Degrowth is about building societies in which everyone is rich – without much material. It is a desirable project to strive for.

For critics, degrowth is not very appealing. According to them, it means impoverishment, restraint, scarcity, austerity or recession. It is seen as a project to reduce the overall prosperity of individuals and societies.

In contrast, in a recently published academic article, I argue that degrowth aims to achieve abundance, prosperity and richness. Other degrowth advocates have reached a similar conclusion, but here I claim that it first requires rethinking the dominant meaning of abundance.

It is impossible to promise everyone to achieve high levels of consumption. Indeed, it would lead to environmental and societal catastrophes. It would also be extremely unfair, as those most suffering from environmental degradation are already the most marginalised.

Instead, degrowth aims to achieve an abundance that does not entail high levels of consumption: a ‘frugal abundance’.

Challenging the myth of abundance through high consumption and production

Of course, abundance from a degrowth perspective requires the fulfilment of the basic material necessities. But it also aims to satisfy non-material aspects of life such as having many friends, a thriving environment, a lot of free time, deep relationships, plenty of passions, a healthy life, a thorough sense of purpose and high moral standards, among others.

The terms ‘prosperity’, ‘richness’ and ‘abundance’ have not always referred to high levels of material consumption and production. In the recent past, they also brought to mind a general sense of flourishing – it still partly does so for many. These terms alluded to morality, freedom, time, brotherhood, trust or wisdom.

Similarly, ‘frugality’ has not always been associated with restraint. Its etymology traces back to the Latin word frux, which means fruit, profit, or value. In this context, frugality relate to abundance.

By putting together two words that intuitively seem contradictory, the phrase ‘frugal abundance’ shocks and causes interrogations. As such, it makes us question what is important in life. For instance, is it to have the best car and the newest smartphone or is it to be happy? Is it to have a high-paid job or is it to spend time with loved ones and enjoy the beauties of nature?

By doing so, ‘frugal abundance’ challenges one of the most rooted myths of our times: that a good life and prosperity require high levels of consumption and production.

Conceptualising frugal abundance

The expression ‘frugal abundance’ intuitively refers to the idea of being rich without much. It is already used in degrowth spheres, but often as a catchphrase without really explaining what it means. I do so in the article mentioned above.

In a nutshell, I give three conditions for societies to achieve frugal abundance. First, everyone has a good life. Then, consumption is low enough to avoid large environmental impacts and so that everyone has enough resources to thrive. In short, it should enable global ecological and social justice. Finally, the material wants of everyone are satisfied.

Under these three conditions, societies achieve abundance because individuals have a good life and do not feel that they are lacking material consumption. Nevertheless, this abundance is frugal because the population does not consume much.

Credit: Plomteux (2024).

Some societies approach(ed) frugal abundance

Several ancient and still-existing societies are or have been close to reaching these three conditions. For instance, some communities in the Global South are happier than the happiest countries referenced in the World Happiness Report. Some indigenous societies like the Maasai and the Inughuit also seem satisfied with their material conditions even if they do not have much from Western standards.

The anthropologist Marshall Sahlins provided similar evidence in his famous 1960s’ essay The Original Affluent Society. He studied some societies which were able to fulfil their material desires without much consumption and production. He stated that they “enjoy an unparalleled material plenty – with a low standard of living”.

It is important not to romanticise these societies, but they can provide inspiration to build more sustainable and just futures. Moreover, they are or were close to frugal abundance not because they are ‘simple’, but because they have been able to create cultures and societal organisations in which the material wants of the population are finite and satisfied without much.

In contrast, most individuals in the so-called ‘rich countries’ are constantly dissatisfied with what they have and what they consume. Many also fail to fulfil the immaterial aspects of abundance, given the high levels of mental health issues and loneliness. From this perspective, many so-called ‘rich’ people and societies are actually poor. However, by creating the right societal organisations and cultures, our societies could achieve this abundance.

Degrowth is a radical project which contends that it is necessary to challenge the major social structures of our times, such as capitalism, imperialism and patriarchy in order to build societies based on sustainability, justice, care, simple living, democracy and emancipation.

Achieving degrowth objectives will certainly not be easy, but seeing the project as desirable is a precondition for any meaningful change in this direction. By associating degrowth with abundance, the societal project of degrowth becomes appealing and worth striving for.

---

---