From macroeconomics to sociology

The holy grail of orthodox and even most of heterodox macroeconomics is to provide an answer to the following question: How can we increase growth in our economy? The idea is that growth increases the volume of wealth that is available for distribution and consumption in society. It is a means to achieve employment, stability and to increase overall well-being. Neoclassical supply-side economists argue that growth can only be achieved by fostering competition to increase efficiency and innovation, thus increasing the productive capacity of the economy and the supply of goods and services, which in turn creates its own demand for these goods and services. Post-Keynesian demand-side economists disagree with this as they argue that growth may be achieved by stimulating demand for goods and services through government spending, thus putting into motion a virtuous cycle of income, production, investment, employment, consumption, income, production, investment, and so on, which ultimately compensates for the deficit incurred by the government. While these two positions may fiercely debate the optimal means by which economic growth is achieved, they often fail to inquire into the mechanisms that compel our societies to strive for growth in the first place. Why must we grow?

The analysis in this chapter is framed by three ‘moves’: in terms of our mode of explanation, we shall make a move from macroeconomics to sociology. Macroeconomic explanations tend to identify causalities or at least correlations between variables, which can subsequently be manipulated to achieve particular ends. A macroeconomic analysis may for instance find a correlation between central bank interest rates, inflation, economic stability and economic growth, which might suggest a lowering of central bank interest rates to stimulate an increase in GDP (Gross Domestic Product). While this type of analysis may indeed also be found within the discipline of sociology, our kind of sociological analysis is looking for general social mechanisms rather than individual economic variables. In this sense, we are probably aiming to diagnose rather than to explain the phenomenon of growth.

The theoretical framework of our analysis is derived from Slavoj Žižek. In our conceptualisation of growth we make a second move from desire to drive. This distinction is developed within the context of psychoanalysis but in Žižek's reading the application is not restricted to the individual subject.