How useful is the concept of rent for post-growth political economy?

Post-growth economists are concerned with adapting our economies to support human flourishing without relying on continued growth in economic output, which is inextricably linked to ecological damage. This thesis examines what the concept of rent – income extracted through control over persistently scarce or monopolised assets – can offer this inquiry.

It makes contributions in four key areas. First, it makes several novel propositions regarding the relationship between rent extraction, growth, and resource use. It warns that resource constraints could trigger intensified rent-seeking – accelerating the shift of investment away from productive innovations and efficiencies, toward the acquisition, creation, and exploitation of rent-bearing assets, such as real estate, patents, and financial assets. It shows that the rent relation underpins our current dependence on growth to avoid crises of unemployment, debt, and inequality. And it proposes that socialising rent-bearing assets (or the rents they accrue) could offer a defence against exploitation for both people and planetary resources.

Second, it evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the concept of rent as a discursive frame for the post-growth movement – to counter the myth of the meritocratic free market and build the coalitions necessary to transform our economy. It reports the findings of an experimental framing study, that uses renationalisation of the UK’s energy system as case study to evaluate the efficacy of three different rent frames.

Third, it offers a partial genealogy of the concept of rent, to explain the emergence of two rival definitions of rent and highlight misunderstandings that could arise when deploying contested terms like rent and rent-seeking. Finally, it introduces a new theoretical construct – the rent-free counterfactual – which prompts a re-evaluation of core assumptions in rent theory. Specifically, it proposes that the comprehensive diffusion of rentier power, rather than return capitalism to some ‘purer’ form, would undermine capital as a social relation.