Article by Ushna Shami

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Believed to protect against high unemployment and to fuel vast improvements in living standards, growth is a macroeconomic objective fervently pursued by governments. But to what extent is it a ‘cure-all solution’? In today’s global economic landscape, the increasing dogma of perpetual growth has significant and intertwined consequences on gender equality and environmental sustainability.

The relentless pursuit of GDP expansion as the primary measure of societal progress has created a culture that often overlooks the systemic gender inequities. This leads to a lack of female representation which permeates various spheres, from education to employment, especially in positions of power, which has negative corresponding environmental impacts.

Insights from Gowdy and Hubacek (2000) highlight recent studies of past civilisations which revealed troubling patterns, where growth and prosperity often come hand-in-hand with environmental strain and societal upheaval. These cycles seem to repeat themselves, amplified by the inequalities woven into the very fabric of our culture—inequalities that women have historically borne most heavily.

Consider the 40-hour workweek, a structure that emerged in the 20th century to boost productivity and spur economic growth. This model worked well for its time, supported by prevailing family dynamics that made it economically and socially viable. However, it carried an unspoken cost: the burden of unpaid labour that largely fell to women. This invisible force of domestic work historically served as a hidden engine driving productivity and economic stability while reinforcing traditional gender roles. The result? A system that privileged men, particularly in high-powered roles in politics, business, and academia, where influence and higher wages are concentrated.

This dynamic continues today. Part-time or flexible positions, which sometimes have lower compensation, less benefits, and fewer prospects for career growth, are predominantly held by women. Additionally, dual-income homes have become more common as living expenses continue to rise. However, women continue to bear the burden of household chores due to societal expectations. As a result, many women are forced to bear the “double burden” of both work and home duties. The toll? Chronic stress, burnout, and less time and energy to devote to career growth. Due to procedural injustice brought about by this lack of representation, sexism is able to influence policy and produce outcomes that do not serve the common good.

Often this leaves environmental issues, for instance, sidelined and treated as peripheral concerns rather than priorities. MacGregor (2020) highlights a “measurable link” between a country’s level of environmental protection and its gender equality. This concept pushes us to think beyond the traditional boundaries of ecological activism and policy, prompting a deeper reflection on the broader social structures that support or hinder progress.

MacGregor draws attention to the causes of the phenomena, speculating its link to the disproportionate responsibility women hold in caring for the well-being of their environment and those around them, valuing issues of environmental degradation more than men do.

Supporting this perspective, research by Ergas and York (2012) reveals a compelling correlation. Their study found that CO2 levels tend to be lower in countries where procedural injustices are minimised and women enjoy higher political status. This evidence suggests that women in political spaces isn’t just a victory for gender equality; it’s also a significant step forward for environmental health.

So what is the takeaway? Breaking down the growth-obsessed mindset may not only advance gender equality but breaking barriers for women in the public and private sphere could also work in tandem with efforts to reduce global climate change and curb environmental degradation. This insight invites us to view climate action and gender justice as allies, working synergistically towards a more just and sustainable world.

The Kuznets Curve once suggested that economic growth would naturally reduce inequality over time, justifying capitalists pushing for unchecked expansion. However, Thomas Piketty and others have shown that growth alone often deepens inequality without targeted policy changes. Reducing inequality has been linked to improved living standards and greater environmental sustainability, as Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) pointed out. Kate Raworth in ‘Doughnut Economics’ argues that ‘No one has ever ended human deprivation without a growing economy’ acknowledging the importance of growth but also emphasised that ‘no country has ever ended ecological degradation’ with a growing economy. Therefore developed countries like the UK must break free from their fixation on GDP growth. It’s time to shift our focus: prioritise equity and sustainability over blind expansion. Only then can we build a society that thrives within its ecological limits while ensuring fairness for all.

References:

Gowdy, J., & Hubacek, K. (2000). Land, labour and the anthropology of work: towards sustainable livelihoods. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Land%2C-labour-and-the-anthropology-of-work%3A-towards-Gowdy-Hubacek/f314bf274cd4dd207741b5e3c675a4bf32486443#citing-papers

MacGregor, S. (2020). Gender matters in environmental justice. In Environmental Justice: Key Issues: https://www-taylorfrancis-com.manchester.idm.oclc.org/books/edit/10.4324/9780429029585/environmental-justice-brendan-coolsaet (page 238)

Ergas, C., & York, R. (2012). Women’s Status and Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A Quantitative Cross-National Analysis. Social Science Research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23017863/

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press

Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. Allen Lane: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257664917_Richard_Wilkinson_and_Kate_Pickett_2009_The_Spirit_Level_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better_Allen_Lane_London

Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Related