Degrowth

Course manual 2021/2022

Course content

The scientific concept of degrowth appeared in the academic literature in the 1970s and some of its principles have been part of philosophical debates for centuries. Only recently, however, has it appeared as an activist slogan. This rapidly rising movement proposes a purposeful downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being, regenerates ecological conditions and improves social justice on the planet. In this course, students explore the scientific foundations and practical relevance of this challenging concept.

Study materials

Literature

• Readings to prepare for the lectures and the assignments will be shared via Canvas.

Objectives

• Recognise and distinguish key perspectives in the degrowth/post-growth debates.
• Explain and evaluate degrowth/post-growth arguments for changing the growth-based economy.
• Interpret and examine processes of growth and degrowth by applying relevant conceptual and methodological frameworks.
• Develop and defend alternative approaches based on the principles of degrowth.

Teaching methods

• Lecture
• Seminar
• Self-study

Lectures contribute to objectives 1, 2, 3 and 4. Seminars contribute to objectives 2 and 3. Self-study contributes to objectives 3 and 4.

Learning activities

Attendance

Additional requirements for this course:

• The student may be absent in 2 out of 12 sessions (lectures and seminars).
• Absence needs to be communicated to the assistant coordinator (Andro Rilovic, a.rilovic@uva.nl)

Assessment

Reviews are compensable, but the final essay is not (minimum 5.5).

Students that were enrolled in the course in previous years

Inspection of assessed work

Written feedback will be provided within 10 working days after submission. It will include general comments pertaining to the assessment criteria.

Assignments

REVIEWS

The reviews will cover the reading(s) listed in the weeks leading up to it (see details on Canvas). The reviews should be between 900 and 1100 words each, no more no less. They will summarise key arguments from the literature (half the review) and make a concise and critical commentary (the other half of the review). Each review must identify student name and number at the top of the page. The completed review (.doc or .docx) must be uploaded on canvas before the start of each workshop (in week 47, 50 and 3)—any time after will be considered as a late submission. Late summaries will be subject to a penalty of 5% per day. No review will be accepted more than a week late. Failure to submit will result in a zero. Students must submit 3 reviews in total.

Assessment criteria:

1. All readings are covered.
2. The review includes a personal position, e.g., by asking yourself:  i) how do the sources fit together? ii) what story are they telling me? iii) what can I learn from this?
3. Succinctness by distinguishing between essential and trivial information, capacity to summarise in compliance with word limit.
4. Clarity of understanding (by explaining) the subject matter, critical analysis and interpretation, especially in relation to points of contrast, limitations, contradictions and connections between the articles. (Critical does not necessarily mean criticising. The important thing is to support your position (either pro or con) with logical arguments)
5. Logically organised, clear in thought and argument.
6. Using your own words, not simply copying from the readings.
7. Higher marks are assigned to reviews that go beyond the listed articles for a particular unit and propose coherent arguments linked to other (optional) readings and lectures. So try to reflect not only on the specific (arguments mentioned in the) articles, but also on the overarching insights from the different readings.

Written feedback will be provided within 10 working days after submission. It will include general comments pertaining to the assessment criteria. Each review will be graded individually (grades are mutually compensable).

ESSAY

Students will write an individual essay on one of the degrowth proposals (practices or policies) listed in Videira et al. (2014) and Cosme et al. (2017) (see references below). Other proposals can also be researched in agreement with the course staff.  The essay should be between 3000 and 4000 words each, no more no less, excluding references. The essay should provide the background (what is the problem? why is the chosen practice or policy relevant), find cases that describe the practice or policy in question, reflect on the its effectiveness, and explore how it might rely on other proposals (also from Videira 2014; Cosme et al. 2017). If you are unfamiliar with the writing of an essay, you will find useful tips here and here. A soft copy (.doc or .docx) should be handed in through Canvas (see deadlines in Course structure). Late essays will be subject to a penalty of 5% per day. No essay will be accepted more than a week late, without prior approval.

Assessment criteria:

1. The title page must include a title, student name and number, as well as word count.
2. Clear and up-to-date understanding of the chosen problem, as well as of the strengths and weaknesses of practices and policies for dealing with it.
3. Pertinent use of insights from course materials and wider degrowth literature to contextualise and analyse the chosen topic.
4. Logically organised, clear in thought and argument.
5. Compliance with word limit.
6. Consistent use of APA or Harvard referencing style. 

Written feedback will be provided within 15 working days after submission. It will include general comments pertaining to the assessment criteria. It will also include a breakdown of the grade based on the assessment criteria. This grade is not compensable (below 5.5 means a fail). In case of a fail, the maximum grade for the improved version will be a 6. The deadline for the resit will be 10 days after publishing the grades/feedback of the first attempt.

References:

Videira, N., Schneider, F., Sekulova, F., & Kallis, G. (2014). Improving understanding on degrowth pathways: An exploratory study using collaborative causal models. Futures, 55(2014), 58-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.11.001

Cosme, I., Santos, R., & O’Neill, D. W. (2017). Assessing the degrowth discourse: A review and analysis of academic degrowth policy proposals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 321-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.016

Fraud and plagiarism

This course adheres to the general rules on ‘Fraud and Plagiarism` as set by the UvA. Students are expected to have familiarized themselves with these rules.

The terms Fraud or Plagiarism are to be interpreted as the copying of the work of peer-student and/or the copying of (scientific) sources of information, without explicitly referring to its source.

Fraud/plagiarism is forbidden and actively checked by staff. When one is suspected of having committed fraud/plagiarism, the exam committee of beta-gamma and future planet studies will be informed. The highest punishment for fraud/plagiarism involves the student to be disallowed to partake of any exams or examination activities within the future planet studies programme, for the duration of a whole academic year, or may even face dismissal from the programme. More information about Fraud and Plagiarism can be found at: www.uva.nl/plagiaat

Course structure

Timetable

The schedule for this course is published on DataNose.

Last year's course evaluation

In order to provide students some insight how we use the feedback of student evaluations to enhance the quality of education, we decided to include the table below in all course guides.

Contact information

Coordinator

• Crelis Rammelt

Staff

• Andro Rilović, assistant coordinator, a.rilovic@uva.nl
• Joris van der Klei
• Lotte Levelt