What is required for a post-growth model?
Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 23:34 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
Post-growth models must integrate biophysical, economic and social spheres to evaluate sustainability without growth assumptions.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
We develop a framework of minimum requirements for post-growth modelling that integrates three spheres: biophysical, economic, and social, and links them to post-growth goals. Within the biophysical sphere, models must include resource use and pollution, environmental limits, and feedback mechanisms from the environment onto society. In the economic sphere, they should disaggregate households, incorporate limits to technological change and decoupling, include different types of government interventions, and calculate GDP or output endogenously. The social sphere requires representation of time use, material and non-material need satisfiers, and the affordability of essential goods andervices
What carries the argument
The framework of minimum requirements for post-growth modelling, which organizes necessary model features into biophysical, economic, and social spheres linked to goals of sustainability, equity, and wellbeing.
Load-bearing premise
That surveying modellers and reviewing post-growth literature alone identifies the complete set of true minimum requirements without further testing.
What would settle it
A post-growth model constructed according to this framework that still cannot distinguish between successful and unsuccessful real-world attempts to achieve wellbeing without growth would falsify the completeness of the requirements.
read the original abstract
Post-growth has emerged as an umbrella term for various sustainability visions that advocate the pursuit of environmental sustainability, social equity, and human wellbeing, while questioning the continued pursuit of economic growth. Although there are increasing calls to include post-growth scenarios in high-level assessments, a coherent framework with what is required to model post-growth adequately remains absent. This article addresses this gap by: (1) identifying the minimum requirements for post-growth models, and (2) establishing a set of model elements for representing specific policy themes. Drawing on a survey of modellers and on relevant post-growth literature, we develop a framework of minimum requirements for post-growth modelling that integrates three spheres: biophysical, economic, and social, and links them to post-growth goals. Within the biophysical sphere, we argue that embeddedness requires the inclusion of resource use and pollution, environmental limits, and feedback mechanisms from the environment onto society. Within the economic sphere, models should disaggregate households, incorporate limits to technological change and decoupling, include different types of government interventions, and calculate GDP or output endogenously. Within the social sphere, models should represent time use, material and non-material need satisfiers, and the affordability of essential goods and services. Specific policies and transformation scenarios require additional features, such as sectoral disaggregation or representation of the financial system. Our framework guides the development of models that can simulate both post-growth and pro-growth policies and scenarios, an urgently needed tool for informing policymakers and stakeholders about the full range of options for pursuing sustainability, equity, and wellbeing.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript claims to address the absence of a coherent framework for modeling post-growth by identifying minimum requirements across biophysical, economic, and social spheres based on a survey of modellers and synthesis of post-growth literature. It links these requirements to post-growth goals and outlines additional model elements for specific policy themes and transformation scenarios.
Significance. If the framework is robust, it would provide valuable guidance for developing models capable of simulating post-growth policies alongside pro-growth ones, aiding policymakers in exploring sustainability, equity, and wellbeing options. The paper's strength is in its structured integration of three spheres and explicit connection to policy themes, offering a practical tool for model development in this emerging area.
major comments (2)
- [Methods (survey description)] Methods section on survey: The derivation of minimum requirements rests on the survey of modellers and literature synthesis, yet the manuscript provides no details on survey protocol, sample size, response rate, exclusion criteria, or the method used to translate responses into the listed elements. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the elements are minimal rather than a set of desirable features.
- [Framework development] Framework section (biophysical, economic, social spheres): The paper asserts these are minimum requirements without testing the necessity claim by checking whether existing models lacking any one element (e.g., endogenous GDP/output or representation of time use) fail to represent post-growth goals adequately. Such a validation step would be required to substantiate the 'minimum' designation.
minor comments (2)
- [Abstract] Abstract: The phrasing 'drawing on a survey of modellers' would be strengthened by briefly noting the scale of the survey or key literature sources to convey the evidence base immediately.
- [Results/figures] Diagrams or tables summarizing the three spheres: Adding explicit cross-sphere feedback arrows or a table mapping requirements to post-growth goals would improve clarity of the integrated framework.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the referee's report. We appreciate the referee's careful reading and constructive suggestions, which help clarify how to strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [Methods (survey description)] Methods section on survey: The derivation of minimum requirements rests on the survey of modellers and literature synthesis, yet the manuscript provides no details on survey protocol, sample size, response rate, exclusion criteria, or the method used to translate responses into the listed elements. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the elements are minimal rather than a set of desirable features.
Authors: We agree that the manuscript would be strengthened by providing these methodological details, which are necessary to support the claim that the identified elements constitute minimum requirements. In the revised version we will add a dedicated Methods subsection that reports the survey protocol, sample size, response rate, exclusion criteria, and the procedure used to integrate survey responses with the literature synthesis in order to derive the listed elements. revision: yes
-
Referee: [Framework development] Framework section (biophysical, economic, social spheres): The paper asserts these are minimum requirements without testing the necessity claim by checking whether existing models lacking any one element (e.g., endogenous GDP/output or representation of time use) fail to represent post-growth goals adequately. Such a validation step would be required to substantiate the 'minimum' designation.
Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include a systematic check of existing models to demonstrate necessity. The designation of minimum requirements is instead derived from the modeller survey and post-growth literature, which consistently identify these features as essential for representing the relevant goals. In the revision we will add illustrative examples drawn from the literature showing how the absence of specific elements (such as endogenous output or time-use representation) constrains the simulation of post-growth scenarios. We will also note that a comprehensive validation across all models lies beyond the scope of the present paper. revision: partial
Circularity Check
Framework derived from external survey responses and literature synthesis with no self-referential reduction
full rationale
The paper constructs its minimum-requirements framework by drawing on a survey of modellers and synthesis of existing post-growth literature to link biophysical, economic, and social spheres to post-growth goals. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or equations appear in the described approach. The inputs (survey data and cited works) are external to the paper itself rather than defined in terms of the output framework or renamed as predictions. This satisfies the condition of being self-contained against external benchmarks, with the central claim resting on independent sources rather than reducing to its own inputs by construction.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
axioms (1)
- domain assumption Post-growth models require explicit integration of biophysical limits, economic disaggregation, and social need satisfiers to be adequate.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.