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.