Daniel Susskind‘s Growth: A Reckoning examines modernity’s relentless pursuit of economic growth, both its benefits (like mass poverty alleviation and technological development) and its harms (like environmental destruction and widening inequalities), and the rise of the degrowth movement. Susskind makes an original and nuanced argument for redirecting rather than abandoning the technological progress that drives growth, though Martin Walker questions how we can do this sustainably.

Growth: A Reckoning. Daniel Susskind. Penguin Press. 2025 (paperback); 2024 (hardback).

The relationship between politics and economic growth is like a long-established marriage. Over the course of decades, it has gone through multiple phases of passion, misunderstanding, anger, taking things for granted and secure contentment. Currently, as politicians in the developed world struggle with the challenges of swollen national debts, looming demographic disaster, climate change and diminishing global influence, it seems as though the passionate phase has returned; probably with all the unrealistic expectations that go with it. “Economic growth is the number one mission of the government”, to quote the UK government. Unfortunately, the plan for reviving growth is not as always as clear as the aspirations for it. Growth: A Reckoning by Daniel Susskind is a guide for navigating from grand passion back to a more realistic understanding of growth. 

From growth to degrowth 

The first three sections of his book provide a concise but comprehensive history of “growth,” both as an economic process and journey of understanding. He starts with the multiple millennia where economic progress was mostly imperceptibly slow, “the long stagnation” as Susskind calls it. From there he describes the sudden acceleration of growth during the industrial revolution leading to the normalisation of growth in the post-war era as measurement of GDP became standardised and year-on-year growth became the common aspiration across nations of all ideologies.  

Finally, Susskind considers the critics of growth. A trend that started to pick up momentum in 1972, with publication of the “Limits of Growth”, a report that predicted exhaustion of many natural resources by the 1990s and economic collapse, resulting from unconstrained growth. While most of the predictions of the report did not come true, it remains influential to this day and ultimately gave birth to the “de-growther” movement; various groups that want to stop economic growth, or even reverse it, to protect the environment. 

The trade-offs that continually have to be made in determining economic policies (involving factors such as the environment or equality) are fundamentally moral

Susskind has little time for the de-growthers, pointing to the benefits that have come from economic growth and the ability of economies to grow without using additional material resources. He also makes the clear and logical point that while there are improvements that can be made to the calculation of GDP, how we measure output and what we consider the important outcomes of a society (such as happiness or equality) are two different things. As he has it, It makes no sense to muddle the concepts of what an economy produces and what outcomes a society should aim for; both can be measured, but they are not the same. 

Ideas as drivers of growth 

In the last two section of his book, Susskind focuses on three main ideas. The first is that the key driver of long-term economic growth is ideas rather than simply adding more labour and/or more capital goods to the economy. This has a solid empirical and theoretical backing based on the work of multiple economists, notably Robert Solow and Trevor Swan. The second closely related idea is that technological progress can be directed, or at least encouraged to go in certain directions: “…there is no economic law which says growth promoting technologies must also ruin the environment, hollow out local communities, and rely on technologies we cannot properly control.” Susskind’s ideas for directing technological progress are a familiar mixture of public sector and market mechanisms. These include encouraging R&D in specific areas, a carbon tax and generally creating incentives for right kind of investments. 

No economic policy making without morality 

The third idea is perhaps the most original: putting morality explicitly back at the centre of economic policy making. This does not mean forcing economists or other policy makers to take a particular moral stance – quite the opposite, actually. In spite of the ideological wars that have been waged across economics for centuries, there is a core idea within the discipline that the appropriate model or equations can answer questions about taxation, monetary policy or the distribution of economic resources. The reality, Susskind ably demonstrates, is that the trade-offs that continually have to be made in determining economic policies (involving factors such as the environment or equality) are fundamentally moral, and need to be made through a political process. Economists can model potential impacts and what the specific trade-offs are, but ultimately they should not be the decision makers. Susskind goes so far as to suggest that discussion of the trade-offs that need to be made could be facilitated through “mini-publics” or citizens’ assemblies. These are bodies where ordinary people work alongside the existing political system to form opinions that genuinely reflect broader society’s views about trade-offs. 

How many works of genius are lost in the pile of low-value ideas?

The claim that ideas are the main driver of all long-term growth contains a fundamental truth, but it has limits. Logically, an electric vehicle factory could never have been built if not for a wealth of ideas and discoveries, including the very concepts of a factory and a production line. However, “long-term” is a very loose term. Nations such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore have experienced enormous economic growth and transformed from developing to developed nations, mostly by choosing to defer consumption and invest in raising educational standards, improving infrastructure and building factories. This does not mean they will never run out of steam, but the very idea of economic investment in new businesses, products, and infrastructure as opposed to continually buying and selling financial assets seems to have been forgotten in some highly financialised, developed economies such as the United Kingdom.  

Another problem with “ideas” as the main driver of growth is that the world is drowning in ideas. Millions of scientific papers are published each year, and millions of patents are also applied for. Writing papers has turned from a mechanism for sharing ideas to a method of ranking academic achievement. Patent applications have exploded as patents have become a symbol of national innovation and a tool for corporate economic warfare. How many of the great ideas of the past would have gained any attention in the current system for recording and sharing new ideas? How many works of genius are lost in the pile of low-value ideas? It is little wonder economists such as Robert Gordon have pointed to a decline in the rate of innovation. 

Finding sustainable ways to direct technological progress 

Directing technological innovation can be done. Government funding of R&D, the industry policies of some East Asian nations all demonstrate that technological progress can be directed. Whether it can be done consistently and cost effectively is another matter. Susskind is right to point out the failure of “market fundamentalism” as he calls it. Over the last few decades capital markets have thrown vast sums at overhyped firms and technologies, destroying huge amounts of value. The present model of capitalism has been considered so inefficient and wasteful it has even been described as Gosplan 2.0 in memory of the failed central planning of the Soviet Union. However, looking at the details of major public sector investment programmes does not inspire confidence. 

Susskind concludes his book with a statement of faith in the “inventive ability of humanity”; but faith was one of the strongest forces during the period which he calls the “Long Stagnation”. A lot more work needs to be done to determine ways to best direct technological progress and sift through all the bad ideas to find the good ones. Perhaps that could be the contents of a sequel.

Note: This review gives the views of the author and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Daniel Susskind will be speaking in a panel event, Reimagining the way we work at 6.30pm on Thursday 19 June as part of LSE Festival 2025.

Image: Bo1982 on Shutterstock.

Enjoyed this post? Subscribe to our newsletter for a round-up of the latest reviews sent straight to your inbox every other Tuesday.