Capitalism’s relentless pursuit of profit has led to extreme wealth concentration, exacerbating global inequalities. The neoliberal model, with its emphasis on endless growth, has accelerated environmental degradation. To forge a sustainable path, we must transcend traditional growth-driven models, advocating for degrowth and equitable, eco-conscious policies that prioritize social well-being.
I. Introduction
In recent decades, capitalism has experienced an increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite. Billionaires have amassed unprecedented levels of economic and political influence, while multinational corporations have seen their wealth grow at an exponential rate (Oxfam Report, 2025). As primary beneficiaries of neoliberal capitalism, these corporations exert significant control over media and information, shaping public discourse in ways that reinforce existing power structures and serve their own interests (Siddiqui, 2022).
Addressing these challenges requires moving beyond the neoliberal development model and implementing policies that promote economic equality, sustainability, and inclusive growth, particularly in the Global South. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by United Nations Member States in 2015, provides a critical framework for advancing these objectives. Its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for global action to eradicate poverty, improve health and education, and reduce inequality (Empson, 2022; United Nations, 2024).
By prioritizing sustainable and equitable economic policies, governments and international institutions can work towards a more just global economic system—one that benefits not only the wealthy few but also the broader population.
Former colonizers have historically hindered industrialization in peripheral countries, shaping their economic development to serve the interests of core nations. For instance, under British colonial rule, India experienced deindustrialization and the decline of its handicraft industries while being pushed to export raw materials. This extractive economic model left many former colonies with weak industrial bases, reinforcing economic dependency even after independence (Siddiqui, 2015).
Recognizing the limitations of colonial legacy, many countries in the Global South now view industrialization—particularly through environmentally sustainable industries—as essential for structural transformation. Industrialization fosters economic growth, generates employment, and drives technological progress. By shifting economies away from resource dependence toward diversified and sustainable industries, it enhances resilience and raises living standards.
Moreover, industrialization boosts productivity, efficiency, and global competitiveness, fuelling long-term economic development. It also plays a crucial role in addressing poverty and inequality, especially in countries with high unemployment rates. Additionally, industrialization accelerates technological innovation, as industries continuously refine processes, develop new products, and improve services. Crucially, reducing reliance on primary commodities allows nations to stabilize their economies, mitigating vulnerability to volatile global market fluctuations (Siddiqui, 2015).
For industrialization to be truly transformative, however, it must prioritize sustainable development, incorporating green technologies and responsible resource management. This ensures that economic progress does not come at the expense of environmental degradation—a challenge many industrialized nations historically overlooked.
Samir Amin (2013) advocated for a multipolar world order through his concept of “delinking,” which calls for disengagement from the global capitalist system dominated by the Global North. According to Amin, the struggle against imperialism requires a structural break from the law of value dictated by core capitalist economies. This perspective remains highly relevant today, as resistance to imperialism takes various forms, including the ongoing struggle of the Palestinian people against Israeli settler colonialism, apartheid, and genocide. The systematic destruction of Gaza—backed by the United States and Western Europe—illustrates the entrenchment of imperialist interests, as these powers continue to provide Israel with military and financial support for mass violence and occupation (Siddiqui, 2024a).
There is an urgent need for a sustainable, long-term economic strategy—one that moves beyond the traditional growth-driven model and fosters greater balance, equity, and income redistribution between developed and developing economies. Degrowth presents a compelling alternative, offering a pathway to addressing global inequalities, promoting sustainable employment, and protecting the environment. Given the limitations of the current economic paradigm, it is crucial to critically reassess conventional development models and explore alternatives that prioritize social and ecological well-being over relentless economic expansion.
The degrowth model advocates for a fundamental shift away from an economy centred on perpetual growth. Instead of prioritizing endless expansion, it calls for reducing excessive production and eliminating environmentally destructive industries. This approach is a necessary response to decades of environmental neglect and severe ecological degradation. The scale of this crisis demands a radical rethinking of economic policies—ones that prioritize universal access to essential services such as quality housing, education, and healthcare, rather than unsustainable consumption and profit maximization.
II. Historical Context and the Limits of Capitalist Growth
Since the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain in the late 18th century and later spread to Western Europe, North America, and Japan, the world has undergone a profound transformation in technology, productivity, and economic output. Advocates of capitalism have long argued that global economic growth would ultimately benefit all nations, including those in the Global South, by fostering shared prosperity.
