全球范围内的后增长理论:比较分析

IF 3.2 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Review of International Studies Pub Date : 2024-03-20 DOI:10.1017/s0260210524000214
Lorenzo Fioramonti
{"title":"全球范围内的后增长理论:比较分析","authors":"Lorenzo Fioramonti","doi":"10.1017/s0260210524000214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The process of globalisation, the global pecking order, and most international development policies are anchored on the concept of economic growth, which is at the same time increasingly questioned on social and ecological grounds. Increases in global output (GDP) are indeed among the main drivers of energy and natural resources overuse, with potentially destructive consequences for the overall ecological balances sustaining life on the planet. As a consequence, a number of post-growth theories and approaches have emerged over the past few years. This article carries out a comparative analysis of three main post-growth schools of thought in order to trace back their origin, evolution, and policy impacts at the global level. It also investigates the main points of tension and synergy to advance the debate on how best to challenge conventional growth-based policies in the international arena.","PeriodicalId":48017,"journal":{"name":"Review of International Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post-growth theories in a global world: A comparative analysis\",\"authors\":\"Lorenzo Fioramonti\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0260210524000214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The process of globalisation, the global pecking order, and most international development policies are anchored on the concept of economic growth, which is at the same time increasingly questioned on social and ecological grounds. Increases in global output (GDP) are indeed among the main drivers of energy and natural resources overuse, with potentially destructive consequences for the overall ecological balances sustaining life on the planet. As a consequence, a number of post-growth theories and approaches have emerged over the past few years. This article carries out a comparative analysis of three main post-growth schools of thought in order to trace back their origin, evolution, and policy impacts at the global level. It also investigates the main points of tension and synergy to advance the debate on how best to challenge conventional growth-based policies in the international arena.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48017,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of International Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of International Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210524000214\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210524000214","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全球化进程、全球啄食秩序以及大多数国际发展政策都以经济增长的概念为基础,而与此同时,经济增长的概念也日益受到社会和生态方面的质疑。全球产出(GDP)的增长确实是能源和自然资源过度使用的主要驱动力之一,对维持地球生命的整体生态平衡具有潜在的破坏性后果。因此,过去几年中出现了一些后增长理论和方法。本文对三个主要的后增长学派进行了比较分析,以追溯其起源、演变和在全球层面的政策影响。文章还调查了紧张和协同作用的要点,以推动关于如何在国际舞台上以最佳方式挑战基于增长的传统政策的辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Post-growth theories in a global world: A comparative analysis
The process of globalisation, the global pecking order, and most international development policies are anchored on the concept of economic growth, which is at the same time increasingly questioned on social and ecological grounds. Increases in global output (GDP) are indeed among the main drivers of energy and natural resources overuse, with potentially destructive consequences for the overall ecological balances sustaining life on the planet. As a consequence, a number of post-growth theories and approaches have emerged over the past few years. This article carries out a comparative analysis of three main post-growth schools of thought in order to trace back their origin, evolution, and policy impacts at the global level. It also investigates the main points of tension and synergy to advance the debate on how best to challenge conventional growth-based policies in the international arena.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of International Studies
Review of International Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
3.30%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Review of International Studies serves the needs of scholars in international relations and related fields such as politics, history, law, and sociology. The Review publishes a significant number of high quality research articles, review articles which survey new contributions to the field, a forum section to accommodate debates and replies, and occasional interviews with leading scholars.
期刊最新文献
Towards an abolitionist feminist peace: State violence, anti-militarism, and the Women, Peace and Security agenda Degrowth, green growth, and climate justice for Africa No place to hide: The public attribution of responsibility for policy failures of international organisations Images of international thinkers The future is just another past
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1