Exploring Degrowth
Pathways Using
System Dynamics
Key words:
Degrowth, Limits to growth, degrowth pathways, World3, planetary boundaries
Abstract
During the 40 years that have passed since the publication of The Limits to Growth, the concept of
degrowth and system dynamics have sometimes developed separately. There is now increasing
evidence supporting the conclusions of The Limits to Growth and degrowth is a concept being
discussed both in the academic and public debate. There is a need to look at potential ways to adapt
to the limits of our world system. In this study degrowth pathways are explored by the use of causal
loop diagrams and system dynamics simulation models. Departing from a study of degrowth
pathways and the Limits to Growth’s World3 model, the potential effectiveness of degrowth
pathways are explored. The conclusions are that degrowth proposals have a large potential impact
when looking at the feedbacks and relations in the causal loop diagrams, but that this does not show
in the simulated behavior of our lified World3 model. It is possible that this depends more on the
structure of the World3 model than on the effectiveness of the proposals introduced. Hence, we
believe that there is a need for new system dynamics world models to fully explore the potential of
degrowth and the transformation to a sustainable society.
Therese Bennich, Tom Bongers & David Collste
33rd International Conference of the System Dynamics
Society Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
13-03-2015
Introduction
“There is too much bad news to justify complacency. There is too much good news to justify
despair.”
— Donella H. Meadows
It is now more than 40 years since The Limits to Growth (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens
lll, 1972) was published. The study departed from four potential behavior patterns of the future
world population. The objective was to see which development pattern was most likely to occur,
given the structure of the world (Meadows, Richardson, & Bruckmann, Groping in the Dark, 1982).
One of the conclusions of the study was that physical growth constraints would be “an important
aspect of the global policy arena in the twenty-first century” (Meadows et al., 2004, p. xvii). Now, 40
years later, there is increasing evidence supporting the conclusions of the study, e.g. the thinning of
the ozone layer, climate change, biodiversity loss, and the decrease of phosphorus and nitrogen
(Rockstrém, et al., 2009; Steffen, et al., 2015). We have so far been unable to create the change
needed to reach a sustainable development as we are not sufficiently acknowledging the physical
boundaries of the planet (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004).
One discourse questioning unrestricted growth, in line with the conclusions of the Club of Rome
study, is degrowth. Degrowth has its roots, beside the work presented by the Club of Rome, in the
fields of economic ecology, social ecology, economic anthropology and in environmental and social
activist groups. Degrowth is now on the agenda, discussed both in academic circles and
environmental movements (Videira, Schneider, Sekulova, & Kallis, 2014). In this paper we explore
different degrowth pathways and their potential effectiveness. We depart from the article /mproving
understanding on degrowth pathways: An exploratory study using collaborative causal models
(Videira, Schneider, Sekulova, & Kallis, 2014), in which degrowth proposals are presented and
evaluated in terms of compatibility. We also depart from The Limits to Growth’s World3 model as
presented by Meadows et al. (1972).
The main objectives of our study are:
= To examine, refine and improve the model drafts (Causal Loop Diagrams) of degrowth
proposal as presented by Videira et al. (2014).
= To translate these degrowth proposals into the World3 model in order to examine their
potential effectiveness.
The first part of the paper explains the methodology used and states our starting points for the
modelling exercise. After that, we present the theoretical background of the study. The following
section shows the refined versions of the Causal Loop Diagrams, and thereafter the stock and flow
structure is presented. This is followed by an analysis, a presentation of the simulation results and
the different scenarios. We end with a discussion of the results before a final conclusion.
+ (Meadows D. , The state of the planet is grim. Should we give up hope? | Grist, 2001)
Methodology
Both causal loop diagrams (CLDs) and system dynamics simulation models are used. The World3
model and the degrowth pathways proposed in Videira et al. (2014) serve as starting points for our
examinations of the effectiveness of degrowth pathways. We refine and improve the three CLDs
presented by Videira et al. (2014), and link the sectors together in one CLD that shows how the
sectors are interrelated. In the refinement process we have embedded systemized knowledge based
on degrowth literature and the World3 model.
Based on the refined CLDs we have chosen two proposals - resource sanctuaries and work sharing for
integration into the World3 model. The basis for our choice of these two proposals is our interest in
testing these policies on an aggregated, global level, and their applicability to the World3 model. We
translated these proposals into stock and flow structures for integration into the World3 model
(Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004). This is the simulation part of the modeling exercise. In order
to evaluate the potential effectiveness of the proposals we used two reference modes - industrial
output and the ecological footprint. The proposals are examined based on their impact on the
reference modes.
Background
This section gives an introduction to degrowth, the paper by Videira et al. (2014) and the World3
model.
Degrowth
Theories challenging the market economy, industrialized capitalism and growth in productivity and
output go back to the 19" century (Exner, 2014). However, degrowth as a concept was more formally
introduced in the 1970s and the publication of The Limits to Growth (Meadows, Meadows, Randers,
& Behrens Ill, 1972). The purpose of this study was “to gain insights into the limits of our world
system and the constraints it puts on human numbers and activity (...) [and] to help identify and study
the dominant elements, and their interactions that influence the long-term behavior of world
systems.” (Meadows, Richardson, & Bruckmann, 1982, s. 24). As a consequence of the problem
formulation, the book focuses on the pattern and mode of overshoot and future decline. The authors
were criticizing the hegemonic growth paradigm. Criticism against the book was massive and the
developed world model, World3 (Meadows, Richardson, & Bruckmann, 1982). For example,
economist F.A Hayek wrote: “far-reaching claims are made on behalf of a more scientific direction of
all human activities and the desirability of replacing spontaneous processes by "conscious human
control".” (von Hayek, 1975, s. 439). Nevertheless, the World3 model is probably also the most
acclaimed world model. Today there is a growing appraisal of the book and a recent comparison
between the scenarios presented by Meadows et al. (1972) where the real world development
shows that the world is developing in a pattern that is close to what the authors initially called the
‘standard run’ (Turner, 2008; Rockstrém, et al., 2009).
Besides Meadows et al. (1972), degrowth has its roots in the fields of economic ecology, social
ecology, economic anthropology and in environmental and social activist groups. The anthropologists
are questioning whether western models of development should be imposed on the so called
developing countries — and challenge the current growth paradigm and GDP as an indicator for
human progress. Another source of degrowth theories comes from the request for decentralization
and the strengthening of democratic institutions. Economic interests are considered as having too
much influence on politics and the education system. Yet another part of the degrowth debate
relates to a more spiritual dimension, raising questions about the meaning of life and promoting non-
violence, art, and a simplistic lifestyle (Schneider, Kallis, & Martinez-Alier, 2010). Some argue that
degrowth best serves as a visioning tool which could help redefining well-being and welfare.
