Revisiting the double dividend of sufficiency: Theoretically Great, Empirically Failed?

The hypothesis of a double dividend of sufficiency suggests that beyond a
certain level, over-consumption reduces well-being. A reduction in
consumption could therefore have a beneficial effect on well-being while
alleviating consumption-induced environmental pressures. Even though this
hypothesis has been frequently reiterated in research concerning degrowth
and post-growth, there is no consensus on the definition of well-being or the
scale at which the double dividend operates. While most empirical studies
rely on the hedonic concept of subjective well-being, often at the individual
level, the results have been inconsistent and fail to provide robust support
for the hypothesis. This paper critiques the dominant use of hedonic utility
of atomistic individuals as a proper measure for the double dividend. By
doing that, the double dividend literature remains trapped within the
dominant hegemonic paradigm, playing on the terrain of consumerist
ideology, and on this terrain, the hypothesis is likely to fail to pass empirical
testing. By shifting the focus toward the eudaimonic concept of well-being,
where well-being is linked to virtue rather than pleasure, this paper situates
the double dividend hypothesis on a more solid foundation – one that is more
consistent with the broader insights of ecological economics, and which
underpins its original intentions.