However, after nearly three centuries of capitalist expansion, the reality tells a different story. Instead of narrowing global inequalities, capitalism has exacerbated the divide between the Global North (developed countries) and the Global South (former colonies, now referred to as developing countries). Moreover, the growth-centric economic model—reinforced by international financial institutions—has accelerated environmental degradation to unprecedented levels. The primary objective of capitalist economies is not the rational or sustainable use of resources for the benefit of humanity but rather the relentless pursuit of accumulation and economic expansion. As a result, economic growth and ecological decline are directly correlated, underscoring the urgent need to rethink our approach to development (Siddiqui, 2024b).
III. Understanding Economic Growth
Classical political economists, such as Adam Smith, believed that a general increase in output and the accumulation of wealth would ultimately benefit all members of society. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued that economic growth occurs as a result of the division of labour, which enhances productivity and increases the overall wealth of a nation. He emphasized the crucial role of labour in production and viewed individual capitalists as key actors in expanding wealth by reinvesting in the production of new goods. According to Smith, capital accumulation is driven by the division of labour and technological innovation, both of which facilitate further economic expansion (Smith, 1991).
Karl Marx, in his critique of classical political economy, also emphasized the centrality of capital accumulation. He argued that under capitalism, economic growth is driven by the competitive pressures that force capitalists to continuously expand production. As he famously wrote, “Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets.” (Marx, 1976) Capitalists must reinvest the surplus value extracted from workers into production in order to remain competitive and survive in the market. This relentless drive for accumulation ensures the continuous expansion of production but also leads to crises, inequalities, and exploitation (Foster, 2023).
During the first half of the 20th century, the devastation of the World Wars and the Great Depression highlighted the limitations of classical economic theories. Economist John Maynard Keynes recognized the crucial role of government intervention, particularly in times of crisis. Keynesian economics emphasized the importance of public investment and aggregate demand, arguing that state policies could mitigate economic downturns and stabilize capitalist economies.
Nation-states, driven by the need to access markets, secure raw materials, and protect their economic interests, have historically engaged in conflicts and wars. During the colonial era, capitalist expansion was closely linked to imperialism, as powerful nations occupied foreign territories to extract resources, establish new markets, and maintain their economic dominance (Oxfam Report, 2025; Siddiqui, 2019).
IV. The Consequences of GDP-Centric Growth
The relentless pursuit of economic growth-measured primarily through Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has led to severe global ecological and environmental crises. This model of accumulation at all costs has not only accelerated environmental degradation but has also driven rising levels of debt, inequality, militarism, and economic instability. Capitalist economies prioritize growth rates as the key measure of success, while ignoring critical factors such as pollution, climate change, and social well-being (Siddiqui, 2024d). Additionally, unpaid labour—including domestic work, childcare, and voluntary contributions—remains undervalued and largely excluded from economic assessments (Empson, 2022).
The use of GDP as an economic measure dates back to Simon Kuznets, who developed the concept to quantify national economic output in the United States in 1942. Later, John Maynard Keynes modified this approach by incorporating government spending as a key component of GDP. Economic success, as measured by GDP, has contributed to the rising wealth of the global elite while exacerbating social and economic disparities (Foster, 2023).
A striking example is India, which has seen a significant increase in the number of billionaires. In 2024, India reached a historic milestone with 334 billionaires (measured in U.S. dollars), up from 259 in 2023. This surge in wealth accumulation has placed India third globally in terms of the number of billionaires. However, this growth has not translated into broader economic well-being. The gap between the rich and the poor has widened dramatically: the top 1% of the population controls nearly one-third of the nation’s total wealth, while the bottom 50% holds only 10% (Bharti et al., 2024).
Since the implementation of neoliberal economic reforms in 1991, India’s GDP growth rates have, on average, been higher than in pre-reform periods. However, these measurements fail to account for critical issues such as environmental sustainability, public health, nutrition levels, and social equity. These wealthy individuals and corporations continue to amass riches through government subsidies and tax cuts, while the poor face escalating prices, declining employment opportunities, and deteriorating public services. Underinvestment in education and healthcare has further marginalized vulnerable populations, while the privatization of these sectors has significantly increased costs, making essential services increasingly inaccessible to the majority (Chancel and Piketty, 2021).
Income and Wealth Inequality study by Bharti et al. (2024), which examines data from 1922 to 2015 using specialized surveys and income tax records, concludes that income inequality in 2015 was higher than during the pre-independence period. The report highlights that the top 0.1% of the population accounted for 5–7% of national income. Moreover, the data indicate that the top 10% and top 1% of earners hold 57% and 22% of total national income, respectively, while the bottom 50% collectively account for only 13%. In terms of wealth distribution, the bottom 50% possess merely 6% of total wealth, whereas the top 10% and top 1% control 65% and 33% of the country’s wealth, respectively.