Degrowth would then enable the development of an alternative vision for the future, a future where
better is promoted instead of the current more (Martinez-Alier, Pascual, Vivien, & Zaccai, 2010). Also,
degrowth aims to display the unsustainability in growing just for the sake of growth. As stated by
Serge Latouche (quoted in Matinez-Alier et al. (2010)), a degrowth society should be a “society built
on quality rather than on quantity, on cooperation rather than on competition” (p. 1742) . Further, in
a degrowth society “humanity [is] liberated from economism for which social justice is the
objective’(p. 1742). Latouche also writes that “The motto of de-growth aims primarily at pointing the
insane objective of growth for growth” (Martinez-Alier, Pascual, Vivien, & Zaccai, 2010, p. 1742).
From an environmental perspective unlimited physical growth is unsustainable for different reasons,
primarily because it threatens the biophysical limits of planet earth. The ecological field emphasizes
the need for ecosystem protection and the lack of respect for other living beings. A slightly different
approach is provided by the field of ecological economics, which points out that the planetary
boundaries and the depletion of resources will eventually counteract economic growth. Herman Daly
refers to the current economic growth of developed countries as uneconomic growth (Daly H. ,
1999). The ultimate goal of degrowth is not negative GDP growth (Kallis G. , 2011). Many of the
people in favor for degrowth do however argue that economic growth, even if it is labelled as a green
growth or sustainable growth, will eventually lead to the collapse of the socio-ecological system as
we know it today. This would inevitably also show in a decrease of GDP (Kallis G. , 2011).
There are many definitions of degrowth, since it is argued to be a multi-dimensional framework
rather than one single indicator or policy. This opens up for different interpretations and various
proposals for implementation. One definition of degrowth from an economic-ecological perspective
is a sustainable, democratic and equitable reduction of throughput in society (Daly E. H., 1997). This
definition refers to a process where the energy and materials extracted, consumed, used and finally
returned to the environment as waste are reduced. A more elaborate definition is one stated by
Schneider, Kallis & Martinez Alier (2010). This definition includes increased human well-being as an
objective for degrowth. It also emphasizes a long term perspective. Degrowth is however not meant
to be sustained indefinitely, but rather serve as a transition towards a more sustainable state of the
environment and social system (Kallis, Kerschner, & Martinez-Alier, 2012).
Introducing degrowth as a solution to environmental problems has met opposition. Primarily, many
mainstream economists do not agree that there are limits to economic growth (Litan, Baumol, &
Schramm, 2008). Another point of criticism is that the concept is vague and the debate unfocussed.
The lack of a clear definition of what it means to degrow, and what exactly it is that needs to degrow
could be problematic. No agreed definition could cause a lack of clear policy suggestions, and
furthermore difficulties in measuring the outcomes of degrowth proposals. It could also generate low
support from decision makers and the public (van den Bergh, 2010).
Improving understanding of degrowth pathways
In the article Improving understanding on degrowth pathways: An exploratory study using
collaborative causal models (Videira, Schneider, Sekulova, & Kallis, 2014) the authors recognize the
lack of clear goals and metrics in the degrowth debate. Departing from this, their aim is to clarify
certain aspects of degrowth by exploring how different proposals relate to each other. The degrowth
pathways are explored through involvement of researchers and activists in a collaborative setting.
The method used was Causal Loop Diagramming. The process started with the identification of a
‘problem variable’ that was placed at the centre of each diagram, “after which causes and
consequences were added” (Videira, Schneider, Sekulova, & Kallis, 2014, p. 62). Feedback processes
in the three sectors were recognized and after that different degrowth pathways were identified as
leverage points. Furthermore, the compatibility of the proposals was presented in a matrix,
identifying synergies. A toolkit was developed, in order to enable additional examination of future
pathways. Examples of the pathways discussed in the article are house sharing, work sharing,
resource sanctuaries, restriction on advertising, and moratoriums on large infrastructure projects.
We have chosen two of the proposals presented in the article: resource sanctuaries and work
sharing. These are further explored in the stocks and flows section below.
The World3 model
The simulation model we use for our examination of degrowth proposals is the World3 - first
presented in Limits to Growth (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens Ill, 1972) . A slightly
modified version was presented in Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update (Meadows, Randers, &
Meadows, Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update, 2004). We use the modified version. It is a highly
aggregated system dynamics model that is divided into different subsystems; e.g. population,
industry, agriculture, food production, non-renewable resources and pollution. The subsystems or
sectors interact with each other and the behavior of the system arises from these interactions. The
model can be used to evaluate different scenarios and to see how a change in one or more elements
changes the behavior. This is useful for our case since we want to see how suggested degrowth
pathways affects the behavior of the global system. Further, the model is useful for this study
because our reference modes industrial output and ecological footprint are included.
We have identified two reference modes — the ecological footprint and industrial production — that
are used to explore the potential effectiveness of the chosen degrowth pathways. As we depart from
an environmental understanding of degrowth we are particularly focusing on the behavior in terms
of industrial production and environmental impacts. Indexed data of industrial production is here
displayed together with the industrial output as modeled in the World3 model. As an indicator for
environmental impact we have chosen the Ecological Footprint, also displayed together with
modeled values from the World3 model (in the model as ‘Human Ecological Footprint’). Our
objective with the modelling exercise is to see what effect the chosen degrowth pathways are likely
to have on these reference modes.
Reference modes
200
°
¢
150 —— Reference point run
=== Data
100 1
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Figure 1: Relative development of industrial output since 1991, for World3 ‘reference point run’ and data. Index: 1991.
Source of data: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. For further comparison between world
and World3 runs, see Turner’s A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality (2008).
The global industrial production is value added in mining, manufacturing, and utilities (CPB
Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, 2013). This industry value makes up a large part of
GDP. Historically the global industrial production has grown significantly. The increase in industrial
output is problematic from an environmental perspective because it increases environmental
impacts for instance pollution, unless it is coped with continuous extensive greening of the
technologies used - which has so far not been the case (N 1 Randers, & N 1 2004).
= — Ecological Footprint
simulated
== Carrying capacity
=== Ecological Footprint data
Number of Planet Earths
purity
5 ih poesia
1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008
Year
Figure 2: Development of the global Ecological Footprint according to data and the values simulated by the ‘reference point
run’ in World3. Both are compared to the carrying capacity. Sources: WWF International (2012), and the World3 model
(Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004).
The environmental impacts in our study are measured in terms of the global Ecological Footprint
(EF). The EF estimates the demand humans place on the earth’s ecosystems. It is defined as “the area
of productive land and water ecosystems required to produce the resources that the population
consumes and assimilate the wastes that the population produces, wherever on Earth the land and
water is located” (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). Figure 2 presents the footprint for the global
population together with the simulated Ecological Footprint from the World3 model’s reference
point run. Both are compared to the earth’s carrying capacity. From this graph we can derive that the
EF is growing and that human’s demand has been exceeding nature’s supply from around 1970. This
unsustainable condition is also referred to as ‘overshoot’. A minimum condition for ecological
sustainability is that footprints must be smaller than ecological capacity (Wackernagel & Silverstein,
2000). The sustainable level for Ecological Footprint in Meadows et al. (2004) is presented as 1.1, a
level that was passed around 1980. In the graph presented, the simulated values are higher than the
data suggests. This might have to do with the fact that World3 only approximates the ecological
footprint “to the extent this is possible within the confines of the limited number of variables in the
World3 model” (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update, 2004, s.
