The paper addresses the urgent need for fundamental changes in production and consumption patterns to address planetary crises, particularly in affluent nations. The UN Secretary-General's strong calls for action highlight the severity of the situation, emphasizing the unsustainable nature of unchecked economic growth. The paper focuses on 'degrowth', a concept and movement advocating for a planned reduction in resource throughput to achieve human wellbeing within planetary boundaries. It aims to identify key challenges inherent in degrowth policies, particularly concerning feasibility, desirability, and public support. The central argument is that research should focus on the potential limits of public decommodification and formal welfare provision in a degrowth context, considering the growth dependencies of existing welfare states and the rise of informal economies. The paper also addresses the need for expanding public support for degrowth beyond niche groups. It will define degrowth, tracing its origins in ecological economics and critical theory, and then analyze the three core challenges.

The literature review synthesizes existing research on degrowth, focusing on its definition, origins, and policy visions. It explores the paradigm shift from 'green growth' to degrowth, highlighting the limitations of technology-driven efficiency gains and the need for fundamental changes in production and consumption. The review emphasizes the fusion of ecological economics (analyzing the environmental impact of economic growth and the lack of decoupling between economic and environmental growth) and normative growth critiques (challenging negative social impacts of the growth imperative). The review also covers the degrowth literature's emphasis on shifting away from consumerism and materialistic values towards needs-based conceptions of wellbeing and eudaimonia. This shift includes discussing the concepts of needs-based welfare and 'foundational economics', which prioritize the decommodification of certain needs for public or collective provision.

The paper employs a literature review methodology. The author systematically reviews and discusses academic literature on degrowth and related topics, including social policy, inequality, sustainability, and public attitudes. The review focuses on identifying and analyzing the inherent tensions and challenges associated with implementing degrowth policies. The author draws on various sources, including books, journal articles, and reports, to synthesize findings and provide a comprehensive overview. The selection of literature is guided by a focus on the three identified challenges: growth dependencies of social policies, the interplay of public and informal economies, and the need for broader public support. The analysis is primarily conceptual and qualitative, exploring the implications and interconnections between various aspects of degrowth policy and its potential challenges.

The paper identifies three primary challenges for degrowth policies. First, many existing social policies are inherently linked to economic growth, raising questions about their funding and management in a degrowth context. While research shows that greater equality and public services can reduce environmental impact, welfare states themselves rely on growth for financing. Strategies to address growth dependencies include shifting towards more progressive taxation and output-independent management models. Second, degrowth often envisages a simultaneous expansion of both formal decommodified public welfare services and informal, community-based 'commoning'. This raises the question of the appropriate balance and potential tensions between formal and informal solutions for achieving social and ecological sustainability. This relates to the tension between top-down policy reforms and bottom-up community transformations. Third, achieving sufficient public support for the transformative policies required by degrowth is a major challenge. Although growth-critical viewpoints are increasingly common in European societies, this support is largely concentrated within 'new left' and 'green left' constituencies. Achieving widespread acceptance necessitates a fundamental shift in public values and perceptions of wellbeing away from materialistic hedonism and towards needs-oriented conceptions.

The paper's findings address the research question by highlighting inherent tensions within degrowth's policy goals. The growth dependencies of existing welfare states pose a significant challenge, necessitating a reevaluation of welfare financing and management practices. The interaction between formal decommodification and informal commoning requires further investigation to determine the appropriate roles of public institutions in a degrowth economy. Finally, the limited public support for degrowth policies necessitates efforts to broaden its appeal beyond existing activist groups, potentially by reframing degrowth narratives and emphasizing its benefits in terms of wellbeing and social justice. The significance of these results lies in their contribution to the ongoing debate on pathways to sustainability. The findings underscore the need for more nuanced and integrated approaches that carefully consider the social, economic, and political dimensions of degrowth transitions.

This paper emphasizes the need for further research on degrowth's challenges, particularly on the interplay between formal and informal welfare provisions and on the strategies needed to achieve greater public support. Future research should focus on clarifying the role of public social policies in a degrowth economy, exploring the balance between state-led decommodification and community-based commoning. Investigating strategies for broader public acceptance of degrowth, including a focus on reframing its narrative and addressing potential anxieties around 'sufficiency' and 'austerity', is crucial.

The paper's primary limitation is its reliance on a literature review. It does not present original empirical data or conduct primary research. The conclusions are based on the synthesis of existing research, and there might be biases in the available literature. The focus on European contexts may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions with differing political and economic systems. Future research could incorporate empirical data to test the hypotheses proposed in the paper.