The introduction of neoliberal policies in India significantly exacerbated wealth inequality. At that time, the richest 10% owned 51% of total wealth, while the poorest 50% held just 9%. By 2021, the wealth share of the richest 10% had risen to 65%, whereas the poorest half of the population saw their share shrink to only 6%. Similarly, income distribution has become increasingly skewed. In 1991, the wealthiest segment of society received 35% of total income, while the poorest 50% earned 20%. By 2021, this disparity had intensified, with the richest 10% accumulating 57% of national income, while the poorest half’s share dwindled to just 13% (Siddiqui, 2023b).
Moreover, India has also witnessed jobs-less growth for the last twenty-five years. This is primarily due to the inadequate number of jobs created, which falls significantly short of the number of job seekers. As a result, the relative size of the reserve army of labour expands, keeping wages at subsistence levels despite increasing labour productivity. This structural dynamic further exacerbates wealth inequality. Additionally, tax cuts for the wealthy, often justified as a means to stimulate economic growth, disproportionately benefit the rich and large corporations, directly contributing to the widening wealth gap (Siddiqui, 2023b).
The World Inequality Report highlights alarming levels of inequality in India, revealing that the top 1% of the population owns an astonishing 33% of the country’s total wealth. The net worth of Indian billionaires has increased substantially, rising from 2% of GDP in 2000 to 20% in 2020. Despite India’s strong 6.9% GDP growth in the 2023 fiscal year, this economic expansion is overshadowed by its distinction as one of the most unequal societies in the world (Chancel and Piketty, 2021). A similar trend can be observed in China, where rapid economic growth has been accompanied by increasing wealth disparities. Urbanization and the coastal-inland divide have exacerbated inequality, highlighting the uneven distribution of economic benefits. Additionally, in developed countries, governance structures, social welfare systems, and access to opportunities play a critical role in shaping wealth inequality. These global patterns emphasize the need for comprehensive, context-specific policy interventions to address persistent disparities, particularly in developing nations like India (Siddiqui, 2019).
The share of profits in national income has increased globally, while the share of wages has declined, exacerbating income inequality. In advanced capitalist economies, this trend has been driven by labour-displacing technologies and the offshoring of production to the Global South. The World Inequality Report (2021) suggests that income disparities between nations have narrowed; however, when excluding China, the income gap between advanced and developing economies remains largely unchanged. Moreover, within-country inequality has risen sharply, with wealth concentration benefiting a small elite at the expense of the working class.
To remain competitive in the global market, producers in the Global South are compelled to adopt technologies that align with the global frontier, which are often labour-displacing. This, in turn, constrains employment opportunities and perpetuates economic precarity. Under neoliberalism, economic growth is increasingly driven by speculative financial gains accrued by corporations rather than by rising wages or broad-based purchasing power. This speculative model further marginalizes workers, deepens economic inequality, and accelerates the transfer of wealth from labour to capital on a global scale.
Mainstream economists argue that a degrowth policy would be synonymous with austerity, leading to reduced consumption, industrial contraction, and job losses. However, radical critiques view degrowth as a means to dismantle the constraints of capitalism and its market-driven imperatives. Advocates of degrowth argue that, rather than imposing austerity, the model would redirect investments towards public services, ensuring broader societal well-being. While a small minority may experience a reduction in conspicuous consumption and material accumulation, the majority would gain access to more sustainable and collective forms of provisioning (Hickel, 2023; Siddiqui, 2018a).
V. Degrowth and the Global South
The environmental crisis has been driven by an unequal process of capital accumulation, with wealth disproportionately concentrated in the Global North (Siddiqui, 2024c). Over the past three centuries, rapid industrialization and overconsumption by a relatively small population in the Global North have been responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. According to Hickel (2023), the Global North has contributed to 92% of “excess emissions” since 1850, while Western nations alone account for 90% of the current environmental and ecological destruction.
Following decolonization in the 1950s and 1960s, mainstream development models encouraged newly independent nations to establish closer economic ties with the West, promising that such integration would help eradicate poverty and socio-economic underdevelopment. However, these models overlooked the historical context of how the Global North itself developed. European colonial powers, followed later by North America, amassed wealth through the colonization, extraction, and plundering of resources from the Global South. This exploitative legacy not only deepened economic dependency but also led to extensive environmental degradation (Siddiqui, 2018b).