292).
Modelling degrowth pathways
In this section we present Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) that capture and refine the important aspects
of the three CLDs developed by Videira et al. (2014). This is followed by a presentation of the stock
and flow diagrams (SFDs) that build on these CLDs.
Refined and improved Causal Loop Diagrams
In our refinements of the CLDs presented by Videira et al. (2014) we have included some variables
from the World3 model. The refinements are based on our reasoning of the loops, in more detail
presented in Table 1 in the Appendix. We have chosen to color some of the loops to make them
easier to distinguish. Further, the degrowth pathways and their potential impacts are marked with
thick lines. Each loop has got a number and a name. There are three sectors: one economic, one
ecological and one social. We firstly present the original CLD and then the refined version for each
sector. Lastly, we integrate all refined CLDs into one diagram.
Social sector
The social sector CLD as presented by Videira et. al (2014) is shown in Figure 3. The main variable is
social inequality and from this CLD we can identify the main drivers of this variable (reinforcing loops
R1, R2, R3, RO and R10 in Figure 3). For example, the utilitarian view drives the will of accumulation
and thereby increases social inequality. The impacts of social inequalty are also shown in the CLD
(reinforcing loops R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8). Several degrowth proposals are presented in the figure,
marked with blue arrows. They address both the causes and effects of social inequality. One example
is education, that is proposed to increase the recognition and promotion of the commons which
could increase the support for other ethics.
Recognition and promotion ~~
of the commons
Logistation favouring = Education (¢.g. emotional:
sharing ¢ new pedagogies)
a a
F Otherethics 4, + Thuel
bern i ay A +
view Sharing ~~
Cooperation 2 : >
Roms,
4+)
Nw
Conflicts (e9 soaal, NS
war,violence) | 4-4)
Consumption of Rin, Noe
. ee.
natural resources A+) * Poverty
Re : ee
+ Ne Happiness (on
Scale of political 3
economic system
> ‘ Accessto goods & services
Pp (by winerable groups)
ww w >
Decommodification Taxes : Social exclusion’gated
Politics for all ing (Basi communities Experimental
lirect democtacy . e: © ——
Progressive ~
taxation, =
Figure 3: Feedback loops and degrowth proposals in the ‘social sector’ (Videira, Schneider, Sekulova, & Kallis, 2014).
Our refined social sector CLD is presented in Figure 4 and includes most of the loops presented by
Videira et al. (2014). The utilitarian view and its effects on the will of accumulation are found in the
upper left of Figure 4. Other core variables are size of the public sector, poverty, conflict and social
inequality. The degrowth pathway of ‘Education for inable devel is believed to increase
the presence of other ethics and thereby impede the hegemonic position of the utilitarian view
(‘Education’ in the CLD presented in Figure 3). All loops found in Figure 3 except R1, R4, R10 and B1
are also found in Figure 4— some are however slightly altered (see the Appendix for details on the
refinements).
Other ethics
Education
ir s
sustainable 4r2)
development
Ethics
reinforcing loop
Advertising "
+ Utilitarian view “{————_ -— :
* a
Consumption (Rp Wil ait ineqaty
Much would accumulation (up ay \ ‘ .
ave more y B ; S oihess
reinforcing loop + Exchuslon exclusion Sharing
i conflic : +
Gontlicts reinforcing loop (Rap
Poverty
+
i Si ‘ for hi Size of public
Consumption of hppor for sector
natural resources
Size of public
sector reinforcing
loop
Poverty- conflict
reinforcing loop
+ Taxes.
Figure 4: Feedback loops and the degrowth proposal ‘Education for sustainable development’ (in Videira, Schneider,
Sekulova, & Kallis (2014)‘Education’ (e.g. emotional; new pedagogies)’ in the ‘social sector’ part of our refined CLD.
Economic sector
In the original CLD showing the economic sector, here presented in Figure 5, the will of accumulation
is also a driving factor. In the economic sector it increases consumption of natural resources. This
increases private debt which can lead to increased financial market speculation and a financial
market crisis. Growing debt can also lead to increased unemployment and social inequality through
austerity policies. Different degrowth policies that can alleviate these negative consequences are
included as leverage points, e.g. work sharing and basic income (blue arrows).
z Moratorium on cestain
Limits to adverts in }
public space technologies
Advertising
XN
Will of accumulation ~
> Private property
Tax material intensive
Income ceiling ae
+
Population
ori Financial market 5. inheritance
speculation
we
SON ok aX
= Production Private debt
Resource price Consumption of natural. —+
fesources = (hp A ,
n @ }
= '
Public investments (¢. 9 4. Public debt
Infrastucture projects
transport. energy,
infrastructure)
Abolish investment in —
military infrastructure $— Financial market
a) Banking cnsis
OG einn _ ea
Social inequality .~ ~~ -
iy polices “y
“ Sn Efficiency Overextended fiat
—T A + discourses system
Work shating > Unemploymen e N ; _
2 Privatization of +
eed of Exclusion pank solvenc
productivity natural resources k sahency
Figure 5: Feedback loops and degrowth proposals in the ‘economic sector’ (Videira, Schneider, Sekulova, & Kallis, 2014).
Our focus is not as much on the financial sector as it is on the production and consumption. Two
reinforcing loops of production and consumption are put at the core (R1 and R3) of our CLD,
presented in Figure 6. Except from loop R2 and R3 all loops found in Figure 5 are also found in Figure
6 — even though some are slightly altered (see the Appendix for details). Our CLD also includes the
degrowth pathway ‘Nonrenewable resource sanctuaries’ which is included in the ‘ecological sector’
in Videira et al. (2014) as well as the proposal ‘Work sharing’.
Population
x.
Taamyone
resource usage nesomnDS
ind a
oats Gp Compton srs nl
/ prone tan ,
/ uble investments to Tnvestntt —social 4—
{Gp Passe counteracting loop. pie
ou Satta Z > F ap Ny
ame tal Bp tec orc
courting aves (Ra A conte gap kn
(P| Nonremsabie Ssh oh is A \
\ = a Intl I. mf Pome |
sechunra Industrial !°P ra cbenin 2f eo reinfoting loop
Copia |
: Pecooman
Demand for on conflict ployment
mCurss Nonrenewable — Nonrenewable _100p.
counteracting Work sharing
= Capac
—pRisouce ice uation fac
Ry,
Resource: conflicts
reinforcing loop
Figure 6: Feedback loops and the degrowth proposals ‘Nonrenewable resource sanctuaries’ and ‘Work sharing” in the
‘economic sector’ part of our refined CLD.
Ecological sector
The original CLD presenting the ecological sector (Figure 7) is mainly focusing on the pressures on the
state of biodiversity. It represents concerns related to overexploitation of natural resources and
changes in natural land cover. One degrowth proposal is to introduce resource sanctuaries which
would decrease the consumption of natural resources, increase the natural land cover and increase
the state of biodiversity.
Moratorium on new Financial support for agro
irrigation plans + ecological measures
“. ’
Multicriteria evaluation of $=-* Social inequality
‘energy systems go pe
Technology =~ | ee
( y : ey, ciate So Soil erosion
+
Noh at Pgs
Monocultures =
nee aay
Efficiency —"> society *) aol
rave — é
{cing coy ° | of biodiversity = Demand ore! eclogial
w+
Y te
+h Scomaeten of natural ag ae sanctuaries a =
- elements:
« ~~ GMOs Bigiebics ioe teust,
Communitanan & Cultural
Waste control te
Feedback on rebound RSS Biological invasions
effect
SE) international trade”. i
Pollution
Figure 7; Feedback loops and degrowth proposals in the ‘ecological sector’ (Videira, Schneider, Sekulova, & Kallis, 2014).
Removing subsidies for
extraction of natural
resources.
Similar to the ecological sector CLD of Videira et al. (2014), state of biodiversity is put at the core of
our CLD shown in Figure 8. While Videira et al. (2014) put the resource sanctuaries policy within the
ecological sector, we included it in the economic sector, Figure 6..Note: Loop R8 is only a loop when
the sectors are put together as in
Figure 9.
Nonrenewable
resource usage:
Consimption of
natural resources
Consumption (up
<5 \ oem
Moch would | aa + Social
ave more | 2 +
. reinforaing loop |, Wanot” a i
State of | Ng | cecumutaton \
+ biodiversity "Ecological 4 "
+ j Footprint | Conflicts (Rep
Urban and * Ay \ ~ :
+) Industrial land / \ Poverty. a
+ G / reinforcing
[7 f @& \ a
J land-pollution
Potential Arable reinforcing loop,
Land |
|
‘Arable land~———~
Figure 8: Feedback loops and the degrowth proposal ‘Land resource sanctuaries’ in the ‘ecological sector’ part of our refined
cD.
Causal loop diagram including all sectors
Figure 9 presents a CLD including all the sectors and the links between them. Also some important
links from the World3 model are included. A more elaborate description of the CLD is included in the
Appendix.
+
Demand for natural : iG)
resources
+
Labor force
a"
development
Population-pollution
counteracting loop Ioan ‘N.
4 founteracting loop
‘Consumption of Advertising
Nonrenewable rabral resources. 4.
resource usage
Industrial Capital iano loop
ee Gy mo)
| Much would have + Yaad -
Public investments to ‘nore reinforcing loop
@s industrial capital |
Resource deman ns |,
counteracting loo} + nee orn f ”
a Ecological :
Nonrenewable Zand resource Footprint n
resoures sanctuaries rditertng loop Industrial output
#
Industrial Capital
Siznof public sectoP
Teintareing loop
Nonrenewable —Nonrenewable reinforcing loop
Resourves
counteracting loop
Resource-conflicts
reinforcing loop
Labor utilization
counteracting loop
Figure 9: Major CLD showing the loops presented above and other loops we believe are relevant. Explained in further detail in Appendix A.
?
Cre
reinforcing loo
Service capital Austerity policies
Labor productivity
RI
Unemployment
reinfocing loop
‘Working time per
capita
Unemployment
13
Stock and flow diagrams
To explore the effects of the degrowth proposals, we added structure in the World3 model and then
simulated and analyzed the behavior. In this section we present and explain the modifications.
Resource sanctuaries
The first proposal introduces resource sanctuaries and this is represented by structure added within
two sectors of the model. Within the nonrenewable resources sector of the World3 model (Figure
10) the main stock is nonrenewable resources. When nonrenewable resources are used resources
remaining will decrease. One assumption made is that a lower fraction of resources remaining leads
to a higher fraction of industrial capital allocated to obtaining resources (this follows the assumption
that the resources that are left are more difficult to extract). The fraction of capital allocated to
obtaining resources serves as an input to the industrial output sector of the model (the more capital
allocated to obtain resources, the less industrial output). This feeds back to the resource usage rate
(the less industrial output, the less resource usage). The resource conservation technology part
represents the efficiency improvements in technology which, ceteris paribus, decrease the resource
usage rate.
industial capital output ratio
multiplier from resource industrial capital output ratio
conservation technology multiplier from resource table
resource use factor 1
resource use fact 2 mm],
Conservation —
<POLICY Y = s> echnology resource technology :
POLICY YEAR s>
ime Hes change rate so SOUL TEAR
SN use factor
lopment delay> secure thnology
initial source technolog
nonrenewable eee Perel change time s>
TESTLIEES 8, resource technolo
Vg desired resource
rate malig Terie BE _resource technology
change rate multiplier 2
Resources
resource
{ ? ae < change ans re
resource technology
fraction of TS sp change table 2
Tesourves per capita af use multiplier Po :
mit> <ndustrial outp
per capita resource use mult table
fraction of capital allocated faction of capital allocated fraction of capital allocated to
to obtaining resources 1 to obtaining resources 2 obtaining resources 2 table
fraction of industrial capital
icra copii aloccted 4 rine. fraction of industrial capital 4 allocated to obtaining
E allocated to obtaining resources resources switch time s>
Figure 10: Nonrenewable Resources sector of the World3 model.
Figure 11 presents the added stock and flow structure in which we have introduced the
nonrenewable resource sanctuaries. One of the degrowth proposals is to put a cap on the resource
usage rate, in other words, expand the area of protected nonrenewable resource sanctuaries (Kallis,
Kerschner, & Martinez-Alier, 2012). The proposal calls for a “desired” quantity of nonrenewable
resource sanctuaries. In our structure this desired number is based on a fraction of the level of
nonrenewable resources at the moment of policy implementation in the year 2014. This fraction is
initially set to 15% and is based on the Yasuni-ITT proposal (Nysingh, 2012). In the proposal the
Ecuadorian government planned to keep approximately 20% of the country’s proven oil reserve in
the ground, located in the Yasunj National Park (Nysingh, 2012). The aim of this proposal was to
conserve biodiversity, to protect the indigenous groups still living in voluntary isolation in the park
14
and to avoid release of pollutant emissions. We have added a desired level of nonrenewable
resources sanctuaries of 15%. The time to create the sanctuaries is set to 5 years. Although it is a
possible time frame in line with the urgent need to act for sustainability, one might argue that it is an
overly optimistic assumption given the high level, and extent, of decision making needed for such a
change. Nevertheless, it is a useful and applicable number when using the World3 model to
investigate the potential outcomes of this degrowth pathway.
<Time>
policy s switch
bh resou! resource use factor 1
resources at t=! a “\
<POLICY ea s>
<Time>.
tag, vw. tite
resource —® resource sanctuaries aN |
sanctuaries fraction Time to create NR
Sanctuary
Ni bl
Resources
Nonrenewable
Sanctuaries
fraction of
anit ours per capita r
nonrenewable men g
resources $> { <GDP peu
Figure 11: Model extension of nonrenewable resource sanctuaries.
The land development, land loss and land fertility sector of the World3 model (Figure 12) represents
how potentially arable land may change into arable land and urban and industrial land. The rate in
which the potentially arable land develops into arable land depends on investments. Arable land can
then be used for urban and industrial purposes, and the rate depends on the land required per
capita. Land required per capita uses input from the industrial sector (the higher the industrial
output, the more land required) and the demographics sector (the bigger the population, the more
land required) of the model.
marginal productivit mayginal productivity <—— -
gricultural inputs> ofland development ——— social discount
fraction of aqaeutyral
impgls Beatie development cost perhectare table
jevelopment table. ————_, »
fraction of agricultural inputs development cost potentially arable land total
allocated to land development perhecare
initial urban and industrial land initial arable land
ume,
Industral sz
Land land removal for urban
and industnal use
{initial potentially arable land
rate average life of land normal
and life policy
jland erosion rate «average life of land implementation time s>
urban and industial urban and industrial Time
land development time land required land fe mtipiee << ———
omland yield —q___
d ield 2:
han and industilal mopulatio ar> and life multiplier from land
Jand required per capita initial land fertility
uhan and industri and - st
required per capita table aches tal utp pe capa tio
Fertility ,
it> Tand feitility land fetility Fetity
regeneration degredation degpedation rats table
oe cultural inputs ogra ttin Bine inherent land fertility land fetty
degredation rate
land fertility regeneration
time table
Figure 12: Land development, Loss, Fertility sector of the World3 model.
We added stock and flow structure to this sector to represent the land resource sanctuaries, as
presented in Figure 13. It is modelled in a similiar way as the nonrenewable resource sanctuaries,
and has the same underlying assumptions and reasoning. When land resource sanctuaries are
created, the potentially arable land decreases since it becomes protected land and can then not be
developed into arable land. Lower levels of arable land decreases the ecological footprint but also
the food production. Moreover, less urban land decreases the ecological footprint as well. Just as the
nonrenewable resource sanctuaries and with similar reasoning, the desired land resource sanctuaries
is set to 15% and the creation time to 5 years.
policy switch land
resource sanctuaries
development cost per hectare table
develop cost 4p ally arable land total Tinie
per hectare desired land .
resourve sanctuaries “Potentially arable
land t=2014
<resource
initial potentially arable lan sanctuaries fraction>
Potentially = Land
Resource
Arable Land Land Sanctuary Sanctuaries land resource
Creation Rate +___ sanctuary creation
time
Figure 13 Model extension of land resource sanctuaries.
Work sharing
The work sharing proposal is represented with added and modified structure in the job sector of the
model. The original job sector of the model mainly includes the jobs that are created (in terms of
people), presented in Figure 14. The amount of jobs depends on the potential jobs in the different
sectors, which in turn is determined by the level of capital and the jobs per capital unit. Labor
utilization fraction is then calculated by dividing the amount of jobs by the labor force and this
fraction serves an input to the industrial- and services output. A higher labor utilization fraction
means a lower capacity utilization fraction that leads to a lower output.
cunit agricultural industrial output per capita>
input>
— bs per industrial jobs per industrial
potential jobs tential jobs ns 059
Jobs perhectare te culbural sector industial sector“ —~—~S~*«Cattad nit ‘capital unt table
Mare potential jobs
jobs perhectare table Perice sector
dabor forve> jobs
jobs perservice eae OTE ACAI.
os << service output per capita
labor utilization fraction jobs perservice
capital unit table
<GDP pe unit>
[ Delayed Labor |
Utilization apacity utilization fraction
Fraction
labor utilization fraction delay time capacity utilization fraction table
Figure 14: Jobs sector of the World3 model.
The work sharing proposal is represented by the added and modified structure shown in Figure 15.
In the debate lowering working hours has been introduced as a proposal to “address a range of
urgent, interlinked problems: overwork, unemployment, over-consumption, high carbon emissions,
low well-being, entrenched inequalities, and the lack of time to live sustainably, to care for each
other, and simply to enjoy life.” (Coote, Franklin, & Simms, 2010). We have nevertheless limited the
modelling of work sharing to only include lowering the average working hours per person. We base
our policy on the suggestions made by New Economics Foundation to halve the working week of
developed countries from 40 hours to 21 hours (Coote, Franklin, & Simms, 2010). In our model, we
lower the average working hours per person from 8 to 4 hours. As with resource sanctuaries, we
model 5 year of average implementation. The proposal would in the model decrease unemployment
and increase the labor utilization fraction. By increasing this fraction the proposal would affect the
industrial and service output. We have chosen not to model an increase or decrease in productivity
as an effect of the policy because the causal effect of a decrease in working hours has been dubious
(Lanoie, Raymond, & Shearer, 2001) (Kallis, Kalush, Flynn, Rossiter, & Ashford, 2013).
ricultural inpul
<GDP pe unit>
<unita <industrial output per capita>
input>
ultural
; bs per industrial jobs perindustrial
potential jobs otential jobs 2 + hs
jobs perhectare ——tm agticultural sector Pete Z SctorS~C~*C zit nit capital unit table
potential jobs :
Jobs perhectare table a Service sector a
unemployment Ehourjobs
jobs perservice ania utputper ea
capital unit i ms
abo actual jobs working hours ratio Jobs perservice
capital unit table
<GDP pe unit>
initial working hours
labor utilization fraction
Change in
policy switch working hours
nei working hours
ee working hours
desi working oe Nong ga adjustment time
[DeyeqTLabor |
Utilization pacity utilization fraction
L_ fraction
labor utilization fraction delay time capacity utilization fraction table
Figure 15: Model extension of work sharing proposal.
Results and analysis
In this section we present the simulation results. We also present validation tests conducted through
assigning extreme values to certain parameters. Every simulation run is compared against the
reference point run. The reference point run is the Scenario 1 of the World3 model, in the 1972
edition called standard run. The reference point run is presented together with data shown in in the
background section. It is more or less a business as usual (BAU) simulation without major policy
changes. Population and production levels increase until growth is no longer possible because of the
depletion of nonrenewable resources and other constraints i.e. limits to growth. The reference point
run presents continuous growth until 2014, but at that time industrial output and other variables
increase decreasingly, and industrial output reaches its peak in 2016.
In Figure 16 the runs for the different degrowth proposals are compared against the reference point
run for the Ecological Footprint. Note that the precise values at each point are neither meaningful
nor possible to read and that is why we have chosen to display them on a highly aggregated level.
18
Reference point run
=== Work sharing
= Land resource sanctuaries
«+++» Nonrenewable resource sanctuaries
Number of Planet Eaths
— Allpolicies
0
Time 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090
(year)
Figure 16: Ecological Footprint with initial degrowth proposals.
Figure 16 shows that the work sharing proposal and the land resource sanctuaries, as we have
modelled them, have little impact on the Ecological Footprint. The nonrenewable resource
sanctuaries proposal has more impact as the ecological footprint decreases significantly. When all
the proposals are introduced simultaneously, the most impact can be seen. Note that all the runs end
up at a Human Ecological Footprint of one planet earth in the long-run, which is reasonable given the
balancing feedbacks at play with a higher footprint.
Figure 17 presents the runs for the different degrowth proposals when compared against the
reference point run for the Industrial Output variable. The pattern is similar to the Ecological
Footprint development presented above, which makes sense given their high correlation. Again, the
work sharing and the land resource sanctuaries have less impact while the nonrenewable resource
sanctuaries proposal affects the development significantly. When all proposals are implemented
simultaneously we see the largest impact.
BEN
2,5E+12
2E+12
Reference point run
sere === Work sharing
“= = Land resource sanctuaries
Industrial Output
1E+12 ++++++ Nonrenewable resource sanctuaries
— Allpolicies
SEH
0 ' : ' : ' : 7
Time 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090
(year)
Figure 17: Industrial Output with initial degrowth proposals.
In Figure 18 and Figure 19 we explore the impacts of the degrowth proposals with extreme values.
We acknowledge that these extreme values are not realistic; we perform this test only to study how
the model behaves under extreme conditions.
In the runs displayed in Figure 18 and Figure 19 the desired working hours was set to 1 hour, and the
resource sanctuaries are set to 85% of the value of 2014. The two figures present that under these
conditions the system quickly changes; it reaches an Ecological Footprint of 1 much faster and
Industrial Output decreases significantly. The changes are again strongest for the nonrenewable
resource sanctuaries and weakest for the land resource sanctuaries. The effect of the working hours
proposal lies in between the other two proposals. For all the proposals there is eventually no
Industrial Output because at that point all capital is allocated to obtaining new nonrenewable
resources.
Reference point run
= Desired working hours: 1
~~ Land resource sanctuaries 85 %
++++++ Nonrenewable sanctuaries 85 %
Number of Planet Earths
— Allextremes
2
w
0
Time 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090
(year)
Figure 18: Ecological Footprint with extreme degrowth proposals.
3E+12
2,5E+12 A>.
ra
2E+12
\
1 4
| \ — Reference point
ry
41,5E+12 | ‘
j
Industrial Output
= == Desired working hours: 1
LY
ay My, = == Land resource sanctuaries 85 %
1
1
1E+12 + +++++ Nonrenewable sanctuaries 85 %
'
\ 1 — Allextremes
‘
Sert 1
‘
0
(year)
Figure 19: Industrial Output with extreme degrowth proposals.
We acknowledge that the interpretations that can be made of the results of our simulation runs are
limited because we only look at two variables of the World3 model. The small effects of the
proposals could be explained by the scale of analysis and that the model is much aggregated. Figure
20 shows that both the work sharing and resource sanctuaries proposals fall into the reactive
segment. This means that they are strongly affected by other degrowth proposals but their causal
effects on others are lower. This could also explain why land resource sanctuaries and work sharing
do not have much impact compared to the reference point run. Priority could thus be given to other
proposals that have more spill-over effects. Figure 20 does however not explain the bigger effect of
the nonrenewable resource sanctuaries pathway. Causal effects of the degrowth proposals on other
variables are explored more in the discussion.
100% DB Moratoria on
REACTIVE CRITICAL large infrastructures
83% EE work sharing
100% reserve
= 67% Resource sanctuaries {a Limits to international trade $f banks {QI localised
Fy ‘cooperatives
E
Ss
< sox IE Max-min income levels
2 BUFFERING ACTIVE
33% House sharing -EQBE3F Restrictions
to advertising
17%
0%
0% 17% 33% 50% 67% 83% 100%
AS (in % of max.)
Figure 20: Diagram of the results from the cross-impact matrix (Videira et al., 2014).
Finally, in Figure 21 and Figure 22 we explore the impacts of the degrowth pathways if they were
implemented earlier in history. In these runs the policies are implemented in year 1982 to see what
would have happened if earlier action had been taken. The results show that earlier implementation
of the pathways would have led to more decrease in industrial output and ecological footprint,
compared to Figure 16 and Figure 17. This indicates that quicker implementation of the degrowth
pathways has more impact and that action needs to be taken sooner rather than later.
25
z
&
& «
3 — Reference point run
2
ra === Work sharing
ag “Land resource sanctuaries
5
Bf EES nee Nonrenewable resource sanctuaries
5
= — Allpolicies
Os
0 + : :
Time 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
(vear)
Figure 21: Ecological Footprint with proposals implemented in year 1982.
3E+H12
2,5E+12
2E412
2 Reference point
8 SERS === Work sharing
§ “= Land resource sanctuaries
= ++ Nonrenewable resource sanctuaries
1E+12
— Allpolicies
SE+11
0 , : ' : ' - :
Time 2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079 2089 2099
(year)
Figure 22: Industrial Output with proposals implemented in year 1982
Discussion
The starting point for this exercise was to use system dynamics to explore degrowth pathways, and
to use a widely known and accepted model as a tool to test scenarios for these pathways. We used
the World3 world model to look at scenarios and impacts at a global scale Modelling on a global
scale requires simplifications and aggregation, but could provide useful insights, as degrowth and the
related environmental impacts are truly global matters. One of the clear advantages of using a global
model is the easy boundary setting as the dynamic behavior is clearly endogenous. New structure
was developed and integrated into World3. This approach allowed for simulation of future scenarios
on a highly aggregated level. It also allowed for a comparison of the results with a base run scenario.
Hence, the discussion could be focused on questions about feasibility, effectiveness and
implementation of degrowth proposals - rather than validation and limitations of the model
structure at large.
One limitation of using World3 in this project turned out to be that while the model explains the
current pattern of the world system (Turner, 2008) it would maybe not serve as well in modelling
beyond the peak in development — which in the reference point run (in the 1972 edition of the book
called the standard run) is year 2016 for industrial output. Simulations showed that even under
extreme (favorable) conditions the system is set to collapse. This has to do with the fact that the base
model only considers mainly non-renewable resources (except for food sector) which when used up
leads to this behavior pattern. Adjustments to the model to consider renewable resources
substitution for non-renewable could be explored in further developments. Further, the model
creators states that “in scenarios that portray collapse, we do not assign any meaning to the behavior
of the curves beyond the point where they peak out and start to decline. [...] we do not describe the
behavior of any model element after the point where one significant factor has started to collapse.
Clearly a collapse of population or industry in the “real world” would change many important
relationships and thereby invalidate many of the assumptions we have built into the model.”
(Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004, p. 153). A collapse would thus likely lead to other societal
feedback mechanisms taking over in determining future behavior. Our study could be considered
valid in a ‘ceteris paribus’ setting. That is, given the system structure and model that is presented;
this is the behavior that the proposed policies lead to. To better investigate degrowth proposals we
would however need to include the dynamics of system level changes i.e. industrial transformation.
The World3 model could perhaps be used as a foundation for such a model, but it would require
changes in the model’s structure.
Such rework of the World3 model would probably benefit from a participatory approach - it could be
a requirement for taking into account the diffused knowledge needed for such an exercise (Quist &
Vergragt, 2006).
Conclusion
Theories challenging current industrialization patterns and continuous growth in output and
efficiency go as far back as at least the 19" century. The concept of degrowth was however more
formally introduced in the 1970’s, by among others the Club of Rome. Now the topic of degrowth is
again on the agenda, offering an alternative to the growth paradigm that has been dominating
politics and the economic system since at least the end of the Second World War. The raising
awareness of the ecological limits of our planet and the current economic and social crisis indicate
that an alternative paradigm is needed. Life on earth needs to be redefined, and degrowth might give
important contributions to this change. The remaining question is if the transition from a structure
promoting economic growth to a degrowth society will be sustainable, democratic and equitable — or
a structural collapse.
In this paper we have explored different degrowth proposals and their potential impacts focusing on
industrial output and the ecological footprint. Through a causal loop diagram we have identified
important feedbacks, showing how interventions in the system can affect large parts of society. This
is a promising result if one aims for degrowth proposals to be implemented. On the other hand, the
simulations exercise using World3 show less impact of the proposals on an aggregated, global level.
Resource sanctuaries on non-renewable resources turned out to be the most promising suggestion,
while lowering working hours had no significant impact on either output or the ecological footprint.
These results should however be interpreted with caution, since the degrowth proposals were
introduced in a model constructed to represent the current growth paradigm. The degrowth
pathways were introduced from the year 2014, two years before the system starts to collapse in the
base-run. Perhaps the time period was too short in order to avoid this behavior, no matter how
effective the proposals, because of the already prolonged overshoot.
This paper shows the potential of system dynamics modelling for designing and testing strategies for
a more sustainable society on a global scale. The World3 model does however not only show the
limits to growth, it also shows the limits of transformation capabilities within the current societal
structure. In order to fully explore the potential of strategies for sustainable development, there is a
need for world models that focus on the transformation to sustainability. Instead of just focusing on
the current pattern of the world system, such new world models would need to show what is
required to transform into sustainable world system. The authors of Limits to Growth remained
positive, acknowledging the boundaries of our ecological system but also the potential for change.
The process of reinventing life on a shrinking earth is underway, and in this process system dynamics
models can play an important role.
References
Coote, A., Franklin, J., & Simms, A. (2010). 21 hours: Why a shorter working week can help us all to
flourish in the 21st century. London: New Economics Foundation.
CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. (2013). The CPB World Trade Monitor,
technical description. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
Daly, E. H. (1997). Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Beacon Press.
Daly, H. (1999). Uneconomic growth and the built environment: in theory and in fact. In C. Kibert,
Reshaping the Built Environment: Ecology, Ethics, and Economics. Washington D.C.: Island
Press.
Exner, A. (2014). Degrowth and Demonetization: On the Limits of a Non-Capitalist Market Economy.
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism.
Holland, S. (2010, 11 02). Bush considered replacing VP Cheney: memoir. Bush considered replacing
VP Cheney: memoir. Washington, D.C., United States of America: Reuters. Retrieved from
http://www. reuters.com/article/2010/11/02/us-bush-book-idUSTRE6A16CL20101102
Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 873-880.
Kallis, G., Kalush, M., Flynn, H. O., Rossiter, J., & Ashford, N. (2013). “Friday off’: Reducing Working
Hours in Europe. Sustainability, 1545-1567.
Kallis, G., Kerschner, C., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2012). The economics of degrowth. Ecological
Economics, 172-180.
Lanoie, P., Raymond, F., & Shearer, B. (2001). Work sharing and productivity: evidence from firm
level data. Applied Economics, 1213-1220.
Litan, R., Baumol, W., & Schramm, C. (2008). Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of
Growth and Prosperity. Berkely: Law and Economics Workshop, Berkeley Program in Law and
Economics. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3zt2b504
Martinez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F.-D., & Zaccai, E. (2010). Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the
context, criticisms and future prospects of an. Ecological Economics, 1741-1747.
Meadows, D. (2001, April 20). The state of the planet is grim. Should we give up hope? | Grist.
Retrieved from Grist: http://grist.org/article/out2/
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens Ill, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth.
Universe Books.
Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White River
Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
Meadows, D., Richardson, J., & Bruckmann, G. (1982). Groping in the Dark. Bristol: J.W. Arrowsmith
Limited.
Myrtveit, M. (2005). The World Model Controversy. Bergen: The System Dynamics Group.
Nysingh, S. A. (2012). THE YASUNI-ITT INITIATIVE; DREAMING OF KEEPING OIL IN THE SOIL. Michigan:
School of Natural Resources and Environment.
Quist, J., & Vergragt, P. (2006). Past and future of backcasting: The shift to stakeholder participation
and a proposal for a new methodological framework. Futures, 1027-1045.
Rockstrém, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Stuart III Chapin, F., Lambin, E., ... Rodhe. (2009,
Vol. 14 nr. 2). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safer operating space for humanity.
Ecology and society.
Schneider, F., Kallis, G., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for
social equity and ecological sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 511-518.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrém, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, |., Bennett, E. M.,... Sdrlin, S. (2015).
Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, VOL 347
ISSUE 6223.
Turner, M. G. (2008). A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality. Global
Environmental Change, 397- 411.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Wackernagel, M., & Silverstein, J. (2000). Big things first: focusing on the scale imperative with the
ecological footprint. Ecological Economics, 391 — 394.
van den Bergh, J. (2010). Environment versus growth — A criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a-
growth”. Ecological Economics .
Videira, N., Schneider, F., Sekulova, F., & Kallis, G. (2014). Improving understanding on degrowth
pathways: An exploratory study using collaborative causal models. Futures, 58-77.
von Hayek, F. A. (1975). The Pretence of Knowledge. The Swedish Journal of Economics, 433-442.
WWF International. (2012). Living Planet Report 2012. Gland: WWF.
Appendix: Description and motivation of CLD
Table 1: In this table we explain our motivation behind the loops in the refined CLDs. We compare the loops of the preliminary CLDs presented by Videira et al. (2014) with the loops in the
refined CLDs and explain the added loops that are based on assumptions made in the World3 model.
Loops
preliminary
Diagrams
‘Social Sector’
R1
R2
R3
R4
RS
R6
R7
R8&
Loops
Refined
CLDs
Excluded
R1 and R7
R2
Excluded
R6
R4
R4
RO
Label
Much would have
more reinforcing
loop and
Resource-
conflicts
reinforcing loop
Ethics reinforcing
loop
Poverty-conflict
reinforcing loop
Exclusion-conflict
reinforcing loop
Exclusion-conflict
reinforcing loop
Sharing
reinforcing loop
Description and motivation
We find it hard to grasp the variable ‘Scale of political economic system’ and believe that it is included in other
variables such as ‘Industrial capital’, ‘Will of accumulation’ and ‘Consumption’.
We chose the broader term of ‘consumption’ instead of merely ‘consumption of natural resources’ for these
loops as we believe it more fully grasps the concept presented. R1 presents the basic loop of increased
‘consumption’ leading to an increased ‘will of accumulation’ and vice versa. The R7 loop describes how
increased ‘demand for natural resources’ increases the prevalence of ‘conflicts’ which in turn increases ‘social
inequality’, ‘will of accumulation’, ‘consumption’, ‘consumption of natural resources’ and further increases the
‘demand for natural resources’.
Same loop. The direct link from ‘utilitarian view’ to ‘will of accumulation’ corresponds to the importance of the
utilitarian view’s domination over other ethics, in line with the argument in Videira et al. (2014)
We argue that the ‘poverty’ captures the concept of ‘access to goods & services’ and decided to not include it.
As a matter of simplification we included ‘social inequality’ in the loop.
Same loop.
The difference between R6 and R7 from the preliminary CLD is that in R6 ‘conflicts’ increases ‘social exclusion’
via the two variables of ‘cooperation’ and ‘trust’ but in R7 there is a direct link from ‘conflicts’ to ‘social
exclusion’. As a matter of simplification we chose to only model the former.
In the preliminary CLD, there is both a direct link from ‘cooperation’ to ‘sharing’ and a link that goes via ‘trust’.
As a matter of simplification we chose to model only the latter.
RO
R10
Bl
‘Economic
sector’
R1
R2, R3
R4
B1
RS
Excluded
Excluded
(RS)
R3
Excluded
R4 & R6
C3 and C4
Size of public
sector reinforcing
loop
(Size of public
sector reinforcing
loop)
Capital
reinforcing loop
Exclusion-conflict
reinforcing loop
& Poverty-conflict
reinforcing loop
Resource demand
counteracting
loop and
Nonrenewable
resources
counteracting
loop
Here, we have chosen to more extensively alter the loop. We believe that the reasoning behind the R9 loop in
the preliminary CLD is that increased ‘will of accumulation’ leads to less support for taxes that erodes the public
sector and leads to increased ‘social inequality’ that in turn increase the proliferation of the ‘utilitarian view’
and hence ‘will of accumulation’. In the preliminary CLD the loop goes via increased ‘conflicts’ which we believe
is not necessary the case and perhaps not what the workshop participants intended.
We believe that the effects of conflicts leading to an increase in the ‘will of accumulation’ and ‘social inequality’
is already captured by the effects of loops R4, R6 and R8 and as a matter of simplification excluded the R10
loop.
We do not find the balancing loop, but a reinforcing loop similar to R5 in our CLD where increased taxes leads
to less social inequality, decrease in ‘utilitarian view’ and hence decreased ‘will of accumulation’.
We believe the core of the R1 loop from the preliminary CLD is that increased investments leads to increased
output of which a part is allocated to investment and thereby reinforces the effect. In the World3 this is
modeled primarily by ‘industrial capital’.
We did not include the financial market in our model because this is outside the boundary of this study.
Again, we do not model the financial markets. However, the R4 and R6 loops capture the reinforcing effects of
social inequality and conflict.
To more fully capture the behavior of World3 we chose to develop B1 loop of the preliminary model. The C3
loop represents the depletion of natural resources by showing that increased ‘consumption of natural
resources’ increases the ‘nonrenewable resource usage’. This decreases the amount of ‘nonrenewable
resources’ that are left which leads to more expensive natural resources (‘resource price’), decreased
‘industrial output’ and decreased ‘consumption’. Further, there is a more direct effect closer to the B1 loop
presented in the preliminary CLD that presents that an increased demand leads to a higher price. As in the
preliminary CLD we believe “the negative loop system created by supply and demand in markets (B1) does not
seem to be strong enough to control for impacts from increasing resource c tion.” (Videira, Schneider,
Sekulova, & Kallis, 2014, s. 64)
‘Ecological
sector’
R1, R2, B1
‘World3’
Excluded
R8& Arable land-
pollution
reinforcing loop
R10 Population-
consumption
reinforcing loop
R11 Unemployment
reinforcing loop
(eal Population-
pollution
counteracting
loop
c2 Investment
counteracting
loop
c7 Labor utilization
counteracting
loop
cs Food-population
counteracting
loop
Some variables and loops in this preliminary CLD are regarded as uncertain by the participants. Moreover, we
do not fully understand the concepts and loops presented in this sector. Because of this uncertainty we decided
not to include these loops in our refined CLD.
The R8 loop represents how in the World3 model an increase in ‘arable land’ leads to an increase in ‘persistent
pollution’ which further harms ‘population’ growth. A lower population leads to lower level of ‘consumption’,
lower ‘consumption of natural resources’, more ‘industrial output allocated to investment’, more ‘industrial
capital investment’, more ‘industrial capital’, more ‘industrial output’, more ‘land development’ and finally
more ‘arable land’.
The R10 loop represents that an increase in ‘population’ leads to increased ‘consumption’ which leads to less
‘industrial capital investment’, less ‘industrial capital’, less ‘industrial output’, less ‘persistent pollution’ and
more population.
The unemployment reinforcing loop represents that increased ‘unemployment’ leads to increased ‘social
inequality’, more ‘utilitarian view’, higher ‘will of accumulation’, and more ‘consumption’, less ‘industrial capital
’and less‘ jobs’
The C1 loop represents that an increased ‘population’ means an increased ‘labor force’ which decreases the
‘labor utilization fraction’ which means an increase in the ‘capacity utilization fraction’. That further leads to
lower ‘industrial output’ (as it means that there is not enough labor for full capacity), lower ‘land development’,
lower ‘arable land’, less ‘food’ which decreases the population.
The C2 loop represents that an increase in ‘consumption’ increases the ‘consumption of natural resources’,
which leads to lower levels of ‘industrial output allocated to investment’ (as a bigger share of the industrial
output is allocated to consumption), lower ‘industrial capital investment’, lower ‘industrial capital’, lower
‘industrial output’ that in turn harms ‘consumption’.
C7 represents that a higher ‘labor utilization fraction’ means lower ‘capacity utilization fraction’, higher
‘industrial output’, more ‘consumption’, less ‘industrial capital investment’, less ‘jobs’ and a lower ‘labor
utilization fraction’.
C8 represents how an increased ‘population’ increases ‘consumption’, which in turn means less ‘industrial
capital investment’, less ‘industrial output’, less ‘land development’, less ‘arable land’, less ‘food’ and finally
less ‘population’.
