Economic, social and cultural rights and their dependence on the economic growth paradigm: Evidence from the ICESCR system
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0924051921994753 |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| Author | Norman Vander Putten,Matthias Petel |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Economic, social and
cultural rights and
their dependence on
the economic growth
paradigm: Evidence
from the ICESCR system
Matthias Petel
University of Louvain (UCLouvain), Belgium
Norman Vander Putten
Universit´
e Saint-Louis – Bruxelles, Belgium
Abstract
In light of the expanding critical academic literature on the social and ecological limits to a growth-
based paradigm, this article investigates the ties between economic, social and cultural rights (ESC
rights) and economic growth in the case law of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (CESCR). It shows that the CESCR assumes economic growth to generally improve the
realisation of ESC rights because it increases States’ financial capacity and leads to employment
creation. However, while the Committee deems that growth models should be inclusive, the
CESCR never adopts a critical perspective on the possibility or desirability to pursue economic
growth indefinitely. Despite recent evidence on the contested possibility to decouple economic
activity from resource use, the Committee’s recent ecological turn remains embedded in the
growth paradigm. This article argues that the Committee should advocate towards decreasing the
dependence of ESC rights on growth, especially when a State has reached a certain level of
affluence.
Keywords
Economic, social and cultural rights – international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights
– political economy of human rights – economic growth – post-growth
Corresponding author:
Matthias Petel, UCLouvain Clos des Chanterelles 14, Brussels 1050, Belgium.
E-mail: matthias.petel@uclouvain.be
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights
2021, Vol. 39(1) 53–72
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0924051921994753
journals.sagepub.com/home/nqh
NQHR
NQHR
1. INTRODUCTION
Do economic, social and cultural rights support the growth paradigm, defined as the ‘material,
institutional, and mental infrastructure in which economic growth is conceived as necessary, good,
and imperative’ ,
1
or do they challengeit? This question might seem surprising at first sight,as human
rights and economic growth are fundamentally different in nature.On the one hand, the human rights
field is dominatedby the idea that each human being possessesinherent rights, which leads mainlyto
deontological and qualitative analyses.
2
On the other hand, concerns related to economic growth
require adopting a consequentialist perspective, according to which the indicator of interest is the
evolutionof the total market value of all the finishedgoods and services produced whereasindividual
situations are only indirectly significant, through their impact on the aggregate.
3
Although there is ‘relatively little dialogue’ between economists and human rights scholars,
4
the links between fundamental rights and economic growth have intrigued many authors, mainly
economists, who have been investigating the question for more than fifty years.
5
The main ques-
tion they have sought to answer is: if the overarching goal is economic growth, should human
rights be promoted or, conversely, limited? Some have examined the same links by reversing the
question: does economic growth sustain human rights, or does it hinder them? While it is shown in
this article that the results of this research are mixed, there is someth ing that unites the vast
majority of scholars in this field: they implicitly subscribe to the growth paradigm.
However, the centrality of economic growth is increasingly contested in academia. Arguing that
growth systematically increases environmental pressure and does not necessarily bring wellbeing
or equality,
6
some scholars advocate for a planned reduction of economic activity – that is,
degrowth
7
–, while others believe that economic growth should be stationary, on the one hand,
or irrelevant in the public debate
8
, on the other. In contrast to these post-growth writings,
9
certain
authors and the vast majority of international organisations do not challenge the desirability or
possibility of unlimited growth per se, but emphasise the necessity for growth to become green and
inclusive.
10
1. Timoth ´ee Parrique, ‘The Political Economy of Degrowth’ (Universit´e Clermont Auvergne - Stockholm University
2019) 43. See also Antoine Bailleux and Franc¸ ois Ost, ‘Six Hypoth`eses `al’´epreuve Du Paradigme Croissanciel’ (2016)
77 Revue interdisciplinaire d’´etudes juridiques 27.
2. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, ‘The Metrics of Human Rights: Complementarities of the Human Development and Capabilities
Approach’ (2011) 12 Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 73, 78.
3. Edward Anderson, ‘Economics and Human Rights’ in Bard Andreassen, Hans-Otto Sano and Siobhan McInerney-
Lankford (eds), Research Methods in Human Rights. A Handbook (Edward Elgar 2017) 94.
4. ibid.
5. For an early example, see John Feild and Melvin Mister, ‘Civil Rights, Employment Opportunity, and Economic
Growth’ (1965) 43 University of Detroit Law Journal 235.
6. Those critiques were recently popularised by Tim Jackson’s world-famous book, Tim Jackson, Prosperity without
Growth (Routledge 2016).
7. Jason Hickel, ‘Degrowth: a theory of radical abundance’ (2019) 87 Real-World Economics Review 54.
8. Isabelle Cassiers, Kevin Mar´echaland Dominique M ´eda, Post-Growth Economics and Society: Exploring the Paths of
a Social and Ecological Transition (Routledge 2019).
9. Post-growth is used here as an umbrella term. For a detailed comparison of those movements, see Jeroen C.J.M. van
den Bergh and Giorgos Kallis, ‘Growth, A-Growth or Degrowth to Stay within Planetary Boundaries?’ (2012) 46
Journal of Economic Issues 909.
10. See e.g. Andrew MacAffee, More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer
Resources—and What Happens Next (Simon and Schuster 2019).
54 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 39(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial