Amid mounting geopolitical, socio-economic, and ecological crises, industrial policy has returned to the forefront of policy debates. However, the EU’s industrial policy framework – centred on Single Market Resilience, Strategic Autonomy, and Competitive Sustainability – contains self-undermining contradictions. While aiming for resilience, it fails to strengthen foundational non-market institutions; in seeking strategic autonomy, it exacerbates resource dependencies and eco-imperialist tensions; and in promoting competitive sustainability, it remains reliant on profit-driven private sector strategies that delay necessary transitions. This article critically examines these contradictions using immanent critique and conjunctural analysis, proposing an alternative post-growth framework based on Foundational Liveability, Peaceful Planetary Co-Existence, and Democratically Coordinated Sustainability. To bridge the gap between current constraints and transformative change, we use critical problem-solving to outline contested but feasible next best transition steps within the current politico-economic order. By integrating post-growth insights into industrial policy, this article offers a roadmap for aligning economic activity with planetary boundaries and social well-being.

Outlines of an industrial policy programme in the current European politico-economical landscape, for those who take a sustainable ecosocial transformation seriously.

No mainstream sustainability wishful thinking - but real analysis with depth, power, politics and ingenuity.

What Bärnthaler, Mang and Hickel set out to do in their new article is remarkable. And in my judgement the result is exceptionally interesting and inspiring.

the EU’s industrial policy is internally contradictory and structurally incapable of achieving its stated objectives. It seeks to ensure resilience, yet fails to strengthen the foundational non-market institutions essential for economic and social stability. It pursues strategic autonomy, yet deepens resource dependencies and fuels eco-imperialist tensions. It aims for sustainability, yet remains dependent on profit-driven private sector strategies that delay the necessary phase-out of unsustainable industries.

To address these dysfunctionalities, we […] propose a reconceptualized framework for industrial policy – […] Foundational Liveability (strengthening the provisioning of essential goods and services), Peaceful Planetary Co-Existence (mitigating extractivist pressures and geopolitical conflicts through a multipolar, regionalized approach), and Democratically Coordinated Sustainability (shifting from market-driven green growth to deliberate, democratically planned economic transformation)

a Foundational Economy Strategy to gradually reclaim public control over essential services, strengthening their resilience and accessibility through decommodification; a Sufficiency Strategy to systematically reduce Europe’s material footprint and resource dependence […] and Green Economic Planning, a form of state-led decarbonization that moves beyond passive market incentives while accommodating compromises with specific capital factions to drive structural transformation.

  • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
    1·
    2 days ago

    Thanks for sharing. The synopsis is pretty heavy on abstract nouns, and as usual I find myself wondering who exactly is going to read the full paper much less act on it (given that serious parliamentarians and civil servants seem to be a vanishing breed in this age of dumbass populism) but clearly this is roughly what needs to happen.

    An aside: degrowth is coming, whether we want it or not, but personally I prefer the term used here: post-growth. It’s an easier sell.