Scholarship in degrowth has primarily criticised the twinning of technoscientific and environmental policy as underwritten by an ecomodernist agenda that relies on both technological fixes and economic growth paradigms. Moving beyond such critique, we suggest that current policy discourses on the digital and environmental transition also reveal (shifting) imperatives of governance that grant society and the state a key role in the achievement of desirable futures. By focusing calls for reform on how the ecomodernist agenda is repeating capitalist frames of economic growth and technoscientific solutionism, degrowth critique misses equally important shifts in how governance is imagined in relation to science and technology, which increasingly rely on social fixes for the effects of technological innovation on the environment. In this article, we examine the European Commission’s call for ‘twin’ environmental and digital transitions as part of a Green Deal, asking how a coproductionist lens might enrich and strengthen critiques of technology and innovation in degrowth literature.
BarlowN., RegenL., CadiouN., ChertkovskayaE., HollwegM., PlankC., SchulkenM., & WolfV. (Eds.). (2022). Degrowth & strategy: How to bring about social-ecological transformation. Mayfly Books.
3.
BarryA. (2001). Political machines: Governing a technological society. Athlone Press.
4.
CollardR.-C., DempseyJ., & SundbergJ. (2016). The moderns’ amnesia in two registers. Environmental Humanities, 7(1), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3616425
5.
DandyN. (2023). The values of technology. Environmental Values, 32(3). https://doi.org/10.3197/096327123X16759401706551
6.
DelvenneP., & MacqH. (2020). Breaking bad with the participatory turn? Accelerating time and intensifying value in participatory experiments. Science as Culture, 29(2), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2019.1668369
7.
DoezemaT. (2023). The promise of ELSI: Coproducing the future of life on earth. Science as Culture, 32(4), 461–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2182189
8.
DoezemaT., & FrahmN. (2023). The new spirit of technoscience: Recalibrating symmetrical STS critique. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 10(1), 2281112. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2023.2281112
9.
DurandC., HofferberthE., & SchmelzerM. (2023). Planning beyond growth. The case for economic democracy within limits. Université de Genève. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:166429
10.
European Commission. (2020). A new circular economy Action Plan.
11.
European Commission. (2022, March2). Towards a green, digital and resilient economy. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_1467
12.
European Union. (2021). Proposal for a council recommendation on ensuring a fair transition towards climate neutrality. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0801
13.
FeltU. (2015). Keeping technologies out: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the formation of Austria’s technopolitical identity. In JasanoffS. & KimS.-H. (Eds.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (pp. 103–125). University of Chicago Press.
14.
FournierV. (2008). Escaping from the economy: The politics of degrowth. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 28(11/12), 528–545. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330810915233
15.
FrahmN., DoezemaT., & PfotenhauerS. (2021). Fixing technology with society: The coproduction of democratic deficits and responsible innovation at the OECD and the European Commission. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41, 174–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243921999100
16.
FrahmN., & SchiœlinK. (2023). Toward an ‘ever closer union’: The making of AI-ethics in the EU. STS Encounters, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.7146/stse.v15i2.139808
17.
GenoveseA., & PanseraM. (2021). The circular economy at a crossroads: Technocratic eco-modernism or convivial technology for social revolution?Capitalism Nature Socialism, 32(2), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2020.1763414
18.
GiampietroM. (2023). Reflections on the popularity of the circular bioeconomy concept: The ontological crisis of sustainability science. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01267-z
19.
GodinB. (2019). The invention of technological innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing.
20.
GrunwaldA. (2018). Diverging pathways to overcoming the environmental crisis: A critique of eco-modernism from a technology assessment perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1854–1862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.212
21.
GundersonR., StewartD., PetersonB., & YunS.-J. (2018). Social conditions to better realize the environmental gains of alternative energy: Degrowth and collective ownership. Futures, 99(2), 36-44.
22.
HankammerS., & KleerR. (2018). Degrowth and collaborative value creation: Reflections on concepts and technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1711–1718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.046
23.
HickelJ. (2023, July1). On technology and degrowth. Monthly Review. https://monthlyreview.org/2023/07/01/on-technology-and-degrowth/
24.
HickelJ., & KallisG. (2020). Is green growth possible?New Political Economy, 25(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
25.
HilgartnerS., MillerC., & HagendijkR. (2015). Science and democracy: Making knowledge and making power in the biosciences and beyond. Routledge.
26.
HurlbutJ. B., JasanoffS., & SahaK. (2020). Constitutionalism at the nexus of life and law. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(6), 979–1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920921236
27.
IllichI. (1978). Toward a history of needs. Pantheon.
28.
JacksonJ. (2024). 20 not just newer, but fewer: A bridge between ecomodernism and degrowth? In EastwoodL. & HeronK. (Eds.), De Gruyter handbook of degrowth (pp. 377–392). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110778359-026
29.
JacksonT. (2016). Prosperity without growth: Foundations for the economy of tomorrow. Taylor & Francis.
30.
JasanoffS. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.
31.
JasanoffS. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and imaginations of modernity. In JasanoffS. & KimS.-H. (Eds.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press.
32.
JasanoffS., & KimS.-H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4
33.
KerschnerC., WächterP., NierlingL., & EhlersM.-H. (2018). Degrowth and technology: Towards feasible, viable, appropriate and convivial imaginaries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1619–1636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.147
34.
LatourB. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1086/421123
35.
LaurentB. (2022). European objects: The troubled dreams of harmonization. MIT Press.
36.
MamidipudiA., & FrahmN. (2020). Turning straw to gold: Mobilising symmetry in responsible research and innovation. Science, Technology and Society, 25(2), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721820902964
37.
MazzucatoM., European Commission, & Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2018). Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union: A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. Publications Office of the European Union.
38.
OwenR., MacnaghtenP., & StilgoeJ. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093
39.
OwenR., von SchombergR., & MacnaghtenP. (2021). An unfinished journey? Reflections on a decade of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1948789
40.
PanseraM., EhlersM.-H., & KerschnerC. (2019). Unlocking wise digital techno-futures: Contributions from the degrowth community. Futures, 114, 102474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102474
41.
PanseraM., & OwenR. (2018). Framing inclusive innovation within the discourse of development: Insights from case studies in India. Research Policy, 47(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.007
42.
PaulsonS. (2024). World-making technology entangled with coloniality, race and gender: Ecomodernist and degrowth perspectives. Environmental Values, 33(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/09632719231209741
43.
PenttiläL. (2024). On with critique! The necessity of critique in addressing the political deficits of responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 11(1), 2319809. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2024.2319809
44.
PfotenhauerS. (2023). From ‘more innovation’ to ‘better innovation’?Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 9. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2023.1365
45.
PfotenhauerS., & JasanoffS. (2017). Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the ‘MIT model’ in three political cultures. Social Studies of Science, 47(6), 783–810.
46.
PfotenhauerS., & JuhlJ. (2017). Innovation and the political state: Beyond the myth of technologies and markets. In GodinB. & VinckD. (Eds.), Critical studies of innovation (pp. 68–94). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367229
47.
PollexJ., & LenschowA. (2018). Surrendering to growth? The European Union’s goals for research and technology in the Horizon 2020 framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1863–1871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.195
48.
PursellC. (1993). The rise and fall of the appropriate technology movement in the United States, 1965–1985. Technology and Culture, 34(3), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.2307/3106707
49.
RamosG. (2018). Elements for a new growth narrative. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
50.
RuessA. K., MüllerR., & PfotenhauerS. M. (2023). Opportunity or responsibility? Tracing co-creation in the European policy discourse. Science and Public Policy, 50(3), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac079
51.
SaviniF. (2023). Futures of the social metabolism: Degrowth, circular economy and the value of waste. Futures, 150, 103180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103180
52.
SchmelzerM. (2016). The hegemony of growth: The OECD and the making of the economic growth paradigm. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316452035
