Club of Rome in 1972 played a pivotal role in shaping early degrowth discourse by exposing the unsustainable trajectory of industrial economies.
Since then, degrowth has developed multiple strands. Some emphasize the biophysical constraints of economic activity arguing that material and energy throughput must be reduced to prevent ecological collapse. Others focus on political critiques viewing degrowth as a post-capitalist anti-colonial and redistributive project that seeks to dismantle economic structures based on accumulation and inequality. A cultural perspective within degrowth challenges Western-centric notions of progress and aligns with post-development and Buen Vivir philosophies from Latin America emphasizing community well-being over market-based metrics.
Another strand questions the role of technology critiquing high-tech industrialism as an inherently unsustainable pathway. Advocates of low-tech open-source and decentralized solutions argue for shifting innovation toward resilient repairable and collectively governed systems. A feminist perspective within degrowth critiques the undervaluation of care work and social reproduction arguing that a truly degrowth-oriented society must reorient value systems toward care, maintenance and collective well-being rather than productivity and market exchange. These branches are not mutually exclusive but rather form a pluralistic movement that challenges the economic technological and cultural infrastructures of capitalism.
Implications for design
For designers, degrowth is not just an ethical choice but a fundamental reorientation of practice that moves away from optimizing for market expansion and toward designing for collective sufficiency, ecological restoration and social resilience. This requires challenging traditional models of efficiency, which often serve the logic of economic growth by maximizing outputs and minimizing costs. Instead, degrowth design prioritizes sufficiency—meeting human needs without excess—by extending product lifecycles, minimizing waste and creating resilient adaptable systems.
Beyond products and services, degrowth demands a shift in how design institutions operate. Design education, currently shaped by market demands, must transition toward post-growth curricula that prepare designers for work beyond corporate structures. The professional role of designers must also evolve—from being enablers of consumption to facilitators of commons-based cooperative and regenerative systems. Instead of competing for market share, degrowth design fosters shared infrastructures repairability and community-led innovation.
Beyond the stereotypes: Degrowth as systemic innovation
A common stereotype of degrowth imagines it as a nostalgic retreat from modernity where people live in yurts, milk goats and reject technology. This caricature is a convenient way to dismiss degrowth as impractical or anti-innovation. However, degrowth is not about abandoning technological advancement—it is about redirecting innovation toward systemic resilience rather than infinite expansion.
Degrowth does not reject modern tools or infrastructure but questions their role within an economic system dependent on growth, extraction and waste. A degrowth-aligned future does not mean fewer design opportunities; it means different ones—designing for longevity rather than disposability, prioritizing access over ownership and creating infrastructures that enable social cooperation rather than market dependency. Instead of pushing the boundaries of production, degrowth design reconfigures economic and material systems to function within planetary limits.
Doughnut Economics as a transitional model
Doughnut Economics, developed by Kate Raworth, shares several principles with degrowth but differs in its approach. While degrowth explicitly calls for reducing economic activity Doughnut Economics focuses on balancing social and ecological limits without necessarily advocating economic contraction. It provides a more politically palatable framework by emphasizing a “safe and just space” between the ecological ceiling and social foundation making it easier for policymakers and businesses to engage with.
Rather than treating these models as mutually exclusive, designers should understand Doughnut Economics as a gateway toward deeper structural change. While it retains some compatibility with growth-based economies, it challenges GDP-centric policies and pushes economic systems toward redistributive and regenerative principles. In contrast, degrowth goes further by rejecting growth dependency altogether and advocating for a complete rethinking of how value, work and production are structured. Designers working at the intersection of these models should see Doughnut Economics as a stepping stone rather than an endpoint.
Systemic barriers to degrowth design
Adopting degrowth principles is not just a design decision—it is a structural and political challenge. Design institutions are still largely funded by corporate interests that reinforce innovation-as-growth. Governments continue to subsidize industries that prioritize economic expansion limiting the feasibility of degrowth-aligned initiatives. The role of venture capital and investor-driven business models remains a major barrier as most funding structures depend on growth expectations.
To overcome these barriers, degrowth design must push for policy interventions that shift incentives away from growth-driven practices. This includes redistributive taxation, public investment in cooperative models and legal frameworks that protect common goods from market extraction. Design must also engage in political strugglesrecognizing that degrowth is not just a technical challenge but a contested terrain of economic power.
The future of design is post-growth
Degrowth is not an alternative niche within design—it represents a necessary transformation of the field itself. As planetary limits become more pressing, the logic of infinite expansion will become increasingly untenable. The future of design cannot be tied to economic growth it must be oriented toward regenerative redistributive and commons-based systems.
If design remains bound to market imperatives, it will become obsolete in the face of ecological and social crises. The task ahead is not simply to incorporate degrowth principles into existing design frameworks but to fundamentally reimagine what design is for. This means shifting from product cycles to repair and maintenance cultures from profit-driven work to cooperative and commons-based models and from designing for consumption to designing for resilience and care.
Degrowth is not a constraint on design—it is a liberation from market dependency allowing designers to work toward futures where prosperity is measured not by expansion but by ecological balance, social equity and collective well-being. This is not just an option—it is the next horizon of design itself.