Abundance, but for whom?
I finished Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson with a slightly odd feeling: I liked it, I agreed with most of it, I even underlined a few passages — and I still don’t quite know who this book is actually for.
Because if you’re already in the “progress is good, build things, let’s fix problems instead of describing them forever” camp, the book will feel like a pleasant tour through familiar terrain. There are genuinely interesting chapters on how US science is structured, on the speed and messiness of the COVID vaccine effort, on what happens when the state actually decides to do something. That part is fun, concrete, sometimes energising. But it rarely rises to: “oh wow, I hadn’t seen it that way.” It’s more like: “yes, exactly, this is what we’ve been saying.”
And because the book flirts with being a manifesto — “we can do things, let’s do things” — you might expect it to land with some sharper prescriptions. It doesn’t, really. Which is defensible (the world is complicated, blueprints age quickly), but then it leaves you with a slightly motivational-speech aftertaste.
Arguing…for scarcity?
Of course, most arguments for scarcity in the public discussion are not great. “Things were always done this way”, “nuclear is dangerous”, we need to protect the skylines of the cities", “we must protect the holy traditions of XY because we said so” or the modern blend of racism/ imperialism or any combination of these (especially in the powerful combo of trying to appeal to specific voter groups) are all arguments that even a cursory discussion clearly reveals to be just weak. The anti-etatist narrative of “state can´t do things” seems more reasonable, but the book actually does reasonable job in dismantling it. Where the book mostly fails is engaging with the more nuanced pro-scarcity positions. If you’re on the other side — if you like degrowth, donut economics, or at least want to slow the machine down — then this book is probably not going to talk to you at all. The authors do mention degrowth, but only in passing and not in a way that actually engages with the more interesting versions of it (Raworth, or anyone wrestling with planetary boundaries in a serious way). That’s a missed opportunity. Because the actual hard question of our age isn’t “should we build more stuff?” but “how do we build more of the right stuff while not making everything else worse?” And that’s where the book is thinnest.
They mostly skip the “reasonable scarcity” problems: overproduction of junk, microplastics literally everywhere, resource constraints, ecological ceilings. I personally think many of those problems can be best addressed by a pro-growth, high-capacity, high-state-capability approach — but then you have to actually show that. You have to say: “here is how an abundance agenda tackles plastics / water / land use / energy without just pushing the costs onto the Global South.” The book doesn’t really go there. It prefers to contrast “we used to build big things” with “now we drown in permitting and veto points,” plus the inevitable “China just does it.” Which is true, and depressing, but it’s not the only problem we have.
Hope-pilled
Where the book does land well is tone. It’s a hopeful book. It’s basically a nicely written plea: we are not as powerless as we act; we have solved harder problems than the ones we’re currently stuck on; institutions can move faster; let’s stop tying ourselves up. On that level, I’m fully on board. We do need people to stand up and say, “actually, we can fix some of this.” Cynicism is cheap and very online; capacity-building is slow and very boring. So: yes, I’m glad this exists.
I just wish it were a bit more… intellectually fair. If you’re going to fly the flag of abundance, you also have to show you’ve looked straight at the costs, the ecological constraints, and the people who disagree with you in good faith. Otherwise the whole thing risks reading like an internal pep talk for people who already agree. And that’s fine — manifestos can do that. But then let’s name it. This isn’t the grand settlement between growth folks and degrowth folks. It’s a rallying cry from one side of that argument.
Useful, energising, worth the time — but not the final word.