From what I've heard and read, Costa Rica has done excellent work in this direction.

GDP is low compared to many developed countries. But they have an innovative health care system that provides good outcomes with limited resources, inexpensive but healthy diet featuring rice and beans and fresh fruits and vegetables, a devotion to environmental preservation, and energy production almost entirely from renewables with bans on oil and gas exploration.

For these and other reasons, they are one of the Blue Zones where a surprisingly high number of people live to be over 100 years old.

There's a striking irony in sharing a degrowth article with an audience of well-paid developers whose daily resource use might match months of consumption for someone below the poverty line. Not implying everyone fits this mold—there are exceptions. Still, it's valuable food for thought. Thanks for posting.

I my opinion, a lot of poverty continues because of terrible politics. Many areas could have economic growth, but are restricted by authoritarianism, corruption, and a lack of rule of law that make investments and productivity growth impossible. Without a stable non-corrupt government, there is no way for economic improvement even if you had a lot of money to spend because it won't make it to where it's needed.

Part of the problem is the misallocation of productivity. Let's face facts no one needs one more iPhone or whatever gadget but everyone needs good healthcare or whatever basic need. Our current economic system is geared towards providing what in essence are luxury goods, items that we don't need for a happy and healthy life. If our economic system would work towards making basics the priority we would be better off all over the world. That would mean that somehow producing food, or whatever basic need, for everyone would be way more economically attractive and entrepreneurs would create more companies in the food production realm rather than gadgets that ultimately end up in the trash polluting our environment.

> Post-capitalist approaches are therefore needed,

The authors refuse to elaborate on this claim with specifics. Instead they provide generic statements such as

> We need to actively plan to shift productive capacities away from capital accumulation

and

> To reclaim productive capacities for national development, governments need to use progressive industrial and fiscal policy, public works programmes...

---

The first named author wrote an Editorial in the Guardian entitled "Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to 'de-develop' rich countries"[0].

I can see where this particular research(er) is headed and with all due respect, I have no interest in following it through to the eventual completion which he makes clear in his editorial in Montly Review (a self-described Socialist magazine) where he eventually comes to the conclusion that Capitalism has done nothing to raise people out of global poverty[1]

> In sum, the narrative that the rise of capitalism drove progress against extreme poverty is not supported by empirical evidence. On the contrary, the rise of capitalism was associated with a notable decline in human welfare

It's abundantly clear this is a preconceived outcome with a paper written around proving it

----

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals....

[1] https://monthlyreview.org/2023/07/01/capitalism-global-pover...

Rich countries are not going to subject themselves to austerity so poor countries can catch up and surpass them.

Life's not fair, the world will never be fair, and no amount of global-equity-fetishism will every make it fair.

It’s not possible for everyone to have decent living standards. China and India need to decrease their birth rate so the rest of the world can thrive