Public ideas
Thoughts on growth, degrowth and business schools
Reformers seek changes to business school courses to accommodate “degrowth” theory: that’s a tough call, because business schools are not scholarly institutions.
In a provocative Conversation contribution Are business schools priming students for a world that no longer exists? Carla Liuzzo and Mimi Tsai of the Queensland University of Technology raise the topic of teaching for a post-growth future.
It’s a challenging idea, largely because of ingrained ways of thinking. We have come to mistakenly equate the indicators of prosperity, such as GDP on a macro level, or net profit on a firm level, with prosperity. And we have come to associate the idea of post-growth, or de-growth, with a life on a diet of organically-grown broccoli and lentils, under a puritanical regime that prohibits private mobility, and winters wrapped in layers of (organic) clothing to compensate for a prohibition on heating.
Liuzzo and Tsai present a definition of degrowth that attempts to overcome these perceptions:
Degrowth proposes scaling back the consumption of resources as part of a transition to post-growth economies. Their aim is what economist Tim Jackson calls prosperity without growth. This entails businesses sharing value with communities, and reducing production of things like fast fashion, fast food and fast tech.
It is a rejection of maximising profit in favour of maximising value, based around meeting real needs like housing, food and essential services. Some industries would grow, such as care, education, public transport and renewables. Others may shrink or vanish.
They urge business schools to modify their curricula to make de-growth theory part of the curriculum.
It’s a difficult idea to put to the public. It may be more palatable if it were to be framed in line with the abundance message, which acknowledges the planet’s finite resources, but which dismisses ideas of dreary austerity. As Andrew Leigh says in his address to the Chifley Research Centre – The abundance agenda for Australia – abundance isn’t about “extravagance – glut, excess, waste”. It’s much more in line with the thinking of Carla Liuzzo and Mimi Tsai.
Regarding business schools, a different path to that advocated by Liuzzo and Tsai would be for universities to reconsider the whole purpose of business schools. Surely there can be a place where scholars can consider theories such as the structure of capitalist modes of production, the theory of the firm, behavioural economics, organization theory, the concepts of accounting, and the position of markets in society – topics that students may haphazardly come across as electives in final year economics courses, but which are not offered as a course in understanding business.
Business schools, however, have become more like training grounds for wannabe corporate executives – the first step on the path to the corner office. Do they really fit in universities?
Democracy in America. Democracy in Australia?
It’s in bad shape in America. How secure is our democracy?
The government’s renewable energy plans are facing opposition from angry and poorly- informed protestors in rural regions, determined to stop the development of wind, solar and transmission infrastructure. Those who are reasonably well-connected within political circles report that the government is drawing up plans to deploy the army to establish order in these regions, to ensure that the country’s energy transition proceeds smoothly.
Once a model democracy
We also learn that in preparation for the 125 th celebration of Federation next year, the Australian Mint is finalizing the design of a commemorative $1 coin, featuring Prime Minister Albanese on one side, and Gough Whitlam on the other.
OK – just kidding. These could never happen in a democracy. Unthinkable!
But these are simply transpositions of two developments in the USA, described in two Conversation contributions. One by Emma Shortis of RMIT University – Trump’s tragedy: the US becomes an autocracy and the presidency, a dictatorship – is mainly about Trump’s use of the military for his political purposes. The other by Peter Edwell of Macquarie University has a self-explanatory title: Trump on a coin? When Julius Caesar tried that, the Roman republic crumbled soon after.
Just a few years ago such behaviour would have been unthinkable in America.
How secure are our democratic foundations?