A degrowth approach does not merely advocate for reducing production and consumption; rather, it promotes a fundamental transformation of economic priorities. Beyond its critique of growth-driven models, degrowth proposes a positive program cantered on democratic planning, self-management, and the prioritization of use-values over commodity production. Economic activities should be rationally planned to serve human well-being rather than the accumulation of capital. As Marx (1976) observed, capitalism alienates humanity from the natural world, transforming nature into a mere commodity and disrupting the essential metabolic relationship between society and the environment (Hickel, 2023). By embracing degrowth, economies can shift towards sustainability, equity, and ecological balance, challenging the entrenched systems of exploitation that have long defined the global economic order (Siddiqui, 2023a).
VI. The Wastefulness of Monopoly Capitalism
Under monopoly capitalism, corporations allocate enormous financial resources toward marketing and advertising to expand their markets and increase sales. This expenditure represents a significant waste of resources that could otherwise be directed toward social and environmental priorities. In 2024, U.S. corporations collectively spent an estimated $551.9 billion on marketing, with $390 billion allocated specifically to advertising. Online marketing accounted for nearly two-thirds of this spending, while media and entertainment platforms received over half of total ad expenditures. The U.S. continues to dominate the global advertising industry, with total ad spending projected to reach $455.9 billion by 2025. By 2029, digital advertising is expected to comprise 80% of all ad spending. Among the largest corporate advertisers, Amazon led with an ad spend exceeding $13 billion in 2022, followed by Walmart ($3.4 billion) and Macy’s ($1.3 billion) (Hickel, 2023).
Another striking example of resource misallocation is global defence spending, which has reached unprecedented levels. In the nuclear age, excessive military expenditures not only divert resources from critical social and environmental needs but also contribute to geopolitical instability and the risk of mutual destruction. In 2023, the U.S. allocated $820.3 billion to defence, accounting for approximately 13.3% of the federal budget. This figure positioned the U.S. as the world’s largest military spender, surpassing the combined defence budgets of the next eight highest-spending nations. Since 1980, U.S. defence spending has increased by 62% after adjusting for inflation, with the country now accounting for more than 40% of global military expenditures. Between 2014 and 2022, the U.S. spent more than twice the combined total of all other NATO members. Meanwhile, China, the world’s second-largest economy, allocated $235 billion to defence in 2023, while Russia’s defence budget for 2024 is projected to be $145.9 billion, and Germany’s is expected to reach $86 billion (Siddiqui, 2025).
The capitalist logic of resource expropriation treats nature as an economic commodity, prioritizing private profits over environmental sustainability. Within this framework, ecological destruction is not an aberration but a rational consequence of profit-driven decision-making. Capitalism attempts to address environmental crises through mechanisms such as pollution taxes or carbon pricing, yet these market-based solutions fail to challenge the fundamental logic of commodification. The valuation of ecological resources in monetary terms necessitates their treatment as exchangeable goods, reinforcing a system that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term environmental protection.
VII. Conclusion
Under capitalism, conspicuous consumption becomes more pronounced with technological advancements and the introduction of new products, enabling the elite to display expensive goods as a marker of social status and wealth. This phenomenon, often driven by the system’s emphasis on continuous consumption and material accumulation, leads to excessive waste generation and the promotion of non-essential purchases. The economist Thorstein Veblen first introduced the term conspicuous consumption in his seminal work The Theory of the Leisure Class, in which he argued that individuals use luxury goods to signal their social standing and economic power. This aspect of capitalism not only reinforces social hierarchies but also contributes to unsustainable consumption patterns and environmental degradation.
Capitalists rely heavily on advertising to foster consumerism, creating the perception that acquiring certain goods is essential for social acceptance. This, in turn, drives conspicuous consumption, reinforcing the cycle of material accumulation. Another profitable avenue for capitalists is military spending, which is often used to stimulate economic growth through the concept of military Keynesianism. This theory posits that government spending can help an economy recover from a recession. By increasing demand via government expenditures, military spending can stimulate private investment, consumption, and employment, ultimately boosting output. However, while such policies may offer short-term economic relief, they can also lead to fiscal imbalances, resource misallocation, and heightened tensions, potentially escalating into conflicts and wars.
In conclusion, degrowth presents a compelling alternative by empowering individuals to plan locally, identify their specific needs, and nurture democracy at the grassroots level. To address the escalating environmental crisis, rising income inequality, and the limitations of the capitalist mode of production, a radical vision and unwavering commitment are essential. Tackling these issues comprehensively requires a profound transformation in our current systems of production and consumption.
It is crucial to reverse the neoliberal development model and implement policies that foster greater equality and sustainable development, creating employment opportunities and prosperity in the Global South. The UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development provides a shared framework for peace and prosperity. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize the importance of eradicating poverty, protecting biodiversity, and adopting strategies to reduce inequality, stimulate economic growth, and combat climate change while preserving our oceans and forests.
About the Author
Dr. Kalim Siddiqui is an economist specializing in International Political Economy, Development Economics, Trade and Economic Policy. Since 1989, he has been teaching economics at various universities in Norway and the UK. Dr. Siddiqui’s research interests encompass a wide range of topics, including political economy, international trade, and economic history, South Asia, and emerging economies. He has presented papers at international conferences across numerous countries, reflecting his global engagement in the field. His scholarly pursuits span six broad domains: Political Economy, Development Economics, Economic History, Economic Policy, Globalization, and International Trade. Dr. Siddiqui has made significant contributions to research in areas such as trade policy, globalization, and political economy. His work has been published in chapters of edited books and articles published in peer-reviewed journals. For inquiries, Dr. Siddiqui can be reached at: kalimsiddiqui567@outlook.com
References
1. Amin, S. (2013) The Implosion of Contemporary Capitalism, New York: Monthly Review Press.
2. Bharti, N.K. et al (2024) Income and Wealth Inequality in India, 1922-2023. https://wid.world/www-site/uploads/2024/03/WorldInequalityLab_WP2024_09_Income-and-Wealth-Inequality-in-India-1922-2023_Final.pdf
3. Chancel, L. and Piketty, T. (2021) “Global Income Inequality, 1820–2020: the Persistence and Mutation of Extreme Inequality”, Journal of the European Economic Association 19(6):3025–3062. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvab047
4. Empson, M. (2022) Socialism or Extinction: The Meaning of Revolution in a Time of Ecological Crisis, London: Bookmarks.
5. Foster, J. B. (2023) “Engels and the Second Foundation of Marxism” Monthly Review, 75(2). https://monthlyreview.org/2023/06/01/engels-and-the-second-foundation-of-marxism
6. Hickel, J. (2023) “On Technology and Degrowth” Monthly Review 75 (3). https://monthlyreview.org/2023/07/01/on-technology-and-degrowth
7. Marx, Karl (1976) [1867] Capital, volume 1, London: Penguin.
8. Oxfam Report (2025) “Takers not Makers: The unjust poverty and unearned wealth of colonialism”. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/takers-not-makers-unjust-poverty-and-unearned-wealth-colonialism
9. Siddiqui, K. (2025) “The Political Economy of Germany’s Deepening Economic Crisis” World Financial Review, February p.8-18.
10. Siddiqui, K. (2024a) “Palestine, Imperialism and the Settler Colonial Project”, World Financial Review, February. P.12-30.
11. Siddiqui, K. (2024b) “The Decline of the West and Global Political Economy”, World Financial Review, December, p.4-18.
12. Siddiqui, K. (2024c) “Deepening Economic Crisis in the Advanced Capitalism”, World Financial Review, June, p. 5-16.
13. Siddiqui, K. (2024d) “Climate Change, Capitalism, and Invisible Hands of the Market: A Critical Review”, World Financial Review, June, p.2-13.
14. Siddiqui, K. (2023a) “Marxian Analysis of Capitalism and Crises”, International Critical Thought, 13(4): 525-545.
15. Siddiqui, K. (2023b) “From Rapid Growth to ‘Cronyism”: Explaining India’s Economic Development” Asian Profile, 51(4):313-329. December.
16. Siddiqui, K. (2022) “Capitalism, Imperialism, and Crisis”, European Financial Review, June-July, p.16-32.
17. Siddiqui, K. (2019). “The Political Economy of Global Inequality: An Economic Historical Perspective” Argumenta Oeconomica Cracoviensia, 21(2):11-42.
18. Siddiqui, K. (2018a). “Capitalism, Globalisation and Inequality” World Financial Review, November-December, p.72 – 77.
19. Siddiqui, K. (2018b). “Imperialism and Global Inequality: A Critical Analysis” Journal of Economics and Political Economy, 5(2): 266-291.
20. Siddiqui, K. (2015). “Challenges for Industrialisation in India: State versus Market Policies” Research in World Economy 6(2): 85 – 98.
21. Smith, Adam. (1991) [1776], The Wealth of Nations, London: Everyman.
22. United Nations. (2024) Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development, May